Your either going to agree with me or disagree on this, because this is something that either happens to you or it doesn't. Looking at Gamespot and seeing a game that is 9.0 or higher (AAA), actually doesn't influence the amount of enjoyment I have with it. It's crazy to think about and i'm not proud to admit it, but this is a blog, so i'm not going to lie. For example, let's take Mass Effect, which I recently bought two weeks ago. Now, I have reviewed this game and I think it's great and maybe even a little under-rated in my opinion, but that's not what this is about. As you probably know, Mass Effect scored an 8.5, but was hyped 9.0 or above (AAA). I was expecting an awesome game, so when I saw the 8.5, I knew there had to be some flaws with it, big enough flaws that warranted docking the game more than one full point. At that point, I already knew that I wasn't going to have as much fun with this game as I would have if I had seen 9.5 for example. Psychologically I suppose it makes sense. By reading that Mass Effect had scored 8.5, I already knew it didn't live up to the hype, so now I have lowered my standards and I know that this game didn't live up to it's potential. Now when I go to play it, this is in the back of my mind, regardless of how good the game is, I know that it has flaws and that it was considered a 'flop'. I can't speak for others on this, and I'm not sure if anyone else can admit to being this superficial as I have, but I have a question for the PS3 owners. Ratchet and Clank scored a 7.5, which was considered a 'flop', but did that hinder your overall enjoyment of the game? While playing, was it in the back of your mind that you aren't playing a AA game, but a A game instead? I'm curious to hear what others have to say about this. So far, this has happened to me for Mass Effect and it's a habit I would like to kick.

Recently I made my first blog post that I wanted to be shown on the soapbox. Within a day I had a dozen or so users now tracking my contributions and now I feel the pressure to consistantly create new blog posts, I don't know if I can handle it! (/end joke) What I did think about however, were topics that I feel strongly about. Not just topics that I want to rant about, but topics that can be discussed and where I can hear the opinions of others about the same thing. In a follow-up to my other post, which was about the lack of proper voice chat in gaming and how it's used to conversation rather than strategy, I decided to give my opinion on the importance of clans for online gaming. I think almost every online gamer becomes accustomed to playing with their friends or certain people they meet online and than they are unoffically a clan that roam around without any official marking or leadership, etc. It's natural to gravitate towards players you get along with more and to want to game with them consistantly. That is why I really like clan support for games. One of the first things I look for in an online game is clan support. As a matter of fact, if I see that a game does support this, I start to think that they are serious about building an online community and that the developer is making an effort, which I like. I don't know what my obsession with this game is but I cannot talk about clan support without bringing up Socom. It's actually a little sad to remininisce about such a classic game knowing that it's ruined by hackers now, but that is a topic for another day. Socom is stil the example I use whenever I talk about clan support. The amount of options was great, you set your tag, had your leaders, could post daily news and set up clan wars, whats not to like? I think half of my time playing that game was spent in recruitment games making sure my kill:death ratio was breaking even at least. So why is clan support essential for any online experience? Considering that most online games are shooters, it's nice to have the ability to hook up with a group of players and run around, tearing it up with a tag on. I see lots of people change their Xbox 360 gamertags to add a tag, which is silly since it costs ten dollars and it should be an online feature anyway. I think that the first game that is introduced with clan support, as well as private group chat, i'd jump all over it. I think the easiest way to prove my arguement is to look at games without any support for clans. Go online and your going to see people with makeshift clan tags and groups of people that all leave at once or all join at once. They all want to play with eachother, and clans are a feature that need to become a standard in gaming. Maybe I just have too much time on my hands or maybe this is an actual issue, but let's hear what you all think about this. Does clan support need to become a standard feature for online games?

Recently I have come to the conclusion that I must be apart of some rare breed of online gamer. Perhaps it's that I spent most of my online multiplayer time playing Starcraft still or maybe that I need something to motivate me. I'm not sure what it is, but if it's the latter, it's definitely not the online community motivating me. I have always thought that voice chat, especially for shooters, was to co-operate and co-exist as a unit. Come up with a game plan, execute and celebrate. I think that there is a lack of this in todays online games. The most enjoyable online games I have ever played were Starcraft: Brood War and Socom: US Navy Seals. Both of those games had something in common that I don't find anywhere else, discussion about strategy and the game itself. For example, if I play Call of Duty 4 on my Xbox 360 and I join a random ranked room, chances are the ongoing discussion, if there is one, isn't about the game. It's usually just a conversation and generally about something racist and offensive, especially if it's Halo 3. I always seem to be the only one concerned about playing the game and coming up with strategy. What made Socom and Starcraft so great was that it was all about the game. In both games, joining a clan was the way to go. You would join up, rank up a bit, get to know everyone, than go to a clan war and kick some ass. It was great. Nothing was better than being in a game on Socom when your outnumbered 6:2 and through superior teamwork and knowledge of the map, you pull off a victory, and than next game be congratulated, it's nostalgic just to think about it. Starcraft is a little different, but is relatively the same. You play the game, you win or lose and than you can watch the replay, discuss it with some friends and think about what you should have done and what to do next time. It was great and I feel a little sad typing this because I don't get that atmosphere with newer great games. Yes, I am a rare breed indeed, a dying breed too I fear. Now I wait patiently for the next Socom, hoping it can emulate it's great predecessors and that I can be satisfied with it's community. In conclusion though, let me make myself clear that conversation is an integral part of online gaming. Without some personal discussions and just regular talking, you usually cannot connect on a level with teammates or clan mates so that it is exciting when you both succeed. However, I used to enjoy when that took a backseat to strategy, nowadays it seems all games are two door cars, and I have a hard time squeezing into the back.