If what this article says is true (http://www.psu.com/Call-of-Duty-5-WWII-bound--a0002121-p0.php), Call of Duty 5 will be returning to World War II battlefields. I guess it's not enough that second-rate developer Treyarch will be taking over AGAIN, but now we get to return to a conflict we've fought in many times before.

MICHIGAN HAS LOST TO AN UNKNOWN, UNRANKED TEAM BY TWO POINTS.

At least Mike Hart had a great game...

...meaning Io can get to working on Freedom Fighters 2. Unless another Hitman game gets in the way, and we're forced to wait through that. Here's to hoping for some news on Freedom Fighters 2 in '08.

It's funny, isn't it? How the sheer hype of a new system can make us momentarily stop using the part of our brain that identifies how much something sucks. No, I'm not going to talk about the Nintendo 64, Playstation or the CD-Walkman here. I'm talking about something you probably never heard of. The game.com, and trust me, I am not kidding when I say this is possibly the worst portable gaming system ever. The game.com packaged itslef as the "Portable video gaming system with touch screen technology and 5 built in functions!", which is a horrible lie. I refuse to call it 'touch screen technology' because you won't be doing a lot of touching, more like jabbing and stabbing at the extremely low sensitive screen. Once you've stabbed the command you want to do, wait a good five seconds for it to process that command. The graphics were black and white, which is entirely passible, but the fact that the screen resolution is so damn low and that the framerate never goes above five per second just makes me sick. Also, those '5 built in functions' are a calender, phone book, calculator, solitare and the cartridge slot. Now I don't know many CEOs who went out and bought a game.com so they could put in the phone numbers of clients and friends or used the calender to schedule business meetings, but then again, it wouldn't surprise me, as everyone should stay as far away as possible from actually playing games on the game.com, which is nearly impossible, to say the least. I own six games for the game.com, and I'll go over a brief summary here.

Resident Evil 2- This was actually a game that caught my eye, but that was as good as it got. Controls are horrible, as it makes attempts at using the fixed-camera angles of other RE games. It's impossible to tell how close or how far a zombie is to you, because characters are the same size, no matter how far or close they are to the screen. Get grabbed by a zombie? To bad. There is no way to shake off zombies (that I know of) so if you're grabbed, get ready for a YOU DIED screen. Sound is non-existent, aside from footsteps and the famous 'RESIDENT EVIL... 2' intro voice, which is so low-quality it makes Perfect Dark's voice-acting sound amazing.

 Lights Out!- I don't even know how the hell to play this game. I think it uses 'stab screen technology', but that's as far as I've gotten.

Arcade Classics- Just what I always wanted. A bunch of crap games I never heard of, played at a glorious three frames per second framerate.

Sonic Jam- Play as Sonic or Tails through about four different ugly levels. Same three frames per second framerate makes the game nigh impossible to play.

I have some other game.com games, but I really don't feel like going into detail on 'em. One thing worth mentioning about the game.com that I forgot to add was the game.com had internet access, albiet 14.4 kb/s, text-only and very expensive. The internet access feature was so useless it was entirely scrapped in later models.

Basically, I had no other reason to make this blog post other than to share the story of the horrid game.com with other users. In a final summary, the game.com was a terrible idea which should've never made it off the drawing board, and probably should've been forbidden to be sold in stores. The only purpose the game.com served, in my mind, was to painfully remind us all of how horrid a single game system could have been.