Been playing lots of GTA lately. I sort of passed on the PS2 games because I was turned off by the fact that everyone that I knew who played them used ridiculous amounts of cheats and skipped cut-scenes. In other words, I basically grew up conditioned to believe that GTA was less of a legitimate game and more like a sandbox. After recently deciding to jump into GTAIV, I've been punching myself for not acknowledging these games earlier. Although, who can blame me? Again, no one ever showed me how serious or intelligent these games were. Come to think of it, none of my gaming friends have acknowledged its amazing storytelling potential... ever. I can't be blamed for that. Really, GTA is gaming narrative at its finest. Subtle, talky, and immersive in impressive ways that no other game has been (emphasis on "subtle"), while longer and more emotionally involving than movies (or books written in second-person, for that matter) can be. I've been searching for this "holy grail" since I first discovered Fina Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid on the original PlayStation; it pains me greatly that it was so obvious from the get-go, but it's even more painful to know that no one cared enough to point it out.

I've realized that major players in the artistic world don't consider games art because most fans of artistic games aren't good at articulating what makes them so creatively valuable. While high-profile games that heavily feature story-telling, such as Guns of the Patriots, have huge followings, their artistic value as a progression of the medium are vastly misinterpreted by their many fans. These gamers, despite acknowledging their games as a viable story-telling medium, themselves don't look at gaming as they might film or literature, which causes a huge overestimation of the game's artistic proficiency. For example, look at Guns of the Patriots. Rarely is a game ever produced with such professionalism; however, when comparing it to, say, Apocalypse Now or Catch-22, one comes to realize that the game is bereft of nearly all subtlety, and thus bereft of well-implemented humanistic theme, irony, or any other greater meaning. This is not to say that the game does not have importance culturally; as I have said before, its production value is unparalleled, its level of social commentary is rare, and - to top it off - it's immensely successful commercially. This has happened little, if ever, in the world of video games. However, looking at the industry - and the subject of games as art - as a whole, Guns of the Patriots signifies merely a bump in the road, an obstacle that must be overcome in order to progress. The game is is the equivalent of the industry standing - it's good that it's stood, but in order to accomplish anything it must walk, then run, and beyond. We must applaud Guns of the Patriots for its nearly-unheard-of feat, but we must not treat it as our future, as the height of the industry, but rather as the new low that we must strive for. In order for games to achieve overall cultural integration and importance, they must prove themselves to be on the level of other media. Anyone can tell a story and tell it with polish, as Kojima has, but it's indubitable that there is still a wide gap between Metal Gear and even the lowest rank of merited literature.

As my Christmas loot is smaller than usual, I'm forced to be more selective with my purchases. At the same time, Rock Band DLC (Downloadable Content - extra songs) has been something to which I've looked forward for a long time, having carefully compiled lists of the songs and albums I'd absolutely love to add to my library. Surprisingly, here I am, with available resources, hesitating. Scarcity is the basis of the economy. When it comes to items obtained digitally (i.e. iTunes music/movies, game content, games themselves) I have to now wonder why I should pay for them. After all, there's absolutely no marginal cost associated with my obtaining them. The explicit cost of delivering such content to me (or any number of thousands) is going to be no larger than the cost delivering the content to only one person. I understand that there is opportunity cost related to the development time of downloaded content (specifically games themselves). However, fifteen dollars is a bit much to cover one extra "unit" being "produced" (one extra download). Simply, if a $15-$20 game (Braid, Ratchet and Clank: Quest for Booty, Penny Arcade: On the Rain Slick Precipice of Darkness) were only five dollars, there would be many more downloads, a likely increase in revenue, and an all-around more efficient deal for the consumer and (hesitating to use the word) producer. I'm now questioning whether or not I'll ever download another Rock Band song - or such genius experiences as Braid or World of Goo - simply because I feel that my money is better spent on an item or service that actually costs someone else some amount of money to have it delivered. The whole system stems from the fact that the hardware companies charge for digital "shelf space" when, again, it costs them next-to-nothing to provide. When it comes to paying for digital goods, we are paying - via the software companies - for the money that the hardware company is losing by offering their products at consumer prices lower than what it had cost them to produce. Use caution, lest your money literally disappear into the void.

There's a fine line between this game being really challenging or just plain broken. I can't tell you how many times I've failed on Jumpin' Jack Flash on Sweatin' mode because I got 100 points on a note instead of 300 points. Aside from that, this is probably one of my favorite handheld games.

So one day, with the impending launch of the Wii in mind, I got to thinking... I was once proud to admit that Twilight Princess was the only reason I was going to get a Wii... and then I said to myself.. "Twilight Princess is the only reason I'm getting the Wii?! No thanks.." I'm sticking with my 360 'til next year. Sony releasing even worse launch games than Microsoft is barely acceptable, and the Wii's aren't any better at a glance. I have enough games to buy.

Katamari Damacy, $20, 8.7

We <3 Katamari, $30, 8.4

Me and My Katamari, $40, 8.0

Hmmm

While I don't doubt for a second that Blu-Ray will outdo HD-DVD, I believe that it won't be very successful.

Apparently, Sony believes that next-generation gaming comes in the form of HD and Blu-Ray.

The thing about this is that not enough people have an HDTV.

Yes, there are the poor saps who will waste their money for a PS3 when they own a s***ty 1996 RCA, but I think that if people took a good look at exactly what the PS3 is trying to do, they would find that to get the most out of their money, they would need to own an HDTV.

The HD era seems to be forced upon the consumer by console makers. It's just not necessary yet. I'm happy with my DVDs and so is the rest of the f***ing world.

And he won't stop making fun of me ='(

*emo cry*