That point was the elephant in the living room throughout the article. There is no point Nintendo caving in to pressure when doing so makes no economic sense on paper whatsoever.

One of the beauties of this kind of advertising is how it is so live. I wrote my original article last Thursday, at which point all I had was my intuition and prior experience with which to make a judgement. Sadly, I'm not omnipresent and cannot predict how these campaigns will evolve.

The nature of this kind of marketing is such that it doesn't get heavily promoted and usually only finds real coverage after the event itself. In this case "checking my sources" is easier said than done.

Of course, it is not my place to decide what excites and engages consumers, only to observe and comment. As such, I stand to be proven wrong and the fact that the debate is not one-sided can only be a good thing.

In all honesty, I think EA is one of the few firms within the industry really trying to push the boat out in terms of its promotions. And I'm certainly not looking to "flame" the efforts of the company or any of its representatives. I genuinely find what they are doing inspiring and exciting. However, when I put pen to paper, I only have what is in front of me and if information is subject to change then my work must be viewed in light of that.

I must say though, I do not think any of that invalidates my opinion. The general lessons and concepts I am trying to illustrate through this case study remain intact and relevant.

I think this is about taking Left4Dead, pushing it out of the gaming community and into the mainstream. These ads will get people recognising the symbolism and brand and asking the question "What on earth is Left4Dead?!"

Let's hope someone doesn't see fit to complain about that missing finger, spoiling everybody's fun.

I love the cheeky little Gamestop logo riding on the back of that great Wario ad!

Reviews arn't the be-all and end-all of games. The real problem is that they're far to heavily weighted. Expecting them to be an exact science is asking (and assuming) too much. Reviewers should play a decent amount of a game to be able to give a realistic impression of it and to put into the wider gaming context, however completeing every game is far too much to ask. How does he expect reveiwers to, for example, complete games such as the Final Fantasy's which can take upwards of 100 hours just to finnish the story (multiply that many times over for 100% completion).