I don't get it. I have read review after review of Half Life 2 for the XBox (I have even written one myself). And I am tired of people comparing it to the PC version. The same reigns true for other games that have been ported from one format to another. To me, a game should be graded on how good it is for the system it is presented on. Sure, Super Mario World is better on the SNES than on Gameboy Advance, but I wouldn't rate it down because of that. I would give it its rating based on how good of a game it is on the Gameboy Advance by itself.

When a game is ported over to another system, a reviewer should not consider the previous effort when rating the new effort. Metal Gear Solid wasn't  a better game on Gamecube than on Playstation. It had better graphics and the voice acting had been redone. It was as good as the PSOne version, when we compare the two. But, if we consider how good of a game it is on Gamecube, I say it's great because it fills a much needed empty slot on Gamecube. The Gamecube has almost no stealth titles, and Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes fills the void. That and the fact that it's a great game makes it a must own title for the Gamecube.

I just say games that appear on consoles should be rated on the quality of the game on that particular system. If you like a game better on its original system, then play it on that system and forget about the comparison. Just tell us what you think of the version of the game that we are looking for. If I wanted to know how much greater Half Life 2 is on PC, then I'd be looking up the PC rating. When I want to know how good it is on XBox, I'll check that out. You can even tell me a little about which version is better and what makes the difference, but leave it at that and don't penalize the version you are rating just because it doesn't measure up to a high end PC counterpart.

Dear Diary:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Brought to you by the coca cola company.

It never fails. I see a great game, like the original Legend of Zelda, being re-released and what is it that people complain about? "The graphics suck" or "By today's standards...the game is graphically out dated." This is a topic that really gets to me. When we saw a game like Chrono Trigger back in 1995, it was incredible. Well, to me, it still is incredible. I love looking at all the old games and the way they pushed the technological envelope back in the day. Maybe it is something of nostalgia, but I get all the same warm fuzzies when I see an old game being re-released in all it's original, untouched gory.

I guess it comes down to this: There are two kinds of kinds of people in the world. Fans of the original theatrical release of the Star Wars Trilogy and those who only love the Special Edition Star Wars Trilogy. if you are like me,we can all love the new stuff added to the special editions, but we still linger for the way we remember it originally. I say, tamper all you want, but let us have it in it's original glory too. The same reigns true for video games. Updates, sequels, 3-D graphics...all that is fine and dandy, but let us not forget the artistic integrity of what was great for it's time. It can still be great today. Old isn't bad...it's just old. Classic. Antique. We should always appreciate the games of yesterday and not criticize them for their age. After all, without those innovations back then, we would have none of the great games we have now.