...is refer back to an editorial I made a long time ago. It was never given a place on the Soapbox here on GS...I wonder why?

I would specifically like you to pay close attention to this paragraph:

"In this world of ours, money talks and bs walks. Famitsu 360 is a 360 magazine. The sponsoring and promotion for Dead or Alive Xtreme 2 have been rather intense for thisgame over the past month. DOAX2 received a 35/40 and Capcom's flagship title Lost Planet 'only' got a 34/40. What we may be seeing is Famitsu refraining from biting the hand that feeds. Then again, maybe they were the only ones ballsy enough to admit to a truer value of the game."

I recently finished my first run through of Splinter Cell: Double Agent. I noticed while playing it that it follows a certain trend which is a little disappointing to me...No health bar. Instead, you're allowed to take a number of shots, then findcover and go back out to receive another wave of punishment and take out as many NPCs as you canbefore your "shields" are completely depleted. Being that I currently graduated college with a degree in a medical field (Physical Therapy), it looks like I'll be out of a job in the near future, where humans can eat lead and self-regenerateat a superhuman rate like Wolverine, lol.

Seriously now, not onlyare we seeing the disappearance of the health bar before our very eyes, there aregames out where you just cannot die, such as Prey. There has been a lot of debate back and forth as to whether games have become too easy. Those who argue in favor of easier games say that there are more casual gamers now than ever, and it only makes sense for the industry to cater to this ever-increasing breed of gamer. Some even say that there are too many games being released that are simply too difficult, pointing out games like the new Ninja Gaiden. They credit this to the video game industry being stuck in the mindset of the days of arcades, where the goal was to take as many coins away from users as possible. If it were easy, people would've beat the game on one credit of course, and they wouldn't make much money. They argue that games should become an interactive form of story-telling, removing focus onthe fast-twitch hand-eye coordination that has been videogaming traditionally. However, I argue in the opposite direction. I think that there has been a huge shift in attention towards the casual gamer, many times leaving traditional gamers out in the cold when it is implemented in games/genres where it simply shouldn't exist.

I don't really mind the existence of casual games. They have their place. They welcome new gamers into the world of video games, which is always a good thing. However, I don't think every game developer should make every one of their games with the casual gamer in mind. There comes a point where it's detrimental to the plausibility and gameplay of the game, which brings me back to Splinter Cell: Double Agent. When the first Splinter Cell came out, there was a health bar, and specific save points. You had to find medpacs to replenish your health, and sometimes between saves, you would find yourself with low health forging on in hope that you'll find a medpac soon. Because of the limited save opportunities, you would find yourself needing to go back a couple saves and repeat a lot of the stage because you used your gadgets too liberally earlier on in the stage. I think that was very frustrating and liked it when they made the move to unlimited saves. That way...you could save every time you think you went through a section well, and more specifically, in another slot when you weren't so sure, so that you don't have to go way back in the level for a good save. I thought this was good enough to bring the difficulty level down a bit, but now Ubisoft decided to follow this trend of doing away with the health bar. Now, it may work in sci-fi shooters because the protagonists in games like GearsoW and Halo have huge armor with regenerating shields. However, it's a little hard to believe that someone with a common era bullet proof vest can continuous eat shots and just shake it off (not to mention shots to the unprotectedarms and legs). It's not really that which bothers me that much either, because you have to always suspend some form of disbelief when playing videogames. What bothers me is that it completely changes the gameplay. Other than having a relatively limited supply of ammo, you could theoretically play the game as a third person shooter, because you're no longer penalized with health depletions after being shot. It's a stealth game, and yet you can go through the whole game without feeling the repurcussions of going through levels recklessly. In a way, that cheapens the gameplay, at least for me. No doubt, you can still go through the game the way it was intended, but you know that the option is there for someone to go through the game with no challenge but can enjoy the story unfurling before them. Video games are not mere interactive movies...They are meant to challenge players. I have played NG, and while it is most certainly difficult, it makes completing sections of the game feel that much more rewarding. All of us were little kids at one point, nubs who were struggling to figure out how to make the controller follow your will, discovering useful strategies to be successful during the different encounters a game offered you. For sure that casual and new gamers should have a safe-haven of easy games to feel welcomed to. However, I don't think that every game released now should be made with casual gamer in mind. And I think that casual gamers should be encouraged to make the move eventually. If they want to experience a great game with a fulfilling story, they should eventually be forced to know how much more rewarding it is when you had to go through challenges to get that experience.

So, did anyone hear about how Manhunt 2 got an AO rating in America, effectively banning it since Sony and Nintendo have policies which clearly prohibit third party developers from releasing such games on their console. HOW STUPID IS THAT?!!! There are indeed adult gamers out there, so why can't they have access to games that are only for them. I know, I know...If they're made available then kids will inevitably get their hands on them somehow. Listen...there are plenty forms of media which contain "Adults Only" content. You know what...kids get their hands on those too. BUT!!! The responsibility in those cases is laid upon the ADULTS who participate in these forms of media and the retailers to keep it out of the hands of kids. Why is it that governments, and apparently the video game industry itself, feel the need to police video game content. That is the responsibility of the PARENTS. Why should adult gamers be denied good content? Oh that's right, it's because parents today look to blame and put responsibility on everybody but themselves. So does anyone know if M'Soft also has this policy? They could gain an awesome exclusive if they're the only console company with the grapefruits to say f-u to the politicians' agendas against video gaming. Unfortunately, I don't think they do, and with that, we'll see the death of Manhunt 2 in America, at least in the form it was orginally intended by its developers. They can always of course resubmit the game, which is apparently the route they're choosing.

[UPDATE] Ricardo Torres and Guy Cockergot a chance to sit down with the controversial copy of Manhunt 2. This is the conclusion they came to...

"Based on what we played, Manhunt 2 is shaping up to be a solid, intriguing follow-up to the original. The game's violence and gore, which have become the mother of all lightning rods for the title, are in full effect. But, while they've been ramped up from the original game, they're not exactly going to wreck Western civilization any more than, say, the Saw and Hostel movies--or just about any other of the slasher flicks that come in and out of vogue. What we saw was graphic for sure, and given a slightly unsettling twist by the interactivity offered by the Wii game, but ultimately it's nothing we haven't seen before in other games, movies, or even some television. We're curious to see the form Manhunt 2 ends up taking should Rockstar make changes to get a more retail-friendly rating. The game's violence is part of the dark story it's telling, not an element tossed in for shock value. If films such as Seven or Reservoir Dogs had been toned down, they arguably wouldn't have told the same stories. Hopefully Rockstar can figure something out and keep the game's dark vision intact. We'll keep you posted as Manhunt 2 is prepared for release."

They repeat my point exactly by referencing movies like Saw and Hostel. They apparently feel that the violence is not gratuitous in nature, but instead, a part of the story...a story intended FOR MATURE AUDIENCES!!! I argue then that it is hypocritical for slasher movies to be released while video games get the shaft from government agencies. The problem unfortunately is that video gamers are known to be a slothy breed, and we don't stand up for our rights. Polls have shown that the majority of gamers today are indeed adults, somewhere in the range of 20-30. We have seen from these polls that there event exist golden gamers if you will (sorry if the term has been coined already by someone else), or in other words, gamers who have reached the age of retirement...their golden years. With so many adult gamers, it doesn't make sense to assume that all games are intended for kids' hands anymore. As adult gamers, I feel that we need to become more politically active unless we want to continue to be walked upon. There is no video game lobbying organization that I can think of, yet so many lobbying organizations are against us. A shame really

A GS user was able to speak in an interview with one of the people responsible for the banning of this game in Ireland. I'd like to point your attention to that conversation. You can tell me who raised the most valid points: