I know that that's Buzz Aldrin's on the left. The other guy reminds me of that Ben Foster chap.

During the live shows I usually have the movie on in the background, but otherwise I listen at work, in bed, out walking, wherever really.

It's a list with the kind of films you'd expect from a critic such as Ebert. I'd argue that these films are all chosen by the mind, rather than from the heart, which tells me that they aren't so much the greatest but rather the most technical/audacious achievements in the 'language of cinema' because Citizen Kane, 2001 and Apocolypse Now aren't perfect. Then there's the whole 'they'll take away my critic membership card if I don't include these' obligatory inclusions and the 'I'll sound really intellectual if I include these ones that 99% of people haven't seen' notables.

Vertigo is pretty great but it's not even Hitchcock's best (and neither is Notorious).

I'd never heard of it either and I was sort of interested in watching it, until it showed you the end!

Must... resist... clicking...

The only time I've ever been truly impressed, no, awed by 3D was during the Hubble IMAX documentary shown at the Kennedy Space Center. Specifically the points where you feel that you can reach out and touch the astronaut working on the telescope and when it places you in a starfield. Amazing. It's one of my most cherished memories.

Apocolypto looks awful in digital. When people are running through the jungle it looks almost like DV. What's more the digital look somewhat undermines the setting. So whilst digital is ok when it's a contemporary film like Collateral (or a sci-fi), I don't think it suits historical films at all.

I'm concerned about the Hobbit for many reasons and the technical element is among them.

Speaking of the generational attitude, my parents have their TV set to the default shop style, so blues are almost white and the contrast is way off. They don't notice it though and they also don't really notice any difference with blurays. I believe it's because their eyes are able to adjust so quickly and things 'normalise' subconsciously. Like when you're watching a teal film, it's not long before the green looks white again.

Visceral experience? Not necessarily. Bethesda likely just wanted to make the game easier with the first dragon. Because if there's one thing that can be said about games over the last decade, they're definitely easier.

But it's very tricky to get the right balance in a game like Skyrim, where the audience's skill ranges from 'can barely move the character' to 'can perform perfectly timed feats with expert finger dexterity' and everything in between. Not everyone can play the same, which is why there is a difficulty slider. Did you turn yours all the way up? Easy dragons aren't an uncommon complaint, which is why there are PC mods that significantly boost them (one is called Deadly Dragons), because some players are so skilled that even the hardest difficulty isn't enough, but I'd argue Bethesda shouldn't assume everyone is this good and make their game too hard for the mere mortals. Otherwise people will stop playing, because that's the thing about games. Not everyone plays them for the Xtreme Challenge, some just like to chill out and relax a bit.

It's clear that your idea of fun is to be challenged and to make up the story as you go along, but you have to remember that that's your preference and that others are different. You say it's all subjective but then rant about the gaming industry because it doesn't jive with your idea of fun; that seems short-sighted. The huge success of the games you don't like says a lot about the kind of fun that others like. The Call of Duty series are an excellent series of games, with for the most part fun and engaging single player campaigns and superb multiplayer that can literally last you years. (Sure, the formula is getting somewhat tired now, however.)

There are still games that might appeal to you though, such is the wide variety of games on release and in development. So it just seems like you're the old angry man on the mountain shouting at the clouds.

Personally, I share some of your feelings and long from freedom in games, and find sandbox games to be my favourite genre for that reason. But you're always going to be penned in by both game construction and design choices, as well as the need for accessibility and stucture. But equally, there's a game for every mood and they shouldn't all follow the same doctrine. I love sinking hours into Call of Duty, Skyrim, and a Total War game equally, and even an incredibly basic Android game like Flight Control.

Except the game does do that with the Radiant system, which randomly gives you quests depending on various factors, and the different play styles means that you can literally have a unique experience every time you've played. Have you tried playing through the game again with a new character? It's surprising just how different you can do things, even when following what is ostensibly the exact same path. In an old typical platformer, you jump at the same bits and the enemies behave in the same way, it's repeating the exact same experience. Not so with Skyrim. That wizard might be the same and he might always be in the hall up ahead, but how you defeat him is never the same. I just think you've picked on a bad example there. Also, to some extent the point of Skyrim is just to play around in the world, chop wood and go hunt elks; the main quest is entirely optional (and arguably there in order to provide structure to that broad section of the audience who lack the imagination to make their own story).

Bioware's style is to create branching stories, so a player can have multiple experiences that are unique each time but are eventually limited by the game's content. In Mass Effect you can make a choice and the game takes you along a different path than if you had made another choice (and so on until the end). I guess the question here then becomes, how many unique experiences should a game provide to a player? Or while we are here, why should a game give a unique experience to every person who plays it? Why is there a need for this in the first place?

An interesting topic to bring up is the Western-Eastern differences in game design. The Western style of games is very different from that of Japan, where the story is equally if not more dominant and the gameplay is usually much more linear and shallower (compare the Yakuza series to the GTA series, or the FF series to Elder Scrolls). But then, most Japanese games are designed with just one playthrough in mind.

Except it didn't play itself. He moved the character through every section of one level (playing it like a complete doucebag in the process). Note, an experience you're unlikely to replicate with the rest of the game. It's the equivalent of moving Mario through a level and jumping over all the enemies, getting to the end and calling it crap. True, it worked but you didn't really play the game.

How about you watch someone play the game properly? You'll then see how different it is.

I won't even go into how the Call of Duty games are primarily multiplayer games, which is about as pure gameplay as you can possibly get.

I'm not really sure what you're expecting with regards to gameplay, perhaps you have unrealistic expectations of putting on some VR goggles and living an untethered second life. Games which feature going from point A to point B have always been scripted. It's just that now the scripting is usually more elaborate (and you're noticing it more). You're kidding yourself if you think your NES and PSX games aren't scripted and have you on rails in some form (curious to hear what would be your ideal games from this era). Any game with AI requires scripting and is a controlled experience. It's just the degree of control that changes, widening or narrowing depending really on the genre. A strategy game like Total War or Civilisation is going to be less controlled than an FPS game for instance, as the former's scope allows more variables to be included. More variables means more combinations and outcomes. Walking down a corridor with bad guys at the end shooting at you only has so many variables and outcomes, so of course, it's going to look or feel generic. So it's then the experience that's going to make it less generic and more memorable, hence the need for storytelling to drive you emotionally forwards and for scripted and partially-scripted mini-events to make it as exciting as possible.

Another thing is that games now aren't necessarily designed to be replayed over and over.  There are more games coming around the corner, so the argument goes 'why would you want to replay it again?' With that sort of reasoning, why not aim to control that first playthrough so it's a great experience showing you the best of everything. Why risk players going through your game and not discovering or experiencing the best elements that you designed?

I'd argue that Skyrim is a really poor example to use here as experiences are in fact so different person to person. Talking to my friends, it sometimes feels like we're playing different games entirely. Kinda shocked you'd call on this, which to me indicates that you've perhaps not played it either.

Personally, the introduction of storytelling into games has been the best thing that happened to it. Pong or Pac-man isn't an engaging experience in the slightest. There's a reason why Half Life is so reverently remembered and it has little to do with you shooting creatures. It was the first time a popular FPS game truly aimed at engaging you on a narrative level.

After the kick in the balls I've had recently, this goes some way to making me feel good about people.