I watched “Team America” last night. My wife had actually added it to our Blockbuster Online queue. I was thinking that it would be like the old “Thunderbirds,” with Trey Parker’s & Matt Stone’s offensive edginess. Even with that mindset, it was pretty banal. There were some genuinely funny parts like Kim Jong Il and the Film Actors Guild. We might have been more restrained in our enthusiasm because my mother-in-law was watching it with us!

Here's an idea: let's petition Gamespot to add a field to user reviews that tracks how much money we spend to enjoy a particular game. I know that my perception of a game's value is shaded by the amount of money that I paid for it. For example, I'll have higher expectations after paying full-boat for a game like Mechassault 2 than if I rent it, pick up a used copy, or wait for its price to go down.

This idea should be pretty easy to sell, since the data we provide would also give game publishers better insight into the perceived street value of their titles. Here are some recent personal examples:

• Red Dead Revolver (Xbox) - free rental as part of Blockbuster Online subscription;
• Psychonauts (Xbox) - bought used from a friend, somewhere between its buy back price and its used price from EBGames;
• Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PC) - $30 on sale from CompUSA.

Those are all examples of games that I think were a good deal -- they'll have a lot of value for the price I paid. Here are some examples of games that provided little value:

• Mechassault 2 - $45 new from EBGames
• Doom 3, Collector's Edition (Xbox) - $60 new from EBGames

At the end of the day, it's not just about playing the best-rated games. It's also about optimizing our ability to support our hobby.

I find this whole scenario pathetic. I have to download and install a mod -- even if it only toggles one bit somewhere in the game code -- to access the "hot coffee" content. To find it on the PS2 version, I have to use some equipment I don't even own (a GameShark, or some sort of device). I'd say that for most normal console gamers, this content is sufficiently hidden to avoid consideration in the game's rating. And for the PC gamers, they could more easily do a Google search on "sex" and find much more lascivious content than the stuff in this game.

Should Rockstar have disclosed the existence of the code to the ESRB? Probably. At the same time, I wonder why there is such a fuss about children being exposed to this content, when children shouldn't be playing it in the first place? Whatever happened to parents being responsible for the games they let their children play?

"But that's the whole point of the ESRB, and giving it an 'AO' rating," I hear you cry. You miss the point. An "M" rating should be enough of a warning to begin with. If the parents of a twelve year-old allow him or her to play "GTA:SA," then I believe that there are two options. The first is that they are ignorant of the game's themes, and would be shocked to learn just what their precious child is playing, with or without Hot Coffee. The second option is that they are fully aware of these things, that they have decided their child can be exposed to the game without adverse affects, and therefore would not be incensed to learn about this new twist.

Now let us consider "Manhunt," another Rockstar gem with an "M" rating. Its theme is focused on the making of "snuff films" that depict hyper-brutal murders. As the player, you are rewarded for initiating grotesque executions. I ask you: which game concept is more disturbing? Which one is appropriate for children?

Give yourself a point if you answered "Neither of them."