WARNING! Minor Rant Ahead! Read At Your Own Peril!

I think one of the big problems is what criteria should be used to rate a game. Each individual reviewer has their own criteria which can give completely different, yet equally valid reviews across many different sites.

As an example: Star Ocean: Second Evolution.

Should you compare this game to its predecessor First Departure, in which case it comes across as a much improved sequel, the same way Second Story improved on the SNES original?

Speaking of the originals, should you rate the game based on how much it has improved since its first (or in the case of some Final Fantasy games, latest) incarnation? Once again, it's been vastly improved with new voice work, bug fixes and overall streamlining the experience.

How about just rating it based on other RPGs in general? Does it stack up well against industry leaders like the Final Fantasys or Dragon Quests? Here personal preference becomes much more important. I would say it stacks up well with the pre-Playstation Final Fantasys and Dragon Quests with the exception of Final Fantasy 6 and Dragon Quest 4, which are still unequalled in my opinion.

Maybe the game should only be compared to other PSP games. Is this game put together as well as, let's say, God of War: Chains of Olympus? God of War doesn't give you nearly as many hours of entertainment as Star Ocean, but at the same time, God of War can provide a much higher quality of entertainment by keeping you moving and thinking as opposed to mindlessly grinding levels.

When you purchase a game and can see (even if you don't necessarily agree with) the points made in the review, the reviewer has done a good job. If the reviewer is outright lying, or using inaccurate information on a regular basis, then I don't think anyone would blame you if you completely disregarded their opinions.

Above all, don't be afraid to disagree or ignore a review. If the game is something you enjoy, then nobody else's opinion matters.

Actually, the people on here are both correct and incorrect. HDMI, like USB, comes in different versions. Unlike with USB, HDMI doesn't clearly denote which version is being used.

The new Monster cable that the guy sold you IS better than the standard cable supplied by Microsoft. It's better because it utilizes a newer version of the HDMI spec. However, you were indeed ripped off because even if your TV uses the newer spec for HDMI, the 360 doesn't. You won't be able to get a better picture from the 360 using any cable other than the one it shipped with.

That's not to say you need to use the one you got with your system, only that no other cable will provide a better picture. I myself use a Monster cable, not for the better picture, but for the fact that I don't have to worry about my cat trying to chew through it (I'll say this, Monster makes one tough cable).

If you were to use your 360 cable on a PS3, you'd notice a degredation in picture quality because the PS3 uses a later revision of the HDMI spec. The PS3 isn't necessarily capable of producing a better picture than a 360 on any given game, but the version of HDMI it uses does make for a better, more efficient, way to send that picture to your TV.

Another strange thing I noticed: The version of HDMI that the 360 uses, doesn't allow for transmission of Dolby Digital Surround. When the manual states to use the toslink cable, in addition to the HDMI cable, for external surround systems, it really means that you need the toslink cable to get surround sound in any way from your 360. I don't know if this is still true, but it is verified on my Elite (purchased about 3 weeks after they were released).

To be honest, considering you can purchase a 2 Gig Memory Stick for the same price as a game, I'd like to think the PSP2 would have solid-state games. Less manufacturing costs for Sony, Less load times for the games (without sacrificing storage space), Less moving parts (conserves battery life), it's a win-win all around.

Think about it, Final Fantasy III: DS = 3D graphics, no loading times whatsoever and about 8-10 hours playtime per charge.

Final Fantasy Anniversary Edition: PSP = 2D graphics, long load times and you can only play it for about 3-4 hours between charges on the original battery.

The PSP clearly has the more powerful hardware, but in this example, the DS destroys the PSP in quality and portability. There are other examples and, of course, there are games that the DS clearly couldn't even think of doing that the PSP can, but for a portable system, solid state games would be a serious improvement for the PSP2.

I haven't read all of the posts, so if someone said this before, I apologize.

It's almost impossible for a game to be racist. It's a game. GTA:SA had a black protagonist who murdered dozens of white citizens, but that game isn't racist either. He didn't kill them because he hated all white people, he killed them because he either needed to, or he was just running amok. It wasn't limited to white people either, his victims were anyone who got in his way.

I'm sorry, but the Resident Evil series is about killing zombies and mutants, not people. Once you die, you're no longer white, black, asian, hispanic or anything else, you're dead. If you rise from the grave, you're still no longer white, black, asian, hispanic or anything else, you're a bloodthirsty undead horror that I have to kill to ensure my own survival. If you've got a parasite controlling you and forcing you to attack me, I don't care about race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or any other criteria that have been used to discriminate against people. It's kill or be killed, and I'm damn sure not going to just sit there and be killed.

Racism isn't about what you do, it's about why you do it. One man killing many people of a different race to protect himself, his family, his country, etc. is not a racist. One man killing one person of a different race because he hates that race, is a racist.