Phil Harrison, president of Sony Computer Entertainment's Worldwide Studios, recently said that more than 100 games are currently being developed for PlayStation 3, which is due to arrive this fall. I find this to be a curious statement, because:

1) That seems like quite a lot of games since game makers just started getting
developer kits for the final, finished hardware design.

2) According to Gamespress.com, which isn't the Bible of course, there are
currently 33 titles scheduled for release on the PS3 between now and the end of
2007, including Call of Duty 3, Stranglehold, and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas.
That's a far cry from 100. Surely, there are many titles in the works that
haven't been announced yet. But by my math, that would mean that a third of all
PS3 titles are currently unannounced and flying under the radar, which makes no
sense from Sony's point of view because they want big titles to hype their new
console.

Something's fishy here. I'm not saying that Sony and Harrison are exaggerating,
but I'm puzzled nonetheless. I think the company may be feeling the heat after
being showed up at E3 by Nintendo and Wii, which has continued to steal Sony's
thunder in the ensuing months with its lower price point and allegedly shorter
game development cycles. Now comes word that Ubisoft is absolutely ga-ga over
Wii and has seven titles in development for the console.

I guess that's what bothers me. Sony has reeked of desperation and its
executives have been very defensive since PS3 fizzled at E3. I'd feel a lot
better if game developers and publishers were more vocal in their support of the
new console and were enthusiastically announcing exclusive, blockbuster titles
for PS3. Instead, it just seems like developers and publishers are tepidly
defending Sony out of loyalty rather than heralding the console as a result of
true excitement.

The console makers are on to a winner with these so called "micro transactions", providing relatively cheap add on content for games via digital download. Microsoft's Xbox Live Marketplace is the first example we've seen get released into the wild, with people buying credit (and that's a critical part of the equation) for people to spend on items ranging from wallpapers to customise their console to add on maps and items for games.

Some of the stuff, like the Oblivion horse armour for example, has received a mixed reception from gamers. However they have been spending their credit, and Call of Duty publisher Activison has reported that they have sold almost $1 million in expansion maps for CoD 2, the most played multiplayer game on Xbox Live.

That's a serious amount of ongoing revenue intake, but the really surprising thing is that people have also been spending their credits to purchase things that, in the past, PR and marketing types would pay you to take. Things like wallpapers, to "customise" your desktop, can only be provided through the Xbox Live Marketplace, and so it is a sellers market. People have been literally buying promotional materials - only, when you spend "1000 credits" as opposed to "$12.50" it makes the medicine go down that bit easier.

Of course, a stingy person might point out that in games like Day of Defeat: Source and Red Orchestra we're getting bonus materials just as good as the Call of Duty map packs for free. Indeed, there was a time (once upon a better time...) when we got map packs for free. EA have tried selling smaller expansions for PC games, like the Battlefield 2 booster packs, and the exercise has largely been a failure. It seems that this sort of success story for publishers will only work in the highly managed, "sellers market", of something like the Xbox Live Marketplace or Sony's upcoming answer on the PlayStation 3.

I don't want to sound like, well, one those guys. You know, the guy that always claims that sequels suck and everything old is good and everything new is crap. They constantly lament about how the "old stuff" from [fill in the blank with any rock band] is much better than the "new stuff." They whine and pine for the glory days of movie-making, for example, while arguing that today's video games are weaker despite the more intense and realistic visuals.

But here's the thing. Sometimes they're right. And for the small number people
out there that indirectly warned me that Call of Duty 2 was just okay and didn't
measure up to the original, well, I'm sorry I didn't listen.

I had been dying to play Call of Duty 2. The original Call of Duty blew me away
and easily ranks on my top 5 best first person shooters ever. It was visceral,
it was grand, and it was bloody brilliant. So when Call of Duty 2 came out, I
figured it couldn't miss. Word of mouth as well as many reviews were very kind
to the sequel, especially the Xbox 360. Well, I can't say I've tried the 360
version yet, but I have played the PC and Mac version of the title (which I own)
and here's basically what I got for my $50.

Same graphics.
"New" missions that seemed eerily similar to previous CoD games.
Smoke grenades.
A "grenade indicator."
No health meter (instead, you get a red, blurry screen and panting/gasping that
sounds as if it's been lifted from a porno).

Here's the thing. If I had never played CoD 1 or the United Offensive expansion
pack, well, I probably would have rated CoD 2 as a pretty rockin' game. But to
play a game that takes the same formula/graphics/outline of the original and
adds very little -- well, it just feels more like a glorified expansion pack
than an all new sequel. All in all, it was a short and uninspired game that
immediately made my top 10 list of most disappointing sequels. The multiplayer
functions on CoD2 are good, but I've never judged a game's merit on its
mutliplayer death matches first. One thing I had hoped to see changed was the
NPC functions (seriously, tons of allied soldiers get chewed up on some of the
campaigns yet somehow replacements soldiers materialize out of thin air and you
never seem worse for the wear); it would be great to be able to give orders,
make critical decisions during battle, and see the missions depend more on
protecting your troops, for example.

It'a hard to fault Activision or Infinity Ward; they're raking in the dollars
from CoD2, especially on Xbox Live for the 360 [see Aaron's post below]. But
unless they come up with some new developments for Call of Duty 3 -- how about
more detailed NPC interaction? Maybe a little more strategy? -- then I won't be
making a third tour of duty with this one.

Aaron and I, in addition to being co-authors and proud loving parents of this young blog, are very opinionated writers who have made a career out of arguing and debating various issues in the video game world. We've discussed issues such as video game violence, female gamers, and politically sensitive games and we've kept it civil for the most part -- unlike Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, the famous movie critic duo from the TV show "Siskel & Ebert at the Movies." I can only hope that when the day comes that some poor soul decides to put Aaron and I on video that we can match the wit, chemistry and heartwarming bond that Ebert and the late Gene Siskel shared with each other.

Check out the YouTube clips below.

href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzNXZPv65k">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=syzNXZPv65k

href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp0e3j_b8g">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=Frp0e3j_b8g

There has never been a better time to buy an Xbox than right now this second, I've decided to myself. In fact, I decided it to myself with the launch of the Xbox 360, but I'd like to reiterate the point since I've just returned from a lunch hour excursion in which I saw quite an amazing sight.

In a major game retail store they were (and please do excuse the euro pricings, just think in your native equivalent currency and all will be well) selling an Xbox for €90. Or, you could grab one with 5 games (decent ones at that, spreading the spectrum of fighten' and driven') for €150. And then, beside these now "retro" consoles, were games going for €30. Actually, they were going for €15 as there was a straight up "Buy one, get one free" offer. A "BOGOF" offer in the video gaming sphere is about as common as good music aimed at 14 year olds.

Every game we've been told is so, so bloody great over the past two years was there. This was no display of the shoddy wares that the Game group want to offload onto the streets - this was a display of the great games that the Game group wants to offload onto the streets.

When you consider that an Xbox 360 game costs €75, or €15 less than you can get an Xbox for these days, and even a PlayStation Portable, with no games, is gonna set you back €205 (at least in this particular store), well you begin to see, if you're not an avid Xbox player, how becoming one can be such an appealing financial alternative.

The MMORPG Second Life has been living up to its namesake for many, with various groups even hosting concerts there; and now one of the worlds more prodigious PR firms, Text 100, is setting up a virtual office within the game world.

Second life allows users to create their own objects and world, being a very free-form game in which real currency can change hands for everything from real estate to BDSM kit. Now Text 100 have moved a business arm into the world in order to "work with clients on how Second Life may benefit their businesses by facilitating virtual press conferences or new ways of demonstrating products to employees or customers." The firm is also hoping to conduct staff training in the complex which features a welcome centre, an amphitheatre, and information centre.

"We view virtual worlds as the next stage in the evolution of peer-to-peer media like blogs, wikis, social networks and other online forums," said Georg Kolb, EVP, and leader of the peer media practice at Text 100. "Having a presence in Second Life will enable us to explore, innovate, educate and collaborate on a next generation communications platform."

Can't say I wouldn't mind a job at said virtual office...

Dammit, what is it with this industry? It would seem that the gaming business fraternity is so afraid that it won't have enough time (a year? Two?) to hype up a game that we get the announcements severely prematurely and then have to undergo a long spate of delays and disappointments. The great hope for many high-brow gamers at the moment is Will Wright's upcoming Spore - first announced in 2005 at the GDC, slated for a late 2006 release, shunted to the "TBD" land of ether and now finally into the second half of 2007.

That is to say, the game has been delayed by anywhere up to a year of what we had originally expected. I say delayed in the loosest sense of PR wording, as any developer on the team probably might have been able to tell you that the game wouldn't hit the late 2006 release date - at least not in any genre defining form.

Stop prematurely announcing games! The entire games press will be there to fondle over it in a years time, and if you're someone like Will Wright then your GDC keynote is pre- booked every year, five years in advance. The correct announcement time for Spore would have at least been at this years GDC - is there not something slightly wrong when we have games scheduled to be released over a year from when they've been announced, only to have that delayed so that in reality it will come out two years after the announcement? Sheesh kebab lads.

The Xbox was a modders dream after it was cracked, enabling the console to be used for anything from pirated games to a file server. In the wake of this Microsoft had promised us that the Xbox 360 would be secured "at the silicon level", apparently making it very difficult to crack and the results even more difficult to replicate on multiple consoles.

Well in South Korea they're reporting a booming trade in modified Xbox 360's which allows copied discs to be played in the consoles DVD player, and Microsoft has gone from talking up its vaunted security to downplaying the piracy. The company is promising to fix any bugs such as this with patches and updates pushed through Xbox Live, reminding me somewhat of Sony's farcical ongoing back-and-forth with the homebrew crowd on the PlayStation Portable. One would crack the system, the other would release a patch, this would be cracked a few weeks later, another patch, rinse and repeat.

At the moment times are good for South Korean pirates, where the modification costs around KRW 70,000 (60 Euro); and pirated software is said to be readily available for as little as KRW 15,000 (12 Euro), compared to the standard retail price of around KRW 40,000 (33 Euro), says Gamesindustry.biz.

Can we please, please, pretty please get over Pac-Man at some stage in the next 20 years? The game is over 25 years old, as any

PR

hack associated with promoting it will tell you, and they say it as if it's a positive thing. Well, they would as they're trying to sell us more iterations of the famous arcade game, but I think that maybe it's time to move on a little - there's only so much innovation in the Pac-Man theory, and I daresay they exhausted it all in 1980.

Well, now Xbox 360 players, with all that raw graphic processing power, can get it on Xbox Live Arcade for a mere 400 Microsoft points - that's around $5 in real money. There's something about graphics which have been "upgraded to high-definition but still maintain the charm and retro-look of the original iteration" that seems like an oxymoron to me, but maybe I'm just not high-def enough.

Well, if you want to spring a fiver for a game that's possibly older than you are, be my guest.

It was bound to happen. We predicted it would happen. It's happening... E3 has been shrunk down to size, and now somebody else wants to replace it a new show, exactly the same as the old one. Big, glitzy, expensive, and ultimately self- defeating. Possibly not in the first year, or even in the second, but eventually it'll just become the untenable thing that E3 was this year.

The organisers of the Consumer Electronics Show, the big fish of big fishes where tech trade shows are concerned, have assembled what they're calling an "advisory committee to solicit gaming industry feedback and explore the viability of a West Coast event in late spring 2007 focused on the gaming and entertainment marketplace."

CES being in Vegas, maybe they'll stick it into that particular (proper) sin city, as our own Roberto wanted a while back. Down boy, you're a married man now, can't be at all that. Ultimately however this is a self-defeating exercise. It's one of those ideas that looks absolutely brilliant on paper, except for the fact that in practice it hasn't worked in the past - indeed, E3 isn't dead more than a couple of weeks at this stage.

I'm going back to bed now until somebody has a good idea. I need a good six month rest anyways...

The orgy that will be Star Trek's 40^th Anniversary in September is cooking up quite nicely, with Mad Doc pitching in their part by roping in some of Trek's biggest names for the development of Star Trek: Legacy.

The latest news is that all five captions, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer, will feature as voice actors, playing themselves, in the upcoming RTS which bears a striking resemblance to Bethesda's previous Trek outing, Armada. Well, we'll hope it has a little more polish than that.

Also on the Legacy team is legendary Trek writer D.C. Fontana, the woman who started out as Gene Roddenberry's secretary before becoming one of The Original Series' most important scripting figures; acting as script editor and submitting many of Trek's most memorable episodes along the way.

Well, we'll see what happens. We took a look at Legacy back during E3, for your viewing pleasure.

So there I am sitting in my office, minding my own business and sipping a glass of water when suddenly the telephone rings. "Aaron McKenna" I say, my usual greeting which is designed to preclude PR types from wasting any more of my time than necessary by asking to speak to me. Unfortunately, it just takes them unawares, they're not quite sure what I've said and simply ask to speak with Aaron McKenna. Ohh well, back to the story.

"Hello," the other end replies, "Could I speak to Aaron McKenna?" I sigh.

"Speaking. How may I help you? You bastard..."

"Sorry?"

"Nothing. Continue."

"Well, after the announcement of the downsizing E3 next year, the world has been paying attention to GSTAR... that is, Game Show & Trade, All-Round, to be held on November 9 - 12 in Korea."

Aha, I think to myself. Should I put the phone down? Well, that would be rude. I might need this person at some stage in the future. All the back rubbing in this greasy industry, it'd be bad for business. "I see. Could you tell me a little more?" I ask, fully aware that the git was going to tell me anyways, even if I did put down the phone. I'd probably be walking down the street and get dragged into a white van filled with nattering PR people if I hung up.

"The drastic downsizing of E3 will enable GSTAR to expand in size and content as well as establish an exhibition identity," the voice continued. "With the success of last year's show, GSTAR, focusing on online games emerging as highly growing game industry, has become the 'real marketplace' where generates good results for both exhibitors and visitors, unlike the other game shows that cause low success against the spiralling cost of attendance, in the midst of severe competition between the video console and packaged game companies."

Right. Ok. "Erm, send me the press release would you? I'll take a look and get back to you." Great, now I'm going to have to get back to him and think of some good questions. Because I'm honest like that. A bastard, but honest.

One good question which will appeal to my ever cynical outlook though might be "How exactly will it be more cost effective to attend a trade show in Korea?" E3 was costly to attend for the European developers and press, but for the US crowd it was mostly a matter of falling out of their front doors and landing in the LA convention centre. Well, I'm sure they'll have a good answer. WannabeE3Watch continues!

This must be considered the best news to hit the Star Trek franchise in some years. As Aaron points out below, Bethesda Softworks annouced today that all five actors who protrayed the Stark Trek captains on the relevision series -- William Shatner (The Original Series), Patrick Stewart (The Next Generation), Avery Brooks (Deep Space Nine), Kate Mulgrew (Voyager) and Scott Bakula (Enterprise) -- will provide their voices for the upcoming title Star Trek: Legacy.

Bethesda really knows how to please the fans. With the 40th anniversary of Star
Trek just weeks away (the first episode of the original series, "The Man Trap,"
aired on Sept. 8, 1966), the game developer wipped out the big guns for the
ailing franchise. And they don't get much bigger than this, as Legacy will mark
the first time the stars of all five Star Trek series have appeared in the same
game. The game, which puts players in the role of a Starfleet admiral who leads
a task force of ships, is being developed for the Xbox 360 and the PC and is
scheduled for take off this fall.

But perhaps even better than having all five captains is the news that acclaimed
Star Trek writer Dorothy "D.C." Fontana is co-writing Legacy. Fontana penned a
number of notable episodes for both the original series, The Next Generation and
Deep Space Nine. In addition, Fonanta wrote the script for the cancelled PC game
href="http://www.twitchguru.com/2006/07/20/the_best_games_never_published/page2.
html">Star Trek: The Secret of Vulcan Fury, which was a heavily hyped and
anticipated title that focused on the wars between the Vulcans and Romulans.
There are few details, however, about Legacy's story. But with all five captains
at the helm for the upcoming game, that's about all that's missing.

But Star Trek is going to need more than just a PC/video game to help bring back
the franchise. Poor scripts and unispired writing, coupled with a puzzling lack
of direction from former producers Brannon Braga and Rick Berman, has left Star
Trek in worse shape than the Enterprise at the end of of The Wrath of Khan
(speaking of, is that the U.S.S. Reliant in the photo above?). It's been pretty
much all downhill since Deep Space Nine concluded in 1999 (and what a conclusion
that was); Voyager was pretty much a disgrace and Enterprise has some good
moments (mmmmm, T'Pol...) but wasn't able to pull it together before being
cancelled during Season 4. And please, don't get either Aaron or I started about
Star Trek: Nemesis -- that made Star Trek V: The Final Frontier look like
freakin' "Hamlet."

So currently, we're left with no Star Trek TV series other than the fan-created
series Star Trek: New Voyages. Right now, we're left with the rumor-filled Star
Trek XI (that's eleven for all you non-Romans). All that we know is that J.J.
Abrams (TV's "Lost," "Mission Impossible III") is produced the film and may
direct as well. Everything else -- Matt Damon as Kirk? Philip Seymour Hoffman as
Bones? BEN AFFLECK as SPOCK!!!!!! -- is a bunch of Internet rumors.

I'll say this -- if they can get all the captains together for a game, then by
God, they should be able to get a decent TV series back on and make a good Stark
Trek XI.

...Though we're told there won't be any cheap Sony copycat attempts with motion sensitivity just yet.

This is the news that Microsoft will be (hopefully) releasing a separate extra controller for the Xbox 360 which will replace the already much lauded standard one for the purpose of playing first- person shooters; a genre of games not immediately suited to a console controller even as good as the 360's one.

If it is introduced, the new controller will have a redesigned right analogue stick (the equivalent of a mouse in most console control systems) to allow for more precise movements, we're told.

What Microsoft won't be doing quite so immediately is releasing, or even announcing, anything to do with motion sensitivity. To heck, let Nintendo chart that ground and Sony make themselves look like a bunch of eejits I say.

No, adult arcades doesn't mean what you think it means (get your mind out of the gutter, Aaron). Rather, adult arcades and rec (recreation rooms) are the senior citizen equivalents of video game arcades. The elderly patrons of these adult "arcades" aren't playing Doom or Pac-Man; instead, they're playing video poker, slot machines and other games you'd typically find in a Las Vegas casino. There's just one problem -- while gambling is legal in Vegas and a few other regions in the U.S., it is not legal in Florida. And therein lies the rub.

Florida, which boasts a tremendously large senior citizen population, has a
number of adult arcades and rec rooms. For years, these businesses would pass
themselves off as nothing more than a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant for retirees --
indeed, they exploited an exemption to state gambling laws called the Chuck E.
Cheese exemption, which allows coin-operated games that require a level of skill.

In case you missed it, this issue gained national attention this week when an
adult aracade owner named Gale Fontaine, who was on trial in Florida for running
an illegal casino, was acquitted of the charges by a jury of her peers. Fontaine,
who owns the Tropicana Rec Room in Pompano Beach, Fla., is also president of the
Florida Arcade Association. Again, the FAA is not what you think it is. The
industry advocacy group has nothing to do with actual video games.

The state attorney's office in Broward County, Fla., brought the charges against
Fontaine as part of a statewide crackdown by Florida on the adult arcade
industry, which has grown rapidly in recent years. Why? Well, because they do
have slot machines, which are gambling machines, right?

Wrong. According to Fontaine's defense attorney and the FAA, the rec rooms don't
qualify because the slot machines "require an application of skill." A level of
skill? Come again? Anyone who has ever played any type of slot machine know
definitely that the only skill involved is the ability to press a button or pull
a lever. There's a reason that slot machines are called "one-armed bandits."

Yet somehow, the jury allowed Fontaine and the FAA to exploit a ridiculous
loophole big enough to drive a truck -- or a bus-load of senior citizens --
through it. Now other adult arcades like the Tropicana Rec Room will masquerade
under the guise of being a Chuck E. Cheese or other video game arcades.

A crowd of supports cheered the verdict and the now-free Fontaine. Protesters
who felt the state was unjustly persecuting elderly Floridians were shouting
"Right to play! Right to play!" -- even though, as common sense would dictate,
no such right exists. This is hardly fair, though it's understandable why a jury
and even some politicans would cave to the desires of the state's senior citizen
population and its formidable lobby. But it's upsetting for me, because while
the elederly in Florida get to circumvent the law and GAMBLE, which is illegal
in the state and also clearly addictive, real video gaming continually comes
under fire from experts and legislators who want to outlaw or excessively
regulate it.

There's an old saying: what's good for the goose should be good for the
granny.

A wise man once said that when it comes to the world of sports media, you can always find someone to take the other side of the argument no matter how far- fetched or absurd it may be. Sports writers will call Terrell Owens a great teammate, and they'll say Tom Brady is overrated.

Apparently, the rules of sports media can now apply to technology. Despite all
the negative press reports, despite all of the recent misteps from Sony, despite
the big lead that Xbox 360 has in the race and despite all the buzz around
Nintendo's Wii, one technology analyst firm has declared Sony's PlayStation 3 as
the clear winner in the U.S. next-generation console race. The Yankee Group
recently issued a report that predicts Sony will sell 30 millions PS3s in the
States by 2011 while Microsoft will sell 27 million 360s, capturing 40 percent
of the market and closing the gap on its chief rival.

The Yankee Group also reports that the Wii will be a big loser with just 11
million units sold, despite have a much smaller price point and a whole lot more
positive vibes out there. According to the report, Yankee Group analysts simply
don't believe the feel-good Nintendo nostalgia and glowing reviews from game
developers will translate into big sales for Wii. Also, the report notes that
console sales will be down overall compared to the previous PS2/Xbox/GameCube
cycle because of higher costs and confusion concerning the competing HD DVD and
Blu-ray formats.

Will Nintendo make the Yankee Group eat crow? Check back with us in five
years.

So apparently, says EAs big chief operating officer for worldwide studios David Gardner, the gaming industry is failing women. "We have all been talking about this for a long, long time," he says. Well, he's right about the talk part.

He's worried that the industry isn't reaching out to girls and women, lamenting that The Sims is just about the only thing they're interested in, and hypothesising that it's relationships and interaction, chat rooms, that the girls want. Well, EA tried that with The Sims Online, a game which has become something of an underage whore house if I recall correctly.

The Sims is, of course, the top game for female players - over half of all Sims players are female - but do we really understand why they're playing it? Has anyone checked recently to see if the girls are enjoying The Sims so as they can play Mommy and Daddy; or if they play it because they enjoy putting little sims into swimming pools, removing the ladders and seeing how long it takes for them to die?

Nobody seems to understand female gamers, and all we're continuing to do is talk about it. I think that that's all we can do, until the current generation of female gamers come of age and become developers. Men making games specifically for women doesn't work, most of the time.

So "Snakes on a Plane" finally debuted last week, and it seems that the movie studio's plan to bypass the critics and skip any advance screenings of the film didn't really help much (see Aaron's post last month for more details). The movie, which had generated a lot of hype and buzz over the last few months, only pulled in about $15.3 million at the U.S. box office over the weekend, according to New Line Cinema (however, other estimates put the bock office total at $13.95 million). The disappointing performance isn't that surprising when you consider the film is a glorified B-movie with cheesy CGI-made snakes and a ridiculous title.

There was one surprise over the weekend. According to news reports, someone
smuggled two live rattlesnakes into a movie theater in Phoenix during a
screening of "Snakes on a Plane" and let the reptiles loose among the audience.
Panic ensued, but luckily no one was hurt. The culprits, however, have yet to be
identified or apprehended. Now, I'm not saying that the rattlers were a
publicity stunt and that New Line is responsible. I'm just saying I wouldn't be
surprised; the movie's called "Snakes on a Plane," for crying out loud.

Ohh great, now even the impartial Beeb is getting on the "Ohh Holy Christ, Will Somebody Please Think Of The Children?!" bandwagon with regards to video game ratings; tussling with the question "Are there some games just too violent?"

Erm, "maybe, but who the hell are you to tell me what's too violent", would be my answer to that. "The game has an 18 certificate and should not be played by younger gamers. But should it even be played at all?" el Beeb asks of Reservoir Dogs, the really violent video game take on the really violent Quentin Tarantino movie of the same name.

Umm, hello, the "18" rating? Must I wave my arms about incessantly here? First of all, for my yank friends, allow me to explain. In the UK the "18" rating is not the same as its equivalent in the US of A. In the US an 18's rating condemns a game to porno shops. In the UK it's more seen as the upper limit - anything over 18's is for over 18's, and games like Grand Theft Auto get this rating, and everything is kosher, with mainstream retail outlets stocking the titles.

Now, the question being asked is "Should we ban games like Reservoir Dogs because they are too violent?" Which part of the Nanny State will be deciding what we can and cannot view and play, so? Living in liberal societies I daresay that we can view pretty much whatever the hell we want within the bounds of reason, thankyouverymuch, and if you begin to censor Reservoir Dogs today then tomorrow you'll be critiquing the perceived non-politically correct elements of Lemmings.

An 18's rating is an 18's rating: Anyone over 18 is an adult, capable of making adult decisions (and paying for them appropriately.) The big problem, of course, is idiotic parents who blissfully admit things such as "I've never really looked at ratings for games." Probably the same parents who would, in a knee-jerk, go all guns blazing for banning Reservoir Dogs.

I understand that many parents don't have a grasp of video gaming. But if you can't read a big red label with a number between "12" and "18" on it then perhaps we ought to consider banning you from parenting.