The other half of the argument was that the video games industry is an altogether different entity in terms of its approach to entertaining its customers and fans, with complex, thought-provoking entertainment being the norm - rather than the oxymoron that it would represent in the Hollywood context.

Now, it should be noted that Brooker is a keen gamer of many years (he used to write - rather excellently - for UK gaming magazine, PC Zone) but is also a fan of both film and television, so his keenly-argued piece naturally had me pondering further parallels between Hollywood and the video gaming industry - and, while I think there is some merit in the opinion that gaming currently offers more 'clever blockbusters' than Hollywood (maybe 8 vs 2 a year at a rough guess), there are also a load of other parallels which slightly complicate this simplistic opposition. Here's a few comparisons of the two industries which I think are worthy of note:

1. An obvious point to start with - the two industries are increasingly intertwined with each passing year. As Brooker's article points out, recent gaming hits such as LA Noire actually feature real-life actors, whose physical performances have been cleverly digitised within the graphics of the game. Nothing new here; many will remember the use of acted cut-scenes even in games as old as Command & Conquer: Red Alert 1. But this is just the tip of the iceberg, as games and films are converging ever more rapidly (with CGI now being a huge component of many Hollywood products) and many big-budget games requiring the kind of 'direction' and organisation of creative personnel that mimics that of Hollywood productions.

Moreover, even though many Hollywood video game adaptations have been utter rubbish (from Mario Bros to Tomb Raider, Resident Evil to Mortal Kombat) and many gaming movie tie-ins (i.e. Spiderman games, Harry Potter games etc etc) are not much better - there is ever more use of revenue models that jointly rely on crossover products. It should be noted that both these directions of travel (games into films, and films into games) are driven more by Hollywood than by the video games industry - though how long major companies in the two sectors will remain separate is an interesting question - I expect we'll see some big games company acquisitions from major Hollywood studios in coming years.

2. Secondly, since gamers typically spend far longer in the fictional spaces provided by games than film goers do in theirs (many tens of hours vs. maybe two hours respectively), video games are able to utilise franchise production to an even greater degree than Hollywood. So, successful franchises such as Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, Command and Conquer, etc (the list could go on for a LONG time) can easily run into 10+ sequels and follow-ups, whereas most Hollywood franchises are well done and dusted by the third or fourth run (think Shrek, American Pie, Die Hard, Rocky etc - even those utterly milked examples will never get as far as a tenth outing).

This is of course also dependent upon the fact that every couple of years or so, games developers can call upon more advanced technologies - which in itself are reason enough to make a new instalment in the franchise (i.e. new/better graphics etc) which doesn't happen so much in Hollywood, the latest 3D craze being a rare exception (yes, previous special effects can be bettered/outdone - but not as often as in the world of gaming). The point however is that if you bemoan Hollywood's reliance on franchise models and lack of creativity - think again about the even greater degree to which it dominates gaming.

3. Both Hollywood and the video games industry rely massively on external sources for plots, concepts and aesthetics. Charlie Brooker lauds the recent LA Noire as an example of gaming's 'intelligent' product - but that particular  game owes a huge debt to Hollywood popularisation and development of film noir aesthetics back in the 1940's and 50's - which in itself derived from the literary genre which arose in the 1930's, and also the visual aesthetics of German cinematic expressionism and so on.

Anyway, this list of comparisons could go on indefinitely - the point is that the interplay and convergence of these two industries and their respective forms of visual entertainment product will significantly shape and define the media entertainment landscape in coming years. Currently gaming companies are able to generate profits that rival Hollywood, without dumbing down to same extent for two reasons: they are tackling piracy more competently (though not to say it isn't a factor in draining profits) and their product costs the consumer maybe ten times what a trip to the cinema might. If either of these things change, I wonder if games developers might have to make unwelcome creative compromises in order to safeguard revenues? Pure speculation and something we cannot really answer in a few words here - let's hope we never have to find out.

With 505 exhibitors from all around the world, over 200 premieres, and the promise of enjoying 'the city of Cologne as an interactive playground' it's no wonder that gamers from all round Europe are hopping onto coaches, trains, and budget planes to go and binge on the delights of this weekend's event. If you're undecided about whether it's worth the trip, perhaps this images from the opening day (yesterday) will go someway to swaying you.

All in all, there's the usual array of high-profile press conferences from all the big players (Sony on the PS3 and more, Microsoft on Kinect), blockbuster franchise sequel previews (Final Fantasy XIV, COD: Black Ops...) and of course plenty of non-virtual entertainment in the form of BMX stunt shows and live music. For a more detailed programme of everything that's happening, be sure to check the official Gamescom website to plan your visit.

If you're unable to make the event this year, there is also a wealth of very detailed and interesting analysis and comment available from most of the key gaming blogs, with FFXIVblog having a decent bit of info on that particular game, and Gamespot having in-depth coverage of pretty much everything else.

Before signing off, I'd just like to applaud the Gamescom organisers for their impressive success in bringing together yet another excellent event, following on from the inaugural Gamescom last summer. High-profile festival-style events like this are absolutely essential for bringing gaming ever more into the mainstream of entertainment media, and ultimately provide a great vehicle for the industry to market itself and attract new fans.

What I think it particularly good about Gamescom, is the fact that it represents a great day out - and not just for the more dedicated gamers. There's something on offer for all the family too, and the programme is designed so that even the curious non-gamers will be welcomed and accommodated - and perhaps discover a new hobby. In essence, Gamescom is somewhat of a Glastonbury for European gamers - and that can only be a very good thing indeed.

First and foremost, the E3 official website is handy for some general orientation and overviews of what was happening last week. While that site is good for industry insiders who want to know who was there and what was exhibited, E3's official highlights page contains links to some of the more high-profile events of general interest also for non-industry specialists. There's press conferences from all the big players (Nintendo, Ubisoft, Xbox360, Sony etc), as well as key round-tables and noteworthy speakers. Perhaps most interesting for gamers themselves will be the many demos of up-and-coming technologies and games planned for future release, with hotly anticipated releases such as the next instalments of Halo and Call of Duty being up there.

Moving on from there, Guardian tech has some decent in-depth analysis of trends and lessons from E3, with a special focus on the prominence of the shooter genre, the return of big-name franchises (Donkey Kong for example) and also on motion sensor technology - as in Microsoft Kinect.

Meanwhile, Gamespot, has much extensive coverage to choose from, including daily summaries and excellent video highlights of key interviews and developments. So, if you weren't one of the 45,600 people that were lucky enough to attend this year, there's now a better chance than ever for you to catch up on what went on at this year's E3 - as well as to check out some of the schedule for next year (see Gamespot for more) and start planning your visit...

Dejan Levi

Let me give you a few figures:

'Indiana Jones 4' UK box office TOTAL:  £48m

'Michael Jackson This is It' documentary UK box office TOTAL (so far): £5m '

The Dark Knight' UK box office TOTAL: £54m

'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2' UK gross FROM LESS THAN A WEEK AFTER RELEASE: £47m...

Now clearly we've all been banging on for some time about how huge the video gaming industry is, how much it's worth etc etc. But the thing is that it hasn't really permeated to any great extent into the public consciousness because, even with the success of GTA 4, it was always felt that aside from the odd exception games could never do the kind of figures we see from the super-hit blockbusters.

Well no longer is this the case, for the new COD represents in effect the video game industry's Titanic (the film not the actual ship) - in essence such a runaway financial monster hit that the media will inevitably shine a spotlight once again on the whole topic, and a few more eyebrows will be raised in a 'huh? but i thought games were a niche past-time of a few teenage geeks?' kind of way, before giving way to the realisation that gaming is right up there as an entertainment industry with the long-established giant of cinema.

Whatsmore it is interesting to observe how the gaming sector is following many of the trends evident in the film industry in recent years - for example the divergence between varying modes of production, and markets. What I mean by this is that while the runaway monster productions such as COD and GTA resemble the franchise film-making models recently reinvigorated by Hollywood (Indiana Jones, Die Hard, Batman etc) so too the vast improvements in software and hardware availability means that there is quite a considerable (but financially smaller) sector of DIY independent games being made and distributed either for free, or for only a few dollars/pounds.

The parallels could continue, but really what interests me most in relation to this topic is the question of how big games will become in coming years. After all, cinema audiences have dwindled massively since the post WWII peak years, though of course we still watch plenty of films, though now on a variety of formats. Of course film is huge in every sense, be it culturally, economically or whatever. But it is time to really acknowledge not only that video games are now representing a consistent rival (or partner as is far more often the case - just look at crossovers such as video games adapted to film, or the even more common, films adapted into games), and that it is not inconceivable that in another 10 or 20 years, gaming might completely dwarf cinema/film as both an industry - and a pastime. Seems far fetched maybe, but not so if one considers the statistical trends evident in recent years. Only time will tell...

Dejan Levi

Personally I can't believe it - could it be true that Girls Aloud - and Nicole Kidman were wrong (both endorsed the products in tv adverts)??! That's the last time I look to them for medical and scientific advice for sure...

On a more serious note there is quite a tricky problem here. We are often alert to contentious claims made by advertising in other consumer product spheres but yet remain awfully vulnerable to taking an ad's word for it when it comes to health and technology.

Perhaps it's down to the fact that we receive so many contradictory messages that it's hard to keep track - meat is good for the muscles, meat gives you cancer, meat is bad for the environment, meat industry provides jobs etc etc for example.

The problem is that we don't really know too much about many of these things from our own education and are now suddely confronted with a wealth of broad evidence - well, guess what? Marketing agencies know this, and they know that all parents want their kids to be clever and intelligent, and they also know that parents want a little time to themselves occasionally. Hey Presto! 'Buy this computer game for your children and they will make themselves clever quietely while you enjoy a break in the other room'.

The whole mental boost marketing device is also useful for creating a guilt-free gaming option which is important for some people who might otherwise be reluctant to spend time gaming. Hey Presto! 'Now you're gaming and developing your mind!'

I guess the bottom line is that, even though technology can sometimes seem complex and confusing, we are actually better equipped to make independent decisions than we realise. For example - the next time Girls Aloud give you medical and scientific advice in an advert for an expensive product - maybe read around a little before you buy...

Dejan Levi

(NB there is even now an online WoW rehab clinic, WoWDetox, for those worried about their use).

Like many others, this blog covered the debate - but since then has not featured much WOW or even gaming news. So this week we're going to put the spotlight on something really positive coming out of the WOW community and try to redress the balance a little as regards some of the bad press that perhaps inevitably surrounds the addiction debate.

In that spirit then, congratulations to the makers of WoW sitcom The Guild, which has recently been picked up for a second (online) season by MSN video, with a bigger budget and wider release planned. A great example of quality fan-created spin-off media doing well.

For those new to the show (which claims to have over 10m viewers), The Guild is a sitcom about a group of WOW players who meet in the real world. Created by Buffy The Vampire Slayer actress Felicia Day, the show is delivered in short episodes of three to six minutes, with the first series comprising ten in total.

I have just watched the first season in its entirety (it comes in at around 45 mins total) and found it very entertaining and well crafted. The show is pretty simple in terms of set-ups and plot, and relies on an excellently funny script which is well acted by the cast (including Felicia Day). The WOW humour probably means the show will struggle to make it onto television - but its brilliant online success thus far renders this slightly irrelevant in my view.

As well as producing the show, the creators run a Guild website with other such fun as blog posts from the show's characters and my personal favourite - a twitter stream from Vork, the in-game clan leader, which features great posts like 'spent hour lecturing Macy's cosmetics employee that perfumes are more expensive and 148X less effective than naturally released pheromones'. Brilliant (when you watch a few episodes and see Vork's character you'll understand...)

Anyway, for those who fancy a pretty funny dose of geeky humour (though not neccesarily WoW players - I have never played but still followed and loved the show) check out www.watchtheguild.com for the first season and a range of info and links on the second. As well as being a quality show, great press for WoW players (who, let's face it, sometimes get a bit of a kicking in mainstream media), The Guild is also an exciting example of semi-professional/professional online digital media and a success story in what is an ever maturing new medium. Well done guys!

Dejan Levi

Not for the first time I found myself wondering - how serious is gaming addiction, and also who or what (if anything) is to blame? It can't be a simple case of pointing the finger at Blizzard and ignoring the wider contexts in play...

Firstly though one quick observation about the release evening. As thousands of fans waited outside stores all night in order to ensure getting a copy, with many dressed up as favourite characters, camped outside shops with mock battleaxes and pointy hats, the whole thing reminded me of the Harry Potter mania of recent years or maybe even the Beatlemania of decades gone by. 

This surely is an indication that gaming is slowly but surely encroaching ever closer to being viewed as a credible mainstream entertainment format, which can only be a good thing - though judging by how few titles inspire such devotion there is still a long way to go.

Anyway onto the issue of addiction, which I do believe to be a serious one. There can be no doubt that many WOW players do play the game to levels that justify the use of the word addiction. While many would say that since they feel they can stop tomorrow then such terminology is harsh, the same arguments are often used by smokers and drug addicts in denial about the level of their habitual dependence.

This is by no means to say that all WOW players are such - indeed the majority are probably what one could describe as casual or hobby gamers, but nonetheless there is a significant portion who could be termed gaming/WOW addicts and it is these players who are here relevant.

The interesting thing about the public debates in which gaming is discussed is that sadly often highlighting such issues has the negative consequence of pushing gaming back towards the margins of the entertainment world by virtue of the stigma that comes from the addiction problem. Yet the logic is the same as implying that all who drink alcohol are addicts to varying degrees, and that alcohol and pubs inherently are harmful and damaging things - something we would all probably see as an overly simplistic rationale.

This is the huge problem faced by Blizzard and other game developers - it is that their product is often perceived to be a huge part of the problem, when in actual fact this is the same as blaming a pub landlord because a pubgoer ends up very drunk on a regular basis. After all, how is playing WOW any different from watching television? (Some would argue that as WOW contains a social aspect, it is actually less of a problem in terms of the consequences of addiction). But for some reason since the average Briton watches just under four hours of television a day then the bar for an addict is much higher - and since even 'non-addicts' do it - tv addiction is somehow less wierd.

The fundamental challenge in tackling gaming addiction is not simply to do with getting developers to design games differently, nor is it a problem which can be solved solely by awareness and discussion of the issue - though obviously both of these things are important.

The most pressing initial task is to understand gaming addiction, something which can be difficult especially for people for whom games are a strange and bizarre hobby. It is time to recognise that gaming addiction is essentially pretty similar to many other common addictions (which we both understand and tackle better). It affects people in a particular way, and on the surface would seem less immediately dangerous - but regardless of this it can cause serious long term problems for the (mostly) young people affected by it.

Ultimately blaming Blizzard, WOW, or anyone else is short-sighted and unconstructive to addressing the issue. Firstly we must look in detail at the details of gaming addiction and recognise where it is similar to other addictions and where it differs - only then can we identify strategies for solving the problem. The blame culture which dumps the responsibility at the door of developers or gamers solely simply offloads the problem and stigmatises all gamers at a time when the industry is making huge strides into the mainstream of entertainment media. In answer to the question above, perhaps it's better to deploy another question; does one blame a television company or a television channel when we discover that someone watches it for ten hours a day, every day? No, me niether...

Dejan Levi

This equates to roughly £25,585 each (assuming the money is shared equally between the ten players - which is unlikely, since they also have a manager to pay and other costs to cover) which all begs the question; why are pro gamers paid so little?

Consider that these players must also pay taxes and have training/hardware costs to cover; quite possibly they could well only really see around £15,000 each after all costs and taxes have been covered which, considering their status as winners of a massive international event, does seem rather low (there are only a few such events each year - so the opportunities to earn are limited).

Indeed only four months ago the biggest pro gaming tournament, the Cyberathlete Professional League (CPL), was officially dissolved with all forthcoming events cancelled, further reducing the number of events available for pro gamers to earn a living from. The current financial climate and the fragmentation of the sport were the main reasons cited.

But really the biggest problem faced by the entire scene is more simply one of spectatorship and mainstream indifference.

Consider for example the interesting evolution of poker as a spectator game in recent years and the subsequent growth in player numbers that has followed, contributing to greater sums of money being available for players. The game has seen a huge rise in popularity, and unquestionably broken into the mainstream (in the UK all the major tv channels apart from the BBC feature some sort of coverage) - all because the issue of spectatorship was solved.

The key was when an effective method of showing matches was developed - using cameras under the table to show each players 'hand' through a small glass window onto which the cards are placed. This rapidly earned the game massive spectator potential (the advent of internet poker was also crucial), and the rest is now poker history...

To return to pro gaming, the problem is that there is currently no mainstream crossover with regard to spectatorship, and no convenient format for transmitting most of the biggest multiplayer games, especially if one wishes to consider accessibility and attract new audiences.

There is no doubt that prize funds would benefit considerably if the problem of transmission could somehow be solved. Consider for example one of the most popular online multiplayer games of all time - Counterstrike. Those familiar with the game will immediately understand the problems with finding a convenient format for transmitting games to a tv audience for example.

The problem is really one of perspective - the games naturally lend themselves to viewing from an individual player's POV or perhaps selective viewing of particular game areas. There is simply no way to watch the whole game, in real-time, and not miss some of what's happening. If we compare this with a popular tv sport such as football, where viewers can pretty much follow 95% of the event through tv coverage (and in any case 100% of all important game events), then it becomes easy to see why the game has such tv success, and hence such a wide audience.

If gaming could somehow also be translated effectively into a tv format that would make it exciting to watch, even for those who are not serious gamers, then the whole pro gaming scene could see a massive and much-needed cash injection. In the meantime sadly, mainstream public perception remains indifferent at best. Until some new methods of coverage and transmission can somehow change this, the prize money available for players will always remain relatively small compared to most other recognised sports.

Dejan Levi

It was hardly an enticing field for creative DIY developers to enter on a casual basis - but arguably this ensured a certain level of quality was maintained across much of the industry's output (and rightly so; with new games typically averaging somewhere between £29-49 it's only to be expected that a high quality product should be delivered).

In the past, whole teams of staff would work away for many months to perfect graphics, gameplay, plot, user interface etc, to produce a fully polished product. In the recent times though, new and alternative models of operating in the industry have been emerging, and the result is a whole new (and vast) realm of gamer experience.

Electronic distribution systems (such as Xbox Live Arcade, Playstation Network, Wii-Ware etc) have greatly reduced the costs of delivering a title to gamers. No longer must packaging be designed and paid for by games publishers, no longer must costly real-world distribution rates be incurred, and no longer must that cost be passed on to game buyers.

Moreover, users' expectations have also been drastically re-configured with regard to the types of gaming experiences they desire - largely as a consequence of the success of the Nintendo Wii and the plethora of new avenues it has opened up (Keith Stuart in this week's Guardian has written some interesting points on this). We are now happy to buy a new game simply on the premise that it offers a new user experience (take most Wii titles as examples) even with the knowledge that the game lacks 'traditional' hallmarks of quality such as high-quality graphics or extensive game time.

Small DIY developers can now produce concept-driven titles in as little as six months, distribute them electronically for the price of only a few pounds - and still turn a profit. The graphics are often 'retro' at best, and in many cases can be simply dire when measured against traditional standards. The variety of experiences contained within can also be pretty poor; but who cares when the game costs £5, is delivered at the touch of a button, and provides a couple of days great entertainment? It's still better value than going to the cinema...

Luckily for major studios this new gaming sector is unlikely to impact on the levels of quality within the traditional higher tier of games development. If anything, this new lower/cheaper/quicker tier represents a great arena to try new and daring things that would be too financially risky for major studios, thereby enabling and encouraging creativity. Furthermore, young talent has a safe playground in which to explore and develop ideas and skills, ultimately strengthening the skills base and standards of the sector's professionals.

The main point really is that we are witnessing the birth of the 'Independent' gaming industry - in a sense a lower budget sector that complements the mainstream players in the same way that independent film-making complements Hollywood. Neither is necessarily better than the other; it is often a question of taste - but together they allow for much greater range of entertainment/art/products to be delivered to the consumer. Maybe two-tier description is a little simplistic; in reality there is a very gradual spread across the whole spectrum - but it serves to illustrate the differing methods.

In recent decades digital cameras, video-editing software, and a crucial broadening of consumers' range of acceptance with regard to new forms, have opened the film industry up to more experimentation, new avenues of creativity and, ultimately, more choice for the public. Now, in the same way, electronic distribution and a changing demographic of users is ensuring that gaming can mean so much more than it used to.

Definitions are constantly being loosened as the form gains new dimensions and becomes more inclusive - and the new development styles, and the titles being produced, are doing a great deal to attract a more casual gaming audience to this entertainment option. All this should go some way to ensuring that the massive gaming industry (worth $9bn in 2007) will only continue to grow more and more as a mainstream entertainment form. All in all, a pretty positive outlook lies ahead for the gaming industry...

Dejan Levi