I loved fallout 3, I played through it multiple times and explored every section of the map, buying each DLC day one. That was until mothership zeta, I knew I wouldn't like it and so I put it off. A few weeks ago that DLC was on sale and I finally gave in. It was an arduous journey as I had expected but now I can finally feel that I have experienced the complete unabridged fallout 3 experience. 
But I can't help but feel that I've been left with a sour taste because of that final whimper of a DLC, an awkward afterword to my favorite game and a blemish on a tour de force of DLC which proved that DLC really can improve upon a game. Anyone else feel like this or did you like mothership zeta?

 There has been a lot of heated debate over the qualitative value of games as art, due in no small part to the comments of film critic Roger Ebert. There are many detailed points which could be made on either side of this argument to justify games as art but my opinion on this is that art is, at it's core, a poorly defined and subjective concept. 
 
Not to be too cliche about this, but I will now describe the "literal" meaning of the word art as defined by dictionary.com. There are a number of descriptions under art so I will boil them down to the most important points, the first definition of art is " the production/expression according to aesthetic principles of what is beautiful". The point that is apparent to me here is that there are a number of games that display beautiful graphics and stunning vistas and which also have unique artistic merit within their design. However I also feel that beauty can easily be found in a rainswept view of a street and not in a sunny beach scene, depending on the individual.    
 
The next definition which I find to be salient is "a field/genre/category of art" and the example given is dance. I don't consider dance to be particularly artful, and I have to question is all dance an art form? If that is the case then what about poorly executed dancing, is that no longer considered to have artistic merit or is it simply bad art? Can this be extended to music, is lady gaga art or just a form of media? It seems that there are three possible answers, the first being that all of these things are art, none of them are or that the established idea of art among people such as Roger Ebert is the definition of art and that this definition will be redefined across new generations. 
 
Eberts main point is that video games can not be art because they are an interactive medium, and so the subject itself can be altered by the viewer. My problem with this is that when a person looks at any given painting, they form an individual opinion. This is surely an interactive endeavor as every person is likely to form a different opinion based on their own experiences, personality and even their current mood. I may look at a picasso and think it's terrible, while an art lecturer may love it, seeing beauty and themes which I may not have seen or simply didn't care for.
 
And here we arrive at my main point. Venerable critics aside, the concept of art is already poorly defined and flaky. This is not like arguing that a chair is not a piece of furniture because you can't eat on it, it's more like arguing over an entirely subjective and ill defined concept. In the end either every expression made by a person is art or nothing is. Am I right or have I oversimplified a deep and multifaceted discussion?

 I enjoy gaming generally, but I've found that there are two fairly prolific genres which are beyond me, and I can't help but feel I'm missing out. These are Real time strategy games and fighting games, I find both of these types of games to be unfathomable and frustrating and they are as far beyond my comprehension as learning french or interpreting modern dance.
Between the two I have most experience with fighting games, spending some time with dead or alive 4 and street fighter 2 though I can play neither convincingly while street fighter IV decimates me and I can only play it at the level of a six year old. 
 
The extent of my interactions with RTS games are quick dabbles with a handful of demos and I suppose viva pinata. I find these games extremely stressful as they require a lot of multitasking, keeping track of units and a battlefield (?) or lovely pinatas as the case may be. I feel I may not be giving these games the respect they may deserve, are there fans of these genres who can suggest where I may be going wrong or games I should give a chance ( I've been ruminating on this since the talk on the bombcast about super street fighter and starcraft 2).
 
Also, are there genres or games that are widely accepted and enjoyed by others but which escape you?

Right now on the Telltale site you can get a Tales of monkey island/ secret of monkey island bundle for $19.95 which is a complete bargain, Tales is excellent and I would jump on this If I didn't already have it. The other offer is a 50% discount at checkout when you preorder the first episode of the new Nelson Tethers: Puzzle agent series, which was ideal as it got me a season of Sam & Max at a bargain price.
Is anyone else planning to snatch either of these immense deals?

I found the Ghostbusters game to be fairly good, as a game it was decent, the production overall was pretty good, nice character models and hell it even had gratuitous use of the theme tune which is pretty much all I would need from any Ghostbusters product. However what's the deal with the mediocre reception? As a game it's maybe not excellent, but not poor by any standards and by the standards of licensed games it's possibly one of the best. Arkham Asylum aside are there other licensed games of similar quality?
Anyway, did you like it or loath it? On which side of the dichotomy do you stand and why?

I've just realised that I can change the alert sounds, so far I have:
New message - Doakes from Dexter saying "surprise!"
Sign in - Jeremy Clarkson shouting "I am an alien!"
Email - Jeremy Clarkson saying "yes" in a deep voice.
 
Anyone else having similar fun or intend to?

I recently switched from internet explorer to firefox, and so far it's been a revelation. Apart from generally much faster browsing, giantbomb now works perfectly where before I had problems. For example while using internet explorer drop down menus would disappear, I couldn't add related games/concepts to the wiki, I couldn't publish guides and often I couldn't bring up quest information.
As a result using giantbomb is now a much more enjoyable experience, has anyone experienced similar disparity between browsers or am I an isolated case?

 I did not join the site to edit the wiki, in fact at the time I had no idea that there was such a deep vein of game related information. Most of us know that one of the unique facets of this site is that it contains a game wiki which is entirely generated by the users, and when I found that all of these pages could be edited I assumed that I would be unable to contribute anything of worth to the vast edifice that lay before me. Initially this thought proved to be a self fulfilling prophecy as I made a dismal attempt to add an admittedly arbitrary and unnecessary sentence to the end of the Wrex character page which was promptly batted down by a moderator. For the time being I was satisfied with the attempt. 

 However soon after came the advent of the quest system and again there was impetus to edit the wiki once more. This time I met with more success, I started by making incremental improvements to the fallout new Vegas page, related character pages and to the beat hazard main page ( which someone has now spruced up significantly). These successful edits increased my confidence, but I was struggling to find pages which I could improve significantly, this was until I discovered that many of the resident evil character pages and monster concept pages were sparse or empty. This was ideal as I was very interested in this section of the resident evil mythos when I was younger and most of this knowledge remained. 

 Soon I had filled out in depth articles on monsters and some characters from the resident evil series, and positive feedback from the moderators  prompted me to create a 600 point page on the Hunter, as well as a few metro 2033 concepts which were also either unfilled or nonexistent. And now I have the (intimidating) power to make live edits to the site which I am conscious I do not want to abuse.
 
So what have your experiences with the wiki been and what prompted your involvement?

I just made my first list and it is comprised of very long games including fallout 3, dragon age and mass effect and at this point contains only games I have played. It is by no means complete and I would like some suggestions from the community. The games must be both exceptionally long (preferably over 40 hours) and be single player experiences only (so no world of warcraft or modern warfare).
 
Edit - Online games now accepted! 
Also, a witty summary sentence for some of the games on the list would be appreciated, especially as I have never played some of the suggestions.