SJ, I don't play Call of Duty either, and Smash Bros. isn't realistic violence (or shooting/simulated kills either). Your character developing from a murderous loser to a murderous loser with more money and skills doesn't seem necessary to play. I don't need a "good" "go randomly kill" game since I'm not one of these people who apparently wants to destroy the world because he's got so much pent-up anger.
Saying people are "missing out" on any game is stupid.
Also, the adjective is "addictive" and not "addicting".
My point in using those particular games wasn't because you in particular play them, it was to make a point that you can say that about any game that's been hailed as a great game by the general population. I also didn't say you in particular have to play it, but what you are simplifying it to leads me to believe you haven't given the game a chance to be good to you because it doesn't appeal to you, the same way I don't understand what you, and others like you, see in those japan rpgs. The funny thing is that there is a strong gamer base for those sides of the fence, yet us in particular can't understand what the other sees in the game without coming to a conclusion that's seemingly a character attack on a person.
The specifics of what make GTA 4 good go beyond the primitive bases you present. The shooting mechanics in the game work better than anything previously in the series, reminding me of Resident Evil 4. The driving and racing levels also are more fun to play because the cars are well balanced and the A.I. gives a greater challenge. You also can't just go shooting people willy-nilly and expect to get anywhere in the game. That's basically a waste of ammo you'll need to help get through parts of the game where you much strategically decide weapon would be best against a certain group and ration ammo since it's expensive to purchase, much like you would in an RPG with magic spells and such. You could say "all the things you mention have been done by other games" but no other game has incorporated these elements and still held significance the way this title does. Even more so than previous iterations, which pale in comparison to this title (so if using those as a basis for not liking this title would be akin to not wanting to play Super Mario Galaxy because you didn't like Super Mario Sunshine)
The story, while your dumbing down could be considered correct, is complex and dramatic, reminding me of a mini-series or a movie. The graphics are also very good, with little to no hiccups even when there is a lot of action going on screen. There are over 200 songs in the game (but I somehow get the feeling you wouldn't enjoy any of them?) and the dialouge between the DJs in the game, while vulgar, is still funny.
Just because you kill doesn't make it a bad game. You "kill" some type of enemy even in a game like Mario Bros., and I'm sure there are kids out there that use Smash Bros. to dissolve that "pent up anger" you speak of.
Your argument that only those type of people need play GTA 4 is too broad and reminds of an individual that is close-minded. If you don't like the game, that's fine, go crazy on whatever import title you're salivating over now, but to completely base your opinion on the fact that you "randomly kill" would be like me saying all final fantasy games are bad because of "random battles", or that all puzzle games are bad because of "random pieces". While some games in those genres are bad for those reasons, there are some that just seem like "random" when in reality it's just part of the game (GTA, FF, and Tetris are examples from the three genres presented).
Saying someone is "missing out" on a game is not stupid- it may not be the most effective way to get the point across that you are depriving yourself of a work of art by not playing the game, but it's the same reply someone could use if you said you hated playing an instrument (someone could perceive this as "missing out" of a good opportunity to express themselves creatively, but telling them they are "missing out" doesn't mean they are less of a person, just means it a facet of life they will never get to experience or enjoy like you, or another person, does). If you want me to rephrase what I said, here:
I love the game, and I guess much like you all probably think I should try [insert japan-only RPG here] because you enjoy it and want to share the experience with others, I think the same about you and this game. It won't bother me if you don't like it, or don't want to play it, but don't assume that me enjoying this game makes me less of a person or categorizes me as something, can't I just like a game because I like the game?
Thanks for pointing out my grammatical errors, I hope you do the same for the above reply, that way each time I post I can be more efficient.
