Carl2291 said:
I did, and the point still stands. Maybe i should expand on it... Rockstar make some exceptional violent videogames. And in the PS2 era, they they showed us the "potential" of videogames in the sandbox genre. Just look at the differences between GTA3 to GTA:SA (i'm confident they will do the same this generation too with GTA4 - GTA5). Now, are you really saying that what they did would possibly damage "the potential" of what videogames can do? Seriously? You could go to the gym, get tattoo's, gamble, take driving lessons... GTA:SA was a HUGE game, and one of the best ever created. Look at the differences between Call of Duty and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. HUGE differences, and it's payed off too as you can see with the sales of the franchise. It's not "limiting" anything at all as new things are being found and improved upon all the time. He was clever to cover what he said with the last quote. |
You're missing his point, i think. He's discussing the potential of video games to reach people, and how the companies that are focusing exclusively on violent games, and especially on violent games as the kind of games that really push the industry forward, as being potentially harmful. Because when all of your highest-quality products are focusing on a small audience, what does that say about the potential for growht?
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
