@poster012 @k7z7 we should ban also spirits because they can be responsible for alcoholism.Hell, why cut corners, let's ban everything and be proud for Democracy!
BTW, please someone arrest me, because I have the audacity to play on the terrorist faction in Counter Strike.
Heard it on the news.The kid that did all these killings in Newtown used a Bushmaster assault rifle.Since then, sales of the particular brand have gone sky-high.That piece of info tells a lot; it's the American society that has the problem, video games are not the cause.(You cannot legally buy a gun if you are a kid...).
So basically they say that if a kid (without any game experience) was trusted with a loaded assault rifle to his/her disposal, he/she wouldn't get any ideas of killing others, only games do that.You can find this games sold all round the world, yet there are no global-spread acts of violence such as this one, only in America -repeatedly.Did any Congress member ever bother to wonder why?
And if this is the case, maybe they should ban pornography (since NRA mentioned it) since it 'could' be responsible for the HIV, or high-horsepower cars because they 'could' lead to fatal traffic accidents.Or maybe they should ban Hollywood action/thriller movies because they 'could' lead society to moral decay.
(To the u.s. politicians)You people live in such a huge moral plastic bubble.
i support this guy's view. Used goods are being sold all over the world.Nobody ever complained about their products being diverted to third party users.Even commercial software developers don't object to this practice; if it does cost to them serious money shouldn't they act accordingly? In my humble opinion, the problem lies in the fact that game devs spend -without any concern to be economical in the process- money, to make the end product.Once it's finished they pass the bill to the end user.Let me give you an example. When a studio uses 20 different illustrators to get a single character in the game right, their payroll gets handed ultimately to the gamer to pay.But what if they could do that with half the staff? This question could save the company money, but instead gets lost within the isolation of the corporate environment (these days who can say that major companies are being directed correctly?)
the previous cod: black ops was bad (at least the trailer was intriguing), this one looks even worse from the start.the first impression i got was 'frontlines fuel of war part 2'. treyarch does not have what it takes to make a modern era call of duty game, they should stay away from the development of such titles & hand it to sledgehammer games that fared better. maybe they should focus on shooters with historical conflicts (would like to see a shooter taking place in the korean conflict) to me this is just a blatant attempt to offer an alternative title to the upcoming ghost recon: future soldier by tom clancy.
the previous cod: black ops was bad (at least the trailer was intriguing), this one looks even worse from the start.the first impression i got was 'frontlines fuel of war part 2'. treyarch does not have what it takes to make a modern era call of duty game, they should stay away from the development of such titles & hand it to sledgehammer games that fared better. maybe they should focus on shooters with historical conflicts (would like to see a shooter taking place in the korean conflict) to me this is just a blatant attempt to offer an alternative title to the upcoming ghost recon: future soldier by tom clancy.
the previous cod: black ops was bad (at least the trailer was intriguing), this one looks even worse from the start.the first impression i got was 'frontlines fuel of war part 2'. treyarch does not have what it takes to make a modern era call of duty game, they should stay away from the development of such titles & hand it to sledgehammer games that fared better. maybe they should focus on shooters with historical conflicts (would like to see a shooter taking place in the korean conflict) to me this is just a blatant attempt to offer an alternative title to the upcoming ghost recon: future soldier by tom clancy.
The level of hypocrisy in the American culture is well known.They may condemn certain things as 'dangerous element for society that have to be rooted', (think pornography/firearms/fast cars/certain genres of contemporary music/literature) yet when they see that there is huge money rolling behind, they have a change of heart. Suddenly they become champions of 'freedom of speech/life/whatever' and those previously 'bad' elements not only thrive, but the U.S. becomes the largest producer AND consumer (in hindsight the largest market).In reality, It's not about violence, more like about money. A kid playing Super Mario at home is not any safer when he/she's out on the streets.Neither playing Doom makes him/her more prone to grab a gun and shoot others.Human psychology is way more complex than that, -and in this case- games should not be a scapegoat for a social system's shortcomings. Honestly, this issue has become stale.All needs to be done is to point out the monetary losses -and the bill- that will eventually be carried over from the gaming industry to the society (since those last two constantly interact with each other).
k7z7's comments