I find it interesting that the only article I've read on this issue (and I study this intensely, so I've read a lot) that actually gives both sides of the argument is one on a gaming website. Bravo, Gamespot. Bravo. ' ' I do think video game addiction is real: I'm not about to deny that. My problem comes when that fact is used against video games. Video games are the most emotional and effective form of storytelling the world has yet seen, and they also create a very compelling sport through their multiplayer. Many, many amazing things are potentially addicting, but even alcohol and smoking, both of which have some pretty terrible effects on the consumer, are socially accepted, as long as the user uses discretion. Why is it, then, that a potential addiction to an incredible, powerful, and potentially beneficial art form is used to prove that it should be strictly controlled, if not banned? ' ' Video game addiction is real: but it is not a logically sound weapon to use in the battle against video games.

Umm... great article, but one GLARING omission. Where the heck was the Fatal Frame series?!? I have never experienced fear as I have in those games. I could see them in both the abrupt scares and the atmospheric tension sections, but they never made an appearance at all!!! And the fact that you had to go into first person mode to fight something that already scared the crap out of you was genius!!! Any love for Fatal Frame?