Jerykk wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 07:08:Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:42:jdreyer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:37:HorrorScope wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:25:Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:11:
I wish I could find the blues comments from when someone tried making a columbine simulator, as that's what this essentially is. You walk around in a trench coat killing innocent people for no reason.
It has a right to exist, but it's asinine.
Are there books and movies with those themes? If so then why not video games? Or should they all be banned and remember you ban them, then you have this in court with "here we see this girzzly act which was banned, but here this is as grizzly or even more so, why shouldn't this be banned, your honor?"
I guess I really don't care overall if it is banned, I just don't know why it would when other things exist. I got a foot in the grave like the next person, there are no perfect answers. I just have the ability to make ok with real from not real.
I personally have a bigger issue with a 10+ year war we have going on in the real, it was justified early on, now it seems to exist as a fear machine to grease the war pigs, I could be wrong.
What part about "has a right to exist" do you not understand?
Everyone will keep painting me as an sjw trying to ban things because they don't read. I swear that's half of the games community now - people thinking being critical is the same as trying to ban, even when the opposite is explicitly stated.
The purpose of criticism is to motivate change. People only criticize things when they aren't happy with the status quo. When you criticize a game for encouraging the slaughter of civilians, you are essentially saying "I find this game problematic." As with any problem, the solution is to remove the offending elements. You might not explicitly say as much but if the game were canceled or banned, you'd be satisfied.