Ok, after watching it a couple of times, I think I know what it's getting at:
1. The games shown are best-selling titles of the PS2. If there is a war, it seems to imply, we won't see any more of these kind of games because the war will hurt Sony's economy.
2. All of the characters choose non-violence, so even in a fictional world where there is no real consequence for your action, one can still choose not to act violently.
The commercial is actually pretty cogent. I am not for this war, but I as well am getting tired of the ant-war fanaticism (to me it's akin to Calvinism). Though, one point:
-For one to enjoy such games, one has to act violently within the game world. Otherwise, it would be boring. Sony produces games that absolutely require one to act violently within the gameworld to have fun. But now the company is trying to portray themselves as advocates for peace. I realize a lot of gamers are against this war, as am I, but to invoke such a ardent vision of 60's "peace" seems a bit over board to me. To me, violence in games is necessary to show the general condition of humanity: we have and always will use violence to solve problems.
Over-analyzed? Yes. I'll shut up now.
<small>[ February 12, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: tsumake ]</small>
