At the present moment I'm too disinterested to explain the below situation explicity. I might make some adjustments at certain stages. But for the moment i'll present this blog as is.

I guess the only approrpiate title for this topic is "Is discussing **** size appropriate during the Ozpot?"

Which is entirely and utterly related to the thread started within the gamespot forums as below:-

http://au.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29225992/is-discussing--size-appropriate-during-the-ozpot

Now for me, personally, this thread was shut down rather abrubptly and unnecessarily. And when I say "rather" I'm using my polite voice.

Now i've been disapointed by this thread for multiple reasons, but my basic point remains, isn't the Ozspot crew in the least bit accountable for their actions?

Now on a personal level I'm well up for freedom of speech. But I'm not suggesting that the Ozspots discussion of cocks would warrant such a discretion. It might, it might not. I personally have no idea of the legalities involved.

I can, however, state that I find such discussions to be an abhorrent indication of the recent demise of the Ozspot podcasts.

Why on Earth are the presenters deciding that listeners want to listen to the disection of a leading actors work history in terms of and in direct accordance with the length of their penis Sure, apparently it's a flattering length, but really, who does this discussion serve?

Does it serve the ego of the person in question , Mr Fassbender. If so, could we take the viewpoint that he doesn't require, expect, deserve, or appreciate such potentially flattering comments.

Is such comments for the benefit of the general Ozspot audience? In which case, shouldbn't we all take a good, long (no pun intended) look at ourselves?

No.

The comments weren't made for any particular reason.

They were made flippantly, by paid Ozspot representatives, that feel that we (the Ozspot audience) deserve little more than tabloid standard tittle-tattle.

That really is the be all and the end all isn't it.

According to the Gamespot representatives that contributed within the aforementioned thread, they feel perfectly comfortable with their contribitutions, as do several of the repondents within the aforementioned thread.

Personally I think they're kidding themselves. Professional journalists shouldn't resort to discussing the size of a celebrities cock or their **** or their vadge or whatever else.

Personally I think professional journalists should attempt to remain professional.

But then I'm to be disagreed with and insulted, aren't I.

On May 14th 2009, Engadget.com posted some pics of what is purported to be a PS3 "Slim". Essentially the same PS3 that we all know and love, but in a smaller, cheaper and more energy effiicient package. Woah momma - could it be true?

On the 18th May, Engadget were asked not so politely to remove their pics of said machine further fuelling speculation that the Slim will indeed be upon us soon.

A few short weeks later, Sony's head honcho dismisses the story and the speculation whilst questioned at E3, despite the pics displaying packaging very much like that found with the now confirmed PSP Go.

We all know that a PS3 Slim will eventually be released, but could it be upon us now? The recently launched PS3 80gb bundles have spirred a new round of rumouring so I thought it was about time I jumped on this bandwagon and stated categorically wether or not a PS3 Slim is about to be released.

I for one say yes. Yes, the Slim is just around the corner. It will be released within the next couple of months and will effectively be a re-launch of the PS3, along with some new partnership announcements and at least a moderate price drop.It will be backed by TV adverts and a significant marketing push, in line with the run-up to Christmas.

You cannot convince me that this isn't going to happen soon. Furthermore I strongly believe that the Engadget pics are spot-on and that our slims will be smaller, matt and with a 120gb hard drive.

So Sony you can forget about me buying your gigantic PS3, with or without an extra free game. It aint gonna happen no more. Frankly I'm quite annoyed with Sony for not allowing me to pick up a PS3 at a reasonable price long ago, but the only saving grace is if I get to enjoy the space saving benefits that the new model will allow. So don't friggin delay it Sony, you hear me. And keep the price reasonable, or there will be trouble.

*This blog was originally posted on GameTrailers Jan '09. I see no reason to deprive Gamespot users any longer.

I've been playing games since I was 10 years old when my family became proud owners of the BBC Micro B. We had a great selection of very good Arcade machine clones including Pacman, Galaxian, Galaga and the like, as well as a wider variety of games from football to platformers - yay Chuckie Egg. I was acutely aware that the BBC Micro lacked the finesse of the C64 and arguably even the ZX Spectrum, but it was a great machine and we enjoyed a wealth of good quality games.

A major moment in my young life was when I received a handheld mini-munchman which I had been longing for, and started a collection of many handheld games machines along the lines of, but strangely never including, the Nintendo Game and Watch series.

During my teens, the most time consuming hobby I had was gaming on my Commodore Amiga 500 and I loved the likes of Kick Off 2 and Stunt Car Racer (which really ought to be a mobile phone game by now). I was also lucky enough to acquire a Sega GameGear which in my mind is a much underestimated machine.

The reason for letting you know about my gaming roots is really to show that I've consistently been playing games, a good variety of them, for much of my life. Due to the amount of time, effort and love I have for games, I would happily call myself a gamer, although of course I do have other things going on in my life.

The term hardcore gamer is a term that I've only come across in recent years, and I would not typically want to be associated with anything that is considered hardcore. I've always considered the term hardcore gamer to be associated with those gamers that will spend several hours, every day, playing the latest and greatest games, typically of a challenging and fast-paced nature requiring a high level of gaming skill and experience.

The term casual gamer is a relatively new term for all, and is largely characterized by the Nintendo Wii owners that occasionally use their machines, or those buying PS2s' to use Singstar or such, perhaps even those that will play a game on their mobile when they're on the train. I think that one of the main characteristics of a casual gamer is that they're spending a low amount of time on gaming, and as such are likely to have a low level of gaming skill and experience.

So am I a Casual or a Hardcore gamer?

I've recently come to the conclusion that my preference is to be a Casual gamer rather than a Hardcore gamer. I've played all kinds of games on all kinds of machines but I've recently found that I simply don't like games that are too demanding, too big, too time consuming. I've been playing a little BioShock, and it's great, but quite soon into the game I made the decision to abandon it - do I really need to spend 10 hours or so to walk around doing the same old thing - is it really that much fun? Sure it's intense, sure it's scary and impressive - but so will the next big release game. I gave Assassins Creed a go too, oh my gawd how boring can a game get. Then I remember the MGS series - the PS1 game was great, very innovative and absorbing but I couldn't even get past the opening cinematic of MGS2, and MGS3 gameplay sucked balls. GTA Vice City has to be one of my all time favourite games - so original, great dialogue and characters, great vehicles - but I had to push myself all the way through GTA San Andreas. I used to love the GT series and would obsess about all the tests, licenses and trophies, but with GT4 I abandoned it early on because I realised that the game would suck several months of my life if I let it.

I've also got a handful of online FPS' now on the Wii but I hardly play them because as much as I'd like to think that I'm good at gaming, I consistently get my ass handed to me, I'm sure by teens that have been playing for a fraction of the time that I have. And I'm not doing too well with online driving games either, although I would swear that I'm pretty effing good at driving games but somehow I'm playing driving gods that whoop my ass time and time again.

Despite the hours and years that I've spent playing and obsessing over games of almost all kinds, I hereby acknowledge that I am a Casual Gamer, and proud of it. I love games, and I'm happy to play games on my mobile, or Flash games on my PC, or the old standards - yay Chuckie Egg. I will continue to spend several hours a week on games, but not so much that it will infringe on other aspects of my life. I will continue to experiment with new types of games and will continue to some degree with hardcore genres such as FPS' as long as they remain fun, not too difficult and not too time consuming. I will refrain from obsessing over the latest and greatest big releases, because I've learned that the bigger and badder they are, the harder and less accessible they will be. I will probe the wonders on offer on my newly acquired Nintendo DS and will not feel embarrassed whilst pushing Spongebob through the galaxy or whilst playing Disney franchises. And I encourage you to do the same.

* This blog was originally posted on GameTrailers Dec'08. I seen no reason to deprive Gamespot readers any longer.

I've always been a gamer and my first console was the Playstation 1. Prior to that I had a BBC Micro, Amiga, and Sega Gamegear. Playstation 1 worked well, it brought arcade like games into the lounge, into my hands. I'd played Ridge Racer on a 6'x6' (or so) screen at the arcades, and by memory Ridge Racer on PS1, as well as V-Rally, Gran Turismo and others, matched the awe that the best arcade games inspired in me. In my mind the N64 was no comparison, with it's ugly appearance, old fashioned cartridges and cutesy franchises, and the Sega Saturn really died before reaching it's potential. Sega must rue the fact they didn't release Virtua Racer until too late.

Playstation 2 was also a good bed-fellow and it was only recently that I waived that friend goodbye, it having been superseded by my first Nintendo, the Wii. But certainly I can say that with the knowledge that PS1 and PS2 effectively wiped the floor with it's competitors (in terms of offering a reliable, well priced machine, great controllers and outstanding game library with excellent key exclusive franchises (Tekken, Formula 1 and GT being my favourites)), combined with the prospect of the Cell and all the good stuff that was poured into the PS3, that I was very much sold on PS3 long before its release.

I bought the Wii really due to the cost, $399 AUD, as it was alot cheaper than both the 360 (approx $700 AUD at Wii launch) and the PS3 ($999 AUD at launch) but I was safe in the knowledge that I'd become a PS3 owner soon enough, once the prices had dropped significantly. I knew this would take a while, but really anticipated this to be 2 years from launch to get to $399 AUD or lower. I would also get my first introduction to the Nintendo franchises, and I knew that it would be more accessible for my girlfriend. I even thought that waggling sticks may in fact be fun, poor deluded fool that I am.

We're now 2 years on from that time and yes I'm fairly dissapointed with the Wii, as is my girlfriend, but it certainly has been an improvement over the PS2, and my interest in the PS3 has wained to the point that I'm now confident of hanging up my compulsive longing for Sonys latest toy. To be fair there are some good games on the Wii across several genres (Ferrari Challenge, QoS, Mario Kart, Sports, PES) but it seems to be only one or two good games per genre at best, and very few truly outstanding games. Perhaps none.

Right now, Dec '08, the PS3 is still a very high $699 AUD. Sure it's great value COMPARED to other consoles, if you buy into that argument. Sure it's great value when you consider it has Blu-Ray etc, which I do see a value in. But the bottom line is that it's $699, and that's a fair whack of change. On top of that, I'm so sold on the Blu Ray and high def gaming factor that I would want to play the PS3 on a 42 Full HD LCD TV or similar, but unfortunately I don't own one. From this, I'm going to need to buy a $2500 TV to play with the $700 PS3, and in addition will have to buy accessories and games. So all up, I reckon a PS3, TV and games would come to around $3-4,000 AUD. I can't afford that. And probably more importantly, I suspect that in time, be-it 6 months, 12 months, 18 months from now, both TVs' and PS3 will significantly fall in price - so there are real benefits to be had in delaying and/or canceling that purchase.

I've been tempted by the 360, but I know I won't be satisfied with it, and I get hung up on the reliability issues and not having everything built in as the PS3 does. Still, from $299 for the Arcade with some sweet bundles out there does make it a very tempting impulse buy. And I've been pretty staunch anti-360 until recently.

But in the face of a global economic crisis, stiffening competition from the 360, luke-warm reactions to key games and new franchises, and the loss of the market lead to Nintendo, Sony's response has been almost non-existant.

I really expected Sony to respond positively to the price drops of the 360. Sure we've seen an ever-increasing number of PS3 bundles, 2 old games or 1 new game, but nothing truly inspiring. I've also seen the 40gb PS3 for only $599 but still, it's not that good a deal.

So the matter of waiting for a price drop has become far more frustrating than I expected and basically, as self-righteous as this is, I feel let down by Sony for not reducing the price by now. If it were a more reasonable price, i'd buy one, i'd buy some games, and i'm sure i'd be very happy with it. As it is, I just have to wait, and wait some more, and then find it's still too expensive. In addition, I'm aware that as the PS3 is now firmly in 3rd place, developers are less likely to focus on the PS3 - this is far from the situation I had anticipated prior to release.

In the meantime, I've had to buy myself a new PC for general use, and I got one with a $99 256mb graphics card in it. I've been quite surprised to find that it can play almost all of the console games that have been released on PC. Sure it's not a kick-arse system, but I don't need the best graphics or resolutions, and being able to play Assassins Creed, GTA IV, GRID, Gears of War and pretty much everything except the real graphic-whores (Crysis) and the Sony exclusives is pretty cool in my opinion and has basically taken away the desire I had for a PS3. I didn't spend a fortune on the PC, but I did manage to get 4gb RAM and Intel Core Duo and a 24 LCD monitor. My point being that a fairly average priced PC/notebook nowadays actually has some very good specs and seemingly can handle alot of the console released games.

Despite hearing that PC gaming in in the doldrums, I'm suspecting that it may be due for a resurgence because PCs and notebooks with quality graphics cards are becoming more affordable. The old PC gaming issues of compatibility may also be less pronounced nowadays as PCs' have everything built in now, so it's really a matter if a relatively basic model can handle the games that are being released for the consoles, and I think that they can.

OK I won't get to play GT or Tekken on my PC (unless I run a PS2 emulator), and not all console games will have a PC version released, and some games may be too demanding, for my average spec PC, but essentially I feel happy that I can play some, if not all, of the games that the PS3 and the 360 offer, so I really don't feel the need to go out and buy either of them anymore. In a few years time, I'll get another new PC and I'm positive that that will play all the best PC released games of this console generation.

People used to talk about getting a Wii60, but I reckon it's a good idea to get a WiiPC as your gaming system.