With the advancement of graphics, storytelling and various other parts of gaming on the rise, comparisons between games and movies become more and more apt. But one thing that there seems to be a lack of comparison to are soundtracks. In movies licensed music is often used to draw an emotion from the viewer, and when done properly it can be powerful and lead to a very memorable moment. 
 
Of course it's not unheard of in games. One of the best examples I can think of is at the very end of Alan Wake. No spoilers, but there is a very fitting song presented at the end of the game. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with game soundtracks, I even downloaded the Super Meat Boy and VVVVVV soundtracks last year, and the song " Far Away" in Red Dead is fantastic. Is it purely a money thing? Is it a creative decision to create a games soundtrack yourself? I understand not using say modern rap in Fable III, but there is even licensed music that could fit that fictional time period.
 
Edit: I'm not suggesting entire soundtracks be composed of licensed music, just one or two songs.

Me: Oh, look another weird Minecraft video.
 
  

I don't know if it's a relatively new trend, but the consumption of media that's "so bad it's good," especially movies, has become more popular. With obvious examples being films like "The Room" or "Troll 2," you can find more of a culture that appreciates good bad movies. You see this with not only movies, but television and to a lesser extent music. This got me thinking, can a video game be absolutely terrible, but enjoyable at the same time?
 
Now, I know that everyone's immediate response would be

DEADLY PREMONITION

 Thanks, Ryan Davis. What if this was the Citizen Kane of gaming? How am I supposed to know what this game is about. Google it? What am I a caveman? You let me down, Jeff. There's a hole in my heart where the DSi and WiiWare games used to live.
'

"So you might remember my last blog, in which I posted a dumb article from CNN talking about upcoming games in 2011. There were some stupid moments, like comparing Portal 2 to Angry Birds, but the writer at least, in a way, knew what he was doing. Well I just came across this article on the Wall Street Journal Online. Here is the lead of the article. 
 

"No Mario Kart. No Beatles. No Halo. Here are the titles that existed under the surface of the hype but still delivered hours of fresh action for gaming pro and rookie alike"

Especially this guy. This is what happens when major media outlets go "oh shit, video games are popular, right?" and get Ted from down the hall who "has played video games before" to write something up. Aside from being ultra generic, some of it is just plain wrong. Gems from the article include the following:
 
" February will bring "Portal 2," a puzzle game that demands you solve challenges by teleporting items and individuals between locations. Like "Angry Birds," the game allows fans to casually experiment with physics. "
  

Let me tell you, if you want to feel old, hang out with children. I worked at a daycare for the past 4 years, and even though I'm only 21, I had a definite case of old man syndrome throughout most of it. Let me tell you when you see a 9-year-old pull out an iPhone, you'll instantly feel older. It's even more embarrassing when you see that they've gotten further in Angry Birds than you.
 
Reading the Walking Dead has been interesting, especially seeing how they treat Carl. All he knows is what he's grown up with, the zombies. They are his life, and that's just the way things are because that's the way things have been. Take this into mind when you see 10-year-olds playing Black Ops. Do I think that the government paid Activision to develop these games to turn our children into mindless killing machines for when we make our move for total global dominance? No, because if I was they would take me away to the secret re-education camps. I would never suggest such a thing, CIA.

A good friend of mine once said "Aim high, but keep your expectations low." Here are my resolutions for 2011.
 
1) Befriend either a "D" list celebrity, or a distant cousin of an "A" list celebrity. I either want to be getting brunch with Andy Dick, or going to Starbucks with Jedidiah Pitt.

2) Have a comeback. What can I say, I was inspired by "The Fighter" and I want my very own comeback story. It might be a little hard, seeing as to have a comeback technically you had to have been great at something. Anyway, I will keep looking to Mr. Whalberg for inspiration.
  

I never understood what makes a "fanboy." I had only Nintendo consoles until Christmas of 2008, but I would be one of the first people to critisize the Wii and point out that it was very far from perfect.  What brings this up is something I saw just now on IGN. They had the "Console Showdown 2010," which first of all I think is just in itself troll and fanboy bait. Sure enough, at the time of writing this the article has been up for 90 minutes and there are 802 comments. I'm not going to go through and read them, but I bet the majority of them are complaining about the 360 being named best console of 2010, or gloating.
 
So what makes a fanboy a fanboy? Is it defending your purchase? Maybe, but I assume many of the people who flame others for liking a certain console are at an age where their parents are still buying them the consoles and games. Are there any reformed (or current) fanboys out there that have reasons for it? I feel like you don't see this as much in other mediums, sure there are people out there saying "my car is the best all other cars suck Fords are the best!111!!," but you hardly see that in comparison to games. Maybe those people just don't know how to use the internet.