BloodNet isn't bad, really. No. It's more accurately described as clumsy. I'm not finished with the game, so I'm still taking video and notes and preparing a review, but as far as my current perceptions are concerned, it's a game with an amazing premise, a wonderfully detailed setting, and superb writing, but deeply flawed gameplay. The big questions in a situation like this is: Does the bad outweigh the good? How good can a bad game be? How bad can a good game be?

When I need a break from the frustrations of BloodNet's earlygame, I go back to Resident Evil 4 on my Wii. I'm fighting Salazar's "Right Hand" at the moment - a battle that is both difficult and exhilirating. This game controls so perfectly on the Wii that I see no reason why all third person action or adventure games shouldn't adopt the same s t y l e in the future. Bring 'em all to the Wii and let the fun begin. I'm completely serious. I do worry about the first person shooter on the Wii, however. The more I use the Wiimote the more I understand that it isn't just a mouse in midair. Traditional mouselook setups would be awkward with it. Metroid Prime 3 should provide an answer - or a workaround.

Interesting story today on NPR. I'm listening to Talk of the Nation right now, and they're devoting at least part of the show, if not the whole show, to video game addiction. I know some gamers cringe at the thought of gaming being characterized as addictive, but while I wouldn't want gaming to be regulated like alcohol, drugs and tobacco, I do think that the addiction is real. I did some stupid s**t in college, and that's all that I'll say on the matter. The worry is that once accepted as a "real" addiction, overdiagnosing will lead to government regulation and perhaps medication for young gamers. Because of that, I'm torn. I want people to understand that being "addicted" to games isn't laughable, but I'm concerned about the consequences for the art form.