cdstacker

While this is a scary idea I still wouldn't call it Orwellian. Orwell actually hated and rallied against people using analogies and overused metaphors when discussing politics. He would hate how often people claim something is Orwellian just because they don't like it or because a small group of idiot politicians try to do something stupid that won't work.

Put magicka damage on your weapon. Wizards without magical are just pathetic melee goons.

In Zerg vs terran I normally go for a heavy Roach build. Roaches are pretty good against marauders and tanks especially if you can burrow and regenerate them. After the tanks are out of commission it's probably a smart idea to throw some zerlings with the speed upgrade into the mix, preferably to take out his economy. 

Fry Cry 2 was great step in the right direction. Sadly the game wasn't very good at training you how to play and because of that the first 4 hours of game time just seems really hard, once you get the hang of the shooting, stealth and how and when to appropriately start fires it really becomes something else. I also quite liked the tension the game built but i think they actually had too many armed combatants in the open world stuff. That game would have been better if there were less armed guards (i.e. only at some check points, and perhaps a way to talk or bribe you way out of a conflict) and if they had some aggressive animals like lions and rhinos instead of just herbivores. This all being said I really loved just driving around in first person in that game, the you entered and handled the cars, the way you held the map up, it all felt good. 

Wouldn't the new health care laws potentially help this problem? It is easier to fight obesity when you start trying before you are too big to move or have a serious illness or condition. If your new health care laws are anything like Australia's health care then more people than ever should be able to afford cheap regular checkups from a doctor, that doctor can then reconmend a new diet or warn the patient about their cholesterol and other things. The government obviously can't force people to be healthy but can try to help the populace, for instance in Australia there is talk about banning kids' shows from having junk food ads. Other things government's could do is try to encourage children's sport (auskick here in Australia) or make nutrition a key part of health class.    

Instead of calling GiantBomb a video game website about videogames I'd go with Vinny's description of "Like the food network for video games". Also I would begin the trailer hinting at Gerstmangate, i.e. "One man stood for his ideals, justice, videogames, etc."

The reason you don't see many female gamers is because you are such a skeezy, creepy bastard that women in general want to avoid you, it has nothing to do with their gaming habits.

Also Dead Space, while not a fps, did some cool things with enemy weakspots, not only cause dismembering them was cool but because there were some enemies where if you shot them in head or stomach they would actually make the situation harder for you (thinking of those fat guys where if shot their torso it just released a whole bunch of killer babies and did little damage to the fat guy).

I don't think head shots need to kill but the does need to be a quick, clean way to kill enemies, for instance i thought ODST did a pretty good job at this; brutes could take numerous headshots unless you used a plasma weapon to down their shields first, then you could headshot them, hitting a jackal in the side would make them move their shield allowing you to pierce their headball. I'm not saying ODST was that great (frankly I only really enjoyed firefight) but I did appericate how different weapons could be deadly but only if you set up the cirumstances. 
 
The other thing i'm not sure about is length, I think that depends on the game. Frankly with MW2 i was glad the campaign was short because I thought spec ops and mulitplayer were superior and while the campaign did have some excellent set pieces and gameplay areas I thought the plot was quite pathetic. I think that if the games real focus is clearly not on the campaign and instead on the mulitplayer or coop modes than i don't care that much about length, i'd rather have more quanity in the areas I actually want to play. For instance I really don't want the single player in bad company 2 to be very long, what i want is good multiplayer and a coop mode (if coop mode is in the campaign mode than i do want some qunaity).

You should keep them in because frankly, it's no fun to get zero kills. Sure grenade launchers aren't exactly fare but good players don't actually use them much and generally get far better scores than someone relying on them, so whats the harm in letting the less skilled still have some fun in a game they paid money for. Taking them out would make the game more competitive, but if the best players still win it's more important to make sure that everyone can have some fun, even those that aren't that good. If you make your game too competitive than you end up with a game that no new players can get in to and is really only fun for dedicated, hardcore fans, if you relax the competitiveness a little than you have something where the best players still win but people like me or my uncle can still have fun with the launchers, riot shields, etc.