Those last to comments I agree with

I am a gamer myself. My game of choice at this time is Battlefield 2. Think Saving Private Ryan but with a lot more virtual people on screen.

I have a long history with FPS games (that's First Person Shooters for the uninitiated), which goes right back to the original Castle Wolfenstein. In other ords, I've been playing these games since they came out.

Each new generation was carefully crafted to run on the current hardware - and each one looked better than the previous one. When Quake 2 came out I was mesmerized - hey look ! I can actually see THROUGH a window !

In short, realism has been going up all the time. Today, in BF2, it is quite realistic enough - for a game. It is NOT a slaughter party though, there are sever limitations to what you can actually do. But that's all right - it's a game.

To answer Mr. AC, as far as I'm concerned we have now all the realism we need. I've been playing the Crysis demo and the artificial blurring is not really my piece of cake. They named in motion-blur, but really I just find it blurry - period. And I somewhat resent having forked over almost €300 for a graphics card that makes things blurry. I can do that if I squint my eyes, thank you. So really, I find we have enough realism. I do not need to play a game that looks like real life. I do not even want to play a game that looks real.

However, I am tired of games that persist to limit what I can do and how I can do it. If a tank rams the side of a house, it's not the tank that should get damage, right ? If a plane drops a few bombs on a building, the building should be rather heavily damaged, right ? Well none of all that happens in BF2, and DX10 does not seem to allow that either. The only thing DX10 does is add pretty pixels. Well I say we have enough pretty pixels already. We have absolutely gorgeous pixels. So let's start working on gameplay, okay ?

Now, in response to Mr. Ball, I really have only one thing to say : I've played a lot of gory games, and I've even played Grand Theft Auto uncensored. In games, I have done atrocious things. In real life, the only thing I am atrocious with is mosquitoes.

I've never even actually punched anyone. I avoid conflict if I can at all - and that just might include running for it if I'm up against more than one guy. The sickest fantasy I have is winning the Euro Lottery. Yet I believe I would have no trouble gutting a virtual character with a sword, if a game gave me the chance. I don't think I'm a wierdo, and I don't think you'll disagree with that. We both know what a wierdo is and I'd say just about anything is capable of pushing them over the edge.

In my opinion, blood, gore and twisted acts in games is no worse than watching any given snuff film (don't know any titles, I don't watch that), of even Hollywood titles like Blade, Basic Instinct, Natural Born Killers, or Reservoir Dogs.

Hollywood has exposed more people to gore, murder and twisted minds than any game can ever hope to touch. And a game does not get reruns on TV after five years.

In any case, you're absolutely right on one point : the debate is far from finished.

@anonymous coward

You wrote

"time to sideline the PC regulators"

Also

"Adults must be free to make up their own minds what is or isn't suitable."

Of course they are free to do this. The reason for censorship is that CHILDREN don't watch material made for ADULTS.

If anything you should direct your ridiculous argument at Sony and Nintendo. Those are the companies that prevent you from buying AO games. Read the article again and show some comprehension.

@Anonymous Coward

Providing that the CGI depraved filth is effectively fulfilling the wierdos desires and thus reducing the number who feel compelled to act out their sick fantasies in real life, I'm all for it. The question is, of course, whether it does actually substitute for the real thing, or whether it increases their desire for it. The debate on that has really only just begun.