Of the three very disappointing games I have had the misfortune of purchasing for my 360 (Lost Planet, Shadowrun, and Call of Duty 3), Call of Duty 3 takes the cake not because it was the worst of the three, but because it was built up the most and therefore was the greatest letdown. I absolutely love Call of Duty 2. It was my first game for the 360 and it held my attention from launch to the release of RS:V, so it's no surprise that I eagerly anticipated the release of Call of Duty 3.

Needless to say, the game was a HUGE letdown. The graphics were about the only redeeming facet of the game. The single player campaign was extremely frustrating. Being a veteran of the . . . well . . . "veteran" game mode in CoD2, I immediately dove right in to CoD3 on veteran. I was shocked by the poor difficulty balance. In CoD2, veteran was extremely hard, but it never felt impossibly or "cheap": I never felt like the game was cheating me. CoD3 was completely different. It started out surprisingly easy, and through about the first mission or two I enjoyed it immensely until I came to a hill on the 2nd or 3rd mission (I don't remember which now, it's been a long time). This particular hill was meant to be stormed, but because of machine gun nests that meant approaching from the right side of the hill. This didn't seem too bad until I realized 2 things:

1) the germans on the machine guns obviously had some kind of anti-smoke grenade goggles on, and

2) their bullets penetrated 10-12 feet of earth accurately when you lay behind a hill.

I became so disgusted with the cheapness of the difficulty that after trying this hill well over 20 times (and getting really pissed when Treyarch mocked me with a "purple heart" achievement) that I stopped playing the single player campaign then and there and have since not returned.

This game would have made my list of "most disappointing games" based on the single player alone, but it hit the top of the list after I tried the utterly broken multiplayer. The matches were very fun with vehicles and larger maps (though what Treyarch did to the Kar98 made me cry with anger after I tried it out; needless to say they killed the weapons balances), that is, when you could actually get into a match.

Here's how getting into a match in CoD3 works: you bring up the list of servers, choose one with good connection and plenty of spots left, you select it, and then you wait. After 15 seconds of waiting, you are informed that the "server is full", "there is a connection error", or that the server simply does not exist (basically, the game totally bull****s you). Slightly puzzled, you refresh the server list with the intention of choosing another game only to see that exact server still showing the same number of players and the same good connection. Frustrated, you try it again 2 or three more times trying to get into the game before you give up and go to choose another server. Needless to say, after 20 minutes of this BS you give up and play something else.

I waited for CoD3 eagerly for 8-10 months, or however long it was from initial announcements to release, and even after all that it took me about 3 hours to realize that I didn't want to play that crap ever again. Even at a $30 loss, I took it back within the next day because I couldn't stand to own it a second longer.

CoD3 is by far the most disappoiting game I have ever played. Thanks Treyarch, you a-holes. (on a completely unrelated note, I absolutely love CoD4 and any other game IW makes, and I am currently eagerly awaiting CoD6 (not 5 because it will not be made by IW))

The title pretty much sums it up. I am absolutely stunned that this game cannot be found ANYWHERE. I have visited every website I can think off (except ebay (no way in hell I'm paying $150!)), 3 GS's, 3 BB's, 2 Targets, and 2 Wal-Marts, and I can't find a single solitary xbox 360 bundle. I wouldn't be surprised to have this result if today was October 28th, but the game has been out for a freaking month and a half (for anyone who might say "you should have preordered it" just read that last line a couple more times and let it sink in)!

I expect these shortages from consoles, but games?!?! Games aren't exactly hard to manufacture; they usually role off the assembly lines by the millions. I see this as complete laziness from stores and Activision not to have the foresight to see this coming. Only a complete moron wouldn't know that this game is going to be in very high demand after it's initial sales and the sales of GH2 last Christmas.

Furthermore, why the hell is just the 360 version sold out? Among those stores I visited, 90% of them had at least 2-3 PS3 bundles in stock, and all of the websites had PS3 bundles. Hell, a couple of the stores even had Wii bundles! What is the deal? Are stores really so retarded that they would stock the same number of PS3 bundles as Xbox 360 bundles when the 360 has more than twice the installed user base?

This is just unacceptable. For a game that has been out this long to be sold out across the board is ridiculous.

This is a question that I'm sure many of you have asked, and I have asked myself this question time after time. What really constitutes a gamer, and what stereotypes are associated with the term? In my inaugural blog post I hope to shed some light on why I see myself as a gamer and how I came to call myself one.

For a long time I thought of "gamer" as something of a dirty word. I am the first person in my family to really take an interest in video games, and for many years I was taught to think that time spent playing games is time wasted. It has only been in the last 18 months that I have come to terms with the fact that gaming is a part of my life rather than a dirty little hobby that sucks away time like some monstrous black hole. Heck, I wasn't even allowed to own a console while I lived under my parent's roof. After much internal strife and pondering, I came to the conclusion that I would allow gaming to be a part of my for life as long as it doesn't completely define me or prevent me from exploring other interests.

The typical gamer stereotypes are well known: a "gamer" is lazy, usually malnourished, over-caffeinated, and very pale from spending hours in front of a screen rather than out in the sun. For the longest time, I would shudder at the thought of calling myself a gamer for fear of subconsciously associating myself with these stereotypes. It was only after I came to terms with the fact that games don't have to define me that I became comfortable with the title. I draw a great amount of happiness and entertainment from games, and that is a great thing. Playing games, whether alone or online with friends, allows me a chance to blow off steam and escape from everyday worries if only for a little while.

Once I accepted gaming as a legitimate part of my life which neither defines or controls who I am as a person, I became much freer to indulge myself and explore my genuine interest in the gaming industry. I allowed myself to enjoy more the games that I play rather than feeling guilty. I would not, however, feel as free about calling myself a gamer had I not set several internal boundaries for my gaming pleasure. In order that I might separate how I sought to define my "gaming" self from the stereotypes I devised two simple rules that could help keep me grounded in the real world rather than having my life completely swallowed up by the escapist nature of gaming:

(1) Never let gaming get in the way of real social encounters. This one I have to constantly remind myself of. There are many times when I am in the middle of a deathmatch or just about to make that last assassination when all of the sudden I'll have a chance to go out for dinner or go hang out and watch a movie. At times like these I have a great choice to make. I wouldn't allow myself to play games if I let it get in the way of my social life. As awesome as online gaming is, I have to remember that human beings are, at our core, social beings, and nothing ever replaces face to face interaction.

(2) Never let my studies suffer as a consequence of gaming. This one is also hard, though with practice it becomes second nature. Even though there are times when I love to sit for long 4-6 hour stretches and play to my heart's content, I have to make sure that my grades and study time are not diminished by my gaming. As a college student, I often spend days or sometimes weeks studying so intensely that I hardly have time for anything else, and it is in these times that I feel the desire to escape to games become great. This is when my resolve is tested the most, but I am proud to say that I have grown used to depriving myself of games when I know I need to. However, though in the short term I might feel deprived, when the chance to play does arrive, it feels much sweeter playing knowing that I have done all my work and that I can truly relax and enjoy my time off.

In conclusion, there are several statements that sum up what I see as a gamer and how I define myself as one. To me, a gamer doesn't have to be someone who spends hours every day either at a keyboard or controller. A gamer is someone who draws genuine enjoyment from playing video games, no matter how often or how long he or she might play. A gamer doesn't have to be someone completely absorbed with video games, and gaming can simply be a part of a well-rounded person's life. This is how I see myself as a gamer, and I woulnd't have it any other way.