>>As for things like Fragdolls, all I see is some specially picked good looking girls and a lot of corporate money behind it, females on the whole in my experience, aren't hardcore gamers and aren't likely to change anytime soon... unfortunately :D

If the true market penetration and cultural acceptance of games is to be measured by how many hot girls play (and why not?) then China is the clear winner. There's absolutely no novelty to being a "grrrl gamer" there because both genders are equally likely to be gamers. A hot girl playing Monster Hunter in China is about as unusual as a hot girl watching Family Guy in the US. From my experience, video games have far more market penetration in China than any other country I've been to (including Japan).

I believe the US is becoming more like this since there's no longer a "boys only" connotation to games among today's kids. I wonder what the climate is like in the UK?

>>the largest percentage of gamers are two-12 years old (24 per cent)

Haha, For a second I thought the article was stating that two 12-year old girls made up 24% of the female gaming market.

I don't think the actual numbers sound unreasonable, especially factoring in a younger audience. Most kids I know, boys and girls alike play videogames and are very likely to own a DS.

I think you've misunderstood what AndyLC was getting at.
I believe AndyLC is saying that we need to broaden how we look at games and assess them for artistic merit. Most of these articles make very broad statements (games are immature!) without very specific examples to back them up. And they're always calling for a gaming equivalent of Shakespeare or Citizen Kane.

My problem with this is that there's much more to literature and Cinema than Shakespeare and Citizen Kane. Shakespeare is unquestionably an important writer, but he's not the only writer out there. The reason he's cited as a gold standard is because he's so obviously impressive and intimidating. He uses big words (often making them up as he goes) and creates long complex plots. His use of language is obviously beautiful and poetic and it's not hard to see that. But if every piece of literature only aspired to be Shakespeare, then it'd be a very limited world we live in.

This is what alot of games journalists seem to be calling for: Be like Shakespeare. Be loud and obvious. Have tough moral choices. Tackle "adult" subject matter like sex. It seems like a very superficial solution, and it's very limiting in scope because it ignores the truly rich spectrum of human experience that can be conveyed through games.

For instance, there is a beautiful poetry to the best 8bit games. The Legend of Zelda is a wonderful paean to the concepts of curiosity and exploration. Through very limited means, the game is able to create an atmosphere of child-like wonder and anxiety. There is a stark beauty to the configuration of squares and synthetic sounds that make up the experience, and it is wordless and unforced. It is severely exacting in its configuration, yet it's effect is natural and uncontrived, like a Haiku.

Or look at Pokemon. The game's designer suffers from Aspergers, a crippling social disorder, yet he was able to make a game that brought kids together all over the world. His fondest childhood memories were of collecting bugs in the forest. It saddened him that many modern children would not have this experience due to urban development. His solution was to boil down his fondest childhood experiences into an elegant system of rules and aesthetics. The result is a very refined experience that's very unique to the medium of games and as profound as any piece of interactive digital art I've ever seen.

Games don't need to have an obvious moral, ethical or emotional point to them to be a success. When I play Super Mario World I can experience what it's like to ride a dinosaur across a chocolate island. The beauty of it is far deeper than just the idea, it comes through the way it is presented: the piddling little steps of the sprite; the absolutely perfect expressionistic sound effects; the exact sense of weight and torque to the controls. This is as weird and wonderful as any surrealist literature I've read (and I'm a BIG fan of Raymond Roussel).

I'm not saying that games have already plateaued or that we shouldn't be critical of games. I don't think AndyLC or squarepusher or anyone else is calling for this. It's quite the opposite. We'd like for gamers to be more aware of the existing history of games and to build off of that instead of pushing forward blindly, imagining that each new game will reinvent the wheel. And personally, I'd like to see a wider scope of appreciation for what can be achieved with games outside of typical "adult" drama.

I wonder if they got permission from Daniel Johnston's estate to use his T-shirt.
http://www.hihowareyou.com/

I also grew up on Batman, and I don't feel like this game had much respect for the source material. Upon starting up the game I was mortified with the redesigns. They took the Batman Universe and then shoe-horned it into the same conventions that every decrepit gritty next-gen game subscribes to. Arkham Asylum looks like a space hull. Is that a good decision? Does it add a new dimension to those hallowed grounds? I don't think so. I think it's just lazy design.

Also, why are there Gargoyles everywhere? It doesn't make sense to have such menacing statues in every room, especially when it's a facility for treating mental patients.

And why are all the characters so ... mangled and busy looking? There was really no need to stray that far from the original designs. I feel like game designers are really afraid of blank spaces so they have to fill them all in. This game is just ... busyness from head to toe everywhere.

And the worst part is, the game doesn't seem to represent the characters very well. For instance, if you die, you see the Joker gloating over your body, and then he talks to someone aside and says "someone finish him off".

This is completely out of character. The Joker is Batman's arch-rival. He has an insane obsession over batman sometimes bordering on sexual attraction. I think it's greatly out of character for the Joker to be so dismissive of Batman's death and to go as far as to have someone else do it, as if he were a cockroach to be swept aside. It's just a huge break from character that I can't forgive.

I'm really confused. I've read many reviews stating this is the best, most lovingly crafted licensed game ever. So I gave it a shot, I really like Batman. I grew up with the comics, then the movies, then the cartoon. I think I know Batman pretty well.

This game does not strike me as a very good take on Batman. It just feels like a post-Bioshock action game with Batman dressings.

Oh yeah, and "detective mode" is pretty silly. It seems like a way to compensate for confusing levels with unclear objectives. Its also a way to hold the players hand and guide them. It's at least as offensive as a movie scene or expository dialogue. And why does it look like an X-ray visor for a Sci-fi space hull kind of game? Is that how Batman sees the world? A bunch of skeletons? That's kind of grim. Detective Mode wouldn't be so bad if they'd just put some more effort into the presentation and conveying a sense of heightened awareness rather than literally giving you x-ray vision.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!! Doesn't anyone else see this??? : )