Pixar and 90s Disney movies were excellent examples of entertainment of scale. Adults found value which passed over the children's heads. By Carrie's definition it has some intellectually adult value but still retains the appeal for younger--many still innocent--viewers.

The "adult" bits of content relegated to consumption only by adults are, by their natures the items the mature wisely see as being not fit for immature minds. So, then does Jaffe's comparison of games to the prurient medium apply? Is pr0n the print media equivalent of video games' visual positioning? Really, why do we play and what is it we are looking to gather from our gaming? If you are after titilation, other media are really geared to satisfy that itch (if you are into that sort of thing), but the violence has no generally accepted substitute in society.

I love engaging movies. I was raised on classic action movies, which I found somewhat disturbing to my tender mind. I have one documentary for every four "popular" movies in my film collection. Both have place within my consumption habits. I have Metal Gears mixed in with my Halos and my Puyo Puyos and my Final Fantasies. Each is a media complement, though they are economic substitutes for one another.

Reading Conor's dissertation on the profundity of an interactive media experience was an existential exploration of my inner voice and the tilting, sometimes divisive, wants swirling within my consciousness.

Truly a tit for Carrie's tat, both without the trite "but on the other hand" segue.