Here's the sitch. I've reviewed another game, this time for a competition over at HonestGamers. It's a pretty interesting one, actually, since it involves participants being assigned games instead of having the usual privilege of making their own choices. I got a rather old GBA title, A Sound of Thunder, and to my surprise, I've finished it with two days to spare. However, I'm not totally happy with it, and I'm looking for some brief feedback from you guys.

A couple of concerns to bring up before you can trash my work:

1) I'm sure most of you know this already, but you get a lot of plus points at HonestGamers for having both style and content. One of the hardest things I've tried to learn during my time reviewing is how to make what I write not a snorefest, while not sacrificing relevant content. Please let me know what you think in this area. Do you get a good idea about how the game plays and its flaws?

2) I'm not totally happy with the first half of the review, where I'm describing the story. What's your take on it? On a related note, I've got four one-liners, and that's something I've never done before. Too much? Right now, I'm hating the last one, because it doesn't gel with the next paragraph.

Anyway, enough whining from me. If you feel like helping out, I appreciate it. If you don't, no worries. Here you go, and enjoy.

So, you might have heard that Giant Bomb has finally launched.

My turn!

Wimbledon ended minutes ago.

The atmosphere, the determination, the tennis...

Everything about the final day screamed 'epic'.

Wimbledon starts tomorrow.

Later.

I'm trying to wrap my head around it. How is the full Rock Band package worth my money?

Don't get me wrong, it's an awesome game. Playing co-operatively with my sister on Band Quickplay, rotating with lead, bass, and vocals, is a great way to waste an evening. But to put things into perspective, Guitar Hero III costs £60 with a Les Paul. Rock Band, with the band in a box, made me 140 quid poorer--effectively £80 for a drum set and a mic. And I'm already bored with the drums, having finished it on Hard. I'm also willing to bet one of my SingStar mics is compatible with the game.

Having the full band experience online only requires a guitar on my part. Having the full band experience locally will probably never happen when other games are favoured.

Maybe I should've just bought the game solus and stuck with my (semi-broken) Les Paul. No, I should have stuck with the game solus, full stop. And to think that the recommended retail price was £180, triple of GH III.

This is a topic that comes up time and time again. Every so often, there's a new blog entry that rants and moans and throws a tantrum about such and such being banned, or such and such being censored, and these entries disappoint me for two reasons:

1) They don't bring anything new to the argument.

2) They demonstrate how close-minded the authors are.

And given the lack of defence for the other side, I have been assuming that the vast majority of GameSpot users and gamers in general feel the same way: pissed off about the censorship and the bad press video games are receiving. Perhaps they're slightly naive in thinking so.

Now's the point where I'm probably going to get shot. "Slightly naive?!?!!". But I'm not calling everyone that, just those who are so blindly passionate about their hobby that they fail to even consider the other side of the coin. Every time there's a murder and someone casually mentions the two words "video games", most impulsively hurl abuse at that someone. Since when did we become the convicted's best buddies, and since when did we know everything about him? How can we definitively say that games had absolutely no influence over him, and had moulded him in absolutely no way whatsoever?

The simpliest way to get to the point is to address the unnamed entry that triggered me to write this. This particular author from England states his anger at Manhunt 2 being banned for six weeks before being re-released, while "sick crap" (his exact words) like Hostel and Saw aren't making headlines.

He's comparing video games and films. It makes sense in theory, but I think what a lot of people miss is that they're both completely different, and thus they should have different standards to be judged on. Watching films is a very, very passive experience. There is no interaction, and you're letting the story play out. You're a couch potato. Video games, on the other hand, puts the player in control of (usually) the protagonist. The gamer (let's suppose he's male) chooses to kill X with Y. He always has a choice, and his choices are executed at his own command. The movie-goer can't change what's happening on the screen.

And I think that's what pushes people over the edge. No, I don't believe playing countless violent video games will make you a murderer. It's silly to even suggest that. Anyone who thinks that is just plain close-minded. But perhaps (and how are we supposed to really know at the end of the day?) someone who has violent tendencies, who might need therapy and who uses these games to satisfy his needs, maybe those games do nothing but feed him. His desires to kill person X in the game are being realised.

"Bear in mind that Manhunt 2 was banned because of the level of violence--in 'glorious' 3D graphics. You can buy Hostel 2 on Blu-ray...It doesn't get more 3D than that!!", going back to this entry. Moot point. I think the author's missing the point, because we're talking about how interactivity is the difference between video games and films. As the technology comes closer to producing photo-realistic graphics, the more believable the game worlds will be. Common sense tells me that at this time and age, it's far more likely for GTA4 to immerse you than the first GTA.

Sure, everything's being blown out of proportion. The anti-games party has undoubtedly exaggerated points here and there. But that doesn't mean everything they say should be thrown out of the window. This extends to their completely valid concern about younger kids picking up 18+ titles, and this point should be driven home more to the ignorant parents buying them for their children. In fact, I'm willing to bet that's why most people are really, really pushing this issue--because these games can so very easily end up in the wrong, tiny hands. Can you blame them?

As for why Mass Effect is hitting the headlines, I honestly don't have a single clue. The last time I checked, watching porn and having sex are both perfectly legal. Heck, even Jack Thompson is defending the game and is calling the controversy "ridiculous". So, what's the problem?