Congrats! Your article was picked for this week's Editors' Picks!

This review, and many others, miss the essential point of the majority of the critics. It's not about the rather bland violence in this game. Most people who are against this game realize it is not a Columbine simulator. Instead, it is the fact that the marketing suggests the idea that it is appropriate fodder for fun and entertainment to abuse your peers. The fact that so many critics have been bullied and belittled for speaking out only further justifies those concerns.

Ok so as the authour of this review i'd liked to make a few points.

First and foremost THIS IS A REVIEW. It's meant to rate the game on it's merits not give a divine social commentary on the whole Bully controvery. So critizing my review for not properly addressing the critizism of marketing is kind of a moot point don't you think? My few references to the critics are largely meant as satirical entertainment. A way of making my review a fun read for the bulk of gamer kind.

Now as for the issue of Bully being marketed as entertainment based on abusing your peers. So what? Are you saying that it's the marketing that's doing harm and not the end product? I'm afriad i just don't follow your line of logic, although i'd love to hear a clarification.

As for the number one complaint of the critics, the ones who claim this game will incite further violence, How the hell can you think so lowly of your children? Have you no faith that they're smart enough to know bullying is wrong? And if not isn't it your job as a parent to educate them on that issue?

I'm with ya, Jason. Bully won't inspire violence among children any more than KMFDM inspired Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to open fire at Columbine. Lack of parental presence, guidance and love are the reasons why kids go astray, period. There are a million kids who play Doom and don't shoot other kids. There are a few that do, but to link violnet video games and violence together is an association fallacy.

IMHO, of course, which, admittedly, is anything but H.

Actually Tim there is an easily shown link between real violence and violence in video games, but what that link is, is often ignored by both sides.

There is no doubt in my mind and little doubt in studies that violent people play video games. It's a correlation, that means the two are related. The thing is that violent people play video games becasue violent people like violent things. Video games don't cause them to be violent, they were already that way. Video games just happened to be something that they enjoyed.

In other words there is a shown and proven correlation, but there is no proven causation.

You're probably right. I barely passed my logic class in college. My point is that a child who plays violent video games and has loving, involved parents to watch over them and guide their moral compass is pretty damn unlikely to pull a Columbine, or anything like it.

And on that we can agree.

On Halloween, Gary even dresses up as a Nazi officer (sans the arm band), which is the prefect fit because his character, much like the Nazi's, tries to use charisma and power to dominate others.

Did you mean 'prefect fit' there, as in 'Gary's a Nazi prefect' or was that a typo?

I've just started playing the game and it's neat, but a bit tiresome to be always running from point to point, don't they have bicycles in this school?

What i'm trying to say is that dressing up as a Nazi on Halloween fits with Gary's character because Gary is a character who uses power and charisma to dominate the minds of others just like the Nazi party.

The Nazi's gained power in Germany because they had charismatic leader's like Adolf Hitler Joseph Gobbels that presented arguments with a tone and mannerism that bred confidence in the people and rallied them together.