@Lirsumis Absolutely, some of those fatalities would have a negative influence on adults. I'm 30+ and i think they are sickening. So yeah, definite negative influence on at least some adults. Should not be seen by anyone? No that's a very different issue though. I would say we don't need them, and it would be nice if we weren't a society that is now arguing about the government of our mostly free country (Australia) being repressive because they RC'ed something that clearly exceed what MA15+ caters for. Also, if those fatalities are becoming dull for you, then they are also influencing you... What do they think will happen... well for starters graphic violence is seen as normal / dull would probably be an issue they'd worry about.
Ok, some of those fatalities are a bit much... I'm tempted to agree with the ratings board, it's not an MA 15+ title. And even with an 18+ I don't know that is should pass.
SF2THDR probably has the nicest art, though SFIV is nothing to whinge about. Overall i just don't find SF2THDR anywhere near as responsive as SFIV. To me it shows its age, or the age of what it's remixing. That said they are very different games, with SFIV being the one i like better mostly because it is more responsive. That said i agree that IV is less balanced than SF2THDR...
It's no surprise that at this stage the PC outperforms the two consoles. I bought the 360 so i wouldn't have to upgrade my PC all the time, and with the exception of the fewest games (Sins of a Solar Empire, Stalker and Civ 4 and expansions) I no longer use the PC, and even then only very rarely. I am looking forward to Dawn of War 2, and doubt i'll have to upgrade to get a decent experience, but you never know. Point is that the PC is an ongoing investment, and for half the outlay you can pick up any two of the current generation consoles, assuming you have a TV. For the life of the console you will get a stream of games and won't have to upgrade. If the life of a console is 4 - 5years that would for the PC mean at least one complete re-build and probably a upgrade of GFX hardware in the middle that would cost about the same as a console alone. Bottom line, it depends what games you want and how much you're willing to spend.
There is art and then there is art. No doubt a game can be artistic, no doubt it can be artful, no doubt elements of it can be art, but i refuse to accept something that is designed to be mass market consumption to be art. Let that not detract from games like Okami, which feature beautiful art, or Braid, which quite arguably (based on the above statements) was made to be an art game, and thus could be considered art. It was meant to be deeper than "run, jump and slide over rooftops". The issue is not "is it art" but was it made to be art. Games (unlike other "art forms") are made with a bottom line as the target, and although we may be seeing the emergence of games as art, up until recently i would argue on the whole games were not "art" in the sense of fine culture, but art as in "pretty". Sadly it isn't as clear cut as "tragedy" and "tragic" when it comes to "art" and "artistic". But the term "art" means different things to different people. I guess my main beef is that some people take offense because games are made to suit a market, and interpret this as being forced upon an artist so the game can be published. I on the other hand see it as a business decision. But like i said before, i may well be wrong on this.
chakkerz's comments