I doubt it. Lots of crap sells and gets sequels of it made. How do you think Hollywood works these days?

I was floored when I saw Joystick 101''s review of it. I know that they want more articles, but... well, I think this quote sums it up: ""The game is a failure because it is not violent enough.""

Personally, I expect a bit more from Joystick 101''s screening process.

Well at least it wasnt heralded as a bastion of ""mature"" gaming like the oh so mature and adult BMX XXX was

I can''t believe this many of you actually even bothered to play it. I read one interview with the develpers about 5 months ago and decided right then I never wanted to play this piece of crap. Here is an excerpt from a brilliant interview with the CEO of Running With Scissors on gamershell.

Since I''ve been defending the game on EA, I feel obligated to defend it here.

I enjoyed the game, and I think it merits serious, dispassionate criticism. Off the cuff comments such as ""I''m proud to say, I never touched it"" don''t contribute very much to the discussion.

I found the game worked best as sort of a sandbox-style game, in the sense that it was more fun to play with the underlying gameplay systems that to simply perform the stated goals. In the later part of the game, watching the battles that would spontaneously arise was fascinating, particularly when the pedestrian population was maxed and there were a large supply of AI entities for the battles to feed on.

Also, I played around with the settings and discovered that it was possible to set up the game so that the decals never faded out. This, coupled with setting the body count to max value created some amazing scenes. For sheer spectacle, I''ve not yet seen any game match the aftermath of the battles with these settings. Being able to slowly wander through an area after a raging battle and look at every bloodstain and bullet hole was really compelling and immersive. I don''t think there has been any comparable experience since Bungie''s Myth games (curiously, a company that has stated that they build compelling gameplay out of the emergent phenomena of interacting systems such as physics and AI). Also interesting was the fact that various unpredictable things seemed to happen around the player, the player wasn''t the sole agent of change in the world.

I was also impressed with the level design. They were no where near as pretty and polished as most current high-budgets FPSs, but the basic layouts were interesting and they contained lots of things to look at and discover.

I don''t see any value in RPG''s -- so what, you gain arbitrary level numbers by killing things, in order to... kill more things! Big deal. Graphics/AI can impress me, but as Gorey stated above, those can''t *make* a good game. Personally, I have no problem with games like Postal 2 or even 911 survivor. Who knows, maybe that game will even be done ""tastefully"" -- in either case I feel the creators have the right to make it without fear of harm.

I played the demo, and decided it was an inane title not worth my money.

For the first minute or so of play, I was entertained; I hadn''t read much about the game or Running With Scissors and thus didn''t have an opinion. But as I went on -- and I played the demo level several times -- I realized that Postal2 wasn''t intended to be a spoof or satire, but instead was just designed to be crude and disgusting for its own sake.

I think it depends on how much the art reflects the artist. If Running With Scissors, despite their asinine views, had tried to create a significant piece of work, then I''d be more open to considering it. But on a larger sense, video games are fighting for their right to be considered socially valuable, and RWS has made a conscious effort to piss all over that. I''m not suggesting developers should compromise their creative visions to mitigate social concerns, but that RWS is simply cashing in on their ability to be shocking, at a time when it actually is the most damaging to the hobby. I don''t think this should be regulated or openly deterred, but rewarding RWS by buying into their pointlessly anarchist vision might steer gaming in a direction I''d prefer to not see it go, and so I make a buying decision. I make the personal decision not to support RWS because I don''t value the company, I don''t value their approach to developing, and I don''t value their product. Whether they are a posture or not isn''t a productive argument for me. For intent or not, they''ve very carefully cultivated their image.

I wasn''t a huge Roman Polanski fan anyway, so it''s not an issue. But, I am conscious of who my money rewards. If a fugitive pedophile released a movie, game, or book, I doubt seriously that I would buy it. I may be able to appreciate the art of it, but I don''t have to contribute to his lifestyle.

I think there are two levels to supporting questionable art in our society. I think there is the aesthetic, where a person can say, ""I appreciate the creative ability that went in to producing this image, film, game, etc."" And, I also think one can appreciate the artistic value and at the same time say, ""I won''t reward the artist, because I so strongly disagree with his position, his past, his criminal history.""