tristenkw5

You know, I wasn't even going to read the Call of Apathy article until I saw some of the rather "dude bro" comments left by other (seemingly) military guys.

A. The article never said it applied to ALL soldiers, and otherwise only gave off-hand statistics at the end. So I think it's rather obvious not ALL soldiers feel this way, and isn't worth complaining about.

B. I doubt very seriously that the point of the article was to say "ALL military games should be real", mainly because he never says such a thing. The author more or less is just saying there should be at least one game that doesn't fit the current military stereotypes. Six Days in Fallujah, anybody?

C. The whole "PEOPLE understand the difference" argument is getting old, and is full of so many logical holes there could be a whole article unto itself explaining them all. The biggest one is this being too general of a statement to even remotely be true.

D. Attacking Patrick for posting such an article is frankly ignorant. It's one thing to post the entire article on the GB front page, but this was just a single paragraph and link at the bottom of a group of articles. If Patrick had to worry about stepping on toes for simply hinting that such content existed, as he did here, we'd never get any news or anything outside of video game releases and announcements. If video games are going to grow as a medium, we have to get past this idea that those things are all that matters in the video game industry.

I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with the article is wrong, or that the article is even credible or a must read. I'm simply saying that coming to GB and posting comments with broken arguments full of generalities (I capitalized all of the ones in the post so they'd stand out) and insults on the staff are far more damaging to the site than one little opinion piece that anyone can simply choose to ignore and go on with their life.

Ok, the dude who started this post was a little too strong in his wording, but don't go completely flaming over him. Alot of what I heard was the same. Madworld review is comming, they did a HotD preview. And they preview alot of Wii games. So since everyone is looking at it from that point of view, let's go the other direction.

What about all the obviously crappy games they took time to review? I mean, Interpol? Was anyone expecting that to be any good? Need For Speed: Underground? After the way that series has been going, they could've just said in a preview how that looked. What about Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection? I've got nothing against retro games, but it's another one that didn't really need a review, just a quick talking over. And why take the time to review so many XBLA and PSN games? If a person wants to know if they like them, they can easily try every single one for free.

Now don't get me wrong, I love the GB guys. The second GB started up I came straight here. I respect them, and their right to review whatever the heck they want. But if someone has an issue when their reviews, they shouldn't get castrated on the spot. GB does work it's reviews in in a very unusual way, and if you don't understand the people behind it very well the site will come off biased.....and it is. But they don't claim otherwise for the most part, so if that's the way they want to do things, they can.

Anyway, I would love to get more solid opinions on Wii games out of the GB crew, but it's not like they have to review EVERYTHING just because I'd like to see more. The Wii has been going through a dry spell, but the games that are bringing it out of that slump are being a little ignored. I'd like to hear opinions on Wii games from guys who aren't nessasarilly in love with the wii. If I get it, great. If I don't, life moves on. Either way, I'll keep comming to Giant Bomb to see the stuff they DO review, and listen to their awesome bombcast.