I went into this article with an open mind, hoping for a new, thoughtful point of view. The only point I see made in this article is that violence in games is gratuitous and doesn't always help stories. We cannot, however, censor art for being bad art. Also saying that "impartial observers would be hard pressed to take issue with [Space Invaders or Pac-Man]," is naive. A surprisingly small amount of research will show you that these and other old games were condemned in their game for violence and giving children the impression that we have multiple lives to try.
Sorry Tom, I like my gratuitous violence and don't feel the need to take credit for society's issues with it.
There's a WOW 2? And 3? Wait, you must mean WC2 and 3. Also, it's beyond me how people think Diablo was "messed up." I got 60 hours of fun out of it, and didn't expect anything more.
Sorry, I don't actually disagree with anything you said. :) I wish more people thought like you.
I can't believe the number of people in the comments saying, "What did she expect? People went to far, but she is cramping our style." Yes people need to be ready for criticism, but this isn't criticism: it's abuse, and nobody should have to put up with this kind of abuse. Acceptable reactions from the public would be "I don't like that idea; it would hurt the flow of games," with others responding "No, I think and option in the menus (disabled by default) wouldn't hurt the gamers who like the action but would help others." In other words, intelligent discussion. Too many gamers hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and should be ashamed of themselves.
FredWallace18's comments