The truth behind the ratings is they are rarely used correctly. The developers shoot for a particular rating, then get the board to agree or disagree. Just like the movies.
The problem is, unlike the movies, the ratings board does not review the entire game. They review clips of the game that the developers submit. as the study points out, only about half the time are the ratings (descriptors) accurate. What this suggests is that some developers are deliberately misleading the review board and submitting clips that aren't fully representative of the game.
While I'm strongly in the "games really aren't that bad" camp, a flawed ratings system that is wrong half the time, just sets the industry up for criticism, government oversight and ultimately censorship; the exact reasons the ESRB was created to put off in the first place.
The problem isn't necessarily the rating system, but how it is applied. They were interviewing the lead author of the study on the Today show this morning (which I briefly caught).
The problem, at least from what I picked up, is that the game developers do not submit the game for a rating. Rather they submit portions (clips of cutscenes, demos of gameplay) that aren't always representative of actual in game content.
As I recall, they reviewed 81 games rated T. About half were appropriately labeled (all the descriptors of why it got the T rating were correct). The other half had content in the game that wasn't listed on the label (tobacoo, sexual content, violence, etc.).
So, applying the movie rating systems to the games still would fail, as the ESRB does not rate games, but rather game segments which may not be representative of the true game. Perhaps they need to evaluate the whole product (or at least more of the product) before a rating is provided.
or, start fining developers who dont' submit content that is truly representative of the game.
Look at the half-life mods: Natural Selection, Counterstrike, et al - They're massively more innovative than half-life itself.
Yes and no. Half-Life (and Valve's attention to it and the community over its span) really is the one of the biggest innovations for gaming in recent history. HL was the first "best" FPS, integrating innovative level design with a compelling story that made you want to go forward in the game. There's a reason it won every award it was nominated for (excepting game of the year, which went to zelda). It pushed FPS into the future.
Then Valve did the amazing thing of releasing the SDK and actively supporting independent developers. CS, Natural Selection, none of those mods would have been possible without Valve actively supporting them. Yes there were mods for Quake, but Valve obviously did something differently than Id and their mod scene exploded. in a way no other game before (or after, yet) has done. The fact that games running on a 6 year old graphic engine are still the most popular online FPS out there shows that Valve really hit upon something.
HL2 won't be as innovative and valve will likely enter the ranks of id, blizzard, epic, etc., as they churn out incremental advances. but to call HL not innovative is to miss out on the community that Valve helped spawn around the game.
by the time you're old enough to really have really disposable income, you usually have a job that takes up 40+ hours in a week. There's less and less time for games, so you're less likely to buy something new on a whim, more likely to stick with what you know (i.e., established franchises), and since quality game releases are few and far between, even more likely to just play what you've got.
The last game I actually purchased for my PC was War3 expansion. The next game I'm planning on buying is either Doom3 / HL2. Other games have slightly caught my interest (was eyeing galactic civilizations for a while), but I just don't have the time to get lost in a big game, unless it's something I really want to get lost in.
the same phenomena typically happens with music. mid 20s and you start listening to what you have rather than what's new...
that's awfully expensive... i was recently pricing a new computer for my brother and for a semi-decent gaming rig (2400+ athlon, nforce2 mobo), the price was around $800. this is 4 times that amount! all for the convenience of portability?
i feel bad looking back at the $2000 I spent on my gaming rig that now is worth $1000...
anyone know how fast can one build a mini-atx gaming rig and for what price? I presume the biggest limitation is heat: processor + vid card in a small space is not ideal. any small form factor cases with lots of fans?
while I haven't read the article in Harpers, I would guess that much of the fossil fuel involved is used in the distillation process (i.e., removing the water from the ethanol/water mixture). This reactor tolerates eth/h20 mixtures as low as 50%. So, I would further guess that this reduces the cost and demand for fossil fuels...
Yes. Ethanol engines require very pure ethanol. Ethanol is produced by fermenting biomass (in this case, corn). The end result is a ethanol/water mixture, which requires extensive purification in order to be useful. This reactor tolerates ethanol/water mix around 50% (they used 103 proof ethanol). You eliminate the distillation costs which makes this reactors a lot cheaper than a pure ethanol engine.
(Actual article for this instututions with subscriptions is here. The Science summary is here.)
so it wasn't run through AOL, but an outside firm, which probably got a more representative sample.
But, there's lots of interesting statistics to go through. such as "Nearly Twice as Many Adults Have Played Internet Games for More than Eight Consecutive Hours than Teenagers"
AOL. I have no idea exactly how it was conducted, other than "online", but I'd be surprised if they surveyed people other than AOL users. Sure, AOL is the biggest ISP, and you'd expect a large number of gamers, but the truly hardcore would have moved off AOL a long time ago and gotten broadband. So what are you left with? The casual gamers for whom low latency performance is not an issue (i.e., people playing at yahoo games). So it's not surprising that it's mostly women in that sample group...
If, by in the hunt, you mean sales almost an order of magnitude lower, then yes. To date, 70 million PS2 have geen sold, while only ~13 million Xbox and GC each (source)
PS2 got to market first, by a about a year, if I remember correctly, and it had backwards compatibility. So, while you can't really separate those 2 properties into which contributed more to sales, you can say that neither of them hurt.
does Empire Earth fix the biggest problem I had with the whole Age series, namely the lack of an "attack move"? AOE2 is a great looking game, but coming from the blizzard RTS school, I just found it frustrating that I would have to move my units in short increments if I wanted to be sure they would attack stuff on the way to their destinations. Incredibly annoying. 2 armies could just walk through each other, unless 1 player explicitly gave his men the stop command.
But then again, AOE2 introduced the "find idle unit" command which was pure heaven.
I had several issues with Total Annihilation that apparently the gamespy editors overlook or praise.
Although gamespy liked the graphics, I had a big problem with them. Yes, it was 3D, which made for some beautiful maps. However, the units, IMO, were plainer than plain. They were all boxey and ultimately had very little character (as contrasted to Starcraft, where eveything was quite distinct and enjoyable to look at, and listen to).
Then you've got this comment "You don't just order an attack -- you send in a WAVE of hundreds of units, a wall of steel death that will fill the screen with awesome-looking explosions for minutes on end. You can build a nuclear missile capable of destroying a screen full of units, but it's worthless to build just one: Typically, you send them over in batches of a dozen or more. Obscene? YES. That's Total Annihilation! Every game was non-stop action, carnage, and brutality at a level never seen before or since. ". While I am sure there was lots of strategy involved in competitive TA play, this statement belies that fact. Mass and attack has very little strategy to it. Weapons that destroy an entire screen full of units, that can be mass produced, is not much in the way of strategy. Its like asking a 12 year-old and a 40 year-old their favorite movie. One is going to say "Super death explosion 12" while the other is going to say "Mystic River".
Perhaps, I'll dust off TA and give it another try. Being a Blizzard fan, I never really got into it all that much.
However, I was a little disappointed not to see mention of one of the best RTS pre-cursors, Sun Tzu's Ancient Art of War. That game had many of the elements that are in current games and did it back in the mid 80s.
Also, another game not mentioned was 7 Kingdoms or its sequel. While I could never really get into it, it did have a number of really interesting features that I would love to see in future games, such as spies that took on the enemies color and could be integrated into their force.
And only stupid terrorists are likewise going to leave a trail of electronic crumbs to track. Yeah, you could argue that stupid terrorists are worth nabbing, but clearly whomever was responsible for 9/11 wasn't stupid, nor will the individual(s) responsible for the first nuclear detonation on American soil be stupid.
Actually, they were stupid, or at least sloppy. Nearly one-third of the terrorists had visas or travel documents with obvious forgeries. While sophisticated in some respects, they clearly weren't James Bond supergenius villian types. In addition, more than half of them were flagged by the airlines computer system as a threat, but were never checked because the system was designed for luggage, not people. So, obviously these people had something in their history/profile that indicated they could be trouble.
Perhaps a better system could have stopped or blunted the events of 9/11. who knows...
It's amazing how many times this game has been delayed.
You're talking about HL2, right? This game was not even confirmed to be in existance until E3 of last year. There might have been rumours that it was being developed, but never anything from Valve until E3, when they released the gameplay videos that were simply amazing. (and took away a lot of D3's thunder)
Team Fortress 2 (or Half-life Fortress as it was called in 98) is the game that should be vaporware...
we've seen this idiot before. last time he was here, he was C&Ding starchamber.net. Apparently he took our "overly broad" patent comments to heart and has started going after every online game he can find... gotta love it.
my wife got fed up with the "imaginary online people" yelling at me when I started playing Day of Defeat, so I went out and bought a headphone/mic combo. Now she freaks out when I start talking to myself in an otherwise quiet room.
I don't think I want to have to talk to a game. It might be fun in some instances, but yelling at the game a la Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men would definitely raise eyebrows if anyone else was home.
Blizzard has never made a Christmas release and none of their game sales have hurt because of it. Every game they've released since Diablo has sold 1 million +. Closest they came to a Christmas release was the original Diablo, which shipped on Jan 4 (if i recall correctly). Next closest would be the D2 expansion, which went out in November.
I think the Christmas sales release is only for B titles that are easily lost in the sea of mediocrity...
So, is there anybody out there that can name a change or two that they actually considered a major let-down?
yes. Aragorn falling off the cliff in TTT and "dieing" was pointless. We already had enough "fake-out" deaths in the first movie that were actually in the text (frodo w/ the cave troll, gandalf at the bridge) that Aragon's "death" just seemed like too much cliche. Especially since it was no where to be found in the text.
I'm still unsure whether the whole "take Frodo to Osgilith" scene was necessary or not. I understand Jackson's purpose (Faramir is human and corruptable by the ring, so that *needs* to be shown explicitly to drive the point home), I'm just not sure if I liked how it was handled.
Fighting isn't necessarily a bad genre, but it's been done to death. Earlier in the week, we got the announcment about a Samurai Jack game, which sounds like its going to be a fighter. That fits with the show, as he does quite a lot of fighting (he's a samurai after all). The undead Jack does relatively little fighting in the movie; so why center the game around that aspect? Why not make it more like an old school Sierra or Lucasarts game? Something closer to the wonder of the movie... The Fighter genre just seems to be the easy solution to a "we have a license for this product and we need to get a game out fast" problem.
Start with the books. i was first introduced to it/them through the Infocom game sometime in elementary school. I didn't quite understand the jokes or what was going on (why do i have to put the towel over my head again?) until I had read the book. Which I think I read concurrently with the game after I couldn't get past the introduction of the game. Haven't ever listened to the radio play...
Can't they do something with this game other than take it down the well-trod "fighter" path. skeletons invading halloween-town. Let's get Jack to fight them. Blah... wouldn't something along the lines of zelda or one of the old Sierra adventure games be a better model. Let the player explore all the other holiday worlds that Jack notices in the grove. maybe I'm just bitter cause Nightmare is near the top of the "movies I adore" list...
and as for Jean Reno. anyone else see that and think for a second "what the heck is Janet Reno doing in a video game?"
is the list of playable races complete? and if so, anyone know why Night Elves are included but the regular Elves (Blood Elves?) aren't. Also, why are Undead included with the Horde? I've kinda stopped playing WC3 so I'm a couple patches behind (including the bonus campaign), so I don't know if Blizzard has made recent adjustments to the official canon or not...
I don't find it ironic at all. Considering that the film was finished by the time book came out and that time spent in pre- and post-production had to total several years, I think this is just a coincidence. Not unlike other coincindences (armageddon and deep impact, thin red line and saving private ryan, da vinci code and the other book that's just like it). The biggest point the guy makes is that the clown fish has a parent killed at the beginning of the story. Isn't that the driving point for almost every Disney movie?
the fact that ROTK took the top 2 golden globes probably gives it momentum heading into the Oscars. Sure there's the history of SciFi/Fantasy never winning the big prizes, but this movie is unique among movies. Jackson directed three movies simultaneously, all of which have won critical, popular and financial praise. That achievement alone has to count for something to the voters. Combine that with seriously state of the art special effects, insane costume/prop department, more than adequate acting, and really this movie is the achievement of the past three years.
Here's probably the biggest right-leaning Democrat to come around in a long time and has a major history of criticizing the entertainment industry. So when he goes to write a book, what's the first title he thinks of? Joe and Hadassah's Excellent Adventure. Granted a staffer/lawyer/publisher convinced him to change it to Amazing Adventure, but still. One side of his mouth he's criticizing games for teaching our youth to denegrate women, on the other side he's parodying (and giving tacit approval) of a movie that glorifies being stupid. I just wonder about this guy.
And then, since he was sorta surging in one of the NH polls yesterday, he claims he's doing well, because... he's "got joe-mentum". that sounds like something Jon Stewart and co-horts at the Daily Show would come up with.
Slashdot Mirror
The truth behind the ratings is they are rarely used correctly. The developers shoot for a particular rating, then get the board to agree or disagree. Just like the movies.
The problem is, unlike the movies, the ratings board does not review the entire game. They review clips of the game that the developers submit. as the study points out, only about half the time are the ratings (descriptors) accurate. What this suggests is that some developers are deliberately misleading the review board and submitting clips that aren't fully representative of the game.
While I'm strongly in the "games really aren't that bad" camp, a flawed ratings system that is wrong half the time, just sets the industry up for criticism, government oversight and ultimately censorship; the exact reasons the ESRB was created to put off in the first place.
The problem isn't necessarily the rating system, but how it is applied. They were interviewing the lead author of the study on the Today show this morning (which I briefly caught).
The problem, at least from what I picked up, is that the game developers do not submit the game for a rating. Rather they submit portions (clips of cutscenes, demos of gameplay) that aren't always representative of actual in game content.
As I recall, they reviewed 81 games rated T. About half were appropriately labeled (all the descriptors of why it got the T rating were correct). The other half had content in the game that wasn't listed on the label (tobacoo, sexual content, violence, etc.).
So, applying the movie rating systems to the games still would fail, as the ESRB does not rate games, but rather game segments which may not be representative of the true game. Perhaps they need to evaluate the whole product (or at least more of the product) before a rating is provided.
or, start fining developers who dont' submit content that is truly representative of the game.
Look at the half-life mods: Natural Selection, Counterstrike, et al - They're massively more innovative than half-life itself.
Yes and no. Half-Life (and Valve's attention to it and the community over its span) really is the one of the biggest innovations for gaming in recent history. HL was the first "best" FPS, integrating innovative level design with a compelling story that made you want to go forward in the game. There's a reason it won every award it was nominated for (excepting game of the year, which went to zelda). It pushed FPS into the future.
Then Valve did the amazing thing of releasing the SDK and actively supporting independent developers. CS, Natural Selection, none of those mods would have been possible without Valve actively supporting them. Yes there were mods for Quake, but Valve obviously did something differently than Id and their mod scene exploded. in a way no other game before (or after, yet) has done. The fact that games running on a 6 year old graphic engine are still the most popular online FPS out there shows that Valve really hit upon something.
HL2 won't be as innovative and valve will likely enter the ranks of id, blizzard, epic, etc., as they churn out incremental advances. but to call HL not innovative is to miss out on the community that Valve helped spawn around the game.
by the time you're old enough to really have really disposable income, you usually have a job that takes up 40+ hours in a week. There's less and less time for games, so you're less likely to buy something new on a whim, more likely to stick with what you know (i.e., established franchises), and since quality game releases are few and far between, even more likely to just play what you've got.
The last game I actually purchased for my PC was War3 expansion. The next game I'm planning on buying is either Doom3 / HL2. Other games have slightly caught my interest (was eyeing galactic civilizations for a while), but I just don't have the time to get lost in a big game, unless it's something I really want to get lost in.
the same phenomena typically happens with music. mid 20s and you start listening to what you have rather than what's new...
that's awfully expensive... i was recently pricing a new computer for my brother and for a semi-decent gaming rig (2400+ athlon, nforce2 mobo), the price was around $800. this is 4 times that amount! all for the convenience of portability?
i feel bad looking back at the $2000 I spent on my gaming rig that now is worth $1000...
anyone know how fast can one build a mini-atx gaming rig and for what price? I presume the biggest limitation is heat: processor + vid card in a small space is not ideal. any small form factor cases with lots of fans?
while I haven't read the article in Harpers, I would guess that much of the fossil fuel involved is used in the distillation process (i.e., removing the water from the ethanol/water mixture). This reactor tolerates eth/h20 mixtures as low as 50%. So, I would further guess that this reduces the cost and demand for fossil fuels...
Yes. Ethanol engines require very pure ethanol. Ethanol is produced by fermenting biomass (in this case, corn). The end result is a ethanol/water mixture, which requires extensive purification in order to be useful. This reactor tolerates ethanol/water mix around 50% (they used 103 proof ethanol). You eliminate the distillation costs which makes this reactors a lot cheaper than a pure ethanol engine.
(Actual article for this instututions with subscriptions is here. The Science summary is here.)
here
so it wasn't run through AOL, but an outside firm, which probably got a more representative sample.
But, there's lots of interesting statistics to go through. such as "Nearly Twice as Many Adults Have Played Internet Games for More than Eight Consecutive Hours than Teenagers"
AOL. I have no idea exactly how it was conducted, other than "online", but I'd be surprised if they surveyed people other than AOL users. Sure, AOL is the biggest ISP, and you'd expect a large number of gamers, but the truly hardcore would have moved off AOL a long time ago and gotten broadband. So what are you left with? The casual gamers for whom low latency performance is not an issue (i.e., people playing at yahoo games). So it's not surprising that it's mostly women in that sample group...
Note, GC and XB are still in the hunt.
If, by in the hunt, you mean sales almost an order of magnitude lower, then yes. To date, 70 million PS2 have geen sold, while only ~13 million Xbox and GC each (source)
PS2 got to market first, by a about a year, if I remember correctly, and it had backwards compatibility. So, while you can't really separate those 2 properties into which contributed more to sales, you can say that neither of them hurt.
does Empire Earth fix the biggest problem I had with the whole Age series, namely the lack of an "attack move"? AOE2 is a great looking game, but coming from the blizzard RTS school, I just found it frustrating that I would have to move my units in short increments if I wanted to be sure they would attack stuff on the way to their destinations. Incredibly annoying. 2 armies could just walk through each other, unless 1 player explicitly gave his men the stop command.
But then again, AOE2 introduced the "find idle unit" command which was pure heaven.
I had several issues with Total Annihilation that apparently the gamespy editors overlook or praise.
Although gamespy liked the graphics, I had a big problem with them. Yes, it was 3D, which made for some beautiful maps. However, the units, IMO, were plainer than plain. They were all boxey and ultimately had very little character (as contrasted to Starcraft, where eveything was quite distinct and enjoyable to look at, and listen to).
Then you've got this comment "You don't just order an attack -- you send in a WAVE of hundreds of units, a wall of steel death that will fill the screen with awesome-looking explosions for minutes on end. You can build a nuclear missile capable of destroying a screen full of units, but it's worthless to build just one: Typically, you send them over in batches of a dozen or more. Obscene? YES. That's Total Annihilation! Every game was non-stop action, carnage, and brutality at a level never seen before or since. ". While I am sure there was lots of strategy involved in competitive TA play, this statement belies that fact. Mass and attack has very little strategy to it. Weapons that destroy an entire screen full of units, that can be mass produced, is not much in the way of strategy. Its like asking a 12 year-old and a 40 year-old their favorite movie. One is going to say "Super death explosion 12" while the other is going to say "Mystic River".
Perhaps, I'll dust off TA and give it another try. Being a Blizzard fan, I never really got into it all that much.
However, I was a little disappointed not to see mention of one of the best RTS pre-cursors, Sun Tzu's Ancient Art of War. That game had many of the elements that are in current games and did it back in the mid 80s.
Also, another game not mentioned was 7 Kingdoms or its sequel. While I could never really get into it, it did have a number of really interesting features that I would love to see in future games, such as spies that took on the enemies color and could be integrated into their force.
And only stupid terrorists are likewise going to leave a trail of electronic crumbs to track. Yeah, you could argue that stupid terrorists are worth nabbing, but clearly whomever was responsible for 9/11 wasn't stupid, nor will the individual(s) responsible for the first nuclear detonation on American soil be stupid.
Actually, they were stupid, or at least sloppy. Nearly one-third of the terrorists had visas or travel documents with obvious forgeries. While sophisticated in some respects, they clearly weren't James Bond supergenius villian types. In addition, more than half of them were flagged by the airlines computer system as a threat, but were never checked because the system was designed for luggage, not people. So, obviously these people had something in their history/profile that indicated they could be trouble.
Perhaps a better system could have stopped or blunted the events of 9/11. who knows...
It's amazing how many times this game has been delayed.
You're talking about HL2, right? This game was not even confirmed to be in existance until E3 of last year. There might have been rumours that it was being developed, but never anything from Valve until E3, when they released the gameplay videos that were simply amazing. (and took away a lot of D3's thunder)
Team Fortress 2 (or Half-life Fortress as it was called in 98) is the game that should be vaporware...
we've seen this idiot before. last time he was here, he was C&Ding starchamber.net. Apparently he took our "overly broad" patent comments to heart and has started going after every online game he can find... gotta love it.
my wife got fed up with the "imaginary online people" yelling at me when I started playing Day of Defeat, so I went out and bought a headphone/mic combo. Now she freaks out when I start talking to myself in an otherwise quiet room.
I don't think I want to have to talk to a game. It might be fun in some instances, but yelling at the game a la Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men would definitely raise eyebrows if anyone else was home.
exactly.
Blizzard has never made a Christmas release and none of their game sales have hurt because of it. Every game they've released since Diablo has sold 1 million +. Closest they came to a Christmas release was the original Diablo, which shipped on Jan 4 (if i recall correctly). Next closest would be the D2 expansion, which went out in November.
I think the Christmas sales release is only for B titles that are easily lost in the sea of mediocrity...
So, is there anybody out there that can name a change or two that they actually considered a major let-down?
yes. Aragorn falling off the cliff in TTT and "dieing" was pointless. We already had enough "fake-out" deaths in the first movie that were actually in the text (frodo w/ the cave troll, gandalf at the bridge) that Aragon's "death" just seemed like too much cliche. Especially since it was no where to be found in the text.
I'm still unsure whether the whole "take Frodo to Osgilith" scene was necessary or not. I understand Jackson's purpose (Faramir is human and corruptable by the ring, so that *needs* to be shown explicitly to drive the point home), I'm just not sure if I liked how it was handled.
Fighting isn't necessarily a bad genre, but it's been done to death. Earlier in the week, we got the announcment about a Samurai Jack game, which sounds like its going to be a fighter. That fits with the show, as he does quite a lot of fighting (he's a samurai after all). The undead Jack does relatively little fighting in the movie; so why center the game around that aspect? Why not make it more like an old school Sierra or Lucasarts game? Something closer to the wonder of the movie... The Fighter genre just seems to be the easy solution to a "we have a license for this product and we need to get a game out fast" problem.
Start with the books. i was first introduced to it/them through the Infocom game sometime in elementary school. I didn't quite understand the jokes or what was going on (why do i have to put the towel over my head again?) until I had read the book. Which I think I read concurrently with the game after I couldn't get past the introduction of the game. Haven't ever listened to the radio play...
One can play the game online here.
Can't they do something with this game other than take it down the well-trod "fighter" path. skeletons invading halloween-town. Let's get Jack to fight them. Blah... wouldn't something along the lines of zelda or one of the old Sierra adventure games be a better model. Let the player explore all the other holiday worlds that Jack notices in the grove. maybe I'm just bitter cause Nightmare is near the top of the "movies I adore" list...
and as for Jean Reno. anyone else see that and think for a second "what the heck is Janet Reno doing in a video game?"
is the list of playable races complete? and if so, anyone know why Night Elves are included but the regular Elves (Blood Elves?) aren't. Also, why are Undead included with the Horde? I've kinda stopped playing WC3 so I'm a couple patches behind (including the bonus campaign), so I don't know if Blizzard has made recent adjustments to the official canon or not...
I don't find it ironic at all. Considering that the film was finished by the time book came out and that time spent in pre- and post-production had to total several years, I think this is just a coincidence. Not unlike other coincindences (armageddon and deep impact, thin red line and saving private ryan, da vinci code and the other book that's just like it). The biggest point the guy makes is that the clown fish has a parent killed at the beginning of the story. Isn't that the driving point for almost every Disney movie?
the fact that ROTK took the top 2 golden globes probably gives it momentum heading into the Oscars. Sure there's the history of SciFi/Fantasy never winning the big prizes, but this movie is unique among movies. Jackson directed three movies simultaneously, all of which have won critical, popular and financial praise. That achievement alone has to count for something to the voters. Combine that with seriously state of the art special effects, insane costume/prop department, more than adequate acting, and really this movie is the achievement of the past three years.
Here's probably the biggest right-leaning Democrat to come around in a long time and has a major history of criticizing the entertainment industry. So when he goes to write a book, what's the first title he thinks of? Joe and Hadassah's Excellent Adventure. Granted a staffer/lawyer/publisher convinced him to change it to Amazing Adventure, but still. One side of his mouth he's criticizing games for teaching our youth to denegrate women, on the other side he's parodying (and giving tacit approval) of a movie that glorifies being stupid. I just wonder about this guy.
And then, since he was sorta surging in one of the NH polls yesterday, he claims he's doing well, because... he's "got joe-mentum". that sounds like something Jon Stewart and co-horts at the Daily Show would come up with.