I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that I am a raving madman who spouts nonsense. You are probably right. I am making a radical statement to a hardcore gaming community. A community that if it were a fans of a sports team, i would probably be lynched in the parking lot for voicing my opinion. Since I am rather confident of the anonymity of this website, I will speak to anyone who will listen.

To get off on the right foot, I am not saying that we should abandon game development. I am a fan of games, and I would very much like to see them get better. My only problem is with that fact that every new generation of gaming consoles pushes development of games into a higher costs and longer development cycles. Hearing the constant complaints of the complexity of new consoles, and the shrinking profit margins associated with the production of these new games has me scared. I can foresee a time where developers will see a new console, and decide not to push the limits of it simply because it would cost too much.

As long as the gaming market continues to increase in size, this will not be a problem. A larger market will cause more sales of good games, and that will provide a incentive for better produced games. But the rate of technological advancement will certainly advance beyond the sales potential of most games. I can't perfectly foresee the results of this, but anyone can tell the ramifications of this will not be beneficial to the gaming community.

Of the three big hardware companies, Nintendo is the only one who claims to understand this. Although I believe that their claims are more of a marketing gimmick then an attempt to rectify this situation. Nintendo has limited the technology of their console to make development cheaper, as well as made a brand new control scheme. I believe that this is the right approach. I just don't agree with Nintendo's method of execution. I think that Nintendo's machine is more marketed for the causal gaming world. Even their high profile games such as Wii Fit are far from hardcore, and provides exercise of equal or lesser value then simply walking.

Even so I think that Sony, and Microsoft has something to learn from Nintendo. They should not only look to broaden their market, as well as further push the effort of playing games in new ways. I don't agree with what Nintendo is doing, but I do like what might become of its efforts.

If we limited the technology similar to what Nintendo did in our next gen of consoles, then maybe we will all be better for it.

It is common knowledge that the X360 has major design flaws. Normally i would throw stones at whatever company that produced this huge screw up. However this time I can't bring myself to do it. I am not a microsoft fan. I hate Microsoft, I hate Vista, I use Linux, and I own a PS3 and a Gamecube. I do have valed reasons for my hatred. I just still can't bring myself to blame microsoft for this. Here is my reason: people expected too much from microsoft, and they would have fallen flat on their faces if they tried to deal with these problems before launch.

Microsoft had a strict demand for the 360. They had to launch before the more powerful PS3 took it's thunder. They also had to launch before Nintendo dropped their Wii bombshell no matter what microsoft believed it to be. If they had delayed they would have missed their window of oppertunity and the 360 would go the way of the Dreamcast.

Another reason was because Microsoft is a software company. Not a hardware company. They have no hardware production facilities and lack the ability to actually take control of the 360s construction. They were forced to rely on 3rd party contractors to build everything in the console. This is also the reason why the sale of a 360 console itself will never actually make a profit for Microsoft.

The original Xbox was huge. Microsoft was nearly required to produce a smaller machine because consumers want a good looking case for our hardware. This not only make microsoft use a rather large powerbrick for the console, but made them jam all the hardware of the 360 into a package too small for it.

I am not defending microsoft. I think that if they can't produce a well manufactured console, they shouldn't at all. I am just saying that I understand why microsoft did what they did, and the mistakes that they made.

If Microsoft was willing to actually fix it's problems it would have to do something that I don't think that they are willing to do. Because the 360 is produced entirely by different companies they would be required to redesign the layout of the console, basicly requiring Microsoft to get the hardware manufactures to work together to do it. If I were the maker of any of the 360s componants i would not change my manufacturing process without some sort of new contract because the change would cost me money. I would not make the change unless there was potential for a larger profit for me. Because microsoft would require everyone how has their hands in the hardware bucket to cooperate. If microsoft would do this, the 360 would cost a lot more to build and microsoft would actually loose more money with each console sold then before.

Just like with the xbox this cost difference could send the 360 permanently in the red from which they could never recover. This hardware handicapped hardware front is largely responsible for why microsoft lost over 4 billion dollars with the original xbox. So cut microsoft some slack with their mistakes. They are at least taking steps that benefit the consumer, even it is for their own selfish reasons.

It has come to my attention that my opinion means a lot more to me then anybody else. (that was a joke) Everyone has a different opinion and they all think that they are right. (that wasn't a joke) I do not pretend to know everything, but I do have the luxury of being able to set myself apart from an argument and take a completely unbiased approach to something. I just haven't done it yet. Well here I go. My first topic will be the current system war. I of course am referring to the four way battle between the Xbox 360, the Wii, PS3, and the PC market. For simplification purposes i will refer to both the windows PC and the Mac as PCs.

I will start with the PC. The PC is by far the most expensive way to game. (no that HP you got from walmart is not a good gaming machine) If you want competitive hardware you have to pay a lot of money to get it. You also have to know system configurations and hardware/software compatibility. This requires more attention to detail then many gamers are willing to put to it. My computer with its pentium 4 and its geforce 6800 is aging very quickly. Soon there will be games for the PC that I simply can't play. Games already exist that run poorly on my hardware. It wasn't that long ago that the geforce 6800 was a high end card. That is the way of the PC. except for when a new console is released the PC holds the title of being the most powerful. That is held because it constantly gets better. This draws game makers to the PC. Also the PC lacks any type of licencing fee for making games for it. This makes games a higher profit per sale investment for developers. On the other hand PC game sales are usually very low by comparison to console game sales. PC gaming is dominated by the first person shooters. The PC is by far the best place for FPS games because it uses the mouse keyboard standard. This is by far the greatest way to control a FPS. As long as there are video games there will be PC games. It may not be involved in the console war proper, but it is still a force to be reckoned with.

The Xbox 360 is a much different story. although made by microsoft it is still a console. Despite what many angry fanboys think Microsoft's first attempt to make a console the Xbox viewed as a single item was a miserable failure. The xbox cost microsoft over four billion dollars more then it made. This is the result of outsorcing the entire production of the console something that microsoft has done with the 360 as well. Microsoft also lost a lot of money buying and paying off game devolopers to make xbox exclusives. Anyone who pays attention to the PC market can see the pattern. Microsoft enters a market, spends a whole lot of money establishing their dominance, then starts making their profit once the competition has been eliminated. This is the reason I do not support the Xbox 360. Microsoft has demonstrated time and time again that they will abandon the advancement of a market once it has achieved dominance. It is true that almost any company will do the same thing, but microsoft is the only one who has proved it through past actions. Once microsoft has control of the market it will simply stop advancement of the technology and let it stagnate. The price of the hardware will also rise to insance levels as demonstrated by microsoft windows vista. With no compition on the market microsoft will be able to set any price they want and will probably set it high. Aside from that I have very few complants about the 360 it self. I would have liked to see a hard disk drive in the system and i believe its absance will hurt the 360 later in it's life but other then that i like the 360. The xbox live is the most complete and the best online gaming system yet. If it were not for the fact that microsoft created it, i would love the 360.

The Playstation 3 off to a slightly rough start. It is not nearly as bad off as many people believe. The simple fact is that the PS3 is selling faster then the 360 did during the same window after launch. The PS3 does have it's share of problems. The PS3 does appear to be more difficult to develop for then its composition. In computer programing this is usually only the result of having new tricks to learn and such. The PS3 is probably just as hard/easy as the PC but because programers have to learn about the new system that makes it different. The system specs are impressive. It shows potentional with it's online system. Its blu-ray playback ability also is a determining factor of the HD format power struggle. Sonys bigest problem is the gact they they don't seem to give developers the same treatment as they get for working on the 360. This means that sony doesn't give them kickbacks for working on their system. Also PS3 does have mostly superior hardware to both the 360 and the Wii but early games didn't really show up the 360. It stands to reason that the PS3 will eventually overtake the 360 graphicly but the early game, where it really matters, the PS3 hasn't brought it's A-game.

I have to say that i am hugely impressed but at the same time disappointed by the Wii. The Wii offers what causal gamers want. mini games. I am not a casual gamer, and I do not really care for mini games. I do think that the Wii has potential for the game market i belong to, but nintendo seems to be leaving that market for the thirdparty to deal with. The problem is that nintendo has a long history of have very bad third party support. Not to say that there hasn't been many good third party games for nintendo systems. It just is a fact that nintendo's Mario, zelda, metroid, and pokemon series domonate the nintendo landscape. It even appears that the nintendo Dev kits sent out to the 3rd party might be crippled in some way. Only nintendo has been able to squeeze the power out of nintendo systems that nintendo has. This can't be explaned by nintendo's familiarity with their own hardware. The guys that made the hardware and the guys who make the games are not one in the same. My trouble with the Wii is that if it is successful in taking over the market, then the game market will be overrun with mini games. This could destroy the hardcore gamer market. If I were making a game, and i looked at the wii and the PS3 i would see it in dollar signs. The wii is cheaper to devoupe for, and has the higher installed base. I could simply spend three months making a few mini games and sell them to a large market. Or I could spend two to three years making a game for the PS3 sell it to a smaller market, and take a smaller profit per sale. It seems like i would always pick the wii. But because i picked the wii the hardcore market is now missing a good hardcore gamer game and thee casual market has just another minigame collection to add to the pile. I do not want this to happen.

To end my very long argument and view of the system war, i do not like any of the systems out for a number of reasons. They all do things wrong, and they all do things right. Because of what will come of the game industry if microsoft or nintendo win, i would have to go to the lesser of three evils and choose the PS3 as my choice for the winner. Or I could just go and play the PC and avoid the whole mess.

I was ever so excited to hear that Fallout 3 was finally coming out after ten years of waiting. We are finally getting fallout 3. However i came to realise that Fallout 3 doesn't have to be a real Fallout game to be a success. Bethesda is probably going to make a very Oblivion like game. Oblivion was a good game but it wasn't the same as Fallout. Bethesda wants to boost sales and reduce production cost. We will lose our game and wide audience that liked Oblivion will get a rather unremarkable game that will be forgotten in a years time. Needless to say that I will be angry if Fallout 3 turns out like this. I will hold off my judgment until i have a chance to play it, but my expectations have been lowered.

Time and time again I have noticed a pattern. New and potentially great games are given the title of "unoriginal" or "rip-off". It is something that has always bothered me. I am not going to go into the whole "every game rips something off" argument. I am simply going to state a few examples of how something is wrong with this.

We look at games that we have all grown up with. Or at least have been playing for the past few years. Legend of Zelda, Metal Gear, to name just two. Why is it that we over look this while playing games in a series that we all know and loved? Look at Zelda. When the Ocarina of Time was released it had what could only be described as great game-play. It wasn't the most original but it was great. When Majoras Mask came out it added a slight addition to the game-play, but it remained mostly the same. When the Windwaker came out it offered the same game-play. When Twilight Princess came out it offered the same game-play (The Wii might have a new control scheme but the game-play is the same) How is this acceptable? Any other series who failed to evolve over three count them three console generations would be stoned to death in the streets. Why is it acceptable with the Zelda series? Because we overlook things like that. Especially when it is a series that we have played for the past twenty years.

The Metal Gear, and Final Fantasy are other examples. Why do we have to love these games? Many predetermine that they are great even before playing them. Many people forget that a game actually has to be good and not just like them because they are part of a good series.

And to another point. Why do we rate our games with different systems by comparing them with games on that same system? Don't get me wrong I have nothing against HALO. It is a good game. It isn't a great game but it is probably the best console FPS. However it doesn't really compare to PC FPSs like Farcry (PC version), Halflife 2(PC version), Counterstrike, Call of Duty series (PC versions), Battlefield series. Because HALO is the best FPS (arguably) on the consoles many believe it is the greatest of all time. Why do we see it that way?

The sad truth of the so called "up conversion" It seems that increasing the resolution of media and video games is finally here. We have HDDVD and Blu-Ray. We have PS3 and the Xbox 360. They all offer higher resolution over what we used to have. There is one problem. People who have a huge collection of DVD movies want HD resolution too. That is a problem. DVDs simply lack the data necessary to produce HD resolution. So here come the up conversion DVD players. Sony adds this feature to its PS3 with upscaling of games from it's PS2 and the PS library. Everyone seems to be happy. They say that you can upscale to get a "near HD picture". It's all a lie. The truth is that upscaling simply adds extra pixels to the image. In the case of one multiplying the resolution by four they simply take one large pixel, and replace it with four smaller identical pixels. That is it. It doesn't improve picture quality. If anything it simply makes the picture slightly blurry. It is also completely unnecessary if you have a LCD HDTV. LCD TVs are only capable of displaying in their "native resolution" anyway. So even a 480x720 picture would be upscaled by the TV's processor to become a HD resolution.

The PS3 is a slightly different story. Unlike with movies on DVD most of the images on a gaming machine are rendered in real time. This opens up the possibility to have the PS3 render it in a actual HD resolution. This however is not the case. Yes the PS3 simply multiplies the pixels as a upscale DVD player would. But you are saying "My PS2 games look a little better now." The reason for that is whats called Full Scene Anti-aliasing. It is a effect of blurring the edges of objects to remove or reduce the jagged edges. That is what the PS3 does to improve the image. They simply added the upscaling as a marking gimmick. After all if they said on a commercial "Now features full scene anti-aliasing" no one would understand it, or care about it.

I challenge anyone to this. If you can be set in a room in front of two identical TVs playing the same movie one on a standard DVD player, and the other on a upscaling DVD player if you can tell the difference then I would shut up. However if you can't (and i know you can't) then you will see my point. If you say that you can see the difference, then I call you a liar.

That's my opinion and I am sticking to it. 

I know i would rather wait for it and have it be good then to get it now and have it be crap. But I at least want to hear something about the game. slip us some screen shots or something. This waiting thing sucks. There should be chips in the waiting room or something.

When the hell is fallout 3 comming out? I have been waiting YEARS for it.