The only reason not being able to kill children didn't bother me was because I generally didn't do it in the games, but I do agree it should just be there as a choice regardless of whatever moral qualms come to mind.

I'll echo what others said: don't include children at all if you have such a problem with it. Rockstar did such and, whatever complaints you may hear about the games, none include "they didn't have children for me to kill!" (if there was, I'd find myself less-than-hesitant to get the person sectioned). I will admit, though, that I do find it somewhat contradictory that a game doesn't allow you to kill children directly (i.e. by shooting, stabbing, etc.) but gives you opportunity to blow up a town with a few in it and even give you the option to trick one into slavery. It comes off as having your cake and eating it too.

What bothers me more is the fact that violence against people in games are considered okay, but the moment you put a child in - you'll hear nothing but fits of righteous anger. Are people aware that children die all the time in horrible circumstances (look at Africa and female genital mutilation, for one) and that apparently killing an adult is apparently justified under some instances and not reflected on as "tragic" unless those people are considered innocent victims. I'm not trying to guilt anyone for liking violent games - I LOVE them - but I do find that this view has led to this odd belief that children are less susceptible to death than adults and are inherently innocent because of such, despite the fact they aren't any less likely to die than an adult would for the same reasons and that children can be as mean and cruel (perhaps moreso) than adults.

To me, entertainment should reflect some reality and if one wants to add children in a game that emphasizes survival out in an unforgiving and dangerous land, children should be as much a victim to the elements as any adult would. Otherwise, chuck them out completely and avoid being noticed for making a horrible design decision.

"it annoyed me always having to go and play darts or snooker with some schmuck. "

Y'know, I keep hearing this complaint but I don't get it either - going out with friends and girlfriends are purely optional. There were several occasions where a friend or girlfriend would call and I'd just say "no" and be back on my merry way. I remember playing through one time never having dated Kate and, well, that obviously didn't affect anything. So, yeah, color me baffled.

I do agree about a lot of the potential for side-missions being wasted. Going back to friends and girlfriends, I wondered why that wasn't used for side-missions as well - I would've been fun to have a "who can drink more" contest between Niko and his friends - and even simple ones like fire-fighting and robberies and even dancing as done in San Andreas. Heck, even the camera could've been used for a photographer-type side-mission as well. I won't make excuses for Rockstar, but I can only guess the reasons for not having such was because the amount of work put into graphics and detail, especially for a redesigned Liberty City, and making sure it fit the requirements for putting it on a next-gen system.

I think Rockstar has an understanding of its audience despite some claims I've heard - they're just trying something new and seeing what works. Some of it did, some of it didn't - hopefully improvements will be made for what didn't. If not, I would be disappointed because I like how GTA has evolved as a series and like knowing that each game that comes out is a technical improvement over the last.

Maybe they don't like South Park either, who knows? I know you're confused over why they didn't mention gameplay, but I'm even more confused at arguments like "it has the same humor as South Park" and "GTA4 and SR2's stories are the same" without an explanation of WHY.

I could bring up one reason why there's no reason to mention the gameplay: it's exactly the same as the last game, even down to the largely recycled side-missions available. If anything, Saint's Row 2 is an over-glorified add-on that also manages to somehow look crappier than its predecessor. Even then, the side-missions are needlessly crude and stupid and only fun for a little while (I started to find the Crowd Control more frustrating than fun past the third level). Not to mention the game is incredibly easy, given your character simultaneously has regenerating health, the skin of an elephant, and the accuracy of a sniper no matter what guns he carries. The enemies stand and shoot at you as you move around and kill them without much effort on your part - this even applies to the cops, who may as well be another gang. I mean, if enemies may as well be motionless targets rather than people, 99.9% of the fun is taken away unless you happen to enjoy endlessly shooting and blowing things up over and over and over again - but that just seems pointless even in a sandbox game.

If that isn't a good enough reason, I don't know what is - other than the fact every minute of playing felt insulting to my intelligence.