Hold on, this discussion is about what America can do to mitigate the school shooting problem. Maniacs getting hold of weapons and hurting people can happen anywhere but because ordinary Americans can get hold of sniper rifles and assault firearms the tragedies are much more severe than anywhere else in the Western world. Admit America has a problem and deal with it, don't just stick your head in the sand and let infant children get shot just because you like shooting cans off your picket fence with a howitzer.
No, it happened because he was socially retarded due to being completely cut off from the real world. The SCALE of the tragedy that occurred was due to the unnecessary firepower he was able to get his hands on. To say gun control wouldn't have limited the impact of his rampage is, well, wrong.
Example 1: Why are you watching your kid play in an open field and carrying an assault weapon? I literally cannot think of a situation where that is a good idea. Unless it's a zombie apocalypse. Example 2: How can you tell someone's intentions (sneaking into your property) at 30 mtrs, especially at night (when most hoem entries occur)? There is no practical reason a rifle is required for "defense", only attack.
Guns are a tool? For hunting and gathering and protection from roving bandits I suppose."They are needed for a modern society to work"Erm... not sure you're describing a modern society...
@Polybren Noone forces a dev to tweak/rerelease a product, so it's not like having to rewrite a term paper. But those devs who respect their audience now have the opportunity to take risks and if they don't work out can go back and improve contentious issues. It's more like being shown which questions you got wrong on your exam and being given the option to go back and write the answers again!
100% disagree with the thrust of this article. In all the examples you list you fail to address the key component that makes video games so unique/awesome; they are an interative medium. We are not expected to just sit back and absorb the content being delivered but we are expected to actually contribute to the game's experience.
The truly outstanding games will always be the ones redefining the player experience, which by it's own definition means radical innovation. Shadow of the Colossus, Metal Gear Solid, even Streetfighter 2 weren't just jumping on existing bandwagons and milking them, they were all groundbreaking in their own way, even if they just refined ideas that had already gone before.
But what if gamers had found Shadow of the Colossus unplayable without a HUD to see their health and ammo? What if Metal Gear Solid was too difficult without an option to play FPS style? What if Streetfighter 2 was found to be too fast-paced and needed a speed nerf to be enjoyable? The writer of this article says developers should just leave flawed titles as monuments to failed design. But I think most (sane) gamers would say that DLC/rereleases allow developers to readdress poorly received elements of their games so that their audience can experience all the other excellent facets of a title. The flashlight element in Doom 3 was a great concept on paper but detracted from the enjoyment of the title, so maybe it can be revisited and tweaked in a later installment or used better in another more suitable franchise (F.E.A.R).
As I said at the beginning of my rant, audience reception in video games is more important than in any other medium. Listening to what gamers want and most importantly delivering an ENJOYABLE experience is the most important element any developer has to keep in mind. Ultimately a gamer is being asked to work (sort of) when he engages in a game and it is unreasonable to expect anyone to graft for 20 hours+ and pay for the experience without it being at least fun. However to be successful long-term in the gaming industry innovation is what drives and excites the gaming audience and all devs understand this. But innovation at the expense of fun sort of defeats the point of playing a game, don't you think?
I think the article above is dead right and very balanced (along with the article about gamers rights, you're having a good week Gamespot!) The application of the AH feature seems fairly innocuous, and actually maybe a bit helpful in the context of a Diablo game, but we as gamers have/are effectively licensing the publishers to monetize their products after the initial retail purchase. In a co-op game like this, it shouldn't have too massive an impact but if we allow micro-transactions to become the norm across all games it just means the above board "non-pirating" consumer will just be gouged to keep up with competitive gamers. My message to the industry; BRING DOWN THE RETAIL PRICE OF YOUR GAMES!!! As LotRo and any gamer will tell you, we don't mind paying an extra few quid for additional content but not if we're paying £40-£50 up front for a game in the first place!!! If games were cheap enough, noone would bother trading them in or pirating them. Sort out your prices and stop trying to mug loyal, legal gamers!
lsdbaby's comments