The world of the Playstation 3 is a complex and questionable one. Even strong video game fans are hesitant to shell out money on the next gen powerhouse, in spite of a growing library of solid games, Blu-ray's win over HD-DVD and a drastic price drop. Some blame it on the state of the economy, but as most experts explain, items like the PS3 that allow you to kill lots of time at a set price. Another theory involves the fact that Sony still isn't quite sure what to do with its system. With backwards compatability still an "in" and "out" thing (I thought it died with the 40 GB, but then it returns for a specific special edition version of the MGS4 pack?) and the prices jumping up and down, people don't know what to think.

Right now, Sony has shot itself in the foot because it keeps allowing and disallowing PS2 backwards compatability (as far as I know, PSX BC is available in all models, but I'm running a launch 60GB so I can't speak for sure). Many of us who are heavy in the gaming industry have spoken to friends or relatives about the confusion of backwards compatability. Those that normally ignore our "careful" nature about "being prepared" (my friends are still dogging me for warning them about sold out special edition copies of GTA IV, which can now be found on any store shelf) are opening their ears and asking advice in regards to the PS3. In spite of this, the more stubborn people in your life will still call you and ask why their new Best Buy bought PS3 (40 GB) won't run God Of War. Now that the 80 GB limited edition of the MGS4 bundle is backwards compatable but the other 40 GB bundle (which is ironically more expensive) is not, confusion on what will work in the gunmetal PS3 couldn't be more confusing. If Sony doesn't make a decision about what's in and what's out, and fast, people are going to be scared into doing nothing more than waiting. Many of my friends, all heavy gamers, had an excuse for not buying each iteration. The 60GB was too expensive and I've yet to see a 20 GB on a shelf (and it's now defunct so this will never happen). Then, the 80 GB was still too expensive, they didn't want Motorstorm and they never imagined Sony would remove backwards compatability. Then when the 40 GB came out and it wasn't BC, they all wanted the 80 GB only to find out it was no longer available. It was at this time that a couple bought the 40 GB, but most decided to wait for the 80 GB BC MGS4 bundle. The demand on this bad boy is huge, so much so that at this moment lines are forming at my local gamestop to try to get their hands on the limited quantities. Until Sony goes universal, they'll never sell units because they've had so many damn skus already!

I laugh, as my 60 GB wasn't such a bad choice afterall, was it? And to top it all off, what's the big deal with BC anyway? I think all the people holding out right now either don't want to play PS2 games other than GH I, II, and 80's (which have various peripheral problems) or already own a PS2. If Gamestop will give you $80 for a PS2 fully loaded, allowing you to get an 80GB BC (if you can find one) for $420, why not just keep the PS2 and pay $400 for a 40GB?

Then there's the fact that the PS3 does things unlike all other systems, which is scaring off gamers. I think everything on the PS3 suffers from bad press due to delays or performance issues. Even GTA IV couldn't get away scott free and although the problem was resolved in less than a week, people today still ask me if GTA IV works on the PS3 without fail. Couple that with installs, an improvement to the gaming process, but ultimately seen as a flaw to most console gamers, and it starts seeming a little too PC-like. Online is still a big pain and no amount of free online services are making up for the lack of in-game xmb (to play custom tracks and see who's online while playing a game) and achievments. Also, where's Home? I know it's coming, but it's already too late as it is. The more Sony waits on Home, the more people will wait to buy a PS3. Isn't the business model "under-promise and over-deliver"? Someone got that mixed up at Sony and with the apparent lack of Phil Harrison, even the best front man for Sony understands this.

Then there's Qore. A great idea delivered in a horrible way. Exclusive content, much like the digital version of Playstation Underground (I'd like to thank 1up Yours Podcast for that great comparison). The beta invites are great, because it's clear now that betas are now a business that certain gamers will pay for. I think this is also a great idea because the paying beta player will give feedback, the casual gamer that plays for free won't. Isn't a beta still about working out the kinks? What good is a noob that won't speak up? The demos and trailer part is scary because it implies that this is the only way to get to it and to top it off, they offered the first issue at $2.99 with the Socom beta, so you'll see hundreds for the first issue and none for the second unless there's another solid beta. As a heavy gamer, I'm buying only the issues with betas as those are the only things I really care about. A special gamer pic or theme is too much customization to keep up with as I should be playing games and not customizing my system. I'm pretty sure we won't see betas much more than once every few months, which accounts for only about $12-$16/year and I may want to skip one or two, which drops the price even lower. Qore needs to figure out how to offer things appropriately to gamers in order to succeed. Getting issues for free and paying to unlock the full issue (betas and content) is my suggestion.

In the end, the PS3 is still a solid system, moreso now than ever. We will see the launch of MGS4 (which will include a taste of the upcoming MGS Online) this week, and suddenly you'll see many 360s with larger times between "last login". Resistence 2 and Little Big Planet will be solid fall releases. Lets also not forget that from those of us who stood strongly by the PSX and PS2, don't many games just feel better on a PS controller? I know that's why I purchased many games on the PS3 when a 360 iteration is out (see my previous blog entries or podcast as to why being an achievement whore lost its valor). I like my sleek black box and now I know that I was right in making the purchase. In a sea of confused gamers just waiting for a good reason to purchase (you know, as if MGS4, Uncharted, and many others weren't reason enough), I'm happy to know I stand with options and feeling good about when I got on the PS3 bandwagon. Just use common sense: stop waiting, keep your PS2, pick up a 40 GB PS3. As Stan Lee and Steve Ditko put it best: 'Nuff Said.

The vague description of "we" pointed right at those hardcore players that have given the Wii, as well as most games on it, the perverbial cold shoulder. I think among my hardcore gaming friends, I am the most liberal toward the Wii, playing games like Mario Galaxy and Boom Blox without tons of people telling me how good it is first. Heck, most of my friends haven't played Mario Galaxy because they don't like that there isn't an "impossibly hard" mode. When you think about the fact that the better (or more competitive and thorough) games are on the other systems, I don't think I'm alone when I wonder how the Wii does as well as it does. 26 million units, wow, that's huge. And it still isn't in stock anywhere, either. So that means it's going to keep growing. Does anyone else wonder why the system that features so many short, horribly built games does so well?

At first glance, it's hard to imagine, especially when you consider that Nintendo has essentially blown its load on this system already. With Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Smash Bros., Mario Kart, and Metriod already out within a year and half of launch, you gotta wonder where Nintendo is headed next. Or what about 3rd party? Will they ever release a decent game (ignore Boom Blox in the corner over there)? The fact that instead of going the way of the dodo, this system is going the way of the cockroach (world domination) makes many hardcore gamers scratch their head like a monkey doing a math problem. The reason is that it isn't for us. Sure, we may play some games here and there; we may even play with others, offline, that aren't anywhere near as good (which we all want to admit isn't that fun), but ultimately the Wii wasn't intended for us. It's for the masses, which is why the masses have eaten it up so much that none can stay on shelves. It's why the system doesn't play as well as it should with HDTVs. It's why the lag online and slow speeds and lack of storage space are all liberties reserved for the bigger systems. Nintendo CEO Myamoto said it best when he said, "Video games are no longer for everybody." They are like ads: targeted. It's the same reason why if there was a theatre that only played romantic comedies wouldn't have an audience with a bunch of action junkies. It wouldn't make sense to keep dropping by that theatre to see what's playing. Sure, you may enjoy one or two romantic comedies, but essentially you'd want to go to the theatre that plays only blockbusters if you're looking for your cup of tea. The same is true for the opposite end. As I said before, the Wii is not intended for hardcore players.

Does that mean we shouldn't own one? No. Hardly. It does mean you may have to be more open about what you want to play, much like you have to be with anything involving the Wii (especially controls). At first, when FPSers didn't do well on the Wii, but it wasn't completely because it they were built poorly (look how many crappy games sell incredibly well on the Wii). It was basically because it put the Wii against the 360 and the PS3, which it will lose because only hardcore gamers will play FPSers because of the negative connection with Halo and hardcore gamers (most casual gamers stay away from even Doom). The same can be said with Okami, which has 25+ hours to complete and is very artistic. The casual gamer may take a year to beat Okami! But then you look at Guitar Hero and Rock Band, which by design has a spectrum for casual to hardcore and we clearly see that it sells incredibly on the Wii.

So for us hardcore gamers, there's going to have to be some give somewhere, otherwise the Wii will never be useful to you. Games like No More Heroes, Sonic, and even Boom Blox are great for the hardcore gamer, so check them out with an open mind. Download some retro games (love to see you beat Ninja Gaiden I or III) or even some Wii Ware. If you aren't willing to open up, you are not the target for the Wii. eBay it for $300 and invest in either a 360 or a PS3, and if you already have both, buy some games!

On the recent Gamespot podcast, there was a lot of discussion about MGS4 and whether or not it was going to command the sales that Halo 3 did. Initially, I wasn't sure what to think because taking on Halo 3 is a pretty scary feat. Also, there are a lot of factors that make Halo 3 vs. MGS4 kind of a "apples to oranges" situation. However, having said that, here's my take.

The initial problem is that, from a sales perspective, the MGS series really didn't command the sales that Halo did. MGS 1 was incredible and, hands down, was probably the greatest game on PSX if you weren't an RPG fan (respect to the FFVII). It had a great story, great graphics, and a unique play style. As the series has continued, the story is more complicated than ever and many players have fallen into the FPS realm that they aren't sure quite how to take MGS these days. Also, the world has shifted to FPS. I was not an FPSer on the original xbox, I really just used it to get surround sound and 480p out of games on the PS2 that didn't offer either. However this generation, I am a hardcore FPSer. I think this shift will also affect people who have to go back to the roots of a classic stealth game. Just ask Splinter Cell how well that's working out on this generation (not too good, all things considered).

I also think it's important to think about who plays Halo vs. MGS. Halo 3 was a necessity on the Xbox 360, if for any other reason than all your friends would be playing it. That's why I bought it even though I hadn't played the other two (at the time). No matter what I was playing online, I knew that the shift to Halo was necessary to keep playing with most of my true friends online. MGS has an online component, but the PS3 doesn't rely on online like the 360 and the core of MGS4 is not online play (that's a different game, Metal Gear Online). There's also the story aspect. Having played the entire Halo trilogy (in one weekend at that) and the (so far) MGS trilogy, I can tell you that the story is much more relevant in MGS. Halo 3 people weren't shocked or satisfied if they played through the trilogy. Mind you, playing through the current three MGS games may give you an elaborate story, but a difficult one to follow (I can't completely follow it) and a convoluted one. At the same time, when they start referring to Revolver Ocelot, Liquid, and many others (including the Metal Gear), players who haven't at least played one of the games will have no idea what's going on (or even who the characters are). With about 90 mins of cut scenes, that makes it hard to stay into the story and drag yourself through so much content. I wouldn't be surprised if first timers don't drop the game after so much plot.

The final part is the sales factor. How many 360s were around in 2007 for Halo's sales? How timely is Halo? I know there are less PS3s (pretty sure) worldwide than 360s from last year and the Halo trilogy spans about 3 less years than the MGS series. Also Halo 1 & 2 are BC on the 360 whereas the newest PS3s can't play the old MGS games (I guess MGS 1 works on all of them, but hey). So if Halo sold like 8 million copies worldwide, but there are less than 8 million PS3s out there, how can MGS 4 possibly beat it? What if we compared percentages of system owners to purchasers, that may be better. And while MGS4 is THE game for PS3, some will still skip it. Also, in America, our perception is skewed. Halo 3 was an FPSer and extremely popular in America, but in Japan it was a joke and very few played it. The reverse is true for MGS in Japan vs. America, so you might see a tighter amount of sales. I just don't know yet how I feel about Snake's ability to move enough copies to take on a powerhouse like Halo 3.

I can guarantee you one thing, though. The journey will sure be a hell of a lot harder and a hell of a lot longer than Halo 3.)

For the majority of the gaming community, Grand Theft Auto IV has come and we all own it. I had, for a long time, tried to figure out if I wanted the Xbox 360 version or the PS3 version. The temptation was that with the 360 version I'd get the episodic content (either early or at all, depending on what the future holds), more people online, and achievements. However on the PS3 I get the Dual Shock 3 (the preferred way to control a GTA game), better graphics, and quicker load times. For the 360 era players, it's a no brainer, the 360 is the way to go. I ended up going with the 360 version, and while I am very happy with it, I feel I may have made a mistake. Don't get me wrong, playing online with friends is something I'm very thankful I can do, as I don't have a single friend (yet) who owns a PS3 other than myself. Episodes will be cool as well, but this game is huge and I'm wondering if I'll be GTAed out by then. The final part, and what this blog is really all about (aren't you getting tired of HEARING about GTA IV instead of PLAYING it anyway?), is that the Achievments are no longer important to me. GTA IV taught me that I don't want to focus on achievements anymore, and since then, I feel like I've awakened from a trance. Let me explain.

I love achievements. i feel they add much to a game, either for a completist like myself (I found all the flags in Assassin's Creed and ENJOYED it), or just challenge you to go that extra step. The problem is that with an overall achievement score, you find yourself doing things (like a high school cheerleader) that you normally wouldn't do and are embarrassed to admit. Check out my gamercard (spydersvenom, it's on my web site and in my profile on this very site) and you'll see the gamer skeletons in my closet. Avatar...uh. Eragon...eeesh. Sports games....glah! Even King Kong, which I rather enjoyed more than others...meh. The only one I'll claim I'm, well not proud of, but also not ashamed of, is TMNT. I am an avid TMNT fan. I have all the movies on DVD, every cartoon episode on either DVD or VHS (I taped them, people), all the video games that EVER came out (even Tournament Fighting), and the new movie in combo format HD-DVD (is that love or WHAT?)! I'd have played that game to death regardless of the achievement points. Either way, I played games and did things I'd have never done (and didn't enjoy) just to boost my score. Now that I'm at nearly 30,000, people are either shocked or sickened when they see it, but within 10 minutes have completely forgotten about it. It's because at this point they no longer matter.

Additionally, there are games I have all the points for, like Assassin's Creed, COD2, or even Condemned, that I wanted to get all achievements because I loved the games and wanted to do everything I possibly could to get the points. I didn't use a cheat sheet, I didn't go to xbox 360 achievements, and I played through the game at least once without a guide (only using the guide for stuff like finding all the flags). In games like these, I love achievements because I may not have even noticed that there were flags, or dead birds, or that it's cool to fall from 33.3 ft without dying, which allow me to find new challenges once I beat the game on its hardest setting (especially if they have no online). Any good game that I have 1000 points for, I loved, rest assured.

The problem is when an achievement doesn't sound too hard, but it alters the way I'd play a game. This is where GTA IV comes in. There's an achievement for completing all the story missions in less than 30 hours. I'm only six hours into the game, so I don't know if this is hard or not, I just know that it alters how I'd play the game. In all GTA's I've liked to do side missions, screwed around, and explore. Going for this achievement prevents this and, what's worse, prevents me from being able to make the most of my gaming experience unless I (assumably) play the game through twice. I don't know about you, but for me on ANY GTA game, once was awesome, but once was plenty. I found myself (luckily I hadn't yet) planning on skipping parts (like the taxi missions, which I wanted to do) that I normally would have played. Trust me, people, 60 useless (and lets face it, they really are of no value) points are not worth ruining what is easily the best written game of all time.

This is when the overall gamerscore ceases to be valuable to me anymore, and thank god, because I was cheating myself. I'm out now, no longer addicted to the achievement points, and looking forward to starting a new life. I'm free when I play GTA, and no joke, enjoying it even more than before! I'm playing Wii games like Boom Blox, No More Heroes, and completing the basic story of Mario Galaxy (although you know the completionist in me is going to go back and get all 120 stars). I'm playing Uncharted, my favorite game on PS3, through again. I'm playing Ninja Gaiden Sigma, playing God of War I & II (first time through, too), and Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (haven't played before and need to prepare for MGS4!). The air is fresher, the water is crisper, and my food tastes better. I am free and I love it.

Don't get me wrong, I'll still go achievement crazy, especially with certain games (watch for my 1,000 GS on Lego Indiana Jones, and if the other Lego Games are any indication, it's no short or easy task). I'll also be happy to see the trophy system, which is supposed to hit this summer (not holding my breath), because I now no longer care about the overall score, just the inner game achievements. It'd also be cool to make them universal (like the achievements on 360 will match the trophies on PS3 so you don't have to worry about which one you buy it on). Trust me, I love when people say, "You got all the flags in Assassin's Creed!" or "You are about to beat all the world tours in Rock Band!", but the overall score doesn't matter anymore. It's just a public way to show your dedication, but with achievements like this 30 hour one or GH III's requirement to beat each campaign on all 4 difficulties, you've got expert guitar players beating it on easy and falling asleep. Get with it, programmers, be more realistic about your achivements. I hope you all, like me, learn to evolve with achievements and see what's worth getting, what's not worth getting, and what's there just to get you to play a game that sucks (Iron Man...PLEASE GOD NO!).

Check it out! We've got some treats for ya!

http://www.geocities.com/unscripted1/

This week we discuss Guitar Hero IV, peripherals, one of the largest video game mobile publishers, Gears of War II, Left 4 Dead, Too Human, and more!

I have consistently written on the importance of talking about things that can't be heard on every podcast and can't be read in every blog. While the subject of the "achievement locked" underwear has brought some female gamers to the spotlight, I felt it was important to offer my own perspective, that of the male, but to take it a step farther and backup my perspective with a well-thought hypothesis. I must add that this really doesn't have much to do with overall gaming news or discussion, please see my podcast this week for your fix (here comes the plug: http://www.geocities.com/unscripted1).

For those that aren't aware, there was recently a web site (splitreason.com, which is where this pic is from) that started selling boy-cut female underwear that had "achievement locked" printed on the front, implying that like all Xbox 360 games, that there was an achievement available if you could figure out how to unlock it. From the simplest sense, I just imagined it was some cute way for a gamer girl (or a gamer guy suggesting it to his girlfriend/wife) to put some video game play into sex. I even mentioned it to my fiance and she implied that it wasn't her cup of tea, but if I was into it then she'd be more than happy to play along. I didn't think, however, of the larger suggestion this was making. Many female gamers stepped up and gave their opinion, mostly reflective, but occassionally negative, on what this elusive pair of panties was really saying.

After taking a better look at the situation, I must admit that some of the comments brought up made some valid points. The most literal translation, that the "locked" portion was the girl's legs or that the "achievement" was, as Mercutio so polietly put it, "all the demesnes that there adjacent lie". This thought can provoke some fear or concern in gamers, I would assume predominantly female gamers but males can easily fit here too, that sex or getting into some woman's underwear (these are clearly intended for women only) is an "achievement". Also with the though of "locked" and what one might do to get them "unlocked" suggests, like in most video games, a degree of brute force or trickery. Sure, it may be going over the top with a little joke about panties and sex, but hey, society never ceases to amaze me with issues involving sex and force. At this point, the suggestion it could be making made my fantasy a little less exciting and little more creepy.

It was at this time that I decided to dissect the gaming industry, especially the "avid" or "hardcore" (as 1upyours recently discussed, this is nothing more than a self-proclaimed nametag and nothing more; I'm using it in this context to refer to a gamer that spends a large portion of their time gaming of their own volition). Most gamers fitting this profile are male, it's just a fact. I know that there is a large portion of female gamers (they make up something like 36 percent of the gaming population), but how many of these females are "hardcore"? My fiance counts as a female gamer, but that's just inasmuch as she plays the puzzle games on her DS like crazy and enjoys a couple quick rounds of Wii Sports or Guitar Hero/Rock Band. I'd hardly ever expect to come home and see her consistently working to crank through a Final Fantasy (in fact, she gave up on Kingdom Hearts in a few days). This becomes more apparent online, where in a room of 16 gamers, you're probably all male and complaining about how your girlfriend/wife won't stop nagging you while you're playing. Additionally, there's this constant struggle, discussed in many forums, podcasts, blogs, and voicechat banter that explain the dynamic with gaming and getting laid. In fact, it seems very important, and my podcast will be the first to prove it that there is this overwhelming urge to include females purly for the sexual factor and to remind the world (and ourselves) that gamers do, in fact, have sex...often frequently.

So when does it go too far? Since we're already jacking into a virtual sense of the Matrix when we play video games and we're usually killing people, cussing like soldiers, being racist, and making some snide comments about someone else's mother every 30 seconds, its no wonder that we imply that we're going back to basic instinctual behavior. You'll often hear a 12-year-old and a 30-year-old in a shouting match that results in a frag fest on most war games. There's even the joke I've heard of the girlfriend lying naked in bed next to the xbox controller and the man has to look at both and decide which one he wants to "play". This, moreso than ever implies that the need to have sex is just that, a basic need and nothing more. This is a very negative situation as it removed all sense of intimacy and creates (once the gamer is down to basic function) a meglomaniac, concerned with only one's self.

So let me set the record straight. Gamers, your partner is not a "game", he/she's not a "prize", and you aren't unlocking an "achievement" by having sex with her. The moment that he/she becomes as such is the day that most of the things that make good sex great are lost. A good relationship can't sustain a world where one of the member's is an object, be it of desire or otherwise. It's time you put down your controller, stopped yelling about the person who, for all intents and purposes, just loves you and when it's time to go to bed, keeps you warm at night. They are a person and they care for you; this may come as a shock, but your Xbox or PS3 don't! They are machines. You "unlock achievements" with machines, you care for people. Once you get to this point and your partner knows that the line is drawn between them and your video games, even if your as avid a gamer as I am, your partner never questions your motives. It is at this point that panties displaying "achievement locked", t-shirts with Master Chief that say, "I teabag", and a little fantasy roleplay where she's your game and you try to "push the right buttons" is no longer creepy, it's just fun sex with the one you love.

The last six months have been the day of the shooter. Huge releases of games like Halo 3, COD 4, and even Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 dominated the consoles and sales in most cities. Even third class shooters like Kane & Lynch, Army of Two, Stranglehold, and Turok saw a decent amount of sales even though they presented lackluster games with little to no replay value. It was clear that within the last six months, we didn't much like anything unless we were shooting.

Starting about a month ago, that all shifted and it's pretty clear that a new genre is taking over this summer: the button masher. There are plenty of games that fit this bill, be they hack 'n slash, brawlers, action games, or platformers, what brings them all together is that they put you in a situation where you are constantly mashing buttons on your controller to keep up with the multiple enemies on screen that are attacking you. For this current generation of systems these games are regarded as repetitive and unwanted, offering the average player very little in return for their efforts. Games like Viking, Conan, and even Ninja Gaiden Sigma (while a great game, it's ultimately a button-masher) have begun to dominate the market. I recently started playing through Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, a game I've owned for at least a year and had yet to crack the seal on, and noticed that it's quite a fun brawler. I think what defines the good button masher versus the bad button masher are the aspects that define the game. If you want me to continue to do the same thing, it's imperative that you integrate some upgrade or RPG experience feature into the game. Therefore, you give me a reason to grind away. i think that at this point, MMORPGs (like World of Warcraft), Rainbow Six Vegas (either one), and COD 4 have taught us that gamers like to grind. It's kind of like the idea of the big payout: we'll deal with repetitive crap as long as you handsomely reward us in the end. These days even simple achievement points can accomplish this, but only on the 360 as Sony has yet to take this ingenious system over to the PS3.

From the retro gamers perspecitve, the hack 'n slash was probably the most popular type of game in the 90s, especially for coin-ops. Golden Axe, Final Fight, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Ninja Scroll, and Aliens Vs. Predator are just a few of the coin-op arcades that I dropped tens of dollars in quarters per week just to try to get to the end (and the whole point was to use boss battles to suck quarters so you could never reach it). Eventually those games got old, but then they moved to consoles (Streets of Rage, Gunstar Heroes, and many other coin-op remakes) while the arcades upgraded to RPG styles as we saw with the popular Dungeons & Dragons coin-ops (and the movement into the arcade fighter). Truthfully, it was adding experience and RPG elements to your typical hack 'n slash as early as 1994 (with D&D) that solidified this idea that alteration of story (or decision making) and grinding can take even the most looped games and make them into addictive games that gamers claim to want.

Hopefully with this summer's upcoming releases of Bourne Conspiracy, Ninja Gaiden II, and Lego Indiana Jones, these brawler-type games will continue to receive the success and popularity that games like Ninety-Nine Nights and Viking have made us forget we can enjoy.

For all of you who love video games (or just those of you who think I'm remotely funny or charming) I have created a podcast. A podcast, if you aren't aware, is basically just a radio show on the internet.
You can download it here:

http://www. mediafire. com/?9cdnpmuxeud

For now. Put it on your computer, iPod, Zune, or whatever and listen to it while you're cleaning, driving, or working. It's fun, I promise. It's about 2 hours long and should be compatible with everything (it's in .mp3 format). Tell me what you think.

E-mail the show at: spydersvenom@gmail.com.

Please check this out, you won't be sorry you did!

So I decided to take out my trusty cell phone as Niko and hit the world of online gaming last night! GTA IV does not have a lack of online features. In fact, it's probably got the most diverse style of online multiplayer I have seen in a while. This is a game that you can waste hours doing all kinds of things for fun. It also has a more chaotic feel to its targeting, bullets, strategy, as well that will prevent tournament play but also encourage players of all skills to play. You may get pwned, but you'll get a couple kills yourself and enjoy yourself while you're doing it.

There's the obvious deathmatch mode(s), where you pick areas and shoot the heck out of each other. There are racing modes for those that actually want to race cars in GTA (wasn't this one of the more annoying parts of this series). They even have objective based modes where you are cops and robbers (and I'm seven again, but loving it!) and where you're given a certain car to boost and get it back to a chop shop. All in all, you can kill hours and hours just jumping the different types of play and enjoying the wild world.

There's another mode, though, that might be overlooked or might be completely popular, I don't know, that makes the essence of GTA come alive. Its a free roam. You and like 7 of your friends are just dropped into the city. You can shoot each other, steal cars, blow stuff up, yell at each other, help each other out, explore the whole city, and do anything you really want. It's so cool. It's just the type of sandbox freedom that everyone loved about the original. It doesn't help your "score", so to speak (it doesn't affect your single player and doesn't help you with ranks on multiplayer and doesn't help you with missions), and I'm not even sure if you can use it to unlock achievements. On the other hand, like I said before, it's so much fun that you won't care!

I have plenty of games that are taking up my online multiplayer time, but I must admit I'll probably be wrapping up Rainbow Six Vegas 2 and the Metal Gear Online Beta just so that I can spend the tail end of May roughing people up in Liberty City!