Lavarinth wrote:Let's compare Call of Duty's multiplayer features to StarCraft II's! So identical! It's like my car compared to my sandwich. Perfect comparison.
I like how you completely missed the point of bringing Call of Duty up in the post.
When someone plays a game as stupid and repetitive as Call of Duty, and when it's populated primarily with pre-teen and early-teen American males, you can expect that there will be phallic fascinations. That is not to say it's right; merely to say that it's to be expected. Insulting minorities on 4chan isn't necessarily 'right', but it is
to be expected.
When you contend that StarCraft II has merit as a game that's suitable for all players of the RTS genre, which I have seen you do (although you may have changed your opinion on this), I don't think you immediately thought 'hey, kids are gonna draw dicks everywhere - I hope that shit's censored'. I didn't think that, either, and so I wonder why Blizzard bothered with censorship. The game is rated T/14, so why that needs to even be enforced when you aren't liable for online interactions is just plain stupid. To refrain, a censor on text is one thing. It's stupid, sure, and it has no place in games that have even a degree of psychological maturity, but censoring in-game content just never works.
My original point wasn't even about that, but moreso that Blizzard was being stupid when they decided to lock their triggers and whatnot. I don't know why Kris thought it was about censorship when it's THEIR materials.