Ok, first off, I'm really sorry. I never thought that message would be taken so seriously by miss asho, specially since she is like the most popular gamespot poster. The truth is, this is the first time I've been exposed to any kind of real feelings on the web. I was convinced those two things (web and feelings)were some sort of antonymous, but I see my mistake now. 

At least for me has always been like that (I'm not really into cyber communities, maybe that's why). She could have replied my message with the most obscene and offensive collection of terms, and the biggest of my reactions would have been a faint smile. But instead she made a blog post and sent me a message, in the most respectful way, telling me how bad she felt because of my rant, and that did touch me.

So long story short, that was a horrible comment with no horrible intention at all, though it may seem so. Out of ignorance and lack of 'cyber-manners', I offended someone I actually enjoy reading, and for that I'm really sorry.

Now, the second (and the longest) part of my apology: why did I write something like that? Because there's something about the internet that actually pisses me off, and it is the lack of character. As a result for my shortage of cyberspace feelings -or as a compensation for it, I dunno-, I tend to believe people should be very critical of everything they see. I'm a very critical person; every statement is either a lie or garbage to me, unless the arguments are convincing enough. and I wrongfuly expect everyone to be as critical as I am. 

That's the main reason I started to read miss asho's blog; she doesn't take anything for granted. And over the months I began to see a pattern in the comments she was receiving for her posts: a pattern of adulation. At first I didn't mind, for the posts in her blog were almost flawless. But lately she has been making some obviously wrong remarks (like the ones it mentioned in my rant), and it pissed me off to see that NO ONE either noticed or dared to contradict her. On the contrary, comments were in the order of "oh yuko, you make me feel so smart with your posts" or "your posts are the greatest, you should be named gamespot editor in chief!". I know it's OK to express your respect for someone, but it is also OK to express your disaproval for something (maybe not in the way I did it, I apologize again). Maybe it was very stupid of me to expect that kind of critical stand here, specially when it's games we're talking about, and the place is plagued with fanboys and 13 year olds (I bet i'm gonna be flamed by miss asho's usual readers for saying this, but again, it's not that I want to offend anyone, it's just the way I see it, hence the way I say it), and that's what spawned my post. I overreacted, and what's worst, took aim towards the wrong person, I see now. I should have pointed at the character lacking people that pissed me off in the first place. Ok, maybe I shouldn't have said anything to anyone, but oh well...

That's it, enough of begging for pardon, I think my point is clear.

Now, just let me add something to finish this post. I'm again really surprised with the comments you (miss asho) are getting on your post about my rant. I mean, "Let's kill stupid people"? "mask of anonymity"? i'm "implying she owes me something"? i'm "a 'cool' internet character"?! Oh my... what does people think this place is, a court room? real life?

Does that mean I should look for her in real life if I want to say something mean over something she wrote on the internet? what the hell? Even better, should I put my real name, birth date, home address, license number, blood type and medical history whenever I want to say that I disagree with someone? I mean, the "mask of anonymity" is OK when you're gonna lick someone's boots, but when you want to say harsh things it becomes a convenient hideout? BS, to hell with your double morals people. Leave that for the real world.

And since when writing what you think without censorship implies a claim that people owe you something? I swear, I'd love to know where you people get this stuff from.

At least Shifty_Pete sees things the same way I do, though I don't think it's that hard to ignore offensive of comments. Anyway, that's a relief.

Well, that's all. Hope you understand my position miss asho. Since you're an intelligent person, I know behind all the "hate" in my comment you can see here lies one of your most conscientious readers.

Well we were finally able to see how the PS3 controller will be, and to be honest, i'm not very excited. Actually I'm full of questions. I know what many people must be saying, including some of which will read this: "they stole nintendo's idea, cheap sony bastards".

-WRONG-, I had a PSone controller that had the same motion sensing functionallity. it's a crappy third party thing (I think it was NAKI, but it could be NYKO), with rough sensibility, and there were no games especifically designed to use it, which meant it pretty much sucked for playing anything, though vanark worked kinda well, a lot like warhawk was shown to yesterday at sony's press conference, at least until it broke (it was a real piece of crap).
But the thing is, it existed 7 years ago, 2 videogame generations ago. Why the hell didn't sony do that before? maybe because it sucked back then? in that case why now? just because nintendo did something like that? The DS success doesn't mean the W...you know, that thing, is gonna succeed. In that case what's different about this controller?

Yeah I know things can be different now since it's the official PS3 controller, which means developers will design games having it's functionallity in mind, but it looked pretty limited to me back then, and I don't see the difference now. Besides, I really liked vibration, it's a shame they took it out, though I haven't seen a game taking real advantage of it since the first MGS. Maybe some racing games like GT4, but they're just a few.

Nevertheless, they showed a lot of interesting things besides the controller, so I hope they prove me wrong and this "innovation" translates into truly next-gen stuff.

Now i'm off to watch the nintendo and microsoft conferences, I hope they have something amazing under their sleeves, 'cause for all the stuff sony showed, this "war" is gonna get messy.

The thing is, there's people that doesn't seem to do anything else besides playing games. Just over 2 weeks ago I picked up MGS3 Subsistence, and there's this guy in the online community (snake something... don't remember), who's already got 300+ hours of online play! I mean, WTF!!. That game was released in mid march, it has been on the marked for just over a month, and there's people who has already played it online for more than 300 hours? That's roughly 10 hours a day!! Get a life people!!... I must admit the damn game is extremely addictive, like nothing I've seen before, but there are limits to everything. I have 12 (maybe a little more) hours of online play, and seems like in spite of this insane people I hadn't been left too far behind, 'cause I've gotten pretty good, specially with the SVD. But what Yuko said in her post on the same matter is true. Online gaming is more of a who's-got-the-largest-penis thing, so casual online players just looking for some clean family fun will most likely get "ownd" all the time.

What I think is that online gaming (in competitive games like racing, fighting, fps's and so on) is just replacing what arcades used to be some time ago. Nobody goes to the arcades to prove who's the best Street Fighter player anymore, at least no significant amount of people. Today people compete online. I remember when I was 13, struggling to try to learn how to play King of Fighters '95. It was almost impossible because everytime I found the goddamn machine alone and put a token in it, some gaming bully would come and kick my ass without mercy just to prove he was good and I sucked. It wasn't until I got my hands on the imported Playstation version of the game that I could learn how to play profficiently. Then I returned to the arcades and kicked some butts back :twisted:

In that sense, online gaming has expanded the posibilities of the arcades to never imagined dimensions, since now you can take on people all over the world, not only the same locals you see everyday -just that you cannot see for real if they're really that good or just found a way to cheat-. But I agree that developers should use the advantages given by new technology to create an online gaming environment free of any kind of elitism, since the majority of gamers that go online, or at least try to until they're obliterated, are not there to inflate their ego. Let's see what Sony does with their Playstation Online Platform.

Has anyone read that feature about the upcoming xbox live arcade Street Fighter II Hyper fighting? I'd like to know what you think of it, 'cause to me the guy who wrote that infamous thing doesn't know anything about fighting games, or their console ports for this matter..

It is true that there are many bad ports of classic fighting games. Mortal Kombat Trilogy for the N64 is a classic example (note I said "for the N64", the PSone and Saturn versions were awesome, highly acclaimed games), same is Garou: Mark of the Wolves for Dreamcast. But when you say stuff like the Hyper SFII port that came in the SF Anniversary Collection is a broken game you CLEARLY have NO IDEA what you're talking about. At least to me.

Capcom generally does a good job porting their fighting games for consoles. The SNES or Genesis Street Fighters weren't the best you could ask for but let's face it, back then consoles didn't have the power to put off current arcade games very well. For example, Street Fighter Alpha 3 for PSone plays quite well even though it has a poor framerate compared to the arcade original.

The guy even admits he's not very fond of fighting games. He should be writting articles about games he actually has some real knowledge about.

p.d. Here's the link for the article:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/freeplay/index.html?story=6143502