Yeah, I have now vicariously played a little of GTA: San Andreas (as in I held the walkthrough of the list of graffiti tags to paint over while sstrickl found them all, I do not have the reflexes for the game), and they _can_ be played in a relatively clean fashion, though there will still be killin' in them. And the radio stations are marvelous. I am not sure whether you actually have to play them in an evil alignment to complete all of the in-game goals, in fact, though there are plenty of people who do so. We certainly had a blast doing what we were doing, and were pleased to be able to do so without compromising what we felt comfortable with. I know K had the same impression of Vice City (at least I think it was Vice City)-- he just avoided that stuff and enjoyed the sandbox aspects and the amusing cultural references.

Rockstar Games has perfected the inclusion of this material in order to drive sales with controversy. They're kinda like performance art for profit in that way-- it's very much part of their business model. I _do_ want the treatment of women to be mentioned in the review of this sort of game. I _do_ think it's relevant even if the reviewer is writing to the potential audience-- and when the hell has the NYTimes written solely to the potential audience? I've read a lot of really dumbass reviews of action movies by reviewers who didn't get the material, didn't understand the comic book predecessor, etc. So they _should_ be just as critical of GTA games in their reviews.