The PS3-- one of the three major consoles in today's cosnole wars. I remember 2 years ago when the Sony PlayStation 3 was first available in the U.S., it was all over the news. Articles were everywhere- in the newspaper, weekly readers at my school, on newscasts, and all over the internet.

The PS3's claim was that it had "lifelike graphics," which was a big thing for all these newscasts. It also was notable for being incredibly expensive- when I saw how much it cost, I was like, "WHAT!! $599.99 U.S.!?! Holy crap!!" Almost every kid in my school was abuzz about the PS3, and how awesome it would be if they could convince their parents to let them have it.

Well, two years later, there are two sides when it comes to that cash-draining beast- hardcore fans who think it's the best thing in the world, and people like me. And even if you don't want to admit it, let's face it: the Play Station 3 sucks. It got better as time went along, but compared to the 360 and the Wii, it sucks.

What so many people miss when judging video games is that good graphics don't automatically make a good game. There are plenty of people who say that the NES, Sega Genesis, Atari 2600, Sega Master System, and so many other old consoles suck and are terrible because, and only because, they have bad graphics. In their day they would have been good! People back then were grateful to have a game. So you can't diss an old game by judging it by today's standards. In another 10 years, people will look back on the PS3 and say "Psshaw! We thought those graphics were good? What were we thinking?"

So because a game has good graphics, that doesn't make it a great game. Just look at games like E.T. on the Atari 2600- the graphics would be mandatory in its day, but the game was awful! And what about games like Bomberman: Act Zero, that have gotten such bad reception? That game had some great graphics, but failed miserably in every other aspect. Another game worthy of this fate is Sonic the Hedgehog for the PS3 and Xbox 360- it had incredible graphics, but according to various reviews on the internet, it has repetitive sounds, confusing camera angles, and bad controls.

The PS3 is one of the pime examples of this kind of misunderstood graphics issue. The PS3 does have incredible graphics, which is true- but maybe 65% of games originally released exclusively to the PS3 performed terribly in anything but graphics.

Here's another situation in the video game market that this can be related to- back in the early '90s, when handhelds were brand-new, the three main handhelds on the market were Nintendo's Game Boy, Sega' Game Gear, and Atari's Lynx. The Game Boy originally had a black-and-white or a brown/white/somewhat black color pallete for its games, but those games were good. But the Game Gear had games that came in color, but it had a number of crappy games. But most importantly, the Game Gear wasted about three times as many batteries as the Game Boy (the Game Gear needed 6 AA Alkaline batteries for five hours of power, while the Game Boy required just 4 AA batteries for as much as around 14 or 15 hours of play.)

HERE IS THE POINT OF THIS BLOG:

No matter what the graphics on a system look like, I find that when you stop being breathtakingly amazed by how lifelike the game looks, and get into the actual gameplay, graphics make no difference- gameplay does. The days when the mere concept of interacting with one's television was an amazing experience are long past- quality gameplay is what matters most.

Do you like the Xbox 360? Or the Nintendo Wii? Or the PlayStation 3? Whichever one you prefer, there's always someone out there who disagrees with you completely. That's what makes the console wars of this generation of video games so interesting- there is no right or wrong. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have all added a special flare to their mainstream consoles, so every one of them excels in some qualities and doesn't excel very much in others. This kind of difference is what makes all three of them very popular.

But I'm here to discuss how the console wars will most likely turn out as we enter the eighth generation of video games. This is what I beleive the consoles of the future will turn out to be, based on the reception and third-party support of the Wii, 360, and PS3.

The one thing that is for sure: Nintendo will stay for sure. They have lasted through five generations of games, always giving gamers state-of-the-art titles. A prime example is their flagship series, the Suepr Mario series: thoughout five generations, there was Super Mario Bros. on the NES, Super Mario World on the SNES, Super Mario 64 on the N64, Super Mario Sunshine on NGC, and Super Mario Galaxy on the Wii. And, of course, let us not forget the incredible Super Smash Bros. games, starting with the GameCube.

So with that pattern of classic games, why wouldn't Nintendo's first-party games coming for the eighth generation of games be less than average?

Also the fact that there are so many games for the Wii that appeal to audiences beyond the general gaming community is another reason for future success for Nintendo. The Wii is so madly popular among adults and older folks who have probably never picked up a controller in their lives. It also requires you to move your body to use it, and there are so many great peripherals- the Wii Wheel, Wii Zapper, the Nanchuck, and let us not forget the awesome Guitar Hero controller.

However, Nintendo was also sued on charges of possibly copying a design for something else with their Wii-Mote design, which could dispel some third-party publsihers. Then again, most third-party publishers for Nintendo systems have been notorious for making awful games- just look at Ubisoft with Charlie's Angles on the GameCube, Titus with Superman 64 on the N64, and games like Shaq Fu, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and, most recently, Jumper: Griffin's Story on the Wii.

So because of this reputation, if Nintendo decides to continue with a "sequel" to the Wii, that will benefit them tremendously.

Microsoft and Sony aren't quite in the same boat as Nintendo. Their consoles don't appeal to as large an audience, nor do their games, but that is not to say that either of them is a bad system. Both just have major flaws.

Let's start with Microsoft's Xbox 360. Frankly, Microsoft's future in console wars looks grim. The original Xbox years before sold badly in Japan, as did the 360. This right away is a huge disadvantage- video games aren't just in the U.S., other countries are into games, too. Japan is a big one.

Also, the one problem that has plagued so many gamers who own a 360 is the legendary, infamous red ring of death. This was caused by Microsoft's choice to release the 360 a year early. They got a head start in console wars, but some of the technical specifications were messed up, which resulted in those infamous rings appearing on the console's power button.

The 360 also has a great advantage in other terms- first of all, Xbox Live is the grand, all-powerful soverign of online play. Secondly, it has a huge number of incredible games, such as Guitar Hero III, the wonderful Soul Caliber series, and let us not forget the unbeleivably amazing Halo series.

The red ring of death, however, should be Microsoft's main concern, and it has most likely badly bruised their reputation.

Finally... the Sony Play Station 3.

Frankly, I don't like the PS3. I think it was far too overhyped and overpriced. But regardless of what I think about it, here's how I think Sony will do in the future of console wars:

Sony should be able to make it at least into the next generation, when the PS4 comes out. But the shortcomings of the PS3 could also damage their reputation. First of all, it cost WAY too much when it was first released ($599 U.S.), and even though it was advertised for having ground-breaking and lifelike graphics, that still doesn't automatically make it guaranteed to be awesome. I mean, a game could have state-of-the-art graphics, but fail miserably in every other aspect.

While focusing on making great graphics, Sony gave too much memory in their PS3 models contributing to the graphics card, and not as much to the other sections. It also had a great number of crappy games upon its initial release, but they got better as its lifespan went on.

And let's not forget the fact that Sony neglected online play. At least, at first. They added it after gamers complained.

There are so many hardcore PS3 fans out there who are "proud PS3 owners" because of its graphics. And most of the time that is the only reason. Now, the PS3 has its fair share of great games, but overall, it was far too overhyped, and it was a humongo money sucker.

Taking into account everything mentioned above, I believe that the following can be determined about the companies currently dominating console wars:

Nintendo's future will live on, but had better watch out for little mistakes, like neglecting online play for the Wii. Online play is a crucial part of games nowadays, and Nintendo leaving it out of the Wii was fatal. But if their next console is available and appealing to a wide audience, like the Wii, it will continue to acheive top sales.

Microsoft's future overall is bleak, and they will be the most likely to fall out of the console wars if they don't fix their damaged reputation. The 360 has great games, but the red ring of death, and poor popularity overseas, will hurt them greatly. If they don't correct the mistakes in the next generation, they could be in for plummeting sales.

Sony's future is uncertain, to me. The PS3 was greatly overhyped, but they have enough momentum to make it into the next generation. However, if they try to make their next console exclusive beyond their limits, and end up neglecting important concepts, like MANY good games, as opposed to maybe 20 or so, they will most likely slip and possibly not recover well.

But the question is: how will all this change if another company decides to step into console manufacturing? This could change the face of gaming. We already saw how Sega and Atari dropped out of the console wars- could Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo suffer the same fate? Or could Sega and/or Atari come back with more consoles?

Only time will tell these things.

This is something that has been bothering me for a very long time, and since I've joined Gamespot, I now feel the need to speak my mind about it.

This issue is this: many people say that violent video games negatively influence the player, especially younger children. The thought is that whoever plays a video game that contains material like blood and gore, violence, characters wielding weapons, an ojective to shoot people and/or blow something to smithereens, or games with guns in them will negatively provoke gamers. Many say that it will scar them for life and possibly inspire them to go out and terrorize humanity with weapons. That is what they say.

And here's what I say:

WHAT a BUNCH of CRAP!

If you think that violent video games do that to people, then why don't you ask someone who has played games with that kind of material in them? Like me!

Supposing that someone did ask me, I would say that the very first non-educational-based game (like Elmo's Preschool) that I ever played was a DOS game- Megarace. The objective of that game is this- you have a car, you have to destroy other cars on a fast-paced set of racetracks, with, guess what? BIG GUNS. There is a "host" of that game who frequently uses the words "death" and "die." I played that game when I was about three years old. And I'm perfectly sane!

When I was about eight or nine, I got another game- Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force, a Third-Person Shooter game for PC. Your character gets a variety of weapons, there are a great number of bad guys you're supposed to kill, there are violent death screams, and the occassional curse word. That game was Rated T for Teen, but I was five years shy of being a teenager. I beat that game through and through before I was in the sixth grade, and I'm perfectly sane!

In fact, I'm currently trying to beat the sequel to the game I previously mentioned, which is more realistic in terms of graphics. You get more weapons, but guess what? I'm not bent on being some deranged killer! I'm... perfectly...sane!

If you don't see where I'm getting at here, then you're lost in another dimension. In case you have been in another dimension for the past minute, I'm saying that you won't be inspired to murder a bunch of people if you get into a game with guns and shooting in it. Even though you interact with a video game, as opposed to standing by and watching movies or listening to music with objectionable and/or violent content, it still doesn't make a huge difference.

There are people who are literally living in games. They want nothing but to play a certain game. I was somewhat like that when I was in 3rd and 4th grade, and guess what game I was into? Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force, that 3D TPS. That did negatively influence me in a way, because I was obsessed with that game, but it's not the game! THAT WAS JUST ME! I was a bit... different than I am now.

Some people would argue, "If you get rid of the games, this wouldn't happen!" That's like saying that fast food should be banned because people get obese from it- it's their choice to eat so much, and as for those of us who don't have to worry about obesity, it would only make things worse. So if someone DOES happen to be negatively influenced by a violent game, then that's their problem. Anyone who would be negatively influenced and bent on going out and killing people after playing Halo 3 has to have blurred the line between reality and games very much.

Yet in spite of this logical conclusion, there are endless seas of people out there who still think that violent video games are bad examples. Most of them are moms (no offense to moms) who want to hide perfect little Timmy from the horrors of the world and order him never to play Mortal Kombat or House of the Dead arcades anywhere, and demand that game developers stop making these violent games. Well, Mortal Kombat just happens to be a popular franchise, and if you don't like it, ignore it! Don't try to get it banned; that's just like the whole fast food issue.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T PLAY IT, PEOPLE!!! There are always people who like games like that, so don't spoil it for them just because you and a small group of others don't support it.

The final issue I am going to raise is games becoming more realistic. The Wii Zapper was released about a year ago, a gaming peripheral for the Nintendo Wii, shaped like a gun. You play games with it by pointing it at the screen and shooting.

That doesn't make games any more objectionable! It just adds a new level of challenge to them and makes them more fun and different to play. I mean, the standard controller can get a little stale with some games, so why not? But, NOOO! Some people oppose this idea and say "Oh, but this could get our children ready for real guns and killing people!"

If you DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T BUY IT FOR YOUR KIDS!! I don't know why this simple piece of logic is not a part of so many parents' thoughts on video games. It's not like the developers are making you get this thing, is it? So many blogs, videos, newscasts, and newspaper articles choose to go on and on about a violent game with very objectionable content, but they miss that one point!

And this is not to say every video game is like that! There are plenty of games with their fair share of non-violent content. So if there's one game out there that is objectionable, that doesn't make every other game that has been made, is being made, and will be made bad!

IN CLOSING!

Graphic violence doesn't influence the gamer if the gamer knows the fine line between reality and fantasy. If the gamer doesn't, it's his or her own fault, not the game's fault. And if you don't like content in a game, don't buy it and leave it at that.

I have spoken.