"They are created so mass amounts of people can all do the exact same thing." That's true of all mass entertainment. Movies are there so that mass amounts of people can all watch the same thing. Books are there so that mass amounts of people can read the exact same thing. At least with games, there's active participation. They require thought and problem solving skills.

But people do not brag about seeing a movie or reading a book as if it is an amazing accomplishment, as so many do with video games.

Well, I won't argue that hardcore gamers can't be annoying, but finishing a video game does require skill. Anyone can watch a movie. Although I've never gone into work the next day and bragged about finishing some game.

What skill? Play any video game long enough and eventually you will complete it.

You only show your ignorance with that line.

My ignorance of video games? duh! I thought my review established that. More importantly your line shows your pointless arrogance. "Ooh, I have skills. I beat Far Cry!" "I spent $60 on the new Resident Evil game and finished it in 4 hours! I am awesome!" They are just games!!!! Get over yourself.

I never said they weren't games. I'm merely trying to get across to you that even games require skill.

If you are playing online against another human, then I see your point, but just playing a video game does not require skill. A 40 year old can be just as good at Halo as a 10 year old. However, if a 10 year old is as good as a 40 year old at Chess, he is called a prodigee.

A video game just requires that you keep playing it long enough. Even free roaming games lead the player through it.

So you can play any game against a machine as well as someone who has been playing games for years? You should stick to talking about things you actually know something about.

If I had played video games for years, I would be as good as anyone who played games for years.

So you're saying everyone who plays video games has the same IQ, the same memory, the same reflexes and the same hand-eye coordination?

We are talking about playing video games, not shortstop for the New York Yankees.

Yes, I know. If you don't understand that all of those skills (plus I left off problem solving) are required to be good at video games than we might as well stop now.

If it took amazing skills to play video games they could only sell a few games. They are created to sell to a large amount of people so as to make a large amount of money. Thus they are created so ANYONE can play them.

Yes, ANYONE can play them, but not EVERYONE is equally good at them.

You are the best gamer ever Scott! No one can match your gaming skills. You must have the strongest thumbs in the world! Hells Yeah!

Feel better?

Wow, you really got my point. /s

What a shame, you never got mine.

"/s" means sarcasm, in case you didn't get that.

You accuse me of arrogance, but your attitude is so dismissive of video games that it's insulting. It's not like you're saying, "I have no interest in video games so I don't play them" but rather that you seem to be saying that since they require no skill, they are a waste of time for anyone.

I have no interest in video games so I don't play them. I do understand that a person gets better at them the more they play them. However, I do not recognize the ability to complete a video game as a "skill". They are designed to be won. They are designed to be completed. Anyone who finishes a video game may feel as if they accomplished something,but they only did what the game was created for them to do. It is like doing a paint by numbers. Some will stay inside the lines better than others, but it is the original artist who drew the lines who accomplished something, not the person who followed their instructions.

So baseball players aren't skilled, just the creator of baseball? Chess players aren't skilled, just the inventor of chess? Card players are skilled, just the inventor of each card game?
All of those games were designed to be won. I know, you'll probably say those are two people competing against each other. Well, what about someone who beats a computer at chess? Is that skill?

That is comparing apples to oranges. All of those examples have a win, lose or tie possibility. Video games have two possible endings; win or give up trying.

A better comparison would be a crossword puzzle. It has a complete of give up trying ending. You can get a sense of accomplishment from them as you obviously do with video games. Some people are better at crossword puzzles than other people just as some gamers can finish a video game faster than others. If the speed in which you finish a game defines "skill" then so be it. But both crossword puzzles and video games can be completed by anyone who simply takes the time to do them.

Derek Jeter has skills that no matter how hard or long I try, I will never be able to match.

Oh My God, now you're having a go at crossword puzzles? You saw Wordplay, you really think you have the same skills as those people?

You know you totally gave a non-answer answer to this question, which is really the nub of my point. "So you're saying everyone who plays video games has the same IQ, the same memory, the same reflexes and the same hand-eye coordination?"

I am supposed to answer a retorical question?

Of course some people will be better at video games than others. My point is, so what? Do you actually think anyone else is this whole world gives a crap whether or not another person is good at a video game? "People who brag about their accomplishments in video games are pathetic." Because no one else cares that they sat alone in some room for hours at a time completing a maze that someone else created for them, and thousands of others, to finish.

I can see that you don't care but the gaming culture is huge and there are millions of websites and people that love to talk about games and who accomplished what in which game. The thing that I don't get out of this discussion is why you have to be so dismissive of it just because you don't enjoy playing or talking about games.

Playing video games is like masturbating to porn. I undertsnad why people do it. I just don't get why anyone brags about doing it.

Nice try at being witty, but just because you handle a joystick during both activities doesn't make that a good analogy.

Wow, this is the longest debate yet waged on one of our reviews. I was shocked to see that there were 29 comments and very curious as to what they were about. While I'm not a gamer I do fully appreciate the skills involved. Rich plays a tennis game on his MP3. I suck at it. He somtimes plays other gamers online. Eric in the sports games there is definitely a winner and a loser. Not all video games are about a quest and trying to get to a set goal.

Ha, you guys are relentless. You guys should choose a video game and face off, lol. I would not call myself a gamer, but I have racked up many hours on select games. You wouldn't believe it, but the very first game I racked up countless hours on was Wolfenstein 3D.
To me, video games are like anything else, a movie, a book, ect. If you choose a good book to read, you will learn and grow from it, not all books will do this, there are many mind-numbing books that will cause a person to digress. Video games require a lot more time and effort. A good game can give you skill-sets that will carry over to other challenges in life. A bad game will keep you from spending time on more enriching activities. One could also compare this to Social Networking, it can help you bring more success in your life, establish real friendships, ect. Or, it can take up hours upon hours each day and lead to very little.
Tetris is a good example of a good game. Simple, fun, competitive with two players and helps to develop critical thinking. Portal is a newer game which also encourages critical thinking. It is a first person shooter game, but your weapon shoots a projectile that creates a portal. A series of two shots is needed to complete the portal. There are good games out there, but they don't come around very often. There are valid points to both sides of the argument, but this is one of those things where it really depends on the person.
http://www.thinkwithportals.com/

Having said all that, I really enjoyed this movie. Most movies are centered around one person. Usually this individual needs to make improvements in his/her life, and usually the change that is needed is within. The story in this movie does just that. By the end of the movie, Scott realizes that it is he who needs to make a progressive leap forward, which he does along with several other characters. A good example of a similar story which falls short is Adventureland with Jesse Eisenberg. In that movie, Eisenberg goes through a life changing experience, but by the end, he never really changed for the better. I can see Scott Pilgrim vs The World being listed as a new cult movie that will see higher DVD sales than box office sales.

Windstead is cast as the lead in the new remake of The Thing set to release this October. Can't wait to see her again. The Thing (1982) is one of my all-time favs. John Carpenter is a brilliant director. The lingering shots tied with haunting music sucks the air right out of the room. I doubt the remake will be as good as the original, but I am anticipating it none the less.