Ernest

Almost everyone is saying that the argument made in the post is wrong.

But it's right.

Games these days are complex. They are about ideas, not characters. Sam Fisher, for example, could have been a mascot in older days when Splinter Cell would have been much more simple. Now, the idea is espionage and politics.

Even RPGs of old had a simplicity to them that is virtually gone from console games of today. The presence of mascots is only useful to Nintendo's portable systems because it's the only company that still wants to somewhat maintain its innocence. The PSP has no mascot of any kind because it's meant to be a complex, almost business-like, electronic device.

Mascots are, indeed, losing their grip on gaming. And the culprit is not the average gamer, who has fun with characters. The culprits are companies who want to expand their repertoire beyond the gaming world and into our entire consumer society.

Al Gore might not know scientific veracity (though the argument sounds more like an ad hominem attack than anything else), but the people who study climate change and weather patterns are all about veracity. At MIT, we no longer question whether it is happening. It's real. The questions that are harder to answer (and thus, where the issue becomes divisive) are: To what extent is human activity causing global warming? How will it affect us? When will it affect us? Of course, there are answers to these questions, but they are contended. As we continue to study the environment, we will uncover more and more answers. In the meantime, it's important to, first, acknowledge that the situation exists, and then to ACT.

First comment: lol, Ben.