I've spent many, MANY hours with both Guitar Hero and Rock Band, playing solo as well as with a full cohort of friends and a fridge stocked with beer, and it was Good Times.
Although I haven't sifted through the Rock Band store in a long time, I still pick up a guitar now and again and play a few tracks, and I was sad to hear that the DLC was coming to an end. But American Pie is certainly the note to go out on, and it was a good run.
It's unfortunate. If Sony had done their due diligence and actually gone through whatever channels necessary to license some of the third-party properties that were virtually synonymous with the PS1 and PS2, I have a feeling this game would have interested a lot more people.
What's so different about real guns appearing in games compared to, say, real cars?
By paying for the license to use real gun models in their games, developers are effectively funding weapons manufacturers.
I don't see the problem, even if citizen of a country couldn't privately own guns the gun manufacturers would still be around to make money off the governments of the world, so who cares if they make money of video games?
Because gun violence is a real problem in the US, and we want to believe that video games do not contribute to that. But even if violent video games are not directly linked to violent crime or gun deaths, the fact that publishers like EA and Activision are paying large fees to showcase brand name weapons in their games means that no matter how many studies are done that exonerate games from inciting violence or making people more prone to hurt or murder others, there is always going to be an explicit, if not quite as glaring, connection between some of the biggest games on the market and the gun manufacturers that are fighting to keep gun control off the table.
Yeah, gun companies are going to make money elsewhere, and games are never going to be a major form of sustenance for them, but it's hard for people who WANT to make the argument that games are completely innocent in our track record of violent crime when there is such a blatant hypocrisy like the direct funding of firearms manufacturers through licensing.
Note that the NRA doesn't specifically call out the biggest violent games on the market, like Call of Duty and Battlefield, when they rant about how games are ruining our children. Probably because those games are directly contributing to the financial success of the gun manufacturers that support the NRA itself.
@patrickklepek I thank you deeply for these articles
Even if they weren't a nice opportunity to reflect on serious issues with the marketing and presentation of video games (which they are), they would at least reaffirm my decision to enjoy the content provided by the Giant Bomb staff, while completely avoiding engaging with the site's "community" whenever possible.
For the people clamoring for a male point of view in this article:
There are enough male points of view, both in game journalism and in game communities. This comment thread is overflowing with male points of view. The LAST thing I would have wanted was for Patrick to go out and find YET MORE male points of view.
I found the statue gross, but not sexist. I'd find a cut-up male torso just as disgusting as a female one. When people are fixated with what the gender of a mutilated corpse is, I think their priorities are a little out of whack. Who would want any cut up body part on their mantelpiece? Seriously?
That's sort of the point. Obviously it's hard to argue hypotheticals, we got a female torso, so we have to discuss the female torso.
But part of the issue is that there likely wouldn't be a male torso equivalent. No marketing team would say "hey, a statue of a ravaged male torso in a speedo is the perfect pre-order bonus for our game"
While I agree that the idea behind Infinity (and Skylanders) is an intriguing one that could pan out into some neat things, the main issue I have is that both the game AND the toys need to stand out on their own. While the concept does seem like something I would have loved as a kid, the Skylanders toys themselves don't look like something I would have really played with back then.
I went for more functional toys, with some poseability and accessories. GI Joe and the like. Having a standee with limited articulation was not something I would have played with when I was a kid. So basically, I would have just been buying the toys to use with the game, which to me is a waste. If I'm going to buy a $10 action figure for my son, I'd want it to be something he's going to play with outside of the game.
And this is all to say nothing of the game itself. Skylanders, as a game, always seemed like something with very limited enjoyment for anyone of a reasonable age. From what I've seen of the games, even the Lego franchise has more substance. So if the game is something that will hold my son's attention long after he turns 7 years old, then maybe it's worth checking out. My nephew got big into Skylanders for a while, but he moved on after only a handful of months, and his parents had probably spent over $300 in toys for him, only to have him lose interest before his next birthday.