As a longtime PC gamer, I think it's fair to say this:

PC gaming has it merit in things like being able to play games where the only thing stopping how far you push performance and visuals, is your wallet and also with mods and other player created content. But the gap in power and visuals compared to console, is closing every generation and even modding is making it's way to console. Multiplats are almost always designed with a controller in mind, with the only games that really "feel" like they're made for PC are generally strategy games, simulators and mmo's.

I've been a PC gamer for over 15 yrs and have been building them for about as long, so I'll always be a PC gamer at heart, but as tech evolves, it seems the advantage/benefit of playing on PC vs console has reached a point of diminishing returns, at least in my experience. Consoles are doing 4k/60 now, consoles have digital storefronts, console even have m/kb support and you can't beat the 'bang-for-buck' you get from consoles in terms of power/performance, as it's one of the benefits for optimizing on a closed system. For many PC gamers, that's enough to switch over or at least own both, leaving largely only enthusiasts and hobbyists as the stringent, hardcore, "PC only" gamers.

When it comes to simply playing games, there is no clear winner anymore, objectively speaking. The argument now almost entirely comes down to preference.

So I'm sure some of you showed up to satiate your appetite of seeing yet another person rip EA/DICE apart on their anti-consumer practices, and if so, I'm sorry to disappoint you. No, this rant is targeted at the community and all their rhetorical, misinformed and ill-justified rage.

Before I start, you should all know that I consider myself a pretty fervent anti-SJW and anti-feminist, as well as being against PC culture. Some of my favorite related YouTube channels are Karen Straughan, Paul Elam and HoneyBadgerRadio. However, I'm also a big fan of rational and critical thought, rather than lashing out with emotion, which is why I won't just blindly side against social/political commentary supporting SJW/PC culture.That being said, I'll start things off slow.

It's multiplayer, you fucking idiots... It's character customization in a MP game. And save me the "history buff" argument. Really? You're a fan of the war? Did you learn about when troops would play team deathmatch or a variant of capture the fucking flag? That shit really happened, didn't it? Tell me, do you feel the idea of getting points for kills and headshots is equally as "disrespectful" to veterans, as offering the ability to play as female via customization?

DICE didn't put those women on the battlefield. They just provided the tools and option for players to choose to do so. All the talk about "we don't have a problem with women in the game," yes you do, shut up... Even if not for sexist reason, you still have a problem with them being in the game, because "immersion" or "historical accuracy."

Any actual history buff, is not going to waste their time complaining about a MP, WWII video game, that was never known for it's historical accuracy to begin with. BF was always about being "real enough." Real enough to separate itself from the competition, and real enough for your average player to say, "wow! this shit is real!" And even in cases with Battlefield 1, where you can argue historical accuracy or authenticity, the immersion is still broken by shit like 3 guys with flamethrowers riding on top of a horse...

Oh, and could somebody please outline what exactly this "political agenda" is I keep hearing about? What is the purpose and the end-goal? Like, if everything went as planned, what was EA/DICE expecting to happen? What would they gain? What was their ultimate plan? These are the basis for having an agenda in the first place, so I'm curious... It's character customization - calm the **** down... at worst, they are just playing the "diversity card," to warrant justification for having customization in the first place, and thus, cosmetic microtransactions. That in itself may be shitty, but is it "boycott the game" shitty?

The fact that the game allows you to also creates blacks, and Asians, and soldiers with no helmet, and face paint and mohawks, for all sides in the game, yet women still seem to be the focal point, is why the "I don't have a problem with women" argument, is suspect as best.

Anyone going on about how they should have women in the game play the roles they actually played in the war, well, that is going to be reserved for the single player war stories. If and when the SP is shown, and it is revealed that DICE pissed all over history, then you can piss and moan.

And finally, because I know someone will bring it up, I'll address the whole "uneducated" fiasco. Those who claim they are not getting/playing the game because EA/DICE called them out as being "uneducated" and told them "don't like it, don't buy it," well....

Soderlund was not addressing the community as a whole with his "uneducated" comment. He was addressing a vocal minority that took to Twitter claiming that EA was sacrificing historical accuracy and realism for political correctness, despite plenty of available history about women in World War II. His response to them was:

"These are people who are uneducated—they don't understand that this is a plausible scenario, and listen: this is a game, "and today gaming is gender-diverse, like it hasn't been before. There are a lot of female people who want to play, and male players who want to play as a badass [woman]."

"And we don't take any flak. We stand up for the cause, because I think those people who don't understand it, well, you have two choices: either accept it or don't buy the game. I'm fine with either or. It's just not ok."

If you take offense to his comment, then:

1.) you are one of the people he was actually addressing

2.) you are wrongly outraged due to being mislead by the community/media as to who/what he was actually addressing

3.) you are a triggered snowflake

4.) You aren't actually offended, and instead are just using it as a disingenuous means to justify hating on EA yet again.

All these people getting triggered (which is ironic in itself) over absolutely nothing. And the more they try to justify their arguments, the more ridiculous they make themselves look.

After playing the beta, I can firmly say that my biggest concern is with the Dark Zone. The Dark Zone in theory seems like it would be a good idea - players grouping up to tackle tough AI challenges or even other "rogue" players that want to target their own - like a modern day cops and robbers...but in practice, it's not really like that. It's more like Mad Max, where players need to constantly be aware of their surroundings, and taking on seemingly innocent tasks, like simply exiting a safe zone, can result in being ambushed. I can't tell you how many times simply walking past other players resulting in paranoia and tension, as both p[layers turn back to see what the other was up to, making sure they weren't going to get a bullet in their back, or players working together to tackle a task, only to have one or more of them turn against them and do just that. And don't even think about venturing in the DZ alone. Doing so means you're either brave, stupid, or a bit of both.

Now, the fact that the Dark Zone is optional content is a start, but the devs seem to have stressed that the best loot is in the Dark Zone, and if this turns out to be the case, if PVE content simply can't match the loot found in the DZ, then the name of this game is fitting, since it will effectively divide the community... Hopefully my concerns with loot are misplaced and the PVE zones will offer comparable if not the same loot as the DZ. If not then, Ubisoft effectively just gave the PVE community a huge middle finger.

If this was a competitive genre like moba or a dedicated competitive shooter, then maybe I could see reasoning behind their "greater risk/reward" formula behind the DZ, but it's not those games...it's an rpg. They even specifically state that it's an rpg in the intro vid of the beta, and RPG's are a genre saturated in pve content and players that want only that. Having access to different items is one thing, but the devs have apparently made it pretty clear that if you want the best items, you need to play in the dark zone, and if that's the case, that seems like bs. I guess we'll see when game launches.

The loot issue aside, the DZ is still rather "lawless" and unforgiving. It seems to want to punish players, no matter what. You were minding your own business and were just gunned down by a rogue player? Yeah, you're still going to be punished in the form of loss of credits or xp or both... The DZ in general needs to be addressed, because in it's current state it's a huge, frustrating, discouraging mess, that actually rewards being an asshole.

Some ideas for cleaning up the Dark Zone:

- Players who are not rogue that are killed by other players, do not lose any loot/xp/credits upon death. This can help with players who are ambushed by other players, or had no interest in pvp.

- Have the PVP element be optional. Make it so players can only participate in PVP or be targeted by it under certain circumstances. Ex: 1.)You kill a friendly NPC - people on the street, guards at a safe zone, etc. 2.) you need to actively enable "pvp mode" which can be done through the menu or whatnot, and/or or 3.) you fire on a rogue player. This means that players could not target other players unless the target is already hostile. This way players who want to venture in the DZ without having to worry about getting killed by players, can do so.

- Extraction zones are safe zones. Once the chopper arrives and it's time to extract, players within the zone cannot be targeted by other players nor target other players. They could also just significantly reduce the extraction time, this way any potential rogue players would need to already be close by, or otherwise miss the opportunity to gank people's loot. They could also just get rid of extraction zones altogether, and just let player decontaminate their loot at safe zones.

- Players will have some sort of indicator on them to let others know about their overall rogue status, like how many times they've went rogue, total time spent rogue, etc. This can help give other players info when passing by each other, if they should perhaps be on their guard or not.

Ok, so I had some time with the game, and by that I mean it was the only game I played fir the entire weekend of the stress test, and I gotta say, Overwatch is awesome. It's really a lot of fun, and there was only like 3 maps and 2 gamemodes (sometimes they mixed them in a single map.) It plays like my original assessment of TF2 mixed with Monday Night Combat, but Blizzard has managed to make the game "feel" like it's own game. Even though the concept(s) behind Overwatch is inspired by ideas from previous games, it still felt like it's own game, and I was always wanting to play "just one more" match. Everything seemed smooth as silk - the framerates, the controls, the gameplay, etc. was all responsive and functioned flawlessly. There was also controller support with button remapping for those interested. I've heard complaints about the UI, but personally, I didn't really have a problem with it.

I heard in a video prior to my experience with the game that "there is no best class," and this seems pretty accurate. I'm not going to get into the viability of Overwatch as a competitive game or a esports contender, because my competitive gaming days are long gone, but I will say this - I didn't play every character, but I did play most of them, (everyone except Genji and Tracer) and every class plays their own way, even among the individual classes (offense, defense, tank, support) and they each serve their own purpose. I did find that certain characters may be better suited depending if you are attacking or defending, but even still, I never really saw any character that seemed OP, nor did I see any character that seemed overused, at least on a per-game basis (like no character stacking among teams) which brings to me to my next topic. There is a simple yet interesting concept Blizzard has implemented, which is any player can choose any character. If you want 6 of the same character on a team, you can do that, however as I mentioned, I never saw it in action. You can also change your character throughout the game rather than being stuck with your initial choice, like in a MOBA.

I'm definitely going to be picking this game up when it launches, but I will be getting it on Xbox One, where all my gaming friends play.

With EA and Battlefront in the news recently, I started thinking about the game and how there are certain fundamental criteria, I feel, that need to be met in order for DICE's new take on the franchise to feel like a worthy successor.

1: Gameplay:

The new Battlefront game needs to "feel" like a Battlefront game, and not just "Battlefield: Star Wars." Battlefront's gameplay was more "arcadey." It wasn't molded around "realism," and instead had a more arena-like feel. Their was no ADS, and I don't think there was recoil either. It was more twitchy, since it all just point and click shooting, and the TTK was much higher. This formula made for a more fast-paced gameplay that was virtually frustration-free, something Battlefield is the exact opposite of.

Now I understand that times change, and certain mechanics such as ADS and recoil will certainly show up in the game, but that still doesn't mean that it needs to feel like just another DICE game, (Battlefield) rather than take on the gameplay/feeling that many Battlefront vets are hoping for.

2: Third Person View:

Playing Battlefront in 3rd person was one of the cool features of the game, and I'd argue one of it's staples. From what I remember, you could play any part of the game in 3rd or 1st person, and could switch between them freely. It has been stated by someone at DICE that players will be able to play the game in third person "at least in some capacity," but that quoted part is what has me skeptical. I don't want TPV just "in some capacity," I want it available for the whole game.

3: Vehicles:

Battlefront didn't have a huge reliance on vehicles. Outside of starship dogfighting, they were practically non-existent. Again, I get that times change, and I don't mind vehicles perhaps playing as more prevalent role in the new game compared to the originals, but seeing as how vehicles are a huge part of Battlefield, I don't want to see this carry over into Battlefront. Being spawn-camped by a circling heli is bearable only so many times, and don't want to see this kind of abuse take precedence in Battlefront. It would also lead to the game feeling too much Battlefield.

I'm all for giving us speeder bikes and AT-ST's and X-Wings, but let's not go overboard. Perhaps even do it like they did with the older games, where vehicles were largely map/mission focused, like the Hoth invasion or the attack on the Death Star.

4: Bots:

Botmatches were a staple of the previous games, and also missing feature from many FPS games today. Not only would this help to make the new game "feel" like a Battlefront game, it would also be a smart move for attracting more customers. I get that competition is big in FPS now, but that doesn't mean that a game has to be solely focused on it. The Granddaddy of FPS games, Quake and UT, were/are highly competitive games, yet also featured bots. One of the most competitive genres in gaming right now, MOBA's, also even feature modes with bots. It seems entirely selfish to not include them, not even just for Battlefront, but for any game, really.

Mind you, these are only my opinions, and in addition to being a big Battlefront fan, I'm also a big Star Wars fan, so I might take the announcement of a new Battlefront game being made, a little more personal than others.

Remember when console and PC fanboys would duke it out online, with the PC crowd boasting graphics and performance, while the console crowd would claim "it's about the games" while throwing out terms like "graphics whore" and "PC elitists?" Well fast forward to now, and console fans are duking it out amongst themselves over the same bullshit, and the irony is, they have become the things they ridiculed others for in the past - elitists.

Turns out that it probably never was "all about the games." That was likely just the story you stuck with since at the time, console players were in a position where the PC beat them substantially in every thing many of you actually cared about - graphics and performance. Now that consoles have come a long way and are at least comparable to low/mid range PC's, some of you just can't help yourselves from being the dicks that you demonized in the past.

The whole "console war" is nothing but a big dick waiving contest, and unlike real war, there is no winner and loser, because it's all subjective. For every plus you can tally up for one console, someone else can tally up one on another. It's just a vicious cycle that leads nowhere. Play whichever console you prefer for whatever reason(s), or play them all. Whatever choice you make doesn't need to include insulting those who chose differently.

Now before any panties are bunched up, this isn't going to be a rant about how I hate Titanfall and/or how broken it is. In actuality, I found the game to be quite fun, (although lacking features due to the beta) and virtually bug free. I can also easily see this game being very popular and likely receiving good ratings across the board. However, seeing as though I'm not a CoD fan, (in fact the last time I enjoyed CoD MP, was back when they were still set in WWII) I approached this game with a bit of skepticism, and the comparisons I found in my hours spent with the game, are as such:

Titanfall plays similar to CoD, but it doesn't "feel" like a CoD game - if that makes any sense... It shares the same overall formula - similar gun mechancis and damage scales, similar gamemodes and gameplay mechanics, even the aesthetic is similar, but the extra layers it adds, like the Titans or the movement system, etc. somehow allows it to differentiate itself enough from CoD to still remain its own game, rather than just "CoD with mechs." Now, as I stated, I have not spent extensive time with CoD MP, but based on what I have experienced or seen/heard from others, that is my synopsis on it. Throughout my play session, I did happen to run into things that seemed to stand out, that I personally had a problem with.

1. Damage scales - Overall, I feel the TTK (time to kill) should be increased. It seems like in a game of this pace, being able to drop opponents as quickly as you can, feels self defeating. It's pretty much, "who sees who first wins," which should feel familiar to CoD fans, and is also one the things I don't like about those games. However, although I feel firefights should should last longer, (or have damage scales that allow for firefights to ever happen in the first place,) kills didn't feel cheap or unfair.

2. Epilogue - The "Epilogue" at the end of matches just seems entirely unnecessary. Not only does it add a "one life only" element to gamemodes where it isn't needed, it doesn't actually have any effect on the outcome - the losers still lose, and the winners still win. It just seems like a waste of time in an attempt to make the game feel more dynamic. I can understand this type of mechanic making sense in the MP campaign, but in the traditional MP modes, it just feels unwanted and cutting into the time that could be used for counting down for the next mission. Perhaps if it offered things like “Partial Victory” for losers or “Total Victory” for winners, it might actually have more of an incentive, but as it is now, when the Epilogue began after each match, I just found myself sighing and thinking to myself, “is it over yet?”

3. Burn Cards - The burn card system in Ttianfal essentially works like perks for your pilot. The problem is, they seem utterly pointless, with too much risk vs reward. They only last until you die, so you could use a really good card, and then encounter some BS (which happens a lot in games) and lose it before you ever even had a chance to really use it. This could easily be due to my dislike for “gambling” in games, and am more a fan of straightforward mechanics – this is what you have/get, this is what it does, and this is how long it lasts, with no strings attached. In this regard, I don't think it is too much to ask that the cards last the entire match, (perhaps only being able to choose one instead of three) regardless how many times you die, and are then "burned" after the match ends. The burn cards did however seem to offer a fair amount of variety in what they did, and nothing really seemed to be really OP.

4. Tactical Abilities - I don’t have a problem with the abilities themselves, but rather how they operate, specially their usage/cooldown. The abilities cannot be cancelled, that is, if you active your Cloak or Stim, you have use it until it drains completely, rather than being able to cancel it when you no longer need i. This seemed to be more of problem with Cloak, where you might want to enter a building cloaked, and then find out there were no hostiles, and not being able to de-cloak until the ability completely drained. I don’t know if this was a balance decision or simply personal preference, since I’m not really sure how a player could abuse them if they were able to cancel them out. They would still be draining the ability, and would still have to endure a cooldown, even if it wasn’t as long. It just seems like by not offering this feature, it takes away from some of “tacticalness” of the tactical abilities, and instead makes for a feature that can make players reluctant to use them.

5. Rodeo - The Rodeo feature in Titanfall allows for pilots to ride on the backs of enemy titans and shoot at their “brains” to take them down. It is a cool idea for allowing pilots to counter titans, but it seems remarkably simple, and that is the problem. There is no QTE or any special maneuvers you need to perform in order to mount one these hulking, metal beats - just jump on top of or close enough to one, and the game automatically situates you on top of it, and then automatically initiates the animation of opening the hatch to access the titan’s “brains.” At that point, it’s just point and shoot (with your primary or secondary weapon – using your anti-titan weapon will kill you.) Although this is easily countered by the fact the pilot is exposed to enemy fire this while time, and by using things like Electric Smoke or even getting out of your Titan and dealing with them yourself, it seems like the whole process could be more involved/engaging, and not as autonomous as it is now.

As stated, my time with the game was overall enjoyable, and as a whole, I find it to be pretty solid, but even the best games are not without their flaws, and these are five that stood out to me. I will be picking this up on March 11th on Xbox One and (hopefully) having a blast with friends, so for those also anticipating this game, "prepare for Titanfall!"

Recently there was news released concerning the Xbox One and the upcoming Call of Duty: Ghosts game that for many, was disheartening to say the least. From threats of cancelling system pre-orders to extreme bouts of nerd-rage, and enough virtual facepalms to make one's head completely cave in, the internet exploded to the extent that you'd think Activision officially announced that smallpox infected blankets would be shipping with the Xbox One versions. Unfortunately, nothing that drastic has happened to warrant such extreme behavior, and instead it's just news that the Xbox One version of the upcoming Call of Duty Ghosts will be 720p, compared to 1080p native on the PS4.

In light of this "tragic" news, I'd like to address the recent notion that 1080p is a "must" for next-gen gaming....it isn't...1080p is not some "holy grail," mandatory accomplishment that games must meet in order to be considered "next-gen." It is little more than an arbitrary technicality cooked up by the community, largely due to moving goalpost mentalities and wishful thinking. Graphics or resolution alone is not some guideline to base whether or not a game achieves "next-gen" status, and if you think otherwise, then quite frankly, you're wrong. I don't doubt that games will release in 1080p, as some games already are, but to apply this short-sighted way of thinking to every single game? If that's the case, then frankly, you are in for some disappointment.

The notion that in 2013, 1080p, or more importantly, 1080p/60fps, should be a standard in gaming, is again, largely wishful thinking. This level of gaming can be standard, if you have the power, and frankly the new systems do not, as is evident by games being announced at less than 1080p and/or 60fps on both systems. If we were discussing high-end PC's, then these arguments would carry much more weight, but we are speaking of modestly priced, retail entertainment devices. The fact is this - the new systems, regardless how "next-gen" many expect them to be, are still using dated tech before they even release, that can't even achieve 1080p on certain older titles, with or without max settings enabled.

If you choose a lesser medium in terms of graphics/processing power, then you should except lesser results, it's really that simple. You can point the finger and cry "PC elitism," but really it's just being rational. You can't buy a Hybrid based on preference, and then demand it performs like a Ferrari, and then cry foul when it doesn't. Anyone suggesting that any game that gets released on a $400-500 device, cannot be considered "next-gen" if it is anything less than 1080p, or even more demanding, 1080/60fps, is naive and out of touch with reality, especially considering all the other (arguably) more important factors that can contribute to a game being "next-gen," which is a little more than a buzzword itself, with no definitive meaning.

If none of the games released on the new consoles achieved 1080p, they could still easily qualify as next-gen, due to other aspects, such as better performance, new, innovative ideas or added features. Battlefield 4 is a good example of this. Is it running at 1080p? No, not on either system, but both versions are running at 60fps, and have 64 player servers, as well as advanced features such as Battlescreen That is an example of "next-gen" in gaming, despite lacking 1080p resolution. In relation to COD Ghosts, both versions will have the same campaign, the same multiplayer, the same features and both will be running at 60fps. Players will equally be having fun on both versions, despite the apparent doomsday revelation that the Xbox One version will only be running at 720p...

It seems that the console community has become increasingly close-minded and superficial in their views, to the point that they seem to have forgotten why they play games in the first place - for fun. Why is it that when discussing graphics in a PC vs console format, graphics don't matter as much and it's all about the games, but once it becomes a matter of console vs console, graphics take center stage as proponents from each side engage in a blood lust fueled fervor? 720p, 1080p, who really cares? Games are going to be equally enjoyed by players on both consoles, so why turn it into a chest pounding ego-fest? Why does it always have to result in a "console war"? There are many people who will be purchasing both consoles for their love of games, so it seems trivial to pick sides and fight tooth and nail for your preferred platform. If it's the prettiest games running at smooth framerates that is needed to justify your purchase, then again, you are on the wrong platform, since we have been achieving this for years on PC. If it's other aspects that lead you to choose console gaming, such as functionality, exclusives, controllers, etc. than focus on those aspects and leave it at that.

The console crowd seems to be in this state of mind where, they don't care how they win, as long as they win. Meaning, they don't look into WHY consoles sell more than PC's, they just see they sell more, (and they own one) so PC's suck. To put in in layman's terms, console sell more because they are simple, not because they are 'better.' Also, I would guess that PC's do indeed outsell consoles, for the simple fact that not everyone is buying a PC for gaming. Look at places schools, universities, and households around the world that purchase PC's not to play games on.

Console's aren't outselling PC's because they are so much more versatile, and have superior hardware. They are outselling PC's because they are cheaper and easier to use. But, like a lot of things, you get what you pay for. Consoles appeal to the younger crowd more than PC's do. Which means a lot of consoles are bought by parents, not the kids playing them. Mommy and Daddy don't want to spend $1000 on a PC for little Jimmy, because there's a good chance he'll brake it. So they settle for the easier to use console...they don't want to get thier kid the diamond ring...so they settle for the Cubic Zirconium.

Most PC's are bought by the actual person who is using it, and they are usually 18 or older, and they have a much higher appeal for older gamers. Now before you start the "I don't have to pay $1000 for my xbox." I hear this statement so much, and it really holds no merit, because 1) PC gamers are willing to spend $1000 and much, much more for their rig, and in return for spending that money, will get superior hardware, the ability to upgrade, and enough storage space to make an xbox cream its pants. 2) Console gamers 'conveniently' forget to include things like surround sound speakers, and HDTV's in their price. or if they buy headphones, or any peripherals. You might say "but those are optional." And I would say, "so is paying $1000 or more for a PC." Plus in some cases, you HAVE to have a broadband connection (xbox), we do not. You have to pay for full access to your 'browser or 'OS' (XBL) and the games cost $10 or more each.

Now the whole "Consoles are better than PC" debate is dead as dead, because no one ever elaborates on why. They just say things like '"consoles are better, because PC's suck."....yeah, that solved a lot.....You have to get into specifics as to why, and you will see that both platforms are better for certain things. If I say "wheat bread is better than white bread," I can't prove that, but if I say "Wheat bread is better nutritionally than White bread," now we're getting somewhere.

So how are PC's better than Consoles? Well first off, hardware. PC hardware is vastly superior to a console, in terms of performance and versatility. First off, PC's are capable of superior graphics...if you can't admit this, then you really are a fanboy. The best video card on the market right now retails for around $600. Do you really think 1 part of a PC, that cost's as much as 2 Xbox Elites, isn't going to outperform what a console can do? Not only could it outperform 1 console, but it could outperform all of them combined. And this doesn't even include the nice motherboard, CPU, RAM, HD, sound card, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and speakers. All of which can be chosen and purchased separately, rather than limited to the 'what you see is what you get' philosophy of consoles.

PC's also have a lot more freedom with their hardware compared to consoles. For instance, for my new PC, I need a case, GPU, CPU, motherboard, and RAM. I don't need a new dvd burner or cd drive. I don't need a new HD or sound card. I don't need a keyboard, mouse, monitor or speakers. I can choose to replace only what I need to, rather than buy a console, have to wait 5 or so years for the new console to come out, (while still having 5 year old hardware) and then buy the whole thing, rinse and repeat. I think A LOT of console players would like the ability to swap components in their consoles. Other than business or money reasons, I don't see why Console companies don't consider this option when designing systems.

Another big win for PC is storage space. What's the biggest xbox HD, 120GB? I have 500GB on this computer, and my buddy has 3 HD's, and over 3TB of storage space. Again, no contest, PC wins.

Another is versatility and choice. I can use my PC to run a server (not just for games) I can use things like Photoshop, and MS Word. I can burn CD's, DVD's, and Blu-Ray. I can check my email, pay my bills, and check my bank account. I can do things like run a business and trade stock on my PC. I can play games without the disk. I can learn another language, convert miles to kilometers, print and fax documents, even lookup who invented the word 'fart.' I can do SO much with my PC, that it easily justifies the price. When I buy a PC, it's not just an entertainment device, like a console is. Which is a big reason why you will find many households have PC's rather than PC's AND consoles.

And I say choice for this reason. I can listen to music on my PC. You can listen to music on your console. The difference is, when I listen to music, I can choose what I listen to it on, whereas you are stuck using whatever software is in the console. I can choose between itunes, or WMP, or Winamp, or Foobar, or MediaMonkey, or software that came with my Sound Card. I can add plugins that enhance the sound, or add effects like echo. I have EQ settings, etc. and the same goes for movies, and games. I play Fallout, you play Fallout, but I can change the resolution on mine. I can change specific options in my graphics. Do I want AA or AF enable? Do I want Bloom or HDR lighting? Do I want shadows? How detailed do I want the shadows? How detailed do I want textures? etc. I can boost graphics to the highest setting, or even lower them to increase performance. I'm sure some console gamers would like the ability to sacrifice some video settings in some games to make them run a little smoother. I also have true dedicated servers for multiplayer, practically every game has fully customizable controls, and with the amount of buttons on a keyboard mixed with a mouse, I also have more choice for my controls. I also don't have to have broadband to play online. I can also choose which OS and Browser I use, whereas on xbox you get to choose between XBL and….well, nothing.

These are some big advantages that a PC has over a console. Now let's look at some console advantages.

The biggest two are probably price, and ease of use. First off, I would like to get something out of the way. Yes, gaming PC's can cost $1000 or more, but they don't HAVE to. You can buy a PC for much cheaper, that includes a monitor and mouse/keyboard, that still competes with a console. It's just that most PC gamers don't want to 'settle' or 'compete.' They want to destroy the competition, and will buy the best of the best parts, to play games at high resolutions, with max settings. All of this still doesn't change the fact that consoles are less expensive.

For $300 you get a descent system, which can play games, movies and music, and can play online and talk to friends, all in one nice, neat package. It sacrifices all the options and versatility of a PC, to be streamlined and easy to use. You buy it, you hook it up, you put in a game, you play it. It's a done deal. This appeals to a lot of people. Especially parents with children, people who don't want the 'hassle' and 'responsibility' of owning a computer, and people who are computer illiterate. And all games made for a certain console will work the same on all those consoles, since the hardware is identical. They also tend to be smaller than PC's and are usually played from the comfort of a couch, rather than in front of a computer screen, which also leads to consoles being a more social platform for gaming. I however, play my xbox on my monitor. This way I can keep my PC and console all in one spot, and it also frees up the TV. And my monitor is widescreen 1080p.

Another things is their is more than 1 console to choose from. Wii plays wii stuff, xbox play xbox stuff, PS3 play PS stuff. There is more choice for a consumer, whereas a PC may have different brands, like Gateway, Compaq, Dell, etc. but they all play the same things. This can be looked at as an advantage or disadvantage for both PC's and consoles.

So enough with the, "consoles suck" and "PCs suck," crap. They both have things that appeal to different people, and one is not is not 'the best.' If you are looking for a less expensive, 'hassle free' method of gaming, where you can have friends over, relax and play games, go with a console. If you want the ability to have a workstation as well as a gaming rig, and you want the best of the best hardware, with a more 'intimate gaming experience', where it's typically just you and the game, and any friends you play with are usually online, get a PC.

PC and console gamers, for the most part, can play well together. It's usually when someone yells baseless comments like, "PC'suck!" or "controllers blow!" that things get ugly. Nobody likes to hear something they like or enjoy get made fun of. And it starts this big debate, with testosterone and typo's flying all over the internet. So console fanboys and PC fanboys…get off your high horses. I'm a PC gamer at heart, but I still play console games. We are all gamers here, regardless of where and how we play them.

Once upon a time, long long ago, shooters were fast paced and more about in your face fun, than KD ratios. Things like health bars reigned supreme, and medkit pickups, ammo, powerups and weapons covered the landscape. It was a glorious time, where carrying 10 weapons at once was encouraged, and things like dodging and rocket jumping were tactics. Gibbing was the norm in this magical realm, sprinting was the default speed, skill was based on reflex and precision, and anything less than 60 frames a second was just too slow. Yes, It was a wondrous time, a Golden Age of gaming......but that was long ago.

Since then, the world of shooters have fallen into a Dark Age. Health bars have been replaced by "take cover before you die" systems, making you virtually invulnerable if used correctly. Players are forced to choose from a fraction of the weapons available, rather than have access to all of them. Tedious actions such as aim down the sights were introduced, detracting from the fun, visceral gunplay of yesteryear. A rocket to face, which used to result in a glorious display of bloody chunks, was replaced by a lackluster animation of a body dropping to the floor...and remaining in one piece. You won't find a single medkit or ammo crate, the only weapon pickups are off of dead bodies, and sprinting was not only mapped to a button, but in certain cases, you have a limited amount available to you. 30 frames is now deemed an acceptable framerate. Sometimes, players only require a couple shots to kill, throwing skill out the window, and players are more infatuated than ever with leaderboard stats, KD ratios and talking trash, rather than just having a good time.

What happened? The FPS genre has been turned on its head, and the games off the past have been swept under the rug like a dirty secret. I want my health bars back. I want ammo and medkit pickups. I want my Quad Damage and over the top gunplay, and dammit, I want guns that are unconventional and don't make sense! These "tactical shooters" of today are a dime a dozen, and most of them have nothing "tactical" about them. So for all the Quake 3's, and the Unreal Tournaments. The Serious Sam's, Team Fortress's, and Painkillers. Here's to hoping that the gaming world has not totally forgotten you, and we once again bathe in all your gaming glory.