After 3 long days of thinking. I'm going to propose to Microsoft.

Let's compare the 3 brides:

Wii - cheap, gets attention

360 - hardcore, full of titles

PS3 - plays blu-ray, has killer apps later on

What I look for is either the gameplay in multiplayer or the plots in singleplayer. The Wii is cute and all, but it does not satisfy in these regards. Multiplayer? I don't have people in my house 24/5! And even if I did, I'd have to commit to buying more nunchuks or wiimotes, hefty cost for sporadic entertainment! Wii online? Let's look this up: FIFA? Madden? Pokemon? I saw Battalion Wars and this is only 1v1 online, or 2v2 CTF! WTF? Pathetic. Even CS has more than that. Singleplayer? Metroid? Zelda? What, lose your items and find them again? I'm sorry, once a Metroid, always a metroid. I'm looking for plot here, Nintendo does not deliver here. The only thing that stands out for me is No More Heroes and only because it's from the people who made Killer 7 AND that the Wii has cool stuff like an internet browser and that the system designed well. Oh and it's a bit hard to find. http://wiitracker.com/

PS3... I think it's $500 now. But xbox is a full 150 cheaper than that. Multiplayer... I'm not going to splurge on extra controllers for multiplayer that won't happen a lot. So online it will have to be. Let's see... Resistance? Halo 3 cancels this out, although I'm not a fan of console FPS. Motorstorm... this game looks sweet, but... how much replay can racing really get? Finally, Warhawk... This is probably the game that would swing me over here. HOWEVER, the it just seems like a battle field with only 16 players. It's probably fun, but I can't justify $560 on one game. Virtua Fighter 5 got the BIG SHAFT with no online play...

Xbox 360... funny, because I actually hate Halo. Without the internet, it's a game that I wouldn't touch at all. My top choices would be Chrome Hounds, just because I love customizing, Virtua Fighter 5, I love deep fighters and this is ONLINE and probably Bioshock. It has what I want. It has a deep online multiplayer, it has lots of games and it has singleplayer adventures with mature storylines. And if you look at the deal this holiday, it comes with forza 2 and another for...FREE. I'm so down.

My birthday is coming up in 2 days. I can't wait.

So there you have it.

Wii? Online is gimped, lacks new singleplayer games, instead has new "versions" of older titles that follow the same formulas. Strength? Offline multiplayer as seen in Smash Bros. Brawl. This console sports the wiimote and motion, but like my DK bongos, it doesn't have deep gameplay.

PS3? Online is functional, but it lacks the games! Not a FPS fan, so no resistance. Motorstorm? Hmm... Warhawk... seems interesting, but other than those 2, not much for me to look at. Games like VF get the shaft as well. Singleplayer? Probably does, not a fan of MGS although. This console just doesn't have enough of the games I want.

360? Online is robust, has titles like Chrome Hounds, VF5, that I like. Singleplayer games have mature plots like BioShock, Mass Effect... great deal as well! Only worry is if it breaks down.

360 meets my gaming criteria AND it has the titles I want.

So if I had to get a system, now I'd choose the Xbox.

Let's see...

You got your REFLEX games. These are the games about timing, twitching and accuracy. Counter-Strike, DDR, Street Fighter and so on.

Then here are the STATISTICAL games. You have levels, meters and experience in these games. The numbers determine your performance, not you. These are mainly RPGs like Final Fantasy, Pokemon, Diablo 2, although these features can be in games like Tony Hawk.

Then finally are the LOGICAL games. These are based on thinking a game out. Games like chess, puzzle solving in Zelda or Resident Evil make the cut.

And here are my comments on these 3.

Reflex games... well they simply test who's faster than the other guy. I can get frustrated with these games because it takes me ten times to get some combo in Street Fighter or what not.

Statistical games aren't games I like a lot. In games like Diablo 2, there is a LOT of grinding. Grinding is walking around and slashing at monsters with braindead AI for levels or loot. The problem is that players want the things you get out of this boring gameplay, but they never say actually fighting the monsters is fun.

Finally, logical games are the ones of my choice. They make you think hard and they don't depend on how fast you do it. Just take your time and make the best move as possible. You can take your time in these games and you don't need to level up or get some item in RPGs.

I don't see many innovation these days. You still have your FPS games with aliens, guns and a crap story. RPGs aren't much better, well I hear FF12 has some plot about politics, hopefully it isn't cliche. On the strategy front...

Well, about so-called strategy games, they really aren't. I'd be lying if I said Starcraft was about strategy. It's really about how well you control your units, aka micromanagement. And you control them well if you can do faster and more actions than the other guy you're trying to kill. So I'd say Starcraft is a reflex game more than a strategic one.

I get instantly bored with WoW the moment I start. Make a dude, start out in a town, then you are told to do some lame work like gathering wood or killing weak dudes. Playing is just as painful. You click attack and you press the spell button everytime it recharges.

Perhaps I've lost my faith in games. Well, I do enjoy some games like Killer7, but that's because the story is so strong in that one. Maybe I need to go into books then. I do enjoy strategy card games like Magic however.

A lot of people feel offended when they read my beliefs. Some are the SSBM worshippers, others are the RE4 followers. In my world, reviews aren't about the score you give it or how you feel about it (which is bias). It would just be a fact-by-fact account about what the game is. So don't look at the score in my reviews, but the content.

As always, think for yourself and Sony wants your soul.

A guy gets his post cut for this:

"the multiplayer for this game looks horrible. you just stand there and
shoot your foe who is right in front of you. oh well, that's handheld
games for you"

So I respond with this:

"^That is a valid opinion. It's no more "better" or "worse" than someone saying multiplayer for this game is awesome. It's an opinion.

Therefore I don't understand why a mod would delete someone from saying this when tons of people here have written that they like the multiplayer here. Moderating someone for not liking a game doesn't make sense. You can't expect everyone in the world to enjoy the same thing."

And just like post 1, my post gets cut as well. I NEVER KNEW DISLIKING GAMES BROKE THE TOS!

Also, I'm changing my rating system. Basically, a game isn't good or bad at all. For one thing, it's impossible for everyone to have the same opinion.

So what I'm going to do is just put everything to 1. But if I like the game, I'll just put a 10 on the tilt, which is supposed to be my opinion anyway.

What this does is it allows me to show games that I like and games that I don't like. Now games that I don't like DOESN'T mean I hate the game. It simply means I'm not liking the game. If you don't hate something, does that automatically mean you like it? Or are you just indifferent to it?

So again, 10 means I like it, 1 means I don't. Simply and easy. I'm rather fine with everything else, graphics, sound and whatever. So long as they work, they work.

I'll blab what's the game about FACTUALLY and then state whether I liked or did not like the game. Simple as that.