[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

So you have to play a game to have an opinion about it? It just seems to me that on the Kill JFK thread we had a lot of people condemning a game they hadn't played. (Though some did download the demo to check their gut reaction to the idea was correct, which I greatly admire) I'm sure someone will argue that it's not the same thing at all but it's all really just a matter of scale.

Well, yes and no. It's possible to have a valid opinion about a game without having played it, as long as your opinion is based on facts about the game that are available.

But what these people are doing is to make a list of ten games that are more violent than the rest of the games out there, and saying that one game is more violent than another game. The only way to make such a list is to do a lot of research, not only on the games on the list, but also on the games off it - as that's the only way to determine which games are more violent than the rest.

If they haven't played the game, how can they claim that Halo 2 is worse than Far Cry or Painkiller. How can they say Gunslinger Girls is worse than Bloodrayne 2? Or that Shadow Heart is worse than Vampire? It's okay to think that a game is violent, but as soon as you start saying it's more violent than another, you'd better have some proof.

These people just have a broader idea of what they find unacceptable in a game. This would also explain the inclusion of Hitman:Blood Money. I don't think any of us need to see it to know it's not going to be about cuddling fluffy bunnies.

No, but how do they know it's going to be more violent than Bloodrayne 2? If you've played Bloodrayne 2 or the demo, you know it's a pretty violent game, so why isn't that on the list while some game that doesn't actually exist yet is?

As for the Kombat/Combat thing are we seriously criticising someone for accidentally typing a real word instead of one a games company made up? Give me a break. Like none of us have ever made a typo.

This, like many other things with the list, indicates that it's not well-researched, and therefore useless.

But the errors on the "Non-Violent" list are less forgivable. If you're going to promote something you should ALWAYS check that your claims are valid.

I think that it's just as important to make sure that your accusations are correct. It wouldn't be very nice of me to pick ten forum members, pretty much at random, and claiming they are "The ten most dishonest adventuregamers" or something like that. This group is making accussations, and they do not have the evidence to back them up. Assuming something (for example that Hitman: Blood Money will be more violent than Bloodrayne 2) isn't enough.

The real question is just how large a group of people we're talking about here. Is it just 5 people who've come up with Society names or half the world? I suspect it's just a vociferous minority but if it's a larger movement maybe we need to think about doing more to defend our hobby against them.

I think the general opinion that these people seem to have of video games is pretty widespread, sadly.