Great, another one. Maybe if he had recieved proper medical supervision, he wouldn't have committed mass murder. Maybe if he hadn't had access to firearms he had no business having access to, he wouldn't have committed small-scale genocide. Maybe if he hadn't had access to a vehicle he wouldn't have been able to reach the school. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
I've played violent games for something like 20-25 years, since I could pick up a controller, and yet there are times when I hesitate to stomp on a spider. One man with issues does not represent an entire group of people who can otherwise differentiate between reality and fiction.
He'd rather we sate our so-called "lust for violence" in some other manner...? It's like he refuses to acknowledge opposition to something he protests. As a politician, he should expect it.
The most amusing part is that this unnamed official claims this is "psychological warfare" by the United States on Pakistan. Rubbish.
Besides, the main bad guy of Modern Warfare 2 was an American. Modern Warfare 3 had a Russian, just like Modern Warfare 1. Black Ops 1 had everyone from Germans to Russians to Cubans. A Pakistani wasn't the main bad guy in Black Ops 2 or MoH:WF. Parts of MW2 and 3 took place on American soil and you don't see us spitchin'.
No, Americans who make games aren't going to protray Americans as bad guys on most occasions. I don't think Pakistani's would protray themselves as bad guys either. Nobody with half a brain in the west would play these games and say, "this must be what Pakistan is like!" I mean, really, give us SOME credit.
There's no substitute for experience, even simulated experience. Then again, I'm pretty sure that by "video game tech" they don't mean PC's with a mouse and a keyboard, or a controller of any kind.
For freaks sake, people, enough with the "revolution" and "civil war" bullcrap. Like that would solve anything--yeah, Congressional stupidity countered by armed violence because of Congress trying to prevent further gun violence. You guys are flipping geniuses.
Blaming the government or politicians for this is like blaming video games for the shooting--pardon the phrasing, but your shooting at the wrong target.
It's one of those "too soon" moments with a serious twist.
A man, who played violent video games, went to a school and shot 26 people. BUT WAIT. Let's ignore that last part. Guns aren't the problem, here...it was *DEFLECTOR SHIELD*...the games he played, obviously!
If guns apparently don't kill people, NRA, then a video game sure as heck can't, either.
They make the jump from "played violent video games" to "killed 26 people in a school" pretty easily, which is completely neglecting everything in between. He couldn't have shot anybody if he didn't have access to guns. Lets ban guns! He'd had to have walked had he not had access to a vehicle. Lets ban cars! The list could go on.
People are going after the wrong link in an otherwise flimsy chain.
@vorodill @SSJMonkey What you said. I don't buy a game, play it once, and then "move on". I'm on my second DX:HR playthrough right now. "Because it's fun."
I can't entirely agree with the video. Now, the only experience I have is playing Resident Evil 2. I couldn't stand the awkward camera angles, shifting each time you moved from place to place, which also changed the controls. It wasn't a challenge, it was a hassle.
But when I see Resident Evil 4-5, I think and feel the games took a much needed shift in terms of gameplay style. I don't see that the Survival-Horror aspect had to change, but apparently it did when it went from an isometric view to a third-person view.
And besides, a company that makes awesome games can't keep doing that if the games don't sell. They also have to make a profit. They're a business. If they don't have income, people jump ship. It's not enough to just make awesome games, you have to make awesome games that sell.
Brakkyn's comments