Humans just don’t seem to care for nuance. I hear a lot of talk about shades of grey but everyone wants black or white. One extreme or the other. This is no different in our approach to sex. Sex is such a complex issue and yet in America we always take it to the extreme. Some groups want to ban any public discussion of sex or the slightest display of sexuality while some products can seem to sell themselves without shoving sex in our face. On one hand we have the image of the strong independent career woman and on the other we have advertisements that tell us bikini models will hang out with us if we drink the right kind of beer.

Games lack nuance as well, but I can forgive them to an extent since storytelling in videogames is still evolving. Technology advances continue to give storytellers new ways to involve the player, which means we continue to see new ways in which to involve players. Of course, when a game basically panders to the lowest common denominator we label it with “Mature” even if that game is something like Playboy: The Mansion or Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball. I guess it’s fine to warn that a game shouldn’t be played by children even if you can’t really wear your adult hat when playing a game. There is a certain irony in making a game that would appeal most to a 15 year old but have a rating that suggests they shouldn’t play it.

That’s not even the real issue though. What happens when a game does try to explore adult themes in a meaningful way? Why do we get so unnerved that someone may approach these themes in a negative way? Fable gave us the possibilities of marriage, divorce, and bi-sexual relationships. There was even a brothel in the Lost Chapters version. We also saw up close and personal the childhood tragedies of the protagonist rather than the usual abstract background story of flashbacks. If someone abuses their spouse in a game will it mean they will do it in real life or do they just have a sick sense of humor? I don’t much see the point of films like Saw or Hostel but that doesn’t mean there is necessarily something wrong with someone who does. I suppose someone could be a little too into them, but there are always signs that a person is unbalanced and their taste in movies or actions in a videogame alone is usually not enough.

Games are an interactive experience and I think developer intentions count for something. If developers give us an option to see a female character in a thong when it serves no purpose in the story then I think it says a lot about their intentions. If developers give us the choice between nurturing a relationship or descending into abuse, then I would wonder what their intentions are. In Fable, a happy spouse will reward the player with trinkets and the occassional useful item. Positive reinforcement for positive behavior. Scenarios like that are enough for me to give developers the benefit of the doubt.

Sadly, I don’t think we’ll ever see a “Sophmoric depiction of sexual themes” warning on ESRB ratings anytime soon. We want games to grow up but we don’t always give them enough credit for handling sexual themes and content in a mature manner. Instead we lump true mature content into the same category as adolescent fantasy. Sure, it’s a “Mature” rating either way, but at least acknowledge the difference between games that are truly exploring mature themes versus those that see their core demographic as man-children who dress up as comic book characters on days other than Halloween.

Actually, I have an easy answer for this even though the underlying issue is complex. Violence at its core can be quite simple. Themes of good versus evil do not have to be particularly difficult and are even portrayed in children’s films without much fuss. On the other hand, sex is almost always complicated. There is simply so much to it. To some extent I think we make it an overly complex issue, but I will acknowledge that sex is not an easy topic to tackle. Sex is an act that often makes people feel vulnerable. You are doing something with someone in a setting that is not usual. Nakedness often does not make people feel comfortable and physical intimacy is also a time of vulnerability. Violence, on the other hand, is a show of strength and is often straightforward even if the themes surrounding it are not.

In other words, violence is a lot easier to explain to children than sex. If a robber runs out of a bank and shoots someone in the face for no good reason it’s easy to explain away. “He’s a bad man and the police will catch him and lock him up.” If the robber is shot and killed in the pursuit, then it’s seen as justice. In all fairness though, I do believe there is a limit to how much violence a child should be exposed to. In the same vein, I don’t believe it is healthy to shield children from sex. We want children to have a healthy attitude towards violence. We want them to understand right and wrong and why our first reaction to conflict resolution should not be our fists. Sex might be more complicated, but by trying to hide it away when it’s so often in our face is simply going to confuse children and make them think something is fundamentally wrong with sex. People tend to take an all or nothing stance about any issue. I believe this issue deserves nuance. I’m not saying you let your kindergartner watch porn, but at the same time you shouldn’t be embarrassed when you walk past Victoria’s Secret in the mall.

I think to some extent the critics of the ratings are right. We’re probably too sensitive to sexual content and not sensitive enough about violence. Quite honestly, if it’s not outright porn I don’t see the point of an “Adults Only” rating for a game. Even with the Hot Coffee fiasco from a couple of years back, we’re talking about a game called Grand Theft Auto which is already rated “Mature” due to sexual innuendo, violence, and language. This was never a game for children anyway and any parent who bought it for their kid was just not paying attention. As for kids getting the game? Let’s be honest here, parents were buying it for them. I just don’t know that many retailers that would go through the headache of selling this game to a minor and then dealing with the potential backlash from an angry parent and possibly even the local media. We should be taking parents to task for not taking a Mature rating seriously instead of over-compensating by upping the rating for games that really do have no place on a regular store’s shelves.

On the flip-side, violent games should not get a pass. A game that doesn’t show a lot of gore or blood can receive a “Teen” rating pretty easily. I think violence needs to be explored beyond graphic depiction though. While violence can be simple, it can also become quite complex and I think violent themes that go beyond mere good and evil need to be rated appropriately. Let’s take Oblivion as an example. Initially it received a “Teen” rating despite the violence in the game and how complex those violent acts could become. You could become an Assassin or a noble Knight. You could be a noble Knight and suddenly commit murder. You could be offered with a choice to commit murder and be convinced it somehow served the greater good. These are very adult themes in my opinion, complex choices that go beyond the usual battle of good versus evil. I wouldn’t call the storytelling in Oblivion “deep” by any means, but the choices it offered players in terms of the harm they could do went beyond simple black and white choices. An older game, Deus Ex, gave players the option of non-lethal force at the beginning of the game and as the plot unwound some players were dismayed to find out that they may have been killing the good guys all along. I don’t know I was convinced they were all that “good”, but it was thought provoking and entirely too difficult for a child to understand.

We need to be a lot less knee jerk about sex in games and demand a closer look at violence beyond how many internal organs are spilled in an evisceration. What I’m calling for is nuance in a ratings system that often looks for a simple way to apply their grade without bothering to delve into the real issues. I admit the ESRB has a tough job but they need to stick to their guns when they come under pressure, explain why they gave a rating, and quit giving a free pass to violent themes just because a game didn’t fill up three buckets of blood in the first act.

Most men look at, shall we say “romantic partners” in two lights. We love the sexy vixen in a one-night stand sort of way but most men aren’t looking for a long term relationship with that kind of woman. Then we have the good girl, the one who at least appears virtuous in public, who doesn’t play off her sexuality, and maybe demonstrates a skill other than being able to take off her clothes. Most men love the sexy vixen but want to end up with the good girl. Let’s be honest though, you could apply this to women as well with only minor alterations. We’re really not so different when talking about attraction. We might look for different qualities but both genders seeem to focus on different standards for long-term commitments versus an instant gratification relationship.

Maybe it’s just the games I’ve been playing lately, but it seems like I don’t get much of a choice anymore. I liked having a choice, but I wonder what the choice is for most gamers? Especially the male gamers. Sadly, the only option most women gamers get is a handsome but whiny pissant who is such an obvious projection of the developers that they might as well have just used their own picutre. Oops, except that would take away from the “handsome” most likely. (Disclaimer: I’m not exactly going to make the cover of GQ anytime soon myself). What we essentially have is “the good girl” and “the sexy vixen” and never much attempt to stray from that formula unless it is to aim somewhere in-between. Not exactly bold writing. On the other hand, I can live with it so long as my preferences are not assumed to be the sexy vixen. I’m not saying it never would be, but sometimes it just seems so out of place.

Personally, I think the more realistic approach is the girl next door. This might sound trite, and it probably is, but if the world is going to hell in a handbasket is it really going to be saved by a supermodel? One of the classic Campbellian themes is the everyman who ascends to be a hero. Maybe we feel more heroic if gorgeous women swoon and risk their lives in order to bear our children. In an age of strong women I actually would appreciate a useful partner though. Honestly, as much as everyone hates escort missions, what I do not need is a perpetual damsel in distress. At the very least, keep her locked in a tower until I can come rescue her. I’d rather be fighting alongside someone I can respect, someone I can count on, and someone who can challenge me to be a better person. Not mere eye candy or an arm decoration. Ok, fine, I’ll admit this may not be to everyone’s tastes, but again I’d like to see a choice.

Can we go outside these boundaries though? Could we accept a female supporting character who is not just a good girl or a sexy vixen? Can this romantic partner be the hero of the story? Will she maintain sexual attractiveness if she appears stronger than the player? Maybe it’s too soon to challenge players to go outside these boundaries. Good girl, sexy vixen, or somewhere in between. Anything else and we’re talking about story-telling skills that the gaming market does not yet have in abundance.

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with the sexy vixen, it’s just that we’ve seen so much of her lately. Game publisher and developers alike have been blatantly pandering to their 13 year old male demographic. What we sometimes forget is how huge this demographic is since no matter how old we get men are always in touch with our inner 13 year old and sometimes we even let him out to play. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this necessarily, I think we’ve just been bombarded with these adolescent fantasies to the point where there is no longer a point.

In all fairness though, what I’m talking about applies to women as well. What do they really want in a long term romantic partners?

Hey, let’s face it, Conan is actually the male fantasy. We want to be all buff and scary looking, but women want the cute guy who could just as easily live next door. Granted, Brad Pitt with his shirt off is going to embarass most guys as well, but that’s not the point. Again, women aren’t usually given a choice.

Games as an interactive experience should be giving us options. Especially when sex is involved. I don’t expect much here, after all we don’t usually see many games where they give you a non-violent option to conflict resolution. If you’re going to introduce sex into the equation, even if we’re just talking innuendo, then I want a choice or at the very least I want someone believable. I want an approximation of a real world woman. I don’t mean this in a cruel way, but if I’m off saving the world I don’t want a bikini model for my sidekick.

All done? Good, we can resume. Mr. Floyd’s conclusion is that videogames need more sex. Not just more sex, but they need to handle sex in a more mature fashion. I disagree that we need more sex but I am fully onboard with the notion that sex is rarely handled in a mature fashion. At the same time, if gaming is an interactive medium, unlike movies which are merely observed, then we also have to resign ourselves to the fact that no matter how mature you handle sex someone is going to take the route of immaturity.

Let me just establish this right now. I don’t want to get into “What If” scenarios about how gamers will ultimately behave. I am only interested in the intentions of developers and the presentation of the subject matter. We all know that the gamer community is full of man children who will not be able to handle any sexual content in a mature fashion.

In general I don’t understand how we get so hung up on sex or the fascination with it. If you don’t have access to sex in some form then you’re clearly not trying. The insistence that we are constantly bombarded with sexual imagery, thought, and innuendo actually gets old after awhile. I really don’t enjoy having to swiftly change the channel because I’m not quite ready to have a birds and the bees talk with my 6 year old child. The idea that we need more sex in order to de-sensitize the masses is more likely to backfire then have the intended results that Mr. Floyd supports. As I start to see a slow shift in the public consciousness about who plays games I believe we can achieve the idea that videogames are not just for children without also causing a moral outrage. Ironically, I think the Wii will do more to advance the notion of games for adults then more mature content. Those that are familiar with the Wii library will notice a distinct lack of games rated “Mature”. Regardless, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a console that was able to pull in such a broad demographic despite an almost obnoxious focus on “family friendly” fare.

Aside from the perception of videogames as a child’s past time, I also don’t look for sex in my interactive experiences. I have read stories and seen movies where sex is an integral part of the plot. Sometimes it is handled maturely and sometimes I’m reading a Heinlein novel. Cheap shots aside, the voyeuristic qualities of observing sex whether reading a book or watching a movie, do not bother me as much so long as there is a purpose and the subject matter is handled at a higher level then a high school boy’s locker room discussion. While sex in videogames can be anywhere from merely implied to full-on virtual participation the very thought that my actions in the game could trigger a sexual encounter really does change everything. I have a personal moral code that I live by and even before I was a Fundamentalist Christian I didn’t make it my mission to hump every decent looking girl in sight. I’m not so old that I don’t remember hormones but I also remember having female friends who I had no sexual intentions towards. I don’t think you have to be religious to experience fidelity or emotional intimacy. See, I’m not demanding that games remove any depiction of pre-marital sex, but I do see some real pitfalls with having sex at all. I don’t see the point of interactive sex because while I feel like I have some involvement shooting a gun, driving a car, or having a conversation (or whatever approximation you can get from a dialogue tree) I don’t play games because I need something that gives me anything like a sexual experience. I can have sex in the real world and much prefer it!

Furthermore, I don’t think we need sex to advance a story. Most classic stories are about conflict, and games just don’t have the story-telling chops to include sex in the same way that Shakespeare so often did. Most of our conflict revolves around violence or driving really fast. Even then, story in videogames is largely optional. You can have a game without a story and still enjoy yourself. I’m not saying that games shouldn’t have stories, but the overall lack of quality storytelling in games combined with the questionable necessity of story at all means that an increase of sexual content will merely be bungled and likely earn gamers increased ire from the public at large.

All that said, I would like to see sexual themes handled in a more mature matter. In the above video Mr. Floyd talks about intimacy. I like the thought of an actual relationship with another character. Something beyond mere physical attraction. In the Half-Life 2 and subsequent episodes there is a glimmer of this. Sadly, that is the most I’ve ever seen. Most relationships are horribly contrived and even attempts to develop true intimacy seem to head all too quickly to a bedroom encounter as some kind of culmination of a relationship. Intimacy is not sex, though sex can become a part of being intimate. I think the problem is that game developers are by and large a bunch of nerds. That may sound harsh but I feel like I’m in a good position to criticize. Having long been part of the software development industry and having known more than a few developers who decided for a career in games I think I can accurately state that they are not a group you’d quickly label “normal”. For the socially awkward who may get most of their notions of intimacy from what you see on primetime television they may only make the association that intimacy means you take off your clothes and lie down naked next to someone else. I would daresay that true intimacy involves more than mere physical contact.

My challenge to game studios (aside from doing something silly like hiring real writers) would be to make me care about my virtual romantic partner. One of my greatest annoyances with contemporary game story-telling is that the contrived relationships tend to be more of a burden than a benefit. I suppose this may again go hand-in-hand with how your average game developer may perceive an actual relationship. In truth, a real healthy relationship is one where everyone benefits in some way. I want to feel attached to my prospective mate, not wish to throw them in harm’s way.

I can remember many games where a partner, wingman, or squad mate was such an obvious help that I wanted to be at their side and would risk the success of the mission to help them. These were just comrades in arms, but it’s a good start on how you could take it a step further. The question I would ask the game industry is why can you make me feel genuine camaraderie with virtual buddies but somehow you cannot take that extra step and create convincing relationships? Does some kind of intimacy uncanny valley exist or does this just further expose how badly the videogame industry needs writers to tell compelling stories?

With the ham-fisted approach that most game studios take towards sex, would more really be better? Even if there is a consensus to handle sex in a more mature fashion I think history would show that most attempts would flop. Games would either not sell or generate too much controversy. Once any title gets the dreaded “Adults Only” rating that would be the end of the ball-game and Mr. Floyd’s gambit would fail. Instead, I would like to see story-tellers tackle this issue head-on and give us some real relationships for a change. Genuine friendships, true emotional attachment, and a motivation to do something for the other gender that goes deeper than seeing their naughty bits. Not only does this advance the hobby as something that goes beyond children but would appeal to both men and women. In the current world, we seem to target sex only to 13 year old boys. Surely we can do better.

Eventually I gave up. Even though the Gamespy review linked above hinted at a way to get past it I never did find the same forum that handed out the advice. After awhile I just didn’t care. What a boneheaded design decision! On one hand you have the Wii, which is ideally suited for a first-person shooter thanks to its unique controls, but on the other you have a game that was either not playtested or the playtesters were ignored. (I guess the playtesters may have been mentally handicapped for all I know). In the end all I got out of it was a very bad tennis elbow that I had to nurse for a few days and eventually traded in the game. I should probably thank Treyarch for at least bringing so much suck early in the game so I didn’t hit this roadblock at a point where I was really invested.

All the same, what a waste! I really wanted a decent shooter for the Wii, we’re talking really low standards here, and I was given a virtual kick in the balls by Treyarch. I can’t figure out what kind of message they were trying to send. Even if this were not the Wii, I really don’t want quick-time events or mini-games in the middle of my first person shooter. They just don’t fit in there. It would be like watching Rambo and suddenly they had a musical number in between and Stallone popped out of a cake for a burlesque number. That doesn’t fit and no one actually wants it!

Seriously, when developers make games like this I wonder what they are thinking. I agree with the direction of “make good games” is tougher than it sounds, but I think avoiding obvious SUCK would at least be a good start.

This time, I’m taking a break from the only on-line community I follow, the ever excellent Gamerswithjobs.com, because of E3.

See, despite being in a demographic old enough to know better everyone is busily dissecting every little piece of data or non-information that invariably comes out of the conference. For me, I’m much more interested in what’s coming out next week then the end of the year. These games are no good to me unless they’re going to be available soon and my overall impression of E3 is best summed up as “The Empty Promises Symposium”.

So hopefully rational thought will return sometime next week. That just gives me more time to work on Sex Week for the blog next week.

Why not?

Seriously. What is so wrong with a wars fought over oil? I can assume many of these loons that carry these signs are doing it because they associate a war over oil as an automatic land grab by the mythical “imperialists” they often rant on about. A war over oil is a war over control of territory and thus by default, people and their way of life. The other avenue is that we are a oil “addicted” society and a war over an addiction is wrong. We should be suffering in order to force us to adopt earth friendly energy sources and as punishment for our way of life.

Frankly, oil to me is just as good of a reason to go to war as being denied any other natural resource. Wars over resources are probably some of the most clearly defined and logical as opposed to anything else. Why not go to war over oil, it seems like one of the most clear-cut and reasonable.

First let me state that we are a liquid fuel based culture. The problem is that we need to find a suitable replacement for oil in the long term and more internal oil to develop for the future. We need fuel that will power a society that runs on horsepower and electricity. Shaming society for it’s current state is not the answer. I think we should have developed internal fuel and resources a long time ago simply because they are so fundamental to the basic function of our economy and national security. To rely on others to provide the very resource that the fabric of your system depends on is foolishness in the extreme and those not involved in means to breaks us away from this dependency need to question their priorities.

With that lets examine a few basic facts. Any nation runs on natural resources. Oil for plastic and fuel, coal for power, ore to make metal and cereal grains for nourishment. Everything we create is based in a earth given material. We need and exchange these materials with others that lack certain materials they also require.

While internal development must always be essential, if you are being denied fundamental resources for the continued health of your nation then that is a legitimate reason to attack another. It is listed as an “act of war” to do so. The problem is many fail to realize that the citizens of your nation are your responsibility, not the happiness of other nations, the image you present or their wellbeing. It is all good and fine to be a good neighbor but if your continued success and stability is threatened and you cannot resolve it through negotiations then war is a perfectly acceptable and viable option.

Wars over resources are probably the most common. I know oil has been demonized but do you think people would scoff at going to war over food stuffs? Do we see “No blood for rice” signs? There is no real difference. No fuel translates in to a domino effect that damages every aspect of your society including the most basic fundamentals. No fuel means costlier food production and increased food costs meaning people buy less product to buy fuel and food at inflated prices. Cause and effect in the long and short term.

You can adopt alternatives to some commodities and buffer the impact, limiting it’s range, but fuel is so essential that there is no way to shield from it.

No fuel can literally translate in to people starving given enough time and deep enough ripples. Is going to war over your populace suffering not enough justification? What about maintaining the ability of your people to lead healthy, productive lives? You know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Frankly the entire idea is stupid. I’m not going to debate alternatives to fuel usage or conspiracy theories. These are the usual responses to these arguments. The point is reasoning, justification and the responsibility of a government to care for it’s people where war is concerned and in these cases, the choice is clear. Many do their best to assign blame or cloud the issue, but in the end it doesn’t change the situation.

If you want to debate the actual reasons for going to war, go ahead, We can talk about what we should have done in the past to have avoided a current problem. We should lament being forced in to war over the mistakes others have made in the past, but that doesn’t change the responsibility of those in the present to remedy a crisis. We play the hand we are dealt. A good leader looks atthe short and long term, casts off the mistakes those before him has made and fixes the situation at hand. Crass moral reasoning that you are waging war over the mistakes of others is an ethical straw dog approach.

Trying to make it about a resource you have demonized as being “bad” while ignoring the basic points of why wars are fought and the importance of resources only shows your ignorance. I’m not a fan of war and it is a last resort, but if you won’t go to war over something essential, then what? Truthfully I think we as a culture have become so lazy and adverse to discomfort that we reject the notion of war based on flimsy and smug intellectual reasons that are murkier than a barrel full of crude.

For a few years Buddy and I used to get together for a double feature. One of our more interesting outings was a back-to-back viewing of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. While I enjoyed both movies I made an observation about Pirates that I had not noticed before in a movie. I called Pirates “fun”. I’m sure it wasn’t the first “fun” movie I ever watched, it was just the first time I noticed it.

I noticed this again after watching Hellboy II: The Golden Army. While hardly a perfect movie, it again illicited that same feeling of “fun”.

To me, having fun is an interactive experience, and so while I may call a movie entertaining, enjoyable, or engaging I rarely qualify them as fun because I don’t usually feel involved. Movies are a spectator sport for me. I know nothing about making them other than watching some behind-the-scenes special and the business of Hollywood is an alien world compared to the business of software development that I am intimately involved with.

Yet there have just been this handful of films that seems entirely structured around pleasing the audience. I know the Hellboy films are practically a labor of love for Del Toro, and it may be as much about making himself happy as anyone. I don’t really care, because when I watch these films I feel like I’m getting off a rollercoaster at the end. I feel like I was part of the experience even though all I really do is sit there (Hey, just like a rollercoaster!). I wish I could elaborate further but I just seem to be missing the vocabulary to explain what is so different about these films.

I challenge someone to watch Hellboy (another film I enjoyed) and then go out and see Hellboy II: The Golden Army. You’d probably get a good idea of what I mean. Hellboy is a good comic book movie. Hellboy II is fun. I don’t know how else to put it.

Also, next week is going to be “Sex Week” here at Unfettered Blather. I don’t usually do themes but I’ve been wanting to do this for awhile. We’ll mostly be focusing on Sex and the videogames industry, which will tie in nicely with my running annoyance at the perception of videogames as merely a child’s past-time despite all the evidence to the contrary.

There is a lot of misconceptions about the creativity and unique attributes of Guitar Hero. Allow me to chart the Guitar Hero family tree for your reading pleasure:

The roots of Guitar Hero can be traced to a more or less linear progression. The history begins much like the current Guitar Hero, with a cultural fad:

Simon (1978)

Guitar Hero’s “father” as it were, Simon shares a great deal in common with it’s offspring. The original technology memory game, Simon was the cultural fad of the 80s, Guitar Hero shares this future camp status weather it acknowledges it or not. Simon used flashing buttons and memorization speed to keep the user entertained. There was a similar evolution to a hand held version strikingly similar to the guitar shape called “Bop It”

Guitar Hero’s primary difference is that it has dropped the actual memorization aspect in large part for a data stream approach that it’s primary progenitor pioneered:

Dance Dance Revolution (1998)

Probably best described as the original Guitar Hero (although many fans would scoff at the truth), DDR became popular by prompting users to “dance” on a giant d-pad while keeping track with the visual ques given on the screen. DDR is more than similar to Guitar Hero, only the method of interaction has changed in a tangible sense to something less physically demanding. The formula is essentially the same.

DDR was not without it’s flaws. The original concept was very much designed as an arcade only draw that suffered heavily in flavor as a home version (also refered to as the “Time Crisis Effect”). After the mass hysteria subsided and the cultural embrace mellowed out, the simple fact was you looked like a complete tool dancing on a DDR arcade machine. While there is still a debate on how much of a tool you look like while playing Guitar Hero or it’s competitor “Rock Band, there are certain pros and cons in it’s favor.

Please note, tool ratings are subject to change at any time.

The first is lack of public exposure. DDR as a home port stunk like a diaper bin, this meant in order to play it in proper fashion you needed to actually go in to public and jump around like a chimpanzee. Guitar Hero allows a quality home experience while avoiding public exposure. It’s popularity is possibly also tied to the lack of physical exercise required from the average gamer and from leaving the “game cave”.

Guitar Hero’s primary problem is that it is essentially“Air Guitar”. Outside of frat boys and possibly socially ostracized office coworkers, this is a dangerous activity to engage in because it surpasses even DDR in terms of sheer “tool-like” displays. Again, if done in your own home your tool rating is much lower. The upcoming Metallica edition will no doubt push Guitar Hero’s tool status beyond the level where private play can no longer be counted on to keep your tool level within accepted norms. Buyer beware.

Guitar Hero wisely profited from using licensing agreements to entertain users with current and well loved music themes, first put to good effect in “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City” radio feature.

It could be worse I suppose, they could release some completely silly looking peripheral for a handheld system to allow people to play Guitar Hero in public….Oh, wait… Like these people don’t already look like complete toads constantly molesting their iPods.

Personally I’m waiting for the day when most of these players will refuse to admit they actually played the game like they did with DDR. Its coming, and I’m getting ready to savor the moment.