I just wonder why they would attack a game that actually rewards you for NOT going on a brutal rampage. The journalist could have pointed out that the top rating of "silent assassin" in the Hitman series is only achieved if you kill NOBODY but the person you have been tasked to kill...sometimes without a gun...in one case with a dead FISH!! (this is actually true).
<img src="http://macheath.customer.netspace.net.au/FishSlappingbw2.gif">
This issue shouldn't be black and white. It shouldn't be the "Shut down the gaming industry and go read a book" side <b>versus</b> the "<i>Adventures of Patrick Bateman 3</i> is out next week, YEAH!!" side.
In the game <i>Deus Ex</i>, The developers made it possible to play the game without killing a SINGLE person out of the hundreds of characters you encountered in the game. After learning of this on internet forums, many who played and loved the game went back to it months later to achieve this "ultimate goal". These are the kinds of games I enjoy above all others.
Why does it feel like this fascinating phenomenon has been COMLETELY ignored by many video game opponents. Wouldn't it make for a more interesting debate...to consider that games are maybe actually *evolving* without Orrin Hatch's help?