Huh, I'm surprised how many people agree with Bob about this and his other "PC gaming is dying opinion."
To start, just because they bring out a new American football game each year or so does not make it a massive rip off. They frequently do that with games, and as long as it makes people happy it shouldn't matter. I mean take a look at the final fantasy franchise, they are up to 14 or more since I last checked and I have heard mostly great opinions and recommendations about it. Pokemon is another example, the story lines are roughly similar in each game, there is one diabolical group that has its eyes set on doing something heinous. You battle this evil group, you win, through this process you usually get a way to get to a legendary Pokemon, you then fight the toughest trainers to win the game. But people still praise and adore Pokemon when they pretty much just add new animals from game to game.
One part of the show really got to me though, "Michael Vick should be singled out and denied" This is extremely asinine (from my opinion), if that were to happen, you would just destroy Michael's career as a footballer and his humanity. It is on the blood spattered pages of history where we learn that humans cant all single someone out peacefully, there would be violence and riots over something frivolous like being on the front cover of a game. If he is STILL in the running to be on the front cover then clearly people like him as an athlete, and for a game about football, it should have a strong and good football player on it.
America is a republic, a democratic country, so shouldn't everyone at least be given their fair chance in a competition or vote? Yes this guy did go to jail for doing something awful, there is no denying that, but he did do his time and he should be given a fair right. If you disagree with the severity of his sentence then that is something to be taken up with the courts, not something to be taken up with him and the community after he has served his alloted time. When people wont stop letting the past of others go, they end up demonizing them and ruining their lives. Its probably not just one man (Bob) singling out Michael Vick here, there are probably thousands of people who still remember him, and many of those people would treat him like shit if they met him.
Another few lines from the review that got to me
"I know he served his time, I don't care. I know he's trying to turn his life around, not good enough. I'm also aware that he had a really good season, I really don't care and I'm aware that some people don't think its such a big deal because its just a dog."
I will agree with Bob that the murder of animals is a big deal, and should be taken a bit more seriously. But the other factors of the aforementioned lines are quite disturbing to say the least, if the man is trying to turn his life around how is that not good enough? Yes I understand he murdered dogs 4 years ago, but if he has changed or is trying to change he should be given some credit. At least he didn't just go back to what he was doing because he didn't give a shit. If a man used to be a problem to his family due to alcohol, and he went to a rehabilitation clinic and he had stopped drinking alcohol for 4 years you would stop giving him trouble for it, wouldn't you?
Another part of the aforementioned quotes was "I'm also aware that he had a really good season, I really don't care." This is still a massive factor as to why he is being put on the front cover of a game. If he was a great guy in real life, but a bad footballer who the hell would put him on the front cover of the game? The contest for the front cover should be based upon athletic abilities and prowess, not personality and history.
Look, if kids pick up madden 2012 and see Michael Vick's face on there (which will probably be masked by a helmet anyways) they are not going to say "Lets go and murder some helpless animals!" They are probably not going to say anything regarding Michael Vick, but if they did I would imagine it would be along the lines of "Lets go outside and throw the football around, maybe we can be great footballers." People on the escapist continuously say that video games don't provoke violence and anger in children, or give them bad ideas, so how does Michael Vick's face being on a game cover affect anyone negatively?
Although I respect Bob's opinion on many things I think this and the last time he has talked about gaming I have been disappointed. I am not going to go into my opinions about the whole "PC gaming is dead" scenario, but I would like to say that perhaps he should review and talk about aspects of movies. Because he is good at reviewing movies and he is good at picking up on key aspects in films. I don't think he is particularly good at making his case for things regarding games like "PC gaming is dead" (which it hardly is) and "Michael Vick shouldn't be on a sports game because of a troubled past."
Other than that, it was an enjoyable video and it didn't sink into "BECAUSE HE IS A BAD MAN!" too many times which is a problem in most rants and complaints.