DLC as additonal content and DLC as a full game release are two very different things. While I'm ambivalent about DLC new content because it often is just not worth the pricetag, full games are a different story. XBLA's Arcade and Indie channels are great examples of what "downloadable content" should be: full smaller titles at a far reduced price. Cutting out retailers is the way to go, but they should cut the price too, skip the middle man, and give players what retailers pay for games. When demand goes down (3 games a year) the response should be lower costs, so players can play more games and float the industry.
Just posted a blog continuing this topic - that is if you'd like to post more than say 1500 or whatever words, which i wanted to but of course can't in this specific venue. Check it out or don't, whatever you like - @TechnologoDoom
Great article! More like this would be very refreshing... One of the interesting effects of introducing moral decision-making into contemporary video-games is that it reveals the "game" as an experience more akin to art (like gazing upon a potentially-disturbing art piece requires you to reflect upon your own experience) where the object of the game becomes one of experience, rather than completing an objective. I'd be surprised if you played Super Mario Bros for the experience, but I'd be shocked if you played DA:O or Fallout 3 just to "beat it". With that said, I'm somewhat skeptical about Video Games being capable of teaching us much. They may cause us to reflect, and that reflection may engender a deeper engagement with the material, but unlike art (especially modern art) which often incorporates political, social, and personal "productions" within it that cause us to reflect, no Video Game that I can think of (and i've played a whole heck of a lot) actually causes one to reflect upon their own lives - because of the fact that these engagements are super-fictional or fantasy: they DON'T relate to our own lives (whereas art IS a commentary on our own experience).
I'm not sure these graphical differences make for a 1 pt difference in PC to Xbox360 rating (9.5 to 8.5) - I mean, I understand Kevin wants to indicate that the PC version has better graphics, but does such a minor difference really make such a huge impact in the overall score? To underline my point, I'm assuming that since the PS3 version got a 9.0, that the 0.5 scoring difference is due to graphics, and largely NOT due to combat control (which would make more sense). Sure the PS3 and PC versions look better, but it seems the 360 screens are on a higher "brightness" setting as well? Yes, the PC graphics look better and I imagine text is easier to read on the PS3 than the 360 from your couch - but I suppose that's why HD exists.
TechnologoDoom's comments