The silly thing is, unlike the likes of Thompson and Atkinson, who really do seem to hate the industry itself, Keith Vaz makes good points about games. He seems to actually understand games as a medium far more than his US and Australian counterparts. And the silliest bit of all is that in general, I do agree with him on some parts. Though I disagree with his demonisation of games like Counterstrike, or Bully (a game where you actually go around fighting against the bullies), and I disagree with the demonisation of things like Grand Theft Auto (where you have reason within the game to go around killing people and stuff, just like in, say, war games and other shooters). I do actually agree with him on some points. I agree that Manhunt 2 should have been banned, and that the first game should never have even been made. Because that sort of game is just slaughter for the sake of slaughter (you get points based on how gruesome the death is, for Io's sake). So he does make some decent points.
Overall, I can't say I don't like the man. He at least makes an effort to be involved with the industry to some degree before bashing games. And he's shown with this that when decent games that anyone can play and enjoy are being made he's in complete favour of it. That's the right way for someone in his position to approach things. So overall, fair play to the man. he may be anti-violent games, but he's much more well meaning and reasonable than others in his position. Kudos, Mr Vaz. Kudos.
Overall, I can't say I don't like the man. He at least makes an effort to be involved with the industry to some degree before bashing games. And he's shown with this that when decent games that anyone can play and enjoy are being made he's in complete favour of it. That's the right way for someone in his position to approach things. So overall, fair play to the man. he may be anti-violent games, but he's much more well meaning and reasonable than others in his position. Kudos, Mr Vaz. Kudos.
