I'm a banana fan myself, both in actual bananas and banana flavor. I recognize that the apple probably is healthier but it's also harder to eat. I actually had a banana smoothie for lunch today, so I guess you could call me a banana fanboy.

P.S. I like Halo 3 better.

I have to say Fallout 3. I was really dissapointed with ME, and actually I have not been pleased with what they have done since BG KotOR. ME was still great but it didn't live up to the standard that was set forth when it was first anounced. Lets compare the different aspects of both games:

Combat/RPG Elements: Fallout 3 had some very good RPG elements, I loved the perks, they were so cool and unique and you had to play the game multiple times to try out everthing. VATS was cool, had a very cinematic gameplay feel to it. And the wespons and looks were alot better than ME (Plasma Rifle and Tesla armor just looked sick). ME though did have a very nice clasic RPG feel to it. The different clases were cool and the gameplay was amazing in it's own unique way.

Winner: Tie

Main Story: Fallout 3 had a good story, alot better then what I expected given how sub-par Oblivion was. I had a few "Oh Snap!" moments that just felt really really cool. Also I had no idea what to expect, lots of suprises and an ending that felt like a good ending to this particular chapter. No cliff hangers, the entire world wasn't wrapped up but the game was supposed to be about DC and as an isolated chapter it felt just right. ME however didn't really give me any "Oh snap!" moments, the story was very good but it was almost exactly what I expected. Given the previews and reading the book everything pretty much went as planned. I was also dissapointed by the lack of academics in the game. IN the previews I read about a year and a half before the game came out Bio-Ware was promissing a grant masterpiece that touched on very deep real life scientific issues such as the universe as a whole and dark matter and dark energy. None of that was really touched upon. The game just kind of felt like a brief prologue to a bigger picture, not nearly as epic as I was hoping. Also the ending was unsatisfying, none of the big questions were really answered. A good game should make you think "Ah man that was good I want to take that in a bit more or go back and play it again" not "I can't wait until the next one comes out so that maybe I will actually get a bit more info on the story". But compared to Fallout the ME story does get major points for being significantly more epic.

Winner: Fallout (Just barely though, I mean really barely, might even call this a tie)

Side Quests: No question, ME's side quests were aweful. Same damn square mile of land 100 times over. I tried to play the game through with every possible side quest and getting every side item. Horrible experience, burnt out about 60% through and haven't picked up the game since. Fallout 3's, however, were amazing. Very different, sometimes even better then the main story. Such a rewarding experience playing through them all.

Winner: Fallout (By a long shot).

Graphics and Art Direction: Fallout had more detailed models I felt. Also I never really liked the texturing in ME, too many times there would be massive single colored objects on the screen, IDK just a beef of mine. Some of the environments though were great in ME, I really think ME had the better art design.

Winner: Tie (Fallout for Graphics ME for Art Design)

Replayability: Both had great replayability. Both had a good/evil path to chose from. fallout had better side quests to go back and try and get done after you finish the game but ME had more clases to chose from. Tough choice.

Winner: Tie

In the end both games are amazing in their own way. They are both fit perfectly into their own niche but I still give Fallout the nod because in the end the game felt more complete. It set the peramiters of the game, stuck to it and gave a great complete experience relative to what it was trying to accomplish. I felt really satisfied after playing fallout 3. Mass effect though felt like it wasn't done, like always it's promised epicness fell a bit short of what was originally stated it would include and I couldn't shake the feeling that this was just something that was put out to keep money flowing until the next game. I know it's supposed to be a trilogy but it seems like developers keep using that as an excuse to atone for the expectations that fell flat on the first game "It will get better, this was just the first game, the story will get better and move forward more in future games". Hopefully it will but that doesn't excuse what happened in the first game.

Braid. I know it's just an XBL game and maybe I shouldn't it be compared to the big hitters but damn was that game fine. I just sat there in awe for a whole evening after the story all came together and the designers vision was finally clear.

Braid aside..... Fallout 3 probably. Gears of War 2 would have gotten the nod, were it not for the pain I felt in between my legs from being jerked around with the story for another 2 years.

I'll explain a bit from my own point of view. I have said a lot of negative things towards the PS3 but the hate generally wasn't towards the PS3 it was towards Sony. Most PS3 haters are actually Sony haters. Back when I first read about the "Next Generation" of consoles in early 2005 I was cheering for the PS3 but as the years progressed Sony's arrogance really stuck out. I went back and ready a few articles from E3 2005 and even then reporters were saying that it felt like Sony was kind of "Puffing out their chests".

It started with the crazy price and the quote that "People will work harder to buy a PS3" and it just continued from there. The architecture was radically different from anything that had been done before and instead of getting feedback from developers Sony basically said "I know you're used to unified memory architecture and stressing the GPU but we're changing things up and giving you a fixed memory architecture and a system that requires the stressing of the CPU so learn to code differently". Developers have been begging Sony to lower the price of the PS3 for some time now to which Sony keeps saying "Nope". Broken promises from 2005 also started to show their head. Remember all those videos that Sony swore to god were "In game" lol yeah. My mind goes back to the first Warhawk video, in game my ass. Things just kind of snow balled from there.

Sony has come a long way from the great company it was in the 50s-80s. It was started by an amazing man but since his death Sony has seemed to loose it's lead in one sector at a time, thankfully they actually make impressive (If not overpriced) TVs to keep the company alive. The hate is basically the consumer taking Sony's "We're the leader of the game industry so you'll do what we say! You'll work harder to buy our products" attitude and raming it up their arses. Still saying that I will probably but a PS3, I just don't have a lot of faith in the company backing it.

for all intensive perposes, the queen looks very human--- so how does she fit in? was she a scientist too that just kinda took over the locust or helped them start their rebellion or something? I must say this is hands down the best game theory thread i've seen in a while.ibanezdropd

I saw the queen as just part of the experiment. The probably had to create something that could reproduced the Locust and they may have decided to create a queen instead of having them slef reproduce like mamals. Who knows maybe Marcus's dad fell in love with her after he created her, but that's just going wayyyyyyyy off into wild theory land lol

My theory was the the Sires were the first prototypes of the locust or maybe advanced models, who knows I have to pay more attention to that level when I play it again. The thing that perked my interest was that the lab had the coordinates of the locust base which meant that the lab and the locust were connected not 2 seperate things. It ties into the theory that the humans created the locust told them where to go and had them do their thing before they turned on us which was why they had Delta head to the lab to get the location.

At first I thought that the locust were always there living underground but it was just too inprobably that the humans never noticed them or saw any sign of them before. The idea that we created them and then they turned on us seemed a bit more feasible.

It's been talked about alot, Microsoft has been developing it's next console for quite some time now. Given the average turn around for a console I would expect it as early as 2010 or as late as 2012. 2010 seems a bit early to me, microsoft will be the first out the gate again with it's new console but I think 2010 is a bit early. 2011 seems like a better date to me.

Microsoft stated back when gears of war came out that they have a fall schedule of gears-halo-gears-halo and so on. Halo 4 has already been confirmed as being in development for their next console and I think they have hired the population of Beligum to work on it. 2006 was Gears 1 2007 was Halo 3 2008 was Gears 2 2009 will have Halo recon and sticking to the formula 2010 will probably see gears of war 3 come out. That kind of turn around will only be possible if gears 3 uses the same engine and is still released for the 360 so I still see gears 3 being out for the 360 in 2010. Given that idea it's very unlikely that Microsoft will release a new console when such high profile games are still being released. I would say that the Xbox3 will probably be out in fall of 2011 with Halo 4 ideally as a launch title. Whether microsoft pulls it off is another question. We also have to remember that Mass Effect is still planned as a trilogy so if we assume the 2 year turn around for that as well we can expect that one to wrap up in 2011. It's still anyone's guess but I'd place money on the next console in 2011 and would almost guarantee that gears 3 will still be on the 360.