BLOG

Chris Dahlen's picture

By Chris Dahlen

October 14, 2009

Let’s Burn Down D.C.

The new Modern Warfare 2 trailer promises to take the fight not just to modern times, but to the streets of the American capital, where war breaks out in sight of the White House. But here’s what’s funny about that: this summer, small clutches of angry Americans fantasized about shooting up the city for real.

In August, a few protesters started bringing their guns to presidential events, including a town hall down the street from me. On September 12, roughly 70,000 “tea partiers” came to Washington to protest. Well, it’s not clear that any one thing ticked them off: they complained about taxes, creeping ‘socialism’, and some of them were just mad that we have a black man in the White House. One gentleman brought a sign that read, “We came unarmed (this time)”.

But it gets weirder. Around the same time, the Canadian embassy in D.C. announced (then cancelled) plans to set up a demonstration of life in Afghanistan. Visitors would walk through a village and enjoy simulated IED blasts, to see, hear and feel what life’s like when you can’t count on the rule of law. One writer who would’ve enjoyed that is John L. Perry, who wrote an article for the rightwing website Newsmax speculating that the military might unseat Barack Obama in a coup. Here’s the best line of his entire fantasy: “America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilised.” C’mon, Perry – that’s what they all say.

Are the gun nuts, the tea partiers and the Canadians engaging in protest? Street theater? Live-action role-playing? Or do these people really believe they can and should attack the government? My advice to these would-be militants: don’t shoot the President. Please. Instead, go home and play video games, ‘cause they’ve been dreaming up the same doomsdays.

You’ve got The Conduit, an aliens-and-conspiracies shooter that challenges you to save Washington from the Drudge. (Named for the Drudge Report?) Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 took a detour to D.C. to give Deadpool a chance to trash the place. In Shadow Complex, a secret base of militants (left-wing, this time) plots to take over the nation; in scene one, you watch as they shoot down the Vice President. And then there’s Fallout 3. Oh boy, Fallout 3. In last year’s best apocalyptic fantasy, the American Dream is in tatters, and the player wanders from one isolated petri dish of a society to the next, witnessing – or dictating – how they rebuild it.

I keep using the word “fantasy,” because that’s what these games give us. Few of them broadcast an agenda, and none of them delivers a message like you’d see on, say, television’s 24, or The Wire. But they all touch on raw nerves. Here in the States, we’ve had a rough decade. Remember last year, when we wrecked the world economy? That’s been really hard on us. We’re fighting all these wars in places we can’t spell, and domestically, we’ve started throwing tantrums at any politician or policy we didn’t vote for. “Boo hoo,” my UK readers are probably saying. “We survived the bubonic plague.” But the States have real divisions to wrestle with, and they’re seeping into our culture.

The upbeat way to view these games is as a kind of survival horror exercise, on a national scale. If you’re worried about domestic militias creeping around in your back yard, playing Shadow Complex will take your fears, make them ridiculous, and purge them. The White House has to come under attack because we want to step in and save it. Even in Fallout 3, the American people stagger on, ghouls and all.

But these “let’s blow up D.C.” fantasies have another, baser draw: we get to impose our will on others, without having to sit on our thumbs and wait for the next election. In real life, I’ll take a slow, steady democracy over a military coup any day. And yet I have to admit, I sure had fun in Fallout 3, where I single-handedly saved the environment, freed the slaves, and supported legalised drugs and prostitution. And having a gun in my hand made the whole thing much easier.

Hey - at least I knew the whole thing was a fantasy.

Chris Dahlen writes about games, music, pop, and tech. You can find him online at @savetherobot, or drop him a line at chris [at] savetherobot.com.

GMartin's picture

"If you’re worried about domestic militias creeping around in your back yard, playing Shadow Complex will take your fears, make them ridiculous, and purge them."

It seems a little odd to assume that playing a game that suggests conspirators against the U.S. exist would dispel conspiracy paranoia. As odd as it would be to assume that playing a modern warfare videogame that uses the current political terms like war on terror, involves Western military operations on foreign soil, and mostly ignores the concept of civilians does not encourage support for the governments operations. Some of the users commenting on this post seem to want a conspiracy theory, they should try the military entertainment complex.

The scariest thing about being brought up on war games, and spy/action films is that they justify military spending on weapons that we think are cool (mostly because we used them to kill some bad guys) operations in other countries (ever played conflict desert storm? a three word review: Iraq without Civilians) and teach us the most base level absolutist morality (the aforementioned bad guys)

This is why you won't catch me playing any game with modern warfare in its title, there's a conspiracy theory for you.

squarepusher's picture

GMartin:

I think you're spot on with your take on how these war games, spy/action films have really done a number on people to desensitize them to Western military aggression and serve as a justification.

If anything, games like Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and all those big shooters constitute a military-entertainment complex along with the big war propaganda movies and television series such as Pearl Harbor (released a few months before 9/11) and 24 (which basically justifies torture and turns it into a cliffhanger/plot device).

It is a bit naive, to say the least, to assume the military industrial complex does not have its fingers all over the videogame industry. In fact, you have developers like Pandemic Entertainment with clear ties to the US military and who made games for them like Full Spectrum Warrior (the very name, BTW, comes from a military doctrine that basically entails the military having full control over land, sea and air - in residential zones as well, I would like to add)

The military itself is now 'recruiting' videogamers with certain FPS or flight simulator skills for UAV operating work. They have been brought up from an early age with these games, then the military approaches them in a very bleak economic environment such as the one we're living in right now, and basically says to them: "How would you like to apply those 'skills' in the 'real world', son? You know, we no longer have to kill people by hand - we can just have you sitting somewhere in a control room and oversee Predator drone strikes or other such UAV. You don't have to get your hands dirty - it's all just like a 'videogame'. You've got these little dots on the screen - those are your average Pakistani civilians. And then the drone comes and blows them to hell. Easy, innit?

And if Predator drones ain't your thing, we've got these SWORDS robots that you can remote-control with your Xbox 360 controller (and yes, just as a sidenote, the US military USES Xbox 360 controllers to operate these robots)"

Raul23's picture

Yeah. All very good points from the boths of yas. I'd love to see Edge or some other outlet with the requisite gaming sophistication do a piece on the industry's ties to the armed forces.

P.S.

America's Army

Chris Dahlen's picture


Journos definitely need to investigate this further. The story of Six Days in Fallujah - which was pitched as a grim survival horror story, as much as a shooter - is a cautionary tale. I also still remember going to Penny Arcade Expo '06, and seeing that the biggest booth was rented by the US Army. Video games are definitely used as a recruitment tool, and there's definitely more to study there.

squarepusher's picture

The mischaracterization here is that it's only 'tea-bagging', 'right-winging' 'nuts' that have it out for Mr. Obama - that this is somehow some great arbiter of change and peace.

It is a bit rich that Mr. Predator drone' 'teleprompter' president gets awarded a Nobel Peace Prize - what's even more rich is that the same left that previously abhorred Bush's wars now seem to love it when it's under a 'liberal' president - showing their true colours and how much stock they put into their own rhetoric, ie. none.

Lastly, I think these kind of editorials really do a disservice to the magazine. Never before in recent times have I seen such a heavy mixture of clearly biased politics seeping its way into Edge's editorial teams - it's almost as if these people are more caught up in partisan childish left versus right American politics than they are about videogames.

And yes, I called 'left' versus 'right' politics 'childlike' - it's all a mirage. They've put on this great show there in the US for over 50 years - the great Hegelian dialectic. I wager that getting caught up in these 'Oh the rightwingers are doing this - oh the liberals are doing that' is more childlike than playing Super Mario Bros 1. Because you could say: "Oh, playing Super Mario and getting him to Level 8-4 accomplishes nothing in real-life". Well, the same holds true for engaging in this type of debate - it's a nice distraction from going to the pub and sharing the latest 'download' you've seen on that oh-so-trustworthy thing called the 'mainstream media'.

The very same mainstream media that lied to you about the Iraq War and weapons of mass destruction.

The very same mainstream media that has military advisors and Pentagon money trickled into it at every avenue.

The very same mainstream media that fearmongered about this oh-so deadly swine flu and appears oh so eager to shove vaccines down people's throats that are very unsafe and are known to cause adverse side-effects. But I guess having big pharmaceutical companies like Baxter raking in billions of dollars from government contracts is the new economy - who cares if people die or get sick from badly tested vaccines with squalene as adjuvants in it?

See, this is the 'adult' stuff that editorials like this conveniently sidestep. No, it's not about Mr Obama - the little puppet who reads well off the teleprompter but is basically a total bad joke. No - it's not about Ms Palin signing an Xbox 360 that didn't get sold.

What it IS about - is that all these things that so-called CONSPIRACY theorists like Alex Jones talked about for years on end - that those things - were - well, guess what - actually TRUE. It's about the fact that all these 'conspiracy theories' like a 'world government' - are actually being declared right now and signed into law in the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty. It's that you're going to be paying a carbon tax. It's that more and more, the events that are playing themselves out seem to be ripped straight from the storyline of Deus Ex 1 - which is supposed to be 'pulp fiction' (recall the bit about everyone having to be vaccinated against some deadly flu after an economic collapse and terrorist attacks that brought down the Twin Towers and the Statue of Liberty - well, that last one hasn't happened yet..)

And the little quip about democracy - that has to be a joke, right? Remind me again when the last time was you had a say about the dozens of CCTV cameras going up anywhere. Remind me when you had a say in the spy satellites that the CIA put all over the world that you now know as Google Earth - and yes, if you google 'In-Q-Tel' on Wikipedia, you'll find out Google got their software from KeyHole, a CIA front company that managed the satellites. Give me a call when you get to exert something resembling a 'democratic process' at Northern Command. I can assure you they don't give a hoot if you get a license from the government to 'protest' in a certified free speech-zone.

Anyway, had to get that off my chest. Please, when I go to Edge, I want to take a breather from the bull that is 'politics' - especially when it's this type of editorialized, slanted, WWF-like left versus right blablabla hoopla.

And lastly - I see you were not above including 'race' into your polemic. Please - this has nothing to do with him having a non-puritan skin color. Besides, it's not as if the President is the guy calling the shots these days. I think you have some kind of deified impression of the post of the President - Obama and Bush don't really do more than give speeches written by speechwriters and read off a teleprompter and sign bills that were written carte blanche by the Council on Foreign Relations and other NGOs.

The only difference is - Bush messed up nearly every one of his speeches somewhere along the line, and basically looked like a buffoon. Obama fares a lot better, but when he gets asked a question that is not pre-screened or catches him off-guard, he's a stuttering inarticulate mess.

StealthBadger's picture

Yeah! Edge hates republicans nearly as much as it hates the PS3! Yeah!

Indrema's picture

I'm not able to post much these days--splitting time between going back to school, & since October, political PR.

Yeah, the assault rifle thing gets pretty scary. It's weird to be setting up and have some hillbilly wandering around with an Ak or God-knows-what-else! I can't believe that he carries that around wherever he goes. During the Tea Part Riot, I saw an old guy, also with an assault rifle, yelling "Kill 'Em!, Kill 'Em!

I wonder what their point is. Seven hours with those people makes you rethink the interpretation of the second amendment. They can't be helping their cause.

Alex Walker's picture

Raul, not to re-open this argument, but I've just seen some of the pictures of the people carrying guns at this speech. Now I was imagining hand guns, which would be perfectly reasonable as these people may carry about them on a day to day basis. I still think it's a bit inappropriate, but it's understandable.

What I saw (and assume is the reason this hit the headlines) is a man carrying an assault rifle. I honestly can't fathom this. Yes it's legal, but why do it? Do you not think thats not wildly inappropriate? It wasn't even a debate relating to guns.

Raul23's picture

Hey, Alex. No problem.

I'm sure we both agree, that at some point an individual's right to self defense does reach a limit (i.e., an individual can't lawfully possess an atomic weapon, for an extreme case). Clearly, it's tough to define that limit and I honestly am not sure where I think it definitely is, but I know it's always most wise to err on the side of liberty and I don't see why an assault rifle either reaches or goes beyond that limit.

I understand that this particular individual was only carrying a pistol and please also keep in mind that he doesn't necessarily speak for me on every issue, but here's our discussion essentially being had for us (saving us both a lot of typing):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XflE0RMiIiA

For me, I really don't think giving everyone at that particular rally a gun would make for a safer or more polite rally, but, if this rally occurred in a properly free and responsible society, then, yeah, I don't see how it would be more dangerous at all.

Case in point:

http://www.mindspring.com/~robertcjones/khs/kennesaw20th/kennesaw20th.ht...

And, India:

10 guys with guns held a nation of 1,000,000,000+ hostage for three days last November. This is as pathetic as it is tragic.

Ben_Lathwell's picture

Its a good way to get shot is what it is

michael_sylvain's picture

I was originally going to comment that it's amazing more prominent libertarians, and for that matter Republicans, aren't bigger fans of videogames. Actually, even the religious right; all that Ban This Sick Filth schtick often comes from people who'd be more than happy gunning down unpatriotic types to save a ruined nation from the enemy within, like they already metaphorically feel they do. In general, the fantasies games allow (encourage?) are often a very good match with the kind of paranoid delusions extremists have about some kind of inevitable and imminent American Armageddon.

However, I'm now scared that, having posted this, someone's going to shoot me to prove how free I was. Particularly given some of the comments below. After all, people can argue all day about the right to bear arms. But the manner in which someone chooses to bear arms, and the idea that doing so is not only an appropriate way to make a point, but the best way to do so, is, well, less of a gray area. It's not about having a right as much as it is flaunting a weapon in a place that needs dialogue. Weapons and angry people aren't a very good mix, at least outside video games...

Raul23's picture

and some of them were just mad that we have a black man in the White House.

Right. If you didn't like Bush you were unpatriotic and if you don't like Obama you're a racist. Excellent and thanks for being such a good German.

The right to bear arms is just about as essential as freedom of expression is in preserving liberty. It's not the 2nd amendment on accident. Any American exercising any of their constitutional rights anywhere deserves our thanks and appreciation, whether that's in D.C. or in Pittsburgh and, in these ridiculous days and times, whether you agree with them personally or not.

Another one of those vicious black people-hating bigots:

http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/10/visions-by-cindy-sheeha...

P.S.

gun nuts

Really? How much time do you spend pretending to shoot and kill people and things with guns each week and you try to denigrate someone else as a gun nut?

Alex Walker's picture

"Right. If you didn't like Bush you were unpatriotic and if you don't like Obama you're a racist. Excellent and thanks for being such a good German."

That isn't what he said at all. Some people are just mad that there is a black man in the white house. Some, clearly, doesn't mean all.

As an Englishman, I find the 'right to bear arm's somewhat quaint, and often amusing. The point Chris is making about gun nuts is fantasy vs reality. And guns are best used in fantasy.

Raul23's picture

That isn't what he said at all. Some people are just mad that there is a black man in the white house. Some, clearly, doesn't mean all.

Oh. Only some of them are racist. I guess it's ok if he's only offensively stereotyping some of them and not all of them.

As a freedom-loving American I think Englishmen will soon also find the right to... well, pretty much anything except to be monitored on CCTV to be quaint soon enough.

Chris and you are making the point that since all you do is play pretend with guns that you both can't ever imagine anyone using them responsibly and the thought of an armed free individual in a free society, in turns, frightens and amuses you.

And, without hyperbole, it's sure a good thing that previous generations of Americans were such responsible gun owners or else we all, myself included, might be Englishmen finding the right to firearms ownership to be a quaint and often amusing thing.

squarepusher's picture

Raul23: The English middle/lower-class have a somewhat different attitude than their American contemporaries due to the socialized nature of the climate there and the understood but unspoken rule that there are 'betters' above them and that they should 'mind their place', so you have to take this into account when they don't recognize 'gun rights' or find it to be 'quaint' or 'anti-social' or whatever.

BTW, what is funny is that contrary to popular wisdom, they actually HAD guns in England for the general populace - but they came down heavily on it during these past eight years. Unlike America, I guess there was barely a gun culture and they didn't have a flying clue why guns were 'actually important' apart from hunting activities. So at least America has had some history of 'rights' that brought people together regardless of skin color or creed.

And as a Dutchman who is unfortunately disarmed as well like the British (has been ever since the German royal families overthrew the country back in the late 1700s and converged with their British contemporaries), I fully support the notion of having a public that is 'armed'. A 'disarmed public' is meat on the table for any demagogue and tyrant. Mao wanted the people's guns; Hitler wanted the people's guns. People should really get a clue and research this - they spend all this time on Call Of Duty 4 or some shoot 'em up videogame, but they don't have a clue about history and why 'legitimate' civilian militias actually carried guns on their person.

Larson's picture

"...it's sure a good thing that previous generations of Americans were such responsible gun owners..."

- surely you mean the French.

Chris Dahlen's picture


I don't oppose the Second Amendment. but packing heat outside a Presidential appearance is wildly inappropriate. It's the kind of thing we shouldn't even be arguing about, and I'd say that whoever's President.

But I'm also just mystified at this idea that a "well-armed populace" is a check on particular governmental policies. Like, I just don't know how it plays out. Let's say the guy I mentioned from the 9/12 rallies actually does come back next time with guns. Maybe he brings a whole militia. What does he imagine will happen? John L. Perry imagined - in fascinating detail - how a military coup would work. Really? Things are so bad that we can't all just wait for the next election? I'm assuming 99% of these people really are engaging in fantasy and make-believe - that working out these coup scenarios helps them blow off steam. But it's a very weird phenomenon that gets weirder and more violent by the day.

(Yesterday, Red State encouraged people to send bags of rock salt to Sen. Olympia Snowe, because salt melts snow. I guess that's sort of a weird, threatening gesture, but it's almost mythical in its bizareness and living in Maine, she could probably use the salt. Anyway, I bring that up to show this is clearly about more than guns.)

On the race thing: I specifically didn't label all tea partiers or other opponents of Obama as racists. But hey, some of them are. And the weird phenomenon of believing that Obama was born in Kenya plays off his otherness in a way that wouldn't fly with, say, Tim Pawlenty.

squarepusher's picture

'The weird thing of believing that Obama was born in Kenya'.

Oh dear - I guess the AP (Associated Press) had it all wrong when Obama was still a nobody State Senator back in 2004.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news2...

That's straight from the Internet Wayback Machine - meaning it can't be a forgery and it isn't. This just got pulled down a 'memory hole'. No, it can't be that - George Orwell and 1984 - that was all 'Bush stuff'. Obama is here now - the whole police state apparatus and the Global Information Grid is gone now, because we have a 'black man' in now and if you don't like this black man, you're a 'racist'. Meanwhile, all the big slave operators were the same elite types that to this day run the financial oligarchies - but they keep telling the lower trodden-down types how bad they all were for engaging in the slavery trade, and getting them to engage in 'race-baiting' and 'racial' divide and conquer.

But more to the point - you know next to nothing about this guy - Obama - you haven't even seen a birth certificate (and no, a live certificate of birth is not the same thing). But I guess his personality or something along that nature appeals to you. Because I cannot see how you could honestly stand by the guy, when so much of his rhetoric has turned out to be a falsehood. He said he opposed giving the telecoms immunity in the FISA bill, yet he betrayed his own base when it mattered most. He said he was going to close Guantanamo in a well-publicized stunt - now they're back to square one, saying they're not going to. He said he wasn't going to take money from lobbyists - nearly all of it has come from lobbyists. If anything, he's continuing all of the freedom-stifling policies of Bush - expansion of the Patriot Act, unlimited detention, and so on.

Have you looked into this company Obama worked for called 'Business International'? Look it up on Wikipedia someday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_International_Corporation

[quote]
Business International Corporation (BI) was a publishing and advisory firm dedicated to assisting American companies in operating abroad. In 1986, Business International was acquired by The Economist Group in London, and eventually merged with The Economist Intelligence Unit. BI has been known to be used as a CIA front company, and was where Barack Obama first worked upon graduating from Columbia University.
[/quote]

Well, well. Mr. CIA lackey turned Nobel Peace Prize winner. Something about that doesn't sound right to me. Does it to you?

Raul23's picture

If the law of the land is open carry then that doesn't change just because the President happens to be around. Same with any other right of the people--anywhere in America is a free speech zone.

And this confusing of a well armed populace with some fascist's desire for a military coup doesn't work either. Police and military are running wild, wantonly violating the peoples' rights throughout the world and disarming the people will only ensure more of this happening.

Here are a sampling of recent incidents which we can only expect to see more of as time goes by and which the right to bear arms is essential in preventing from becoming the norm:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/17/police.shooting/index.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MNOV154P0R.D...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Banc6qHdOz8&feature=PlayList&p=5AE96B5A5C...

People sending bags of salt to Olympia Snowe doesn't sound very nice, but who really cares? I don't mean that it's not relevant to bring up, just that if people want to be mean, that's their prerogative. Obviously, for different reasons, but unions aren't so hot on this bill either. Maybe it's really not any good?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-14-union_N.htm

Finally, here's what really bothers me about this:

When Bush was in power, dissenters hated America. Now that Obama is in power, dissenters hate black people. The smear is equally baseless and equally effective in completely marginalizing honest and righteous opposition to disastrous policies.

Yes the tea partiers should have been out there for the whole of the past decade and not just the past year or so, but you know what? Just like they should have been out there in years past, you and all those lobbing the smear of racist, should be out there with them right now.

Instead of smearing them let's think about why they're demonstrating. Hmm... Maybe the fact that our government is completely selling us out to Wall St. and globalist scumbags and giving our collective wealth away like it's going out of style, ensuring that not only us, but who knows how many future generations here and around the world will be devastated by the massive amounts of crushing debt now piling upon us at a rate almost too fast to comprehend? And the folks demonstrating at the G20--umm... Same thing? Pretty much, yep.

Every time you carelessly utter the attack racist, just like every time someone carelessly cast the specter of a lack of patriotism during the Bush years, you give the establishment the cover they need to carry out their completely indefensible policies. This is exactly how the wars in the middle east were started and it's exactly how they're being continued and as long as you're happy to score petty points against the 'other' team by mocking their concerns and tying your identity up with your spatial-orientation of choice, this won't change.

It's a reron, I have seen this one before, I'm sick and tired of it and I hope both you and Alex will join in this righteous indignation much, much sooner rather than later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWo63p9CDdo&feature=PlayList&p=1ECC23BF6A...

P.S.

This isn't something that personally keeps me up at night, but Obama really hasn't ever released his full birth certificate and has actually spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting to prevent its disclosure. Obviously, this is no way can be construed to prove that he's not an American citizen, but the fact is that asking to see this document is entirely legitimate and why go to such great lengths to keep it private? Why not make it public and really put the issue to rest?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110654

OmegaVader's picture

I don't doubt some people dislike Obama just because of his politics. But there are definitely some people who dislike him because he is black. After all, we've never seen Bush's birth certificate and no one asked.

Oh, and his birth has been proven over and over again. It was announced in local newspapers and he's provided a live birth certificate. The leader of the birther movement, Orly Taitz, has recently been penalized by a judge with a $20,000 fee for abusing her privilege as a lawyer by constantly pursuing the frivolous case.

I live in DC. I saw the tea party rally. And trust me, about 80% of it was racially motivated. They dressed Obama up as a monkey (an old racial epithet for africans), they accuse him of spreading Islam and working with terrorists, and again, the whole birther thing. You say "isn't it interesting that he hasn't shown his birth certificate," but you didn't seem to care when the president was white.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

Chris Dahlen's picture


Wherever else we disagree, if you're into Gil Scott Heron then you are a-okay by me. And although I didn't label all of Obama's opponents as racist, I appreciate your point that highlighting a few racists distracts from the legitimate arguments everyone else is making.

By the way, my topic next week will be even more controversial - it involves Sonic ...

Raul23's picture

Hey. Cool. I appreciate the responses and I carry no ill will towards either you or Alex and I appreciate both of your guys' work. I'll look forward to your next piece and fortunately, for both of us, although I like Sonic as much as the next guy, it's definitely not something I'm too intensely passionate about these days--though, I still love me Sonic Adventure and the originals too, of course.

Ben_Lathwell's picture

... oh, is it about how sonic was good but is now rubbish but could still b good?

Have i ruined it?

Alex Walker's picture

Controversial you say? Sonic Adventure better than Mario 64?

michael_sylvain's picture

I'm gonna get me a gun for that one. Yeah.

mentor07825's picture

Why stop there? I'm going to get the Genocide Gun from Earth Defence Force.

edshot's picture

While we collectively have been criticizing Australia for its stubborness in giving violent videogames a classification, the rest of the world have been training up their populace to be urban geurrillas!

It is worrying, because I'm wondering how long it'll be before world governments start to get niggling thoughts that videogames, rather than being the pressure vents for people's angsts and darker fantasies, are actually training them up for civil war! Especially with games like the upcomming Modern Warfare 2.

It really wouldn't surprise me then that, at least in relation to videogames, there would be less to worry about with the lone teenager and his copy of Doom than with the middle-aged red-neck in a ghillie suit carrying a custom-made political gripe!