Then why not go for a 3.5" drive? I presume they're cheaper. Of course, people have been doing that for a while.

That doesn't make it pathological and addicted behaviour, though. Weak or selfish character traits such as dishonesty are not necessarily indicators of mental illness; in most cases they're just personality flaws. Or being human, if you'd rather think of it like that.

I don't know about everyone else, but I was more driven by the desire not to do homework than the desire to do any one of the alternatives. I might have played games more than I ought, but if I did it was because I was (and am) fairly lazy, and not because I was (or am) addicted. As far as I can tell, anyhow.

I guess I'd contend that the difference between the two lies is the variance from normal behaviour. Hiding significant money problems is generally associated with a troubled relationship, if nothing else, whereas lying about your homework is something pretty much all non-stellar students do at some point or other, I'd say.

My mum has a coffee machine, and she says it makes coffee just as good if not better than that she gets in coffee shops. It does take a fair initial investment, however (buying the machine), and requires some maintenance (it requires cleaning quite frequently and on occasion reaches a such a state that it has to be sorted out by a professional). Or perhaps it's just a matter of getting coffee when you're in a high street. All this said, I don't believe she goes to coffee shops at all any more. But you know, to each their own.

Whilst I agree with you on the whole, I object a little to the common assertion that all things that are worth my time must be either fun or profitable. I wouldn't, for example, call either the book American Psycho or the film Schindler's List fun, but I consider both of them worthy of my time. I'm not asking for or expecting games to tread the same territory as these (the participatory nature of games could cause all sorts of havoc with the respective subject matters), but I do think that there is something beyond pure fun that is desirable in, well, "entertainment" is a similarly problematic term.

It might be pedantry on my part, or perhaps I just define "fun" differently, but when I'm playing games I'm not constantly feeling that immediate and basic sensation that I would describe as "fun", but if I was, I think I would be denying myself some of the longer term rewards that I get from investing myself in an experience.

Which, in turn, is part of my problem with the new Prince of Persia. It's an enjoyable enough game, but I'm finding it hard to get invested in it. It's not the anti-death mechanic that bothers me in particular, however. I'm more troubled by the environment, which seems too far abstracted from anything real or relatable for me to have any real connection with it. I don't mind things being held in the sky by giant balloons or perched on impossibly thin mile-high pillars, as long as the world seems somehow inhabitable, or to at least have some sort of internal narrative. Sure, each area has a name that corresponds to a real thing, and I can identify landmarks like windmills and so on, and it certainly is very beautiful in parts, but none of it seems like it actually works, to me. It may be a personal thing, but it crossed my pretty generous line of believability, and that makes the whole thing seem weirdly hollow.

I'm also not a fan of the control scheme, but that's largely a matter of personal taste, and probably informed by my history of gaming. I can see its attraction, but for me it's another degree of removal from the character.

It's a good game, and I'm fully supportive of innovation and experimentation in game development, but for me this instalment didn't allow for the kind of connection I had with the previous game, and with other games I like. I'm not talking about some sort of profound emotional connection; just the degree to which I could enter the world and properly experience it. To make this post utterly predictable, I'll now use the word "immersion".

Hi, I'm the AC grandparent of this post. Thanks for the link. Whilst I'm still not sure it's in the best of taste, that certainly goes some way to justifying the image. As far as I can understand, the sexuality of it is meant to be symbolic of how the innocence of youth is being eroded. Of course, they could be accused of contributing to the problem -- irony means never having to say you're sorry, and all that -- but at least some thought has gone into it beyond "this is sure to piss old people off". I mean, it's clearly still meant to be provocative -- it'll catch the eye, even if it's rapidly averted afterwards -- but there's some sort of point to it. Supposedly. I'm remanded of the art portion of the Brass Eye "Paedogeddon" episode. It's funny and you should watch it if you haven't already.