I have been using Gamespot for several years and up until recently, I had never been upset with the way things have been run. As you may have noticed around the Home and PS3 pages recently, you may have seen a Team Fortress 2 tournament scheduled for the PS3. You may have also noticed that this tournament is no longer available for the PS3, but is for the Xbox 360.

According to JodyR, the reason for the tournament's cancellation was due to server issues. Now, I cannot confirm nor deny if only public games can be played, but I would think that better planning would go into a tournament, and a bump like that would have been caught somewhere in the decision process. I'm pretty sure that one of the first questions I would ask myself in planning a tournament is whether or not it is actually possible to do.

But why then is the tournament moving to the Xbox 360? Do they not get enough tournaments? I'm pretty sure that the 15, and soon to be 16, tournaments for the 360 compared to the 2 tournaments of the PS3 isn't exactly fair to PS3 owners. Rainbow 6: Vegas and Gears of War have both had multiple tournaments for the 360. Are just a few tournaments on the PS3 too much to ask for? Even if they did another Resistance: Fall fo Man or MotorStorm tournament, I wouldn't be so angry. But the fact that Gamespot is giving a less than stellar effort to satisfy a group of their customers is insulting, and makes me strongly consider whether or not I will choose to remain a paying customer.

I'm not saying that Gamespot is biased towards a certain console that is made by Microsoft, but I also cannot say that they aren't.

As a long time fan of the Hitman video games series, I felt like a little kid on Christmas when I heard they were making a Hitman Movie. Unfortunately, after the movie I felt like a Jewish kid on Christmas.

The movie was not really made for anyone. As a player of the games, I knew 47's back story and his arsenal of weapons. But in the movie, they didn't explain anything. It just dumped you into the story with no real direction of what's going on. If I took my father to see it, he would be completely lost. He would have no idea what a Silverballer is. They never explained the syringes either. He takes out one guy with a syringe and it kills him, but then the next time he does it, on only knocks the person out.

Another thing that they messed up on was the plot itself. The agency betrayed him about ten minutes into the movie. They could have developed a story over a few movies or have the agency betray him towards the end. It seemed like as soon as the movie started, he was already being shot at. They could have included a few more hits too. Agent 47 only goes after one man in the entire movie.

The cast was selected well. I thought that Jason Stratham should have been 47 for the longest time. But after seeing Timothy Olyphant play the part, he did it extremely well.

The movie's action was intense, but very uncharacteristic of Agent 47. In the games, its all about making the hit, and walking out the front door. But in the movie, 47 just went in the area guns blazing. There was lots of blood and gore, and the fighting was well done, but it didn't suit the character that is 47.

If you're a fan of the games: See it because you love Agent 47
If you have never played the games: Pass

So overall, I would give the movie a 4.7/10. I thought that was a fitting score.