Although the majority of my game purchases are release-date pickups, it is possible for games to be lost in the shuffle alongside the Call of Dutys, Gears Of Wars, and other such large titles. When this happens, a game I had a slight interest in may be forgotten for a long time, and I may not rediscover it until it's hit the "bargain bin." Unfortunately I feel that these forgotten titles are hit or miss - sometimes they're great fun at a cheap price, but other times its an experience that was better left forgotten and collecting dust. Even some new games are like this - I recently picked up Shellshock 2 for my x360 for $40, which seemed like a good price for what is obviously not a big name title. After playing the first level or two, I almost feel frustrated about paying $40, since there are a lot of flaws and problems with it. On the other hand, picking up a new copy of The Club (after my friend lost my original one!) for $30 was no question at all, because it is really a fun, graphically impressive, and polished game. While not as amazing a title as GoW or CoD, The Club is a cheap, fun arcadey style action game. Bargain Bin games of The Club's caliber are games that shouldn't be missed, as the amount of fun and enjoyment gained far outweighs the low cost.

Another title I've picked up recently was Quantum Of Solace, as I had heard it was a similar game to the Rainbow 6 Vegas series, which is one of my personal favorite series of shooters. I've never been a huge Bond fan, but the idea of a R6V type game was too good to pass up (and also brings the question, where's the next R6 game???). I'm only a short way into the single player story, but it's giving me a good challenge(on 007 difficulty; the hardest in the game) and I like the way the action flows. On the other hand, what looked to be an interesting combination of R6V and CoD multiplayer is extremely dissapointing. The graphics seem to suffer a huge decline in multiplayer, and the game feels very... unbalanced. The gameplay seems inconsistent; I've noticed many times I or someone else will die in one shot, and then the next person takes a half-clip or more before dying. The cover system seems flawed in multiplayer, causing many problems that don't effect single player at all- generally when in cover you are still very exposed, leaving you to be easily headshot by someone you didn't think could have any angle on you at all. Gears of War's cover system keeps you closer in cover and more protected; you can be headshot or shot in general, but the enemy is required to be at much more extreme angles to have a shot on you. Also there are a couple weapons in QoS multiplayer that are a bit ridiculous in their effectiveness - namely the shotguns. I've one-shot someone from across the room with even the basic one, and one of the upgraded shotguns seems like an instant kill gun on full auto, usually with a silencer to boot! Generally, this brings me to my second 'debate,' because as a big fan of multiplayer, I'm tired of seeing game developers throwing multiplayer in as a half-conceived afterthought, with poor execution and quality. Some of the most stand-out offenders in my mind are Call of Juarez, Far Cry 2, and The Darkness. Games like Gears, Call of Duty, Rainbow Six, Halo, and many others have come up with winning combinations for multiplayer - fun. balanced, competitive gameplay, good graphics, interesting concepts. Some games, like Shadowrun, Counter-Strike, or Team Fortress, focus on multiplayer exclusively, and although they have multiplayer hands down are criticised for lack of single player modes. We need to start putting that same kind of criticism towards companies who hand us lackluster multiplayer - since you OBVIOUSLY DON'T CARE about those of us who enjoy multiplayer, scrap the multiplayer altogether and put more time and energy into a longer, better story mode. I'd rather have no multiplayer at all, than some of the garbage we've suffered through!