GS not only reviewes No More Heroes (a Wii game) on time, but they gave it a 9 (a point higher than most other reviews).

Is their punctuality a good sign for 2008?

Has GS lost their minds reviewing a Wii game on gameplay more than its screen resolution and hype?

The world may never know.

my friends and i were confused about Metroid character names until Metroid Prime.

1st- We thought it starred a guy named Metroid

2nd- We thought it starred a girl named Metroid.

3rd- We thought it starred a girl named Justin Bailey

The only sure thing we knew was that the boss was named Mother Brain because of the Captain N tv show. When the whole Samus stuff came out with MP1, we were like oh that's her name.

Behind the big N...is Capcom. I bought my Wii for RE4. Nuff said about that. Since then, I've played Zack &Wiki and RE:UC. Both are AAA titles.

If you have a Wii and don't buy Zack & Wiki, sell the farm and get another system. You're cheating yourself.

Unless they rework the controls to use Wii Remote & Nunchuk to lower the price, I'm not even interested. I'm too busy playing Mario Galaxy, RE:UC, and The Godfather to do all of this.

Honestly, I don't want Rock Band on the Wii unless they scale the price down a lot to really use the Wiimote. If done correctly, they should only need to include a mic, kick pedal (which isn't on there currently), and guitar. Drums could be virtual. And if they were really clever, they could utilize Remote buttons & motions for guitar strings with the Nunchuk as the strum.

I loved the article. I completely agree.

I also think the problem the Wii faces is that for the last two gaming generations Sony and MS have convinced most of the video game fans around the globe to be "graphics lovers." Developers cater to that. If you pay close attention, you'll see that the only real thing that has changed from PS1 to PS2 to PS3 is the graphics, and that holds true for XBOX and XBOX 360. Fans pay big time dollars for the ability to look at the same games with better looks.

Now, that is not a bad thing. It makes for great games when done properly. But,I believe that graphics should not be the only advancement from generation to generation. You cannot look at any Nintendo system and see glaring similarities. The Big N always grows in graphical capacity, control interface, software medium (i.e. discs or cartridges), and hardware specs. (FYI- I haven't always been a fanboy. I divorced Nintendo for two generations because of software issues but it's a fact that their hardware advancements have always be true advances IMO)

Lastly before I get back to work, Am I the only one tired of new expensive systems being released with great looking, but crappy playing, games?

It has happened twice for Sony if anyone's counting. It has happened once for MS too. I believe that there is no excuse for a game to look as beautiful as some of the early 360 and PS3 (and early PS2 compared to PS1) games looked yet not provide a fun experience. I won't accept it. As I've said before, "games are meant to be played not looked at."