Gaming websites are very, very popular. Traditionally they were popular as it was the place you went to (if you didn’t wait for the magazine copy) to get the first review of a game. A review was important, really important, as often the review was the first place where you could really find out the details of a release. However over the least five years, the review has become less and less relevant for the large budget ’super release’ games that are designed to hit the October to January release window.

A whole load of game, requiring a whole load of review.

The games due for release during that period this year such as Batman Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3, Skyrim, Uncharted 3 and so on have been previewed to the high heavens. We have seen a plethora of detailed written previews and, more importantly, huge amounts of streaming content. Some content has appeared in edited trailers, and others being over the shoulder camera footage of in-game content. Now this is not to suggest that games don’t need reviewing any more. Of course they do. However, it’s one thing playing the game for 10-30 minutes in bite sized chunks and another playing through the narrative and judging the experience in its entirety. Indeed recently we had the pleasure of previewing Bodycount, the new FPS from Codemasters. I’m happy to say that a ten minute playthrough showed the game had promise. Indeed for ten minutes it was quite fun. However, just see its Metacritic scores and read the well written reviews from a range of sites and it’s clear its content doesn’t hold together well for a full 5-10 hours (if you can get near to ten hours from it!) £40 game experience.

Looks great doesn't it! Plays great too for 10 minutes.

Yet, for many gamers, the reviews of these AAA releases about to be unleashed on us are superfluous. Many have already decided and pre-ordered. Myself included. Indeed the cult of the pre-order, often with the pre-order bonus, has increased this diminution of the role of the final review. To exacerbate the situation the publishers are giving out review copies closer to the release date on some titles, or due to the decreasing margins for websites the number of staff (and hence reviewers) are decreasing, whilst title lengths are increasing.

What does this mean in practicality? Reviewers sometimes play the game through on the easiest level setting. This might be followed by replays of select passages whilst on more extreme difficulty settings to test improved AI, and how the increase in difficulty measures up in terms of overall game experience. Of course, some areas of the game can’t be fully tested, such as many of the side missions (a requirement of many of the third person, open world games on the market) and it’s really hard to fully test the online part of a game before release in terms of robustness. Testing game modes though is something that we can all do, with many developers (not all though) offering open betas, often a month or more before release.

Uncharted 3 for example has had extensive testing, both for all PSN users and for PSN Plus users. Additionally, who interested in Battlefield 3 reading this has not played the BF3 beta that was available on PC and both consoles?

So what purpose does the review serve? Clearly some people don’t follow every article and preview. Some play on their console seasonally and are not aware of the betas. In addition there are still a healthy proportion of owners who don’t like playing online and for whom the single player narrative is the most important element. For them the review is still crucial; but even they have to accept that the degree of thoroughness a reviewer might have is limited and influenced by a great deal of pressure.

For everyone else, the review serves a different set of objectives. For some, they just enjoy games so much that they like reading about games (the same reason someone might choose to read a feature or commentary article like this). They like to see the energy and excitement a game can bring to a fellow game lover, and share in the glory of seeing someone else delight in a superb narrative and interactive experience.

However, there is also a negative reason to read reviews. Due to the betas, previews, video clips and hype games have focused upon them, they have fans and groupies before they even hit the shelves. This is where the review becomes a victim of the marketing machine. If the reviewer dares criticise or celebrate a game suddenly all the readers who have already made up their mind somehow feel personally violated and start attacking or supporting the review; and in some cases making it personal, focusing their attention on the reviewer.

"Modern Warefare 3 pisses on Battlefield 3. You got that? Say YES CHEF!"

This is an ugly and immature culture that is developing. It’s one thing to be into a brand, claiming that you really enjoyed previous incarnations – but to start attacking or supporting a game which you have not fully played is daft! Okay, so the reviewer might not have had the time to experience 100% of what the game offers, but at least they have the release copy and have had significantly more time with it than their readers.

Gaming has always had fanboys, but they mainly focused on arguing about consoles. When they did argue about games it was post release and they could claim to have played them. With publishers hyping games more and more, this situation will only get worse. Reviews will decrease and websites will turn to more news and feature based articles. Already some websites are encouraging reader reviews, which although democratising, can result in lower editorial standards across the industry as a whole.

Criticising is an art in itself. No reviewer has a divine right to know what is good or bad, but by playing a cross section of titles regularly they can develop a good knowledge of what is good, bad, inventive, well executed or clumsily brought to life. In a world where we are being bombarded with more and more content, via XBL, PSN, app stores, etc and still encouraged to purchase expensive £60 titles, we need ways of filtering out the bad from the good. Old fashioned reviewing is under threat and if it is eventually replaced by social reviews, we shall be worse off without it.

Once if you thought BBC and then gaming, you awoke to this wee computer.

I’m part of a BBC ‘Linked In’ group and over the last few weeks there has been an ongoing debate concerning whether the BBC should start covering games across the various media outlets and platforms. Now, I should point out that I am extremely proud of parts of the BBC, but also extremely wary of the size of the organisation and its ability to damage and ‘kill off’ commercial efforts in certain media sectors.

'Oh dear' is a phrase which comes to mind when one sees this screenshot.

Firstly, let us recognise that the BBC do cover games, mostly online. They have reporters cover certain releases through their online ‘News Beat’ section and of course through their show ‘Click’. The coverage is thin, but demonstrates that someone at the BBC is aware that games exist. Indeed we know that the BBC are aware of games, due to their recent entry into the actual game market by commissioning the development and release of the Doctor Who games for the Wii and DS. It was unfortunate the reviews for these games were quite awful, and certainly didn’t help back up the old theory that without the BBC the commercial sector would be free to release crap upon consumers who would otherwise have no choice. Perhaps this case study demonstrates a problem the BBC has with games. It suggests that internally they do not take them as seriously as dramas, films (which they have also invested in), radio and music (which they invest a small fortune in – they fund five to seven orchestras in the UK!). This could explain why they have not given games a larger role within the content and broadcast schedule.

What I would not want to see is a large online or print presence. The gamer readership does not need another major website presence, as we already have everything from Eurogamer, to UKcentric versions of IGN, Gamespot, CVG and Games Radar. Of course, we also have high quality (or so we like to think) specialist sites such as Critical Gamer!

Please. Do not commission a game about these guys. I'm a fan of Top Gear, but let it stay as a TV show. We don't need Top Gear the game, film, toilet paper, political party or newly discovered spacial anomaly

As a case study which can show us the good and bad sides of the BBC, take ‘Top Gear’. This is a great TV show, and has maintained an entire genre when commercial broadcasters have not really invested in it. One could argue that Channel 5′s ‘Fifth Gear’ only exists because Top Gear helped to create the audience in the first place and set their expectations. However, it has also become a huge franchise and cash cow for the BBC, and apart from all the ‘Stig’ xmas toys, it has its own major website and print magazine. Top Gear has also become a platform for the show’s presenters who are now openly joking that it’s anything but a factual show and is instead pure entertainment. A form of entertainment that now seems to regularly go out of its way to offend people just to boost ratings and get some publicity. If the BBC did a ‘Top Gear’ for gamers, it would be wise to steer clear of such behaviour and to avoid that angle. Gaming already has an uphill struggle to be taken seriously and such antics would not help the medium gain broader respect. It is possible to find a middle ground between high brow and lad’s mag!

Now Top Gear’s commercial activities have not ‘killed off’ the traditional magazines and websites, but they must have taken real or potential audience share from them. The question which has to be asked is a simple one; was the BBC’s actions in these media ‘spaces’ required? Was there a public interest and service responsibility for the BBC to take Top Gear beyond the TV show? Perhaps it would have made more sense to create a Radio 5 or 4 spin off, but certainly not web or print, two areas which were – and still are – well supported by the commercial sector.

Hence taking the ‘Top Gear’ case study into account I think it’s clear, at least to grumpy old me, what the BBC should be doing. They should be supporting their viewers’ interest in the medium. That’s us I’m writing about. We pay the license fee and we would like some BBC editorial and reporting to highlight one of our loves, passions and in some cases income sources. It was suggested on the Linked In forum that the BBC should launch a magazine format show, and I agree with this. I would want it ring fenced so the BBC announce that it will never transform into a commercial franchise with website, magazine and app! A show on BBC3 or even BBC2 would be ideal, with a sister show on Radio 5. The radio show could actually involve journalists from established UK websites, which means it would be the BBC’s way of supporting the existing ‘experts’ and media outlets which have underpinned the sector for so long without their help.

Trusted, respected and completely out of its depth when it comes to gaming; BBC news.

The BBC cannot only have game coverage when the Daily Mail or Express start attacking a game, and the BBC news team feel the requirement to jump on the story’s bandwagon. If they had a proper platform and outlet for games it would be able to assess the story as part of an internal editorial review, or have their equivalent of the ‘Robert Preston’ analyst tell the story to the public within its ‘real’ context. Indeed, having someone senior in a BBC culture or business editorial team looking out for games might help the BBC stop from becoming sensationalist when it comes to games coverage. Senior management has to understand that its coverage often offends game players, a group of people who are growing in number and are slowly becoming the ‘mainstream’ license fee payer simply through the spread of the medium along with natural demographic changes (i.e players are growing up, and are still playing).

Recently the BBC have announced a cut back of their online content, driven by having a reduced budget, but justified to the public as focused on areas which are already covered well by the commercial sector. If this happens, we could see a reduction of the BBC output covering games, as a by product of reducing ‘News Beat’ on the web. The BBC needs to take this opportunity to retain the game journalists it does have, and move them from these shrinking areas of the corporation by relocating them into some mainstream channels.

TV has flirted with gaming shows for a long time, with the now long gone ‘GamesMaster’ being the most successful. Yet that was a long time ago, and certainly there is now a place for gaming news, banter and debate on mainstream UK media channels. However no commercial broadcaster is able to justify the creation of such a show, as too many have been format failures and hence advertising failures. Surely, if you needed an example of the type of content the BBC should be producing as part of its core remit this would be it! They cover or have covered gardening, cars, sheepdog skills, cooking, parliament, music, film shows (they have more than one!!!), clothes and many more specialist areas. Some of those really don’t need covering any more, yet their presence in the world of gaming seems to be vacant and void of direction.

Now Charlie (here speaking) knows how to write and present a good videogame show. However there are suspicions that he is not independent, and is under the mind control of a British Development Guru...

The BBC represents public sector broadcasting and content creation at its best. Reconciling that mission statement with the existing world of games and game related media really shouldn’t be hard. Give us a TV and radio show. Continue to invest in gaming titles, with UK developers only, but insist on Nintendo levels of quality (or don’t do it at all). Lastly, do this in such a way that it protects, supports and helps to grow the existing UK gaming media industry.

Snow Leopards not included. We just liked the picture.

Do you like Christmas? Do you like Chanukah? Do you like free Flash games? If you answered ‘yes’ to at least one of those questions, then ‘A Little Helper’ just might be for you.

Developed by CodeHeads – with a helping hand from audio experts 2002 Studios (which means our very own Grumpy Gurevitz had a hand in there, which has nothing to do whatsoever with the decision to promote it. Nothing at all) – players are given the option to tailor the presentation to centre on either Christmas (a Christian festival celebrating the birth of Santa Claus) or Chanukah (a Jewish festival whose name sounds a bit like ‘Hadouken’).

If neither Christmas nor Chanukah floats your boat, give it a go anyway. You get to be an ice skating elf, and there’s not much more you can ask from life than that, is there? It’s a simple yet compelling collect ‘em up, and anybody who claims to collect every single present on their first attempt is a damn liar.

It’s free. It’s enjoyable. It almost implies that magical elves are integral to both Christianity and Judaism. What’s not to like? Go and give it a try!

P.S. The ad you’ll run into has a ‘skip ad’ button so you can jump straight to the game. Don’t tell them we told you that, though.

See what it says, "Play Together". The emphasis should be on the words "Play" and 'Together".

I own all the main gaming platforms, bar PC (I’m a Mac man you know) and over time it’s become clear that each machine has a different core demographic. I say it’s become clear, but I don’t mean I have done extensive research and can provide broken down stats to make my point. Hell no! I’m an opinionated columnist and Ill just write what I think based upon my experiences.

It has wires and everything, and it works! Great thing is they are cheap, so if you lose it or it breaks it's not hard to replace.

So, what have my experiences taught me? Well the Xbox Live community is far more likely to own and, more importantly, use a headset. This is what makes gaming social, the ability to plan, discuss and support your fellow gamers by using good old fashioned verbal communication. The PS3 crowd seems to either not own headsets or never have them plugged in. I’m assuming this is because Sony went for Bluetooth headsets. There are USB ones but they’re pointless, as they must be attached to the main console which is normally a long way from where the player might be seated. The problem with Bluetooth headsets is that they cost more, need charging and some are a pain to pair – with variable sound quality. Sony’s own official headset is actually very good, but not widely adopted.

A superb bluetooth headset. It should be mandatory issue with the PS3. I wonder if Sony would ever package one with the actual console....

This lack of headset adoption amongst PS3 owners can lead to a very quiet experience lacking in the same level of vibrant social interaction that can be experienced on Xbox Live. If Sony could start again, I’m sure they would have gone for a less exciting form of connectivity which would have driven up willing participation. Then again, they might have also launched without PS2 backward compatibility (now dropped), SACD support (now dropped), touch sensitive buttons (now dropped) and such a high entry price (now dropped).

The Wii, well that has no headset option to my knowledge. Instead a small, select number of games support WiiSpeak, a microphone and speaker setup to facilitate chatting. It’s very public and is meant to be, as part of Nintendo’s way of making sure rude words and the like are not being spread via their servers. The idea is if everyone in a household can hear what is being said, then less naughty things can be said or heard. The unintended outcome is that no one really has one and hence the level of speech being shared is muted to say the least. WiiNoSpeak could be its real name! To be honest if I am at home playing, I think my wife has to put up with enough noise already (gun shots, explosions etc) without having to deal with random rants between me and fellow players whilst she watches the latest BBC reality show on my PSP. I’ve suggested she turns down the sound on the PSP of course.

This is WiiSpeak, and no I've never seen one in the wild either.

However, apart from the differences in technology between the platforms, I have noticed a distinct difference between the ‘speech cultures’ between the platforms. Well, with regard to the Xbox and PS3 at least. As I’ve already described, the Nintendo audience is really very quiet. The amount of Xbox sessions where I have heard racist, homophobic and generally idiotic language is remarkable. I have had threats to my family (not that I disclose whilst playing that I have one, players were just guessing), including to ‘slice them up’ and other acts which require a culinary skillset (Cooking Mama must be very popular with some Modern Warfare 2 players). Being called a F***ing Jew boy, or black this or gay that is not really my idea of a nice time and it does nothing, nothing at all to draw me to coming back online. The fact I do is because I’m thick skinned and love gaming, but if I was a parent and knew my offspring were listening to this I would be very angry, and I would probably not want them to experience it. Not that it’s hard to stop them, as I can put locks on the games or lock them out of voice chat, but that’s not the point. Why should anyone have to put up with such language? The hatred in the voice of some people is frightening.

Back in PS3 land the number of situations where this has happened is greatly reduced. That’s because, as I have already pointed out, there are a lot less people actually using a headset. Yet it’s no wasteland such as in the land of Mario. I have plenty of quality conversations via my PS3 with complete strangers. Often they are polite, even supportive and helpful for newbies or just oldies who are rubbish at certain games! I’m not saying you can’t have such nice conversations on the Xbox, and I’m sure it has something to do with software and the audience it attracts. For example, I would assume that BattleField Bad Company 2 has a slightly older (and hence possibly more mature) audience overall than the mass consumer Modern Warfare 2. Also, I have nothing but politeness from my fellow assassins in Splinter Cell Conviction on Xbox. Software aside though, I would imagine that due to its original high price the PS3 has an older audience overall, and ironically due to the barriers in the way of cheap and easy voice chat (due to that Bluetooth headset option) it’s resulted in people who really want to chat, and not gamers who get a kick out of abusing others.

How though can we bring the quality of chat on the Xbox up to the same quality as that of the PS3? Microsoft will remind us that there are ways of reporting Xbox Live players who are abusive. I’ve reported one person in my years, but I wonder how many other people have bothered to report individuals. I also have no idea how effective reporting someone is, after all what proof do we have?

We could, if we wanted, all be friends. Just like this group of people

One ‘easy’ option would be that all ‘open’ chat situations, meaning anything that was not a party created by the players themselves, would have their conversations recorded. It might be expensive for Microsoft (and Sony) to implement, but the fact players would know what they were saying was being recorded might really put some people off using such foul and hate filled language. Indeed there is an argument that anything spoken in such a ‘public space’ is subject to the same local laws regarding hate speech and such like. Perhaps it could be argued that the Xbox Live service itself comes under some of the same legislation which covers traditional broadcasters when it comes to what can and cannot be broadcast? It would be interesting to get a legal viewpoint on this.

I don’t want my gaming sessions to be filled with vocabulary back from my playground days when I was 12. That was 20 years ago and I have moved on since then. I want to play, cooperate, help fellow gamers, or be helped by them. Not ‘cuss’, swear and verbally intimidate my way through a session.

It's not till you have it in your hands and slide out the controls, you realise how small and light the PSPGo really is. Mine is white though. Trust me - it looks better and is cheaper.

My PSP3000 recently developed a fault as the screen got two horrible lines going all the way across it. For some, this would be something they can live with. For me it was something that was a real problem and so I called Sony to find out what it would cost to repair, with the answer being; £75 with only a 3 month warranty.

That seemed quite steep for something which only had a 3 month warranty – if it had been 12 months then I would have been OK with it. It’s always worrying when they don’t believe their own replacement units (as they would send a replacement, not my unit repaired and returned to me) will last at least 12 months. Luckily for me, I had read that Amazon had dropped the price of the PSP Go to £150.

Now I should make it clear that traditionally I have been anti-’Go’. At £225 it was overpriced. They made no incentive to previous PSP owners to get one due to the lack of a ‘trade your UMDs’ scheme. It used a different memory card slot and I begrudged the fact it seemed like a lost opportunity to add a touch screen and take the platform forward. Heck, even the system memory is the same, which doesn’t help functions such as the web browsing that has traditionally been poor.

Until mine broke I was very proud of my PSP 3000. Now I know better. It's good to 'upgrade'.

Yet I bought one. Why? Well there was the price which was at £150. Secondly I had been downloading games for some time anyway, and even though I have a selection of UMD games (not more than ten), I hardly played them. Thirdly Sony Europe do allow you to get three, free old games if you are upgrading from a 3000 system or below. It so happens that three of my UMDs which I do play were on their list of possible downloads, so that helped the transition.

Within two days of ordering the console, it had arrived in a rather unassuming box. I know you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover and all that, but Sony are underestimating the impact good packaging has on the first impressions a consumer gives a gadget. Both Apple and Nintendo excel at smart packaging which kickstart the user experience and emotional ‘attachment’ to their purchase. Sony, a company that has recently been in financial trouble, looks like it’s trying to cut costs, and have instead provided a box that is to the point. Its a box, it says PSP Go on the front and it has bland cardboard inside to separate the bits and pieces.

Beyond the packaging and onto the technology itself, I have only one gripe which I’ll get out of the way first; the power cord is way too short. PSP power cables seem to be getting shorter with each revision and I’m not too sure why. Have Sony done market research and found out that the amount of space in the universe has decreased in recent years?

Anyway the power cord aside, I’ll to come to the point; (at last I hear you cry!), this is the best PSP ever. Actually I’ll do better than that, this is one of the best portable media and game machines ever! I’m no Sony fanboy, as I own a DSi too, which is also a great device offering great gaming and social experiences.

However if we put the DSi in a category of its own (lets call it the category titled ‘Nintendo’, which as its name suggests only has one entry) then the PSP Go is a direct competitor for the Ipod Touch. In my opinion this kicks the Ipod’s butt. Let me take you through my list of reasons why.

The screen is amazing. I watch movies on the go and for watching movies this really does excel. It now has its own video store, but you can also rip movies off DVDs and the PSP shows them both off superbly. I still wouldn’t be able to watch a film in direct sunlight, but with a bit of shade it works pretty well outdoors too.

It has16 gigs of memory on board. For £150, this is now double what you get with the basic Ipod Touch. That’s superb value, even though I’m sure Apple will soon make their bottom of range 16 gigs. However, the PSP Go’s party trick is that their new memory stick format is a lot cheaper than their old Memory Duo format, so for £20 I can get another 8 gigs and for £40 another 16 gigs.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fanboy, and I think the Itouch/Iphone are great products with a great software library. But if you want the best movie experience and the best AAA games I really think the PSPGo offers more.

The games in the last two years have really got a lot better than PSP launch titles, with developers working out credible ways of getting round a lack of a second analogue stick. Ideas such as assisted aim as used in the recent Socom game and Resistance Retribution work really well, and many games play well on the device. Plus you can see the game whilst playing it, and if you don’t know what I mean by that then check out Street Fighter 4 on the Iphone/Touch. It looks great unless you play it in which case your thumbs obscure everything.

Sony’s minis, which are meant to be their version of cheap Iphone style apps (but games only) are not bad. A little overpriced, but hey if it means the developers add features, improve the graphics and actually earn a decent amount I’m OK with that.

The device, like previous PSPs, packs RSS feeds (video and audio), internet radio and Skype (like the DS the PSP GO has a built in mic). Additionally Remote Play is there for communicating with your PS3 (if you have one) over Wifi and the form factor is superb. It goes nicely into a pocket and weighs less than my blackberry so at times I actually can’t feel it on my body!

For its size and new price it really is a great high end device. A friend of mine also recently got one. He had never really taken the PSP seriously, but suddenly felt that he had a complete PS2 in his hands. Due to the size of the thing you really do feel the ‘shrinkage’ factor at work here.

Now I know I’m meant to be grumpy, and normally that ‘grump’ is aimed at retailers, publishers and politicians. However when it comes to the PSP GO what makes me grumpy is the fact that Sony have failed to sell the device correctly and the gaming media has failed to point out that this is a superb device.

The PSP2 might be many things, but for many people starting with a PSP Go and then adding a huge leap in graphics, a lot more RAM, making the screen touch enabled and adding a second analogue stick where the current ‘select/start’ buttons are, is all we would need to take this device into the future. We would own the DS3d for its quirky gaming IP and our PSPGo2 would be our all round portable entertainment device.

The template for Sony’s potential success is already here. It’s called the PSPGo.

Keep the form, add another analogue 'nub', make it touch screen (maybe OLED), increase battery life and on board memory, make the media functionality wider, perhaps add 3G compatibility and that's the PSP2 sorted.

What makes me think that this game is for 15 year olds and above?

I was on holiday recently, visiting family in Glasgow. A lovely place with lovely responsible people. Whilst there, we had a day in town to look at some shops and keep my wee one occupied (we had already done Loch Lomond and the transport museum).As one does, we went into a shopping centre and low and behold we were in a store, which also happened to include a GAME. For our international readers, GAME is the largest specialist game retailer in the UK.

Somehow, I managed to get separated from my family and I found myself in the section which encompassed GAME. Finding myself with some vouchers and reward points to spend I perused the shelves for a second hand deal which, after some time, I found in the Xbox section. Anyway my buying habits aside, whilst waiting to pay along came a grandma with her grandson. He was holding a copy of some wrestling game (they are all the same to me), and handed it to Grandma to buy (lucky him).

Now the guy behind the desk did exactly the right thing (GAME management would be proud). He pointed out that the game was for 15 year olds or above (this kid was not near). The Grandma responded by saying ‘oh that’s ok’ in a kind of ‘whatever’ type way and went ahead and purchased it.

Perhaps like this Grandma the game was really for her and she was just too embarrassed to admit she was a gamer?

Over the last few years our industry has come under a lot of attack about not have clear signposting about the content within a game, but here is your typical example of what really happens on the ground floor. Should Mr Vaz be reading, lets go over the facts:

• The staff brought to the attention of the person purchasing the product (who was of age), that the age was deemed to be unsuitable for people under 15 years of age.
• The game in question was a Wrestling game. With a picture of big aggressive guy in spandex on the front of the box.
• It had a big 15 on the box too.

What other information would Mr Vaz, and those who come from the House of Vaz, have liked the staff to have presented? Mr Vaz you might argue that perhaps suspecting that the game was for the young boy, the store should have had a legal barrier on them from selling it anyhow. However take the boy out of the equation just for a moment as the point I’m trying to make is not how to tighten up the process, but how the weak link is the fact that many adults are quite stupid.

Even if the boy had not been there, the Grandma might still have gone and purchased the game. The same one. With the same angry man in spandex with a title relating to wrestling plastered across the cover. Indeed it would have had the very large box in the artwork with the number 15 in it. Having lived in a country where we have grown up seeing age ratings it can be assumed that rather than meaning the number of discs the game comes on, she would have taken it for granted that it was an age rating.

How is it so many adults do not seem to take the type of content in video games seriously? Perhaps the government and industry could do a TV and cinema campaign explaining it? That could be a good thing for the industry. They have tackled drink driving, not just by prosecuting people, but by making it socially unacceptable to drink and drive or be with people who do. Perhaps the campaign would focus on parents and not children, being run during evening television and across billboards, educating them as to how socially unacceptable it is to ignore the age ratings.

Part of the problem may be that some of the ratings are actually quite high. Higher, in many respects, than that of equivalent DVDs or TV shows. Wrestling, for example, is a daytime TV show; yet when it becomes a game, our understanding of how suitable for children it is changes for some reason. This can be seen as the game industry being more stringent and stricter than TV and film, which is possibly a good thing. However it has the potential to undermine the rating system as many adults, when they eventually see the game, wonder what the fuss was about in the first place. If the public see a disconnect between the rating and the actual content, images and gameplay experience then this will undoubtedly result in them ignoring the warnings.

It’s an old lesson, but if the industry and media cry wolf, then eventually people will stop reacting to the alert if the wolf always ends up being a King Charles Spaniel.

Yes - how threatening does this dog look to you? But if the Sun newspaper wrote about it you would think it was related to T-Rex.

Think of the bus as Modern Warfare 2 and the wee cars as the other games waiting for it to pass.

2009 according to many, was a light year when it came to ‘big’ and quality releases. This perception is mainly due to the latter half of the year being dominated by Modern Warfare 2. However the rest of the year was alive with interesting, high quality and fun titles for all the platforms.

The PS3 had Uncharted 2, amongst other games; the Wii had everything from New Super Mario Bros, to Madworld; the Xbox 360 had Halo ODST (perhaps not 10/10 material but still good) and Left 4 Dead 2. Additionally there were multiplatform titles such as The Beatles Rock Band, DJ Hero, Batman Arkham Asylum and Assassins Creed 2 to keep the faithful happy. Heck; even the PSP got in on the action with some quality AAA titles such as Resistance Retribution, Little Big Planet PSP, Another Star Wars Battlefront game, and at the start of 2010 an amazing SOCOM title.

2009 was a good year, and ironically the Modern Warfare 2 tank of a marketing machine helped the release schedule become manageable for the average player. So many games were pulled from the winter period of 2009, and instead marked for release in 2010, it allowed us gamers a much clearer picture of where to spend our money.

From the point of view of many game reviewers, 2010 is the year. We are expecting a ton of AAA content, some of which has already been released, such as Mass Effect 2. Look out though, as we also have Battlefield Bad Company 2, Red Steel 2, Red Dead Revolver Redemption, Final Fantasy XIII, Metro 2033, Just Cause 2, Metroid M, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Sega All Star Racing, SOCOM Fireteam Bravo 3 (just out) and of course Halo Reach, plus way more!

The problem is, will all these games hit their estimated sale figures? We are in effect still in a recession or at least (if you want to be optimistic) not in a boom. Who can afford all these games, and will there be some people who don’t buy any due to inertia caused by not being able to handle such a level of choice?

The thing is, the list above only covers the new games. Meanwhile there will be more DLC for Assassins Creed 2, a huge DLC pack for Modern Warfare 2, DLC for Borderlands and more besides!

You have not heard the last of this bad boy. It might end up owning 2010 too!

It seems to me that we might be in over our heads as an industry and as a fan base. Just as the car industry found that the industry had too many cars being produced, might the videogame industry find we have too many AAA titles being produced? In many ways this particular Grump feels like a follow up to my ‘How long have you got?’ article a few weeks back. However you look at it, 2010 seems awfully congested. Is the industry growing that fast in a time of a poor economic outlook to sustain this level of output and production?

If a lot of this content could be sold into new emerging, ‘non-western’ markets then it would make sense. However console gaming as we know it is still small fry in China and India, where there is the triple attack of poverty, piracy and a different culture of interactive entertainment in the form of the free to play MMO.

Talking of MMOs this one is due an update soon. I think it'll eat into a lot of people's time.

I’m not suggesting that the industry is a bubble which will burst, 1980s style. However, come 2011 there might be quite a few layoffs and companies like EA, which have already spent one and half years getting very lean, will become smaller still in terms of staff numbers.

So where does that leave all the developers, artists, composers and coders who earn a living from this great industry? Well, companies like EA still want to produce product, but less and less of it will be AAA focused, or even AA focused. More and more talented designers will be producing apps, online experiences, and smaller projects. Additionally, those AAA games that are still going to be made, will become even larger productions, with larger teams.

The music industry has reacted to the ‘long tail’ of having millions of competing independent artists, by concentrating their production and marketing scale into a smaller collective of ‘top line’ acts, a model mirrored by the large Holywood studios. Consequently, so too we will see the videogame industry adopting a similar take on their business models.

Nintendo had a low key 2009 for the hardcore. 2010 on the other hand seems to be a hardcore frenzy. New Galaxy, Sin and Punishment 2, Metroid M, Zelda and more! What third party would want to release their product into that mix in 2010?

So, there will be less AAA, boxed games. But where we have AAA games, the quality will be exemplary. Alongside the outstanding and costly AAA releases, there will be far more downloadable, web community and app based products to compliment their blockbuster bretheren. There will be a plethora of income models, some being traditional ‘cash over the counter’ whilst others being indirect, back end consumer transactions.

2010 is exciting, as the release schedule congestion is going to result in a very different looking industry in 2011. One that will offer more choice than ever to the consumer.

One day Gamers will be offered value for money services which are not half baked. On that day look up into the Sky...

I do not have a subscription to Sky. Sky, for our international readers, is the most successful subscription based TV service in the UK. Traditionally it’s distributed via satellite technology with setup boxes, but in the last year or so it has created a web offering and migrated to consoles. I really want Sky, but can never justify the cost. I’m not in enough to justify the sport and the few, high quality drama shows they have that I can get on DVD for less money. The movies and other services I can live without, especially as I now have offerings via my Xbox 360 and PS3.

However as much as I cannot justify Sky, I would really, really like it. The idea of having extra choices on what to view is a nice luxury and over the year I’m sure it would have the capacity to enrich my life in some way!

Content that can only be used on the PSP is VERY limiting. Sony: either fix it or start putting TV shows on your own videostore.

So, I was really quite pleased when Sony announced the PSP service for UK users linked to Sky. All you had to do was sign up to the service and then via a Sky portal you could download films and TV shows which would play on your device. I assume the legal work in setting up their own film and TV store was a barrier for Sony doing this themselves and hence by using Sky it would be a match made in heaven. Recently Sony have launched their own film store but unlike the USA the UK PSN store still lacks TV shows.

The problem I found though was twofold. One it’s not that cheap. It’s not bad but for content that can only be viewed on a PSP it’s not great value. Secondly it’s not Mac friendly. I sometimes feel that service providers think that all Mac users automatically use the itunes store and own ipods and hence can’t see the point in providing functionality for them. I have some news for them; some of us Mac owners love our Macs but are happy to access content from other providers! I much prefer my PSP to an ipod Touch! Yet Sky PSP service insists you are running Windows so that ruled me out. I actually have Windows on my Mac, but damn it if I’m going to switch the machine over just to download content!

Good as they are, if I want a to watch tv on a device that plays Little Big Planet, I won't use one of these...

Just the other month Sky decided to entice and excite me again by launching their service on Xbox 360. When I heard that Sky was being brought to the platform I was over the moon, as I figured it would be a cheap way to get into the world of Sky. I assumed that the picture quality would be SD or even sub-SD as it would be piped through our awful broadband connection (I live in the country) but was happy to live with that. I registered my interest early, to show my support and make sure I was notified when the service would go live.

Hence it was with some shock that when it did launch I saw the prices.

The basic service includes all the channels you would never want; for £15 a month. Add some movies and sport and we are up to around £41! Now if I went out to buy a SKY HD (yes, HD) system then I could actually get away with paying around £10 more a month and get tons more channels, plus of course HD quality footage. So where is the incentive?

The model is quite clear. If you already have Sky, then actually the Xbox service is free (as long as you are a Gold member) and so it’s a great way of getting Sky into another room without paying for a new set top box. For people like me it’s also clear Sky does not want me as a customer via Xbox. They want me to experiment with the on demand content, which is available to me on a ‘pay as you go’ basis.  They are betting that if I like it I will go and get a SKY HD system at some point in the future.

It might work and it’s a good strategy, but in some ways I feel like Microsoft is letting other companies use my loyalty to the Xbox Live service in a crude marketing/junk mail type way. Microsoft would, of course, argue that it’s a win-win, as I get access to a ton of on demand content, which would otherwise take time to come via them or possibly never come via them. They are right and for that I am thankful.

However where will it stop? Will they allow other companies to launch teaser services via their network in the hope that it adds value to the Xbox experience whilst in effect providing free advertising to those companies?

If we are going to get Xbox Live+ please can we get noticeable discounts or freebies as a reward?

Maybe I’m a socialist at heart (well a capitalism loving socialist) but if Microsoft really wanted to thank me for my loyalty they would go out of their way to leverage their community’s size to get us good deals for these services! I read elsewhere on this site that Microsoft might start charging more for a Gold+ membership. I’m not against that if it means we can make full use of these new services for free or at drastically reduced prices. I assume that the largest cost of delivering them is the extra bandwidth and if that can be leveraged across the community as a whole that’s okay with me. I just don’t want to have to pay twice for the privilege.

Sometimes the Sky is the limit. But in this case it’s my patience and wallet and they are much nearer ground level!

What causes violence? If you are a fan of George Lucas then you know that ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to anger, and anger to violence. I ask this as currently we are going through the yearly attack on gaming, largely caused by Modern Warfare 2; but most probably an attack which would have attached itself to another game had MW2 not been released. It’s the time of year when everyone wants a game and hence gaming is big. It used to be films which were attacked at this time of year, but hey, compared to games they are so small fry.

It's the fault of these guys. If only they had gone by Easyjet and left the guns at home. Stag parties are getting too complicated these days.

Now whenever I see a news report discussing evidence of how games might make a player violent, I see quotes relating to how those who play games demonstrate increased adrenalin and hence are ‘pumped up’. I can accept that. I can also accept that the same symptom might be displayed by those watching or taking part in football, rugby, boxing, X-Factor, Crufts, ballroom dancing, viewing the news, horse racing, motor sports and, for those who get a kick out of it, fishing.

Are we suggesting we ban those? Of course those commentators who are either stupid or just set out to be, might argue that their point is that only games have you committing acts of violence. I would point out that the violence though has to be triggered through some kind of condition or state of mind. Adrenalin is an indicator normally associated with such a situation. There is little evidence out there of players actually going to commit violence having just played a game. The research instead relies on indicators which might lead to violence, such as adrenaline. Well doesn’t that mean many activities have the potential to turn quiet, peace loving individuals into maniacs?!

In a month where six pupils at a school almost poisoned themselves for copying a plot line from the the pre-watershed BBC drama Waterloo Road, it’s amazing that the industry that got attacked was gaming! Now Waterloo Road is popular, but in the big scheme of things many more millions of young and old people are gaming than watching Waterloo Road. I would suggest that perhaps gaming is less dangerous compared to other activities such as watching EastEnders, Coronation Street, or possibly Countdown. It’s certainly worth examining on that level – i.e. looking at its effect on behaviour proportionally to the amount of gaming content consumed.

What is even more amazing is that the media have no problem with allowing lies about games being circulated. They seem to feel that it is fair game to drop all journalistic training and principles when it comes to attacking gaming. Hence, we see repeated quotes about how MW2 allows you to play as a terrorist – most shockingly played out on Fox TV. For those that have not played the game I have something to say. No you cannot!! You play a CIA operative embedded into a terrorist cell. You witness an attack and, if you feel it’s part of the character, can take part in a massacre; but ultimately you are a bystander to such an attack with limited control over the game at that point. It is crucial to the plot and at the end (spoiler alert) you yourself are then shot dead. It’s dramatic and has been seen in countless movies before. So why the problem now? You even get the choice to skip the scene – ever been offered that by a TV show or movie?

Now this isn't potentially violent at all? He is actually a member of the National Association of Local Butchers

Perhaps it’s because we call them games? Games are meant to be fun, and for children – right? That’s another lie the media propagate of course. They continually allow commentators to remind us that most people buying or playing the games are children. For sure, some are – but most people playing these games are 18 or above, and many are 25 years plus.

In the USA we hear people say that even if a game is bought by and for an adult, if there is a child in the house then they are sure to gain access and play it. Perhaps they are right. However, if they are, perhaps they should start by not keeping handguns in their house! I’m thinking (and correct me if you feel I’m missing something here) that this may be a more immediate and dangerous problem. And you know, you can even lock out your kids from your console very, very easily if you choose to.

I’m not saying there are not games out there with bad taste, nor am I suggesting there should not be age limits or even some games banned. If you can ban a film, then you should be able to ban a game. However, there should be parity between the art forms. In the UK the BBFC initially banned Manhunt 2 and fought to try to stop it being released. Why?

Now, apart from the pictures of men in masks holding guns AND this picture of a fist, what actually IS there on the packaging to alert parents to the fact that some games might contain shooting and violence?

Their own research concluded that players do not think that events in a game are real. We no more think we are really scoring the winning goal in the FA Cup than we think that we too have three heads and live on the planet Zog whilst playing a fantasy game. Indeed, they found that the fact they are interactive and we have to push buttons often brings us out of the drama and narrative, reminding us they are only games. This is something movies cannot do, and we can get lost in them and become ‘pumped up’ in a sustained way without having a release until the end of the film. So, why oh why, when it comes to violent games, suddenly all that research goes out of the window? What is the logic and reasoning for this? When films like SAW and Hostel are released, why then fight to ban Manhunt? Are the individuals in charge of these organisations stupid?

"I see stupid people, they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they're dumb!"

I don’t think they are. Well, I hope they aren’t anyway. I think it’s far more likely they are running scared. Those that are in the industry and those that are associated with it, such as the BBFC, still lack the self confidence to describe and communicate what gaming is to those that do not yet play them, as we do. This is a huge problem as it allows the issue to be hijacked by the Keith Vazs of this world. There are people, often important and influential people, who latch onto these issues without first thinking them through. People who, fuelled by their own ignorance, let their own emotions get carried away, eating away at their fear until they explode violently against an industry, artform and past-time which contributes greatly, in a positive way, to millions of people’s lives.

Maybe George Lucas had it right all along.