Curagea

Ever wondered that if some young kid gets his hand on this game and slices an enemy, he might think, "Oh wow! People have no blood when I slice them. I wonder if it's the same thing with my dad..." Not a pretty picture.

Of course, that scenario is highly improbable. But still...

A game of this nature should have blood as an OPTION. You want it on or off, that's up to you. Hey, why not have different blood-spray settings? You want Kill Bill-style? Realistic style? Pick your choice! Wouldn't that be nice? That, I think, would clear things up a bit. Maybe most gamers would choose the over-the-top spraying, but at least the choice would be there.

It amazes me how people can get freaked out over blood in any state, while I have to deal with it every month.... Ok, let's not go there.

I've played Starcraft, and it's a sweet game. I've played Red Alert 1 a little bit, and that's a sweet game.

The best memory I have regarding RTSes is my bro playing Syndicate on our 80Mhz pc. Those were the good ol' days for me (I'm too young to even remember much about the NES). I don't know if that can be considered an RTS, but more than 10 years after my bro first played it, I have that game now installed on my PC, and is in fact the current game that I'm playing in my spare time. That game is FUN. Crowd control with a flamer... now that's cool.

Granted I went a bit on the ranty side, but now after reading the newer comments, I feel we need to consider a couple of things:

As Scooby Doo mentioned (#34), has anyone seen the report? I mentioned this before; it would be really nice to see the actual report. That news article didn't say much. It'll be VERY nice to see how the study was conducted.

As to #40: Those national polls that I hear about are to me dubious, maybe not all, but some. They're usually made with just 1000 people or so, when there's in fact millions of people in the US. Are we all represented equally? Are regions of residence, age, gender, race, income, etc. etc. considered, if the polls require these factors? Maybe the general public can't understand the gritty details, but still it would still be nice to release them to the public so that people can have a say and perhaps point out any discrepancies.

All right, so I'm not a professional statistician, but I've taken a basics course on it and can see that if a study is to be taken seriously, it must be detailed. Where was it done? How was it conducted? What kind of subjects were chosen? Because there seems to be no sign of a detailed study report, we can't take this gaming study seriously until 1. that report is actually made public; and/or 2. some jackass like Jack Thompson decides to use it for his cause, in which case we can laugh at him more.

There's something else that I'd like to add, in that after playing a video game or watching a movie (or any other form of entertainment), I've noticed that there would be some kids who act like they're trying to be the main characters of a certain medium, but that's only for perhaps the first 5 minutes after the entertainment ended. Then, they just turn their minds to something else and forget about what they just saw or played. I personally experienced this; after playing RE4, for example, I felt like I wanted to blast someone's head off. Then the feeling wore off and I started worrying about homework.

Perhaps that sudden increase in violent intent is only temporary, a result of adrenaline surge while playing violent games, that would drop off soon. I really don't know if others feel this way, but my point is: Maybe there ought to be a study where subjects are tested after not playing a game for a certain amount of time.

Something of that sort, at least.

How the hell did that study come up with the conclusion that those gamers are more likely to smoke pot and drink? Did they give them a bunch of *suspicious* packets and tell them, "Go ahead, folks. Make my day!" And 100 guys isn't a very good sample. If those professors want better proof, they should have gotten a larger (and random) sample consisting of both men and women, and randomly assign them the two games, not give them a choice.

This study could have been done a LOT better. I've taken only basic statistics and yet I know this study is botched, unless there's more details on how the study was conducted.

By the way, which UC did that one professor belong to? If it's Berkeley, my view of the campus while attending here will be, to say the least, more cynical.

I've always loved SA's Photoshop Phriday. This is just sweet.

"You got that lovin' feeling..."

If I remember correctly, can't you create your own class, and therefore create your character, male or female, with whatever attributes you want? I never played Oblivion, but I've seen my brother play it, and he played with a custom-made character (female too).

If you CAN do such a thing, then this whole argument about gender bias is practically moot, because you're given choice about whatever type of character you want, and therefore simply ignore whatever discrepancies there may be in the preset classes.

"2. Welcome to San Jose...one of the most boring places in the world. I work over at eBay...my job is the only thing keeping me here."

Just to add my two cents about this, I grew up in San Jose. It's the most boring big city in the world, or the biggest boring city. Whatever works.

It's all about balance. Kids have to learn how to balance things out. I have to agree with #18, in that parents should take the reins and loosen up over time. They should be well-informed about technology today (because otherwise, kids will know more than parents about technology and leave them clueless while the little ones click on who-knows-what), and thus be able to lay out a well-rounded plan for kids concerning those technologies. Set limits when they're young, and gradually loosen them, a little bit at a time, as the years pass. Monitor their activities. Sure, that might be invasion of privacy (which teens will surely rant about), but when kids are kids, they need supervision. When they're older, under this type of plan they should be able to tell good from bad, moderate to obsessive, and control themselves accordingly.

I admit that my brother and I did not good supervision over the PC when we were younger (I was perhaps 6 or so when we got our first PC, a 486), so we now have a bit of obsession with computers. However, we were smart enough by ourselves to know moderate use from obsession and today keep ourselves under control, and deal with other electronics in the same way (also, this led us to take on electronics-related majors). Not every kid is just as smart, though, and today, there are more electronics and online activities to monitor than at the beginning of the Internet - which of course means more responsibility.

Which is kind of why I don't want kids, because that would mean I have to watch over their holodecks, VR gaming booths, implanted GPS chips, and 10.1 surround-sound systems - while hurrying to make their PBJ sandwiches. That would be too much :P.

To me, graphics is important to gameplay. What's not important is how many pixels my console or PC can crank out. Yes, I do awe at very realistic screenshots of games, but as always I do my homework before actually playing a game.

My laptop doesn't have the top-of-the-line graphics card of the day, but it's enough for late-90's games, and certainly enough for earlier-released games. I'm currently obsessed with Syndicate, not because it's super-realistic, but because it's fun as hell.

Long story short: Fun over pretty.

Trust me, I love video games. Give me a good game and enough time, and I'll forget time and play non-stop.

But that doesn't mean I'll stand up and vote just for the cause of videogames. We got more things to worry about, like the war in Iraq and paying off increasing college tuition. All right, so there's a law out there waiting to be passed. All it does is restrict sales of mature-rated games to minors, which I support. Games today are much more capable of rendering realistic blood and gore, and it chills my blood to see some 10-year-old watching guts fly all over the screen (and I'm 19). Please tell me you guys all went through childhood. Admit it, people. You were once all clueless little kids too, and need some sort of stimuli to snap to attention. That hasn't changed with today's kids. And to game publishers, how else to get their attention? That's right, folks - a good dose of blood.

I believe this particular law should make a good wake-up call for game developers to do something other than blood-filled fests in order to sell. Hey, I love blood in my games. But blood doesn't necessary make a game fun, nor does it constitute a great game. There are many other bloodless options that developers should think up if they wish to keep selling. And to boot, it wouldn't be a "kid's thing" to do. We adults enjoy bloodless games just as much as, say, Doom - as long as the games are fun. That's all I'm gonna say regarding this law.

As for Thompson, how much of an audience does he actually have? This guy's just blowing smoke. If he doesn't have good evidence to support his cause, no one's gonna take him seriously. Let him rant, and we can continue to laugh at him - while checking out the latest games.