Vaas and GLaDOS were definitely great choices. I would have also added Dutch from Red Dead in there along with General Hemlock from Dead Rising 3 and Kefka from Final Fantasy to round out my top 5.

This game has already made $12 MILLION since it was set up for early release on steam in December. It's already a success.

Better gun laws wouldn't have solved anything. Criminals don't follow laws. I don't know if the weapon he used was purchased legally or not but most shootings happen with weapons that are not purchased legally. People who are determined to kill will find a way to do so. The only thing that gun laws can accomplish is to make it harder for people who actually follow the law to purchase one. Criminals who don't follow the law anyway aren't going to worry about purchasing a gun legally. They will get it off the street or steal it but they won't buy it legally.

I don't think the solution is lowering the graphic appeal of future games. I think the solution is spending the extra money to make a game look great and at the same time delivering a story that is unique and engaging. When developers give equal priority to story and graphics, you end up with epic games i.e. Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed, Gears of War, etc.

I would agree with you except that this happens so early in the game that it would be hard to even get a feel for whether he liked it or not. The scene in question is literally maybe 5-10 minutes in and well before any combat or meaningful gameplay.

I would likely avoid such a game based on absurdity alone. I certainly wouldn't buy it and then demand a refund.

You are correct. I'm just baffled at his hypocrisy. He is offended about a fictional baptism but has no qualms about the fictional killing of anyone who stands in the protagonist's path. If he wants to be so extreme in his beliefs he should avoid this type of game altogether.

Interesting that this person is perfectly willing to slay hundreds of citizens of Columbia but he is not willing to allow for baptism? I am a believer myself and I had no problem with this game because I was able to distinguish between a game and reality. Anyone who cannot separate or distinguish a video game from reality really aught not be playing them to begin with.

I disagree. I've been playing games for a long, long time and the number one thing to me is the story. I don't care how good a game looks and sounds, if the story isn't engaging the game will fail. You can have a game that looks 100% like real life and have sound that blows you away but if the gameplay and story isn't there, all you really have is a real life sim with nothing to keep you interested. Some of the best games I've ever played were not considered to have top shelf graphics. Take for instance inFamous. The game had cartoon like graphics but the story more than made up for it. The same could be said of TellTale's Walking Dead or Fable 2 (sorry, Fable 3 just sucked.) I played Crysis 3 for all of 2 hours and got bored with it because the story was shallow and the gameplay was just another straight forward, linear shooter. Sure the graphics were amazing, but not enough to keep me interested beyond the initial wow factor.

Feinstein is a joke. Her premise is incomprehensible and indefensible. If violent video games make a person violent then why do I, after 15 years of playing the most violent of games, have no desire whatsoever to harm anyone? Typical democrat way of thinking that says if I don't like something, no one should have it.