Dumb game, dumb criticism

Kotaku is ragging on Midway for putting out "Narc", an update to the early '90s arcade game in which you play an anti-drug cop out to take down dealers. And by take down, I mean "blow off the heads of".

But in the new version, you can opt to take the drugs yourself. Smoking a reefer makes everything slow down, like in "The Matrix" or "Max Payne". Doing crack makes you a "crack" shot. Popping ecstasy mellows everything out.

For the record, I have no interest in playing the game. Drugs have never held any fascination for me.

But for some reason, Kotaku climbed on a high horse to denounce the game, calling the developers "disconnected from reality" and dispensing wisdom like "most cops are good".

They conclude with the whinge: "Nice to know we're opening another avenue for game-related lawsuits."

Funny, I don't recall them saying that when "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" came out.

The whole lawsuit thing strikes me as a cop-out. The implication is simple: developers should not take a chance on games that might offend people.

But why is Kotaku yammering about social responsibility when it comes to drugs, but not when it comes to guns, driving, street fighting, or rolling cars, houses and barnyard animals into giant balls? Huh? What about that stuff?

And what they don't mention (this is all based on a NY Times article) is that the game doesn't exactly portray drug use as without consequence.

Addictions would kick in at different levels. Crack addiction required two uses. Another drug would require six. To get clean, players would have to win a coordination challenge that involved steadying a moving icon while their character writhed in agony.

Yeah, that's going to make me run out and shoot up.

Like film, video games are a broad medium. I wouldn't let a young kid watch "Pulp Fiction" or "Scarface", nor would I let him play "Narc" or "GTA: San Andreas".