So now that E3 is over, we all got a taste of the new format. Either we read and watched tons of videos or actually attended the event. But there's one thing for certain, we all have different views on this new format. Some feel that this format was a lot better. Less crowds, less noise, less chaos all around, easier to get more one on one time with developers. Others felt the complete opposite. They wanted to be part of it. Shouldn't fans be able to see all these games they've been waiting years to see? Why can't the fans of these games show their enthusiasm as well?

Since Gamespot first started to showcase E3 with live footage, I've always wanted to goto E3. It looked like a blast, you were a kid in a candy store surrounded by thousands of games. You could play all those games you've been aching about for years and even chat it up with a developer. Then companies wanted to have more elaborate booths to attract people into coming and checking out their games. So booths started to get crazy and the ESA stepped in and basically said, "hey things are going to change, stay tuned". A few months after that we got hit with the bomb shell that they were reducing the size of E3 and limiting the numbers to a certain few journalists. So now it looks like I won't be going to E3 for some time.

What benefit can that possibly have? See, the thing is these sites like Gamespot get developer previews all the time. They get sent trailers and builds of games to write about so that we may read them and hopefully get excited about them. As a gamer I don't get any of that. I trust the company will deliver and make the solid and fun game they've boasting. So why are the fans being punished because the ESA can't regulate outside of just being a bunch of eliists about the situation? I know they have tried to put some restrictions on booths, but obviously they didn't do enough. So the fans get punished.

I can understand that at times E3 seemed bigger than could handle. But I'm sure they're could've been better ways to regulate just who could get invited to the E3 prior to the new format. I am not entirely sure on how it used to work. But here are a few thoughts on how they could do a better job. Limit the amount of people able to attend from retail shops. Say only five thousand total could apply on a first come, first served basis. Once those are filed they are gone. Make fan sites require a certain amount of unique hits per month, have constant updates and be around for a specific time period. This could take more part on the ESA, but honestly I think it is worth it.

Isn't E3 about showing off games anyways? Who better to show them off to than the people who will buy them? Companies should be excited that all these fans turned up to see their game. The game they've been making years and now they can finally let all the fans see it. But I guess the ESA felt that companies shouldn't do this. If I was a gaming studio I would be quite upset by this. Who is really benefiting from E3?

I feel like this is a just a slap in the face to fans everywhere. The news of games from E3 was limited to a few sites. That doesn't give us a sense of the game. I like reading different people's opinion of the same games. Each person sees things others didn't and have a different view on it. This gives gamers a better idea of the game. More stories about a game the more press that game gets and hopefully that company benefits with higher sales than they predicted because of it. But now that possibility could be a long shot.

I hope the ESA changes the format again, but for the better. I hope that one day as a gamer I will be able to attend E3. If I have to wait 3 hours to see the next Mass Effect, so be it. It will be worth it to me. I'm sure companies can still keep the personal meetings just like they have. ESA can easily keep the numbers small and controllable. So please ESA, rethink and remember us gamers who want to see the games just like the journalists.

Two hours of nothing perfectly describes the press conference from Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony. Well ok, maybe not exactly nothing, but there was just nothing that stands out from any of the press conferences. Sure each company boosted different things. Microsoft stated saying all games shown will be out in 2007. Nintendo boosting about their sales and showing off all their fitness games. Then there's Sony talking about how they have all these exclusive titles for only a few months. We saw nothing about the future of where these companies want to bring their console.

When Sony announced the drop of the current PS3 model to 500 bucks and introducing a new SKU many thought this is the time for Microsoft to fire back. The ball was in Microsoft's court. With the consoles a mere 100 bucks apart Microsoft needed to make a big move. The move many speculated was to drop the elite to 400 bucks and the premium to 300, then do away with the core completely. This makes perfect sense. What did Microsoft do instead? Nothing. Why they would do this? Well I can only guess they believe their current game line up and with the upcoming holiday season is strong enough to carry them a few more months at the pricing scheme.

Another great chance they had was to show what they wanted to do with the system. Last year at E3 we saw great xbox live improvements on the horizons. This year, nada. Not a thing about xbox live. Nothing outside of Sonic and Golden Axe, but even then it's hard to get excited about those games. How about more support for more arcade games or a price reduction of arcade games that have been out for years.

Nintendo basically patted themselves on the back. Boosting great sales and continuing great sales long into the future. For me the biggest surprise was that Mario Kart will have a driving wheel included with the game. Which is quite sad. I really wanted to see where they were going to take the Wii's online direction. Hopefully something about Goldeneye or Super Metroid would be thrown our way for the virtual console, yet again nothing. I wanted to see Nintendo do away with the friend's code to a more universal friendly online ID which everyone is so familiar with. Another disappointed was the lack of great game announcements. We all knew Metroid and Mario Kart were going to rock the world with fun. But come on? Wiifitness? I can understand Nintendo wanting to reach a new audience, but let's not forget that some of us want to play games.

Sony arguably was the best of the three press conferences, which isn't saying too much. They had a great showcase of games, but fell flat on their face in a lot of places. The home thing was kind of neat at first but become tired-some quite quickly, along with the terrible one liners. Sony was boosting how they have all these exclusive titles but kept adding "in 2007" at the end. So you have a few titles for a few months before the 360, ok? I have a 360 as well. How does that make me want to buy a PS3? I can simply wait, 2 months upon years is nothing. There was, like the previous two, no talk about the future. I'm sorry but your price drop is not enough. That is a great move and probably the best they've done in all of the PS3's lifetime. The announcement of the new PSP was ok, but it honestly fell short. No on-board memory? The TV out is a neat feature, but not enough to make me buy a new one. Speaking of the psp. Where were the games? They showed like what, maybe six games? Nothing of which interested me. My psp will continue to collect dust I suppose.

I don't know if the new format of E3 just made these companies not try or if they just had other plans to announce bigger things. I enjoyed seeing more of the games I'm interested, but the stage demos here at Gamespot have been far better. I understand these press conferences are for the companies to show off how great they're doing. But for the last few years these have been broadcast everywhere online. I think these companies should keep that in mind that now gamers everywhere are watching these to see where their consoles are going to take them in the future. No great announcements from any company was such a great let down.

It was no surprise that Blizzard was cooking something up over all these years. Sure they have World of Warcraft to work on, but historically they have always had two games in production. So when Blizzard announced they were going to show off a new game in Korea in May, the speculation began. Many favorable rumors was a Starcraft MMO. Blizzard has been posting jobs for a next gen mmo for sometime and announcing a game in Korea most likely meant something Starcraft. Others believed it would be a sequel to Starcraft despite Blizzard claiming they have no plans to revisit Starcraft at this time. Well finally May 19th came and the world rejoiced as Starcraft 2 was announced.

During the event Blizzard showed many gameplay videos and even some trailers and talked deeper about the gameplay. Outside of some units being removed from the game and some added to replace them, things remain relatively unchanged. There would be no heros featured in Warcraft 3, gameplay would still be fast and focused on resource collecting. For some this was good and what they were expected. For others they wanted more, something new and better. Starcraft was and still is an excellent game played by thousands daily around the world. The game is still widely popular in Korea especially. So why should Blizzard change anything drastically?

In the past Blizzard has been known to take their winning formula from previous games and tweak them to make them more fun.Thus, shipping out a quality product with excellent gameplay and stories. Look at Diablo and Diablo 2 for an example. Both games are relatively the same with only a few minor tweaks to the gameplay. The biggest change was an even greater story found in Diablo 2. Both were widely successful and Diablo 2 is still quite popular after all these years. So why has this news come to a surprise to anyone?

If Blizzard were to make sweeping changes to Starcraft 2 from the original many of those changes could prove to be the game's downfall. What if Blizzard made the unit cap to be much higher or non-existant like in some RTS's today? One of Starcraft's main draws is using the units effectively and wisely. Removing this cap just promotes amassing an army and hoping to overwhelm the opposing forces. Let's say Blizzard did decide to put heros in this game. In Warcraft 3 the heros were a powerful unit once you built their levels up. This took time. Time that could have been spent attacking your enemy. This often slowed gameplay down. Starcraft is all about in your face, fast paced action, not leveling up a unit.

Look, Blizzard knows how to create games. Their formula hasn't changed for years and I don't see them ever needing to change. Their games are a blast to play and are beyond a success for every title. History proves this is true. So to all the nay sayers out there, just wait. Details are still going to be revealed and Blizzard has all the time in the world to make this game great. After all, they have big shoes to fill. There is no point to completely reinvent what works.

So the cycle begins anew. Another school shooting and of course Jack Thompson jumps right on the opportunity to point the fingers at video games. Of course we all were expecting him to. Not soon after I heard about this did he start talking about how violent video games are and they teach kids to kill ruthlessly and relentlessly. Of course Thompson would like nothing less than to capitalize on a tragic event furthering his cause and career. Where there is a shooting, there is Thompson seeing dollar signs from hope full lawsuits. Gamers all know he is hot air, but what is scary is that people listen and take him for face value.

Gamers know video games do not train people to be lethal killers. No one sits down at the computer to practice for their killing sprees in the world. People like Cho Seung-Hui do not sit and say, "Hey, how can I effectively wipe out 32 people in my school? Oh I know, I'll use my computer to hone my skills." Sorry Mr Thompson, it just doesn't work that way. What video games do is to encourage team work, to interact with others. It has been well documented, unlike Thompson's claim to him playing games, that Cho Seung-Hui was a loner. Let's say he did spend a lot of time in Counterstrike. Every gamer knows that Counterstrike is based around team play. Working together to achieve a common goal. Now, how can someone who supposedly played games all the time go out and kill alone? Wouldn't he be inclined, trained according to Thompson, to gather a small group up for such a task?

So we have established that Cho Seung-Hui should have used a group of peers to do such a task, if Counterstrike really was a murder simulator capable of training anyone to be killers. There is something else that Thompson always over looks. Warning signs. In almost every single case of these shootings there has been prior warnings that the shooter has severe mental problems. Yet those people who recognize them still continue to do next to nothing about it. How come you never talk about this, Jack? How come you never go after all these people who are now saying, "Yes, he had severe problems and we all thought one day he could be capable of doing something like that." Why are they not held accountable? Surely if these people sought to help Cho Seung-Hui this entire thing could've been avoided. But of course no one wants to be blamed for their problems. So once again it falls on something that the majority of society do not understand.

How can so many people world wide be gamers and yet these cases remain so isolated? As of January Gears of War has sold over 3 million copies. Three million gamers have in their hands a murder simulator according to Thompson. Should the school shooting rate be much higher on a much larger scale if games really do turn people into murderers? Here is a thought for you Jack. Those three million gamers, guess what they are doing? That's right, they are playing games. When a person is playing a game, guess what he is not doing? Killing people. Nor is that person training to be a killer. What that person is doing is having a great time with friends. Jack, look buddy, these games have been around for ages. Doom 1 alone is 14 years old. Many gamers, including me, grew up playing Doom and Quake. I do not own a gun, nor have I ever thought about shooting someone. Your entire argument is blown up right there.

The industry needs to take a stand on this. Companies need to release statements educating the masses about what their games are about. Thompson will not go away over night. With the upcoming presidental election a subject like this could quickly turn into a serious problem for us. Hilary Clinton has even written a bill concerning regulations of games. Maybe even gamers like us can stand up and start writting to our congressmen informing them of the real facts on gamers. Facts like how gamers raised over a million dollars for children hospitals. Hopefully once the truth of what gamers are really like comes to light Jack can finally be put to rest.

Edit: It seems now that after police searched Cho's room they discovered he did not have any games. Let's see how Thompson spins this one now.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

The 19th can not come soon enough!

So something that just dawned on me today, the next generation battle is between choosing graphics or gameplay. On the gameplay end you got Nintendo sporting the Wii. On the graphic side you have Sony's PS3 and somewhere in the middle'ish is Microsoft with their Xbox 360. Each company seem to be focusing more on that aspect than previously before.

The hype behind the Wii is, as everyone knows, the controller. Instead of simply pressing buttons this time around, you actually use the controller as with your own actions. Want to move left? You move the controller left. Want to swing at that ball? Pull the controller back and move it forward as you would in real life. This control scheme allows for so much more interaction in the games. Nintendo's commercials and PR has all been focused on using this controller as a new way to play games.

On the other end of this spectrum is Sony. The PS3 is one beast of a machine powered by the new cell processors. These devices act as a whole to compute faster. The majority of the emphasis of Sony as been how great the games will look and how powerful their system is compared to the competition. Now they do have the sixaxis, but let's face it, this is nothing like the controller on the Wii. It will have no where near the impact on gameplay as the Wiimote.

The middle ground is Microsoft, while they seem a bit more towards the graphics as well. The 360 has tons of great looking games that also have excellent gameplay. The recently released Gears of War is the first that comes to mind. MS also has fun acrade and old school type games being released via their Xbox Live service. Speaking of which, this service brings games to another level as well, connecting players together with voice and sometimes even video.

While the clear winner of this generation will remain to be seen, the gamers have a lot of different choices this time around. Nintendo has their innovative controller, Sony has their beast of a machine and somewhere Microsoft has what appears to be the best of the two worlds.

I don't understand the hype surrounding the PS3. Sure, it offers new shiny things, but what new console hasn't? Isn't that the entire point of a next generation console? Don't get my wrong, I have nothing against Sony as a whole. I have the PS2 and, unfortunely the PSP(did support just die, where are the games?!).

I guess for 600 bucks I expect more than flashy new graphics. Why should I waste 600 bucks for games to look prettier? I don't play games to look at pictures, I play them to have fun. I don't care if they have life like graphics. If the game is garbage I won't play it. Ok, they can run at a smooth frame rate. Great, but you know what? They better be. Any game better play at a smooth frame rate. If not I will nto play it. I will not spend 50+ bucks to play a buggy game.

Which brings me to my next point. Their launch line up is just awful. A lot of those games will be out for the other consoles as well. Why would I want to drop 600 bucks to play a game with slightly better graphics? Give me a better reason to buy your system Sony. Genji, crabs, "historic battles", need I say more there? Resistance could go either way. Looks pretty basic with a sub par weak excuse for another lame WW2 plot. Only this time it's against aliens.

Ah, so marketting. Sony has some deep problems here. It just seems a few months ago they were saying consumers would pay 600 dollars for anything no matter what it was. So basically Sony things we would pay 600 bucks for a stick called PS:Stick. Then they say the PS3 is not a gaming machine. Ok Sony, why would I want to buy a 600 dollar machine that won't play games? What does it offer otherwise? Oh, blu-ray. No thanks DVD's are cheaper and just as good.

So what's the hype behind the PS3 exactly? I don't see it being the games. They are pretty lackluster or will be out on other systems. Gaming machine, well Sony said it wasnt a gaming machine. So I would be paying 600 bucks for what exactly? Tell me Sony, what do you bring new to this generation outside of flashy graphics?

Maybe I'm too cynical. Maybe I'm too critical. But I have no reason to buy a PS3 in the foreseeable future. The biggest hype surrounding the PS3? 600 bucks.