Fanboys and fangirls, rejoice! Tired of having your argument or point simply dismissed as biased? With these few but important tips, you too can make a convincing and believable argument in system wars. So without further ado, here are a few points of advice to sound more believable in your posts.

1. Never claim to be unbiased. The whole "I own all 3 systems so my point is unbiased" argument is invalid. You can still be the biggest fanboy/fangirl in the world despite owning another console gaming system. It is not a magic bullet or protective suit against bias. So drop thepretext of being unbiased. Simply state your point - focus on constructing a good argument or point and less on declaring how objective or unbiased you are. The more you try that, the more guilty you look.

2. Use realistic numbers. I see this all the time. Instead of saying that you're on yourninth xbox360 due to failures, use a more reasonable number -> 2 or 3. Remember the laws of averages, mathmatics, and statistics. If you find that your imaginary numbers are in conflict with those, readjust them to levels that are not.

3. Watch your sig and avatar. If you are going to make an argument against a specific game or system, you may not want to have that "ps3 sucks hardcore" line in your signature. Likewise, other readers may take your argument against microsoft more seriously, if you do not have the "proud member of the anti-microsoft union" tag. People tend to view such things as suggestive of bias . . .

4. Consistency Don't contradict yourself! If you make a point in one thread, don't make support it's counterpoint in another thread - or for some of you - in the same thread . For example, if you consistently make the point that console fps are bad, don't then brag about killzone 2's score.

5. Avoid extremes and absolutes "The wii has no good games". "Halo is the worst game ever!" "MGS4 has no gameplay whatsoever." Besides sounding like someone who failed 4th grade english, your argument is not convincing. Use a more subtle and diplomaticapproach. "The Wii's gaming library has a scarcity of high quality titles". A similar point is communicated, but the argument sounds more mature and believable.

6. Avoid personal attacks Take the higher ground. Lots of people post inflammatory garbage, but dont take the bait. Calling them names or ridiculing them may make you feel better, but you end up looking like a jerk. Attack their argument not them.

7. Avoid excessive perjorative terms When possible try avoiding negative terms.Instead ofsimply ridiculing a game, describe its deficiencies instead.Bad - "Game X sucks horribly. Only losers like it" Good - "Game X lacks a substantial story or narrative. The gameplay is fairly bland and lacks enthusiasm."

8. Don't make up fake facts or figures I understand that you are passionate about your gaming, but you cant just invent things tosupport your argument. Just because you want something to be true, doesnt make it so. Don't lie. You will get caught and then your credibility is gone.

9. There is no "we" or "us" Despite your fanaticism, you are not a part of the sony, microsoft, or nintendo teams. When describing those corporations, don't refer to them as we or us. You dont work for them. They don't know you.

10,Praise is always better than hate Instead of bashing a rival product, support your favored. Positive threads/posts tend to be better accepted than a negative one.

Hopefully, these tips and guidelines will help YOU become the true warrior of system wars.

I've seen lots of arguments for this hot topic - mostly con but some pro as well. Being the highly opinionated person I am, I must weigh in on this issue.

The argument against donwloadable content centers around the idea that it should be included and free. Players have concerns that developers will simply send an unfinished game to market and force you to pay additional fees to get the completed version. While this would certainly be an unfortunate direction for gaming, I haven't really seen this occur. Most of the DLC I've seen has been completely optional (e.g. extras/perks - such as additional items, weapons, secret characters, extra multiplayer maps, etc). None of these items are really needed for an enjoyable experience, but may be enticing to hardcore fans of the game. I don't have a problem with this stuff since it really doesnt affect me - extra customization of my ingame character, extra gear, or playing as a secondary character, arent that essential to my overall enjoyment.

Part of the reason that DLC is becoming more commonplace is because it can. Years ago, it just wasnt possible to have access to it. Once a game was out, that was it. You had no way to add to it other thanbuying an expansion pack. However, with people having greater access to high speed internet and onlince accounts, developers now have a new tool to add additional content to gamers in a efficient fashion.

The main question is whether developers should charge for this additional content. Why not? If they've spent the time and effort on a product, they should have the ability to be awarded for it. Despite what people may think, gaming is a business. They have bills and overhead to pay, just like the rest of us.While I like my customers and try to serve their needs, I also like to get paid for what services I do perform. How are game developers any different? Some people may feel entitled to theDLC for free, but I think that's not fair to those that make it. I'd rather have the option of having DLC than not have it at all. Chargeable DLC may be an impetus for many developers to make it.

But with all things, there is a balance. Developers have to be careful about what they charge for and when. Remember, it's a free market and if some other developer can supply quality DLC and updates for less or free, then buyers may not be so keen to pay for theirs. Lots of games have had great updates that have reinvigorated the user base - and themajority of these updates have been free. That sets expectations high for DLC. Do it wrong and one could hurt their user base. For instance, recently I've seen a lot of games come out and then have chargeable DLC the next day. Kind of poor form in my book.While these unfortunate practices take place, they take placein a free market and have to beaccountable to the consumer. Fans of the series, may soon become alienated and spend their dollars elsewhere if it's done poorly. So don't worry too much. I highly doubt we'll ever see the days where you need to purchase additional content just to finish a game.

Usually I can rely on SE to produce high quality, fun games. However, this generation, their offerings have been anything but high quality. They've released a few remakes that were lackluster, a few new titles with tons of bugsand poor gameplay, and have yet to produce anything that desirable. Maybe they are saving it all up for the next FF title, but it really reflects poorly on them to release so many busts.

Fallout 3, Fable 2, Resistance 2, Little Big Planet, Dead Space, and of course, Gears of War 2. All coming out so close to each other. What's a person to do? I have a feeling my wallet will be a little lighter after all is said and done.

I started off with Fallout 3 - given that I was a huge fan of the past versions. So far so good.

I've made several rants about the moderation system at GS in the past. Basically, I argued that moderators needed to loosen up and give the forumites the beneift of the doubt. For a while, it almost seemed like the forums were turning into some kind of authoritarian arena. Seemingly innocent infractions punished with excessive/over-the-top actions. No warnings, no attempt to reason or understand the poster, just power tripping beat downs.

However, recently I've noticed a change in philosophy. One that is very welcome. The forumites now seem to be getting the benefit of the doubt. I've had a couple of moderations over the last several months for questionable posts. Some probably crossed the line, some probably didn't. However, in none of those cases was my intention to troll the forums or create strife. Most of them were either a joke taken the wrong way or a heated comment during a debate. To their credit, the mods knew that as well. The post was deleted, a warning was given, and the day continued. No beat down. No suspension. No penalty. Simply good moderating.

I've always felt that the mods should be there to keep order. Prevent the forums from falling into chaos and curbing untoward behavior. It's generally pretty easy to spot a disruptive poster as they make their intentions obvious. Spamming the forums with garbage to disrupt and annoy users, spewing forth hate speech or blatantly disturbing images/rhetoric, etc. That's the stuff that moderators were made to clean up and regulate. An unregulated forum can quickly become an unpleasant place to be and I thank the mods for preventing that. Likewise, an overregulated forum can be just as unpleasant. So, I give my thanks to the mods for walking that fine line and showing me that they do respect the forum users. Thanks. It's noticed and appreciated.

I'm a little late to the party, but I won't let Teuf down. Now I just have to figure out some interesting traits.

1. I'm a hardcore runner. I used to be able to run a mile (1600m) in under 4 min 40 sec and can still run a 10 K in under 40 minutes. Love to run, but we'll see how long my knees last.

2. I was an engineering major in college. Don't do it now though.

3. My favorite RPG of all time was Ultima IV - mainly because it was my first great rpg.

4. I've visited 35 of the 50 US states.

5. I tackled the former prime minister of canada's son during a flag football game. Nothing dirty, just a friendly college match. Pretty sure this was true - it was Mulroney's son.

Violence in the media certainly seems to be a hot topic in the US. With the recent release of the Byron Review in the UK, it seems the same problems plague Europe as well. Many facets of the media have been blamed in the past for the perceived increase in violence - TV, film, art, etc. It's no surprise that an interactive form of entertainment such as video games are now being blamed and targetted as well. Some of the recent articles by the press seem to incite a hysteria about gaming - as if it is corrupting our youth into violent commandos intent on shooting up the world.

Now I'm not foolish. I certainly acknowledge that violent games, shows, films, etc. will certainly have some influence on susceptible individuals. There is truth to the densisitization and glorification of violence games can cause. I'm not going to stand in front of all the scientific and behavorial evidence, stick my head in the sand, and ignore it. However, I also have different thoughts on how this should be handled. Detractors of video games insist that violent games must be either censored or outright banned. I completely disagree.

The world, itself, is a violent place. As much as we want to shield our children and loved ones from the image of violence, it is a reality. Rather than have us stick our heads in the sand and pretend we live in utopia - as those detractors would have you do - I advocate a little more responsible approach. Parents need to be parents. Plain and simple. While there are many factors in determining a person's value system and judgement, parents play the primary and most influential role. More so than videogames. More so than the TV. More so than film and books. Many of these supposed experts are quick to point out the detrimental role of video games, but why don't they - in all of their knowledge - point out the bigger issue. Parenting. Adults in our society need to step up to the plate and do their job. Parenting is a full time occupation. It requires an incredible investment of time, energy, emotion, and discipline.

Most of us aren't going to play a game of Ghost Recon or Halo, and then decide to shoot up the world. We find it ridiculous that such associations would even be suggested. Why? Because we can tell right from wrong. Because we were raised by caring parents. People that took the time to know what we were doing. People that kept tabs on us. People that weren't afraid to tell us "no" when we did something wrong.

Todays parents are failing in those tasks. Many of them don't have the time and sadly the desire to be a positive influence in their child's life. These adults have busy work lives, and with a changing society, often both parents work. This translates into less supervision and less time with their children. Is it no surprise that children of today are having more issues? They're being raised by the internet rather than their parents. That does leave them more suscpetible to outside influence. However, the solution is not to ban every video game other than mickey mouse and the happy house, but rather get the parents more involved. Games have ratings on them. Every game I've bought in the last several years has a big E, T, or M on it. Any parent with half a brain can easily determine whether a game is too mature for their child just based on that. It's not that hard to keep tabs on what your kids are playing - if you're willing to put the time in. The government should not take the role of the parent and regulate what kids can and can't play. That's the parents role - and the child would be better served if the parents played that role. Why don't these so called experts see that? Are they too busy scapegoating games to make that connection?

Let's face it. This forum needs to die. It's been sputtering on life support for quite some time. Please give it some dignity and pull the plug. Whatever greater purupose it served has long since been buried under a seething pile of arbitrary rules and red tape.

It's a shame, too, because it wasn't always this way. Years ago, System Wars was the talk of the internet. A fun forum where people could duke it out over which console was the best. A ridiculous argument, but nonetheless, entertaining. People take their gaming seriously. For whatever reason, many people personally identify with a specific brand or company and are willing to come to blows to defend its reputation. Rather than have these inane arguments spill over into ever forum on the site, gamespot elected to create a forum where fanboys could have at each other. A brilliant idea. If you wanted to have a civilized discussion on gaming, Gamespot had its standard gaming forums. But if you wanted to talk trash, bash a system, or just go for laughs, there was system wars.

Gamespot seemed to love it at first. There were even badges and awards for the most prolific and fanatical posters in System Wars. The system warrior or the flaming award were two of the more popular and coveted badges available. 30 page flame wars were not uncommon. It was the one forum on GS, not for the faint of heart. The mods were there to keep it from getting entirely out of hand, but basically stayed on the sidelines for most things. Legends were made. Even its own vocabularly started to develop - animal names to describe the various fanboys - sheep, lemmings, cows. Funny ownage and pwnage patterns developed. Gang ownage, individual ownage, group ownage, etc. Every post seemed to end with TCHBO, TLHBO, TSHBO or the THHBO. System Wars served its purpose -> let all the crazies fight it out there to save the other forums from such discussion. Funny, silly, ridiculous, but always entertaining.

Fast forward to today and things have changed -> not for the better. System Wars has gone from a battleground to the most regulated forum on the net. Mods are no longer content to let things go, but instead police the forum to death. System wars has become a minefield where any unwary forumite may soon have their account moderated or outright banned. Prior to posting, one must read through seemingly hundreds of arbitrary rules and obey rules of conduct that even the most strict schools would not employ. In a forum where the purpose was to bash other sytems and argue about console dominance, it's now illegal to insult other systems. It was system WARS for goodness sake, not the United Nations forum on gaming! It was the one haven for raving fanboys to have at each other. Now it should be renamed - General Games Discussion for those with no backbone.

All of this leads to my last point. Which is -? what is the point of system wars? If you can't fight it out, if you can't argue about silly things like console dominance, then why have it? All of these rules and moderations have turned it into a general games discussion forum. Guess what? Gamespot already has one of those. Thus, gamespot needs to put system wars out of its misery. If you're not going to do it right, don't do it at all. Now it's just a trap. A place where people get moderated and banned for actions that should be allowed there. Just end it. It has no point anymore.

I took about 3 weeks off to clear my head and think things through. While I'm not happywith some of the policies of CNET, I still stongly value the community and friendships I have at GS. I left out of principle - my motives were simply to show CNET that some behaviors/policies are not acceptable to their genearl community. Alone my actions were inconsequential, but it appears that I was part of a much larger group of people that either left completely or boycotted the site for a significant amount of time. I think these actions may at least make them take note and I can take solace in that.

By now, most of you know about Jeff Gerstman getting fired and the circumstances surrounding that firing. Many forumites here have expressed great outrage over this event and have either resigned their total access accounts or threatened to leave the site entirely. The forums have been full of thread after thread of outrage and disgust - though a small minority of people seem to revel in Jeff's departure . For their part, CNET has not adequately explained or addressed this troublesome issue.

I've been doing some serious thinking on this issue myself. Over the past 3 years, I've constantly defended the integrity of Gamespot from others. I would shoot down claims of "bias" or "gamespot is on microsoft/sony's payroll". I attributed such statements as utter rubbish and the product of immature minds. Reviews are subjective and not everyone will have the same opinion. "Chances are if someone is biased, it's you", I'd say. However, after this latest transpiring, I no longer feel confident in defending this site.

Now, don't get me wrong. This is not a stab at the editors. I think they've always maintained their journalisitc integrity. Their reviews have not been unduly influenced by advertising dollars. They've always been truthful and wrote about their honest take on a game. Often times, this put them at odds with the general consensus on a game, but they stuck to their guns. And to be honest - I respect them for that. I've always preferred the reviews at this site over any other. I may not always agree with them, but they usually tend to do a good job. They avoid that "grade inflation" that plagues so many other sites. So for all you zealous and angry forumites, be careful not to question the integrity of the editors in your rants. I think they've earned our trust.

Also, I'm older than a lot of people here and not so naive when it comes to business. Many forumites have been decrying the fact that Gamespot gets advertising dollars, but that's how it works folks. Gamespot doesn't charge money for people to visit - unless you want the complete or access. They have a site and staff to support and need a source of income. That income comes from other companies that wish to advertise here. Those companies see the large number of users at this site and are willing to pay money to advertise their products to them. In an ideal world, GS wouldn't have to rely on this, but it's not an ideal world. When you are livingas a minor with your parents and don't need a primary source of income, that's one thing.Oncemany of you hit the work force, you'll get a little more insight into these issues. So once again, drop the holier than thou attitudes.

So what is my issue then, you ask. It's that CNET has missed the bigger picture. Why do companies post advertisements on GS? Because of the large number of people that use this site. Why do people usethis site? Because of what the staff created. Over the years, gamespot has earned a reputation as a site for good reviews and editorials. A good place for gaming related articles and discussions. A place where the editors and staff can express their opinions and thoughts without restriction. This is the house that the staff built. They are what keeps people coming back here. Get rid of them or put the shackles on their expressiveness? Guess what? The site is going to lose its reputation and subsequently its following. Once those are gone, guess how many companies are going to want to put advertisements on a low volume site. Not many. Does it take an MBA to figure that out?

While I'm sure that they're upset about Eidos pulling hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads from their site, they failed to look at why Eidos was willing to put those ads there in the first place. They failed to realize that other companies still see this site as a great place to reach gamers. To market to them. While Eidos may be sulking and behaving likea 3 year old child, other companies will not.

Now, I'm not certain as to whether Jeff was fired over this review or not. It could have simply been the straw that broke the camel's back. The score was low, however, it may have been more the overall tone of the review that got him in trouble. Perhaps, CNET had talked to Jeff in the past about his review tone. Maybe they asked him not to be too caustic. Maybe they're OK with him giving highly advertised games low but truthful scores. But perhaps, they were upset because he went a little too far and went a little "Yahtzee" on these games. All possibilties, but to date, no significant explanationhas been given. But even if this is the case, they've missed point. One of the reasons people came to this site was because of Jeff. Because of his reviews. They didn't come to see him write a watered down "I love everything and the world is all roses" review. They came for his take on the game, and he gave it. And CNET fired him for that.

So if CNET doesn't want its editors to fully express themselves. If they want them to put on the kid gloves when it comes to highly touted and advertised games, then what's the point? What's the point of coming here for reviews? Not much, I guess. I suppose the only way I and many other concerned forumites can get this point across to CNET is simple. Stop coming. A blackout so to speak. I don't want to leave, because I like the community and forumites here, but I'm angry enough where I feel like I have to do something. No matter how small it may seem. I doubt the site will miss me or even know I'm gone. It's like a drop in the bucket. But there are lots of drops out there that feel the same way as me. Pretty soon, it could be a flood.

I've spent and continue to spend significant portions of my free time gaming. It's my favorite hobby and can be quite addicting at times. Over the course of many years, I've found some common features in gaming to be quite annyoying. This is my nonsensicalrant on those issues.

10. Escort Missions. Whether it be in a FPS, RTS, or other action game, you are required to safely escort someother NPCthrough the mission. Not so bad in theory you say?Think again.Chances are that the person you are escorting is acomplete moron. They always seem to have an incredible ability to aggro every single enemy on the board. Why walk around an enemy encampment safely when you can just blunder staright through it? They also tend to be quite defenseless or weak. Nothing is more fun than getting to the end of a mission only to have your "escortee" die and then fail the mission.Often times you have a hard enough time keeping yourowncharacter alive, now you have to worry about somebody else. Somebody you have absolutely no control over. Seriously, who likes these missions?

9. Lack of subtitles - Often times, important plot or story information, clues, hints, instructions, etc. are conveyed in game by spoken dialogue. This wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't loud background music or sound effects obscuring every other spoken word or if the NPCs actually spoke clearly! Also, the timing of this usually stinks. It seems like half of the time, the game waits until you are locked into some life and death struggle or intense action sequence to start chattering away about important information as opposed to relaying this info in a more calm or appropriate setting.

8. NPC Ally AI - Nothing beats having extra help on a difficult mission, unless of course that help consistsof complete jackasses. You know what I'm talking about. How many times have you lined up that perfect sniper shot only to have some brain surgeon of an ally walk directly in front of your line of fire? Of course, if you do fire then you get the obligatory, "He's gone crazy" or "He's nuts. Put him down" and then have your allies turn hostile. And whatever you do, pray that your own allies don't pick up some splash damage weapon like a rocket launcher. Can you say teamkiller?

7. Jumping Puzzles - What's with all the jumping? It's fine for platformers and that's about it. I don't want it in my FPS. The game is not designed for it. It's awkward and you can't see your character. I don't want to blast through several difficult enemy groups and bosses, only to have my character instantly die when he jumps andmisses the ledge.

6. Save System - Probably one of my biggest pet peeves. Maybe this isn't an issue for everyone, but it is for me. I work for a living and only have so much free time. I hate when I spend an hour or two playing through a game only to wipe and have nothing to show for it. It's like all that time was just wasted. I like to be able to save anywhere, anytime. But I'd be fine with just more frequent and appropriately placed save points/ checkpoints. I like them before and after a tough area in a game. That should be standard IMO.

5. Unskippable cut scenes or noninteractive sequences- These wouldn't be so bad if they didn't always put one right before a difficult part of the game. Die or fail the mission? You get to watch the same 5 minute cut scene again. Good design on that one.

4. Stupid hard - Let me explain this one. I don't mind hard or challenging games. They can be frustrating at times, but give you a bigger sense of accomplishment when you finish or win. You feel like your understanding of the mechanics of the gameplay, your skill, your wits and tactics, and your practice made the difference. Now stupd hard is different. These games are just poorly balanced. No amount of skill, experience, or wit will help. Just blind luck and frequent reloads.

3.Weapon Reloading Times- I hate being in a firefight only to have to sit there and wait about 2 hours while my character reloads his/her weapon. Meanwhile the enemy you were pounding on, now can unload on your helpless soul for that 2 hours. Now, I don't have that much of an issue with this in WW2 or modern combat games. It's mostly realistic and adds some element of strategy to the gameplay. But I was playing through a futuristic shooter the other day and this thought entered my head. If they can make all these incredible weapons, ships, technology, etc. can't they make a gun that doesn't take 2 hours to reload or maybe doesn't even need to reload? Just a thought. In my future society, I bet we have that figured out.

2. Stealth - It blows. At least in most games. Just like jumping puzzles, it's out of place. Some games do it well ala Splinter Cell or even MGS, but others leave you wondering what's going on. There's really no system in place, no idea if your character is concealed, and no clear path or strategy. It's more trial and error.

1.Lack of Tutorial/Hard learning curves - Lets face it.Most games are getting more complex. More controls, more actions, more headaches. When I get a new game, I like to be able to start it up right away and play. I don't want to have to spend 18 hours intently studying the game manual to figure out how to move my character or learning every little subtle control. Some games do a great job of teaching you how to play via an early game tutorial. But many don't. I'm ashamed to admit that I have a pile of games I've yet to try simply because I'm too lazy to go through the 10 hour learning curve.

Still massively addicted to this game. 1100 hours and counting. There's just so much to do and so many titles to strive for. A good friend and I have finished every mission and bonus in the 3 chapters. Now we've moved on to hard mode - doing those same missions/bonuses on that. Some are very difficult but fun. Proper planning is the key on these ones. You really can't go in without a sound plan or you'll wipe fast.

It's a good thing because it's forced us to be more strategic and use combos of skills we wouldn't have used before. I've changed my tried and true build several times to adapt to different missions. Fun.

So far this generation, I've been pretty happy with my 360. It's had a good line up of titles, a slick online interface, and impressive visuals and performance. My only big criticism would be the reliability issues, but to date I've been OK (*knocks on wood*)

So, I had no intention of getting a ps3 until at least about mid 2008. I figured by then, prices would be lower, the game library would be bigger and I'd be able to get the earlier titles for cheaper. But then something happened. Just like MS, Sony has decided to go with multiple SKUs. There's a 20 GB, 40 GB, 60 GB, and 80 GB version. A little confusing? Yes. But nothing that would force my hand. So what changed? Backwards compatibility. For some reason, the ps3 is dropping it. The newer versions will either not have it at all or just have software emulation. The older 60 GB version has full BC. Being the person I am, I usually like to have the best version of a console. So here was my dilemna: wait till 2008 for further price drops or bite the bullet and get the 60 GB ps3 before it disappears. So, I bit the bullet.

Not a bad deal. Got the 60 GB for 500$ plus heavenly sword for free - so in theory a 440$ purchase. Certainly beats the original 600$ beast that it was. Very slick machine. Looks nice and is well put together. I rushed home to set it up, only to realize that it does not come with either component or HDMI cables. Just composite. That was kind of annoying and probably not good planning on their part. Sony hyped the ps3 as a bluray player and were pushing that aspect of it - which is fine. Only problem is, it's not going to look hidef with just composite cables. You and I know that, but the average consumer may not.

So, now I have another dilema. My HDTV only has 2 component slots. Both are in use - one for my 360 and one for my HDTV cable input. Gamestop (not Gamespot) has this compoment device that you can plug both your ps3 / 360 and other device into to share on slot. Figured it would be a good idea, so i went out and bought one of those for 20$ and the ps3 component cables for 20$ too. So add 40$ to my initial purchase. Still not bad.

Problem. That Gamestop device is a POS. After hooking it up, I tested the 360 first. The video was not right, it kept getting a horizontal line running up the screen. The sound also was not perfect as it made a continuos low buzzing noise. Annoying. Tried the ps3 next and it didn't work at all. No video output, no sound. Tried playing around with the wires - still no good.

Got pissed and decided to go with an HDMI cable. I have an open slot on it for my TV. Only problem with HDMI cables is that you have to order them online unless you want to pay a 500% mark up at the store. I'm not joking on this. You can get a HDMI cable online for 10-20$. If you go to bestbuy, circuitcity, gamestop, etc. they sell those same cables for 100$. And I mean the same cables - brand name and all. So now I'm waiting for my HDMI cable to arrive. I have yet to see my ps3 in action.

People come to gamespot for many reasons. It used to be just for reviews, but as they expanded their services, they attracted more users and retained prior ones. Now people come and stayfor a variety of reaons: reviews, hints, videos, news,previews, webcasts, and for another service, the forums. The forums consist of a community of diverse users from across the globe. People come to discuss not just games, but politics, music, sports, daily life, and tons of other issues. Many of the users have very insightful views into this issues and post interesting thoughtsor valuable information. Many others have helped to foster a sense of camraderie or community among the forums.

But unfortunately, with any online community open to the general public, you're going to find another thing - "jerks". People that just like to cause trouble. Whether by posting obscene material, insulting other users, making inflammatory or deregotary posts, these people get off by disrupting the community. It's a shame they exist, but they do. Because of them, IMO, is why we have the ToU and moderators. They're present to keep the order in the forums. To prevent them from degenerating into something unpleasant.

The ToU is fairly simple. It was created to maintain order in the community and GS in general. It's main tenets: 1) Don't post offensive material 2) avoid vulgar language 3) don't flame (insult) others 4) don't troll 5) don't post about illegal activities (those breaking the law or copyright issues) 6) don't advertise aka no solicitation 7) no offtopic - post appropriate to the forum you are in 8. avoid disruptive posting 9) avoid spoilers - don't ruin a game, book, movie, etc. for others 10) Avoid board invasions 11) Don't impersonate others 12) Don't stalk/harass other users. That's it. Most people at this site would agree that these rules are both fair and helpful to the community in general. Over the years, the moderators have done a good job in enforcing these rules. Giving warnings to users who cross the line or make minor violations, moderating/deleting posts, docking users points for significant offenses, suspending chronic offenders or those who clearly commit more serious offenses, and banning those who show either a persistent and intentional disregard for the rules and community or those whocommit truly egregious acts. Because of that, the GS forums and community have avoided a lot of the serious problems that plague other communities.

However, recently I've felt thatthings have begun to change in the forums. And not for the better. The ToU is being tossed aside in favor of more arbitrary and trivial rules. It's now possible to get moderated or suspendedfor a post that does not violate the spirit of the ToU.Innocent transgressions or mistakes are no longer met with a friendly warning but rather austere punishments. Didn't see that stickied thread? You're docked a whole level or worse. Weren't up on the latest set of arbitrary rules for a forum? Suspended. Why the change in atmosphere? Why the shift to more malicious and negative consequences? Most of us forumites are not bad people. We enjoy the community and forums. We enjoy participating in them. We take pride in them and our accounts. Andmost certainly, we dotry to play by the rules. Please don't treat us like criminals or bad school children. For once, give us the benefit of the doubt. We are your community. Your customers, your clients, your business. Are we perfect? No. We do make mistakes. We do have errors in judgement. We are human.

Let the punishment fit the crime. Someone flames or insults someone else? I don't think any person here would have issue with them being moderated or suspended. Post pornographic images or hate rhetoric? Of course, they should be disciplined. Post copyrighted material? Certainly they should be warned and maybe even moderated if it continues. Someone is the 6th quote in a quote chain and you only allow five? Someone accidentally posts in a duplicate thread of a stickied one? Does that really warrant a harsh punishment? How about a warning? A friendly heads up or pointing out the stickied thread? Punishing someone for a relatively innocent and harmless infraction of the ToU or breaking an arbitrary forum rule that isn't even in the ToU is just mean spirited. It really sets a bad tone and example. It gives the impression that you're looking for any excuse to moderate your forumites. To punish them. Not for bad or disruptive behavior, but just for not following some very trivial set of rules.

"Well you should have checked the sticky, ignoring a sticky is disruptive." Well, there's tons of them in each forum now. In fact, there's often more stickied threads than user created ones! That's disruptive to the forum and community too! It's almost a form of spam. Whatever happened to just following the ToU? It's been supplanted by the stickies! Is it really a good thing, if forumites have to sit for 10 minutes pondering whether or not their post would violate some obscure rule of the forum? Let me give you some examples. For instance, there's a WAYLT (what are you listening to)stickied thread in a forum. Someone posts a thread about liking opera and asks what composers you listen to. Technically, they're ignoring the stickied thread. If I wanted to tell him that I like some opera and occasionally listen to Puccini, could I do so safely? Not inhis thread. I could get docked a level or even suspended. Another example: I play through an exclusive game on a console and I don't like it. Can I safelypost that? Well, again, by the letter of the law, that is trolling. Some people will feel that you are only posting that to inflame or incite fans of that system. In fact, isn't almost every post in the system wars forum a violation of the ToU? Most of them are done to incite other people. Should we close that forum down? Two years ago, I would have called these previous examples extreme. Now, I honestly believe that I could get moderated or suspended for doing any of them. Sadly, I'm not exaggerating when I say this.

I've tried to discuss this through several avenues, but the responses I get are generally disappointing. I've gone to the Ask The Mods forum, but with no success. I've noted a change there as well. I used to scroll through some of the threads posted by other users to see what theywere challenging. In the past, they've mostly been serious violations of the ToU and were without merit. However, these days, I'm beginning to have difficulty in seeing why they were moderated or in justifying the level of punishment. That's not good. The moderators maintain a very strong fraternal order. They will not criticize or disagree with another's judgement regardless of merit or what they personally believe. I've had other past mods PM me or other forumites and agree with what I had to say. "IMO, that was a little excessive or I would not have done that, but there's nothing I can do. Try contacting Customer Service." Customer service can also be very defensive and rarely if ever reverses any decision. Unless you would have an overwhelming argument, you're not going to bevindicated.But here is my last point:

There's an old saying in the service industry, "The customer is always right." It was a general rule or guide that many successful business owners and entrepreneurs practiced. Regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the issue, you give your customer the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because they are your customer, your client. And you want and more importantly value their business. Treat someone right, you get rewarded by a referral, a positive endorsement, more business. Now obviously, forumites are not always right in their appeals. Moderators are not infallible. Just like us, they canmake mistakes or oversights. It's often a very subjective and arbitrary determination if a forumite broke the rules or not. In those situations that require moderator discretion, in those minor infractions, innocent mistakes, unintentional errors, how about giving us the benefit of the doubt? Aren't we worth that?

I've been gaming since the days of the Atari 2600, though most of my early memories come from the Apple 2 plus and the NES games. As the generations have gone by, I've noticed an increasing trend -> I can finish games! Don't even need the old "up, down, up, down, left, right. left, right, ABBA" to win them these days.

Last gen, Ninja Gaiden for the Xbox was highly touted as a very challenging game. When I bought it, I had strong doubts that I would ever be able to finish it. I certainly spent plenty of time mastering the game and dueling it out with the notorious Alma. Flying swallow anyone? But, like most games of its generation, if you simply had the time and some level of talent, winning the game was inevitable.

Now flash back to the NES generation and that version of Ninja Gaiden. I played that game and its sequel for hours on end. But I always hit a brick wall. With lots of patience and even more luck, I actually made it to one of the last bosses in the game, but that was it. I could play him a million times and easily lose every time. Just couldn't beat him no matter what I did. It wasn't just the ninja gaidens, either. Ghosts n Goblins, Super Mario Brothers 3, etc. You name it. I had stacks of games that I couldn't finish - I came close on many of them, but the final level was just too hard. Of the games I did win, it was often by a narrow margin. You could feel your heart pound as you saw that last boss's health bar apporach zero. Your hands would break out in a sweat and you would shake in both anticipation of winning and fear of suddenly choking and losing that golden opportunity.

These days, it's just not the same. Now, the only thing that keeps me from winning a game now is whether or not I keep my interest in it. I can't remember the last time I hit that brick wall in a game. Where you realize that no matter what you do, you just won't beat it.

The question now is why the change? Are games really easier or is it other things? I've gotten older and arguably wiser over the years. It's possible that some of my struggles may have been because I was young and noinexperienced. May have been harder back then to pick up on the boss's pattern or figure out the puzzle. Many games borrow from each other andprior experience in those builds upon itself. Information is also more widely available. Get stuck in a game these days? Just head over to gamefaqs or the other thousands of hint sites for immediate and specific tips. Years ago, the internet wasn't around and finding game tips either meant subscribing to some hint service or running out to the bookstore and buying the guide. Knowing exactly what to do, always helps.

However, even with all those factors accounted for, I still feel that gaming has gotten easier. Probably many reasons for that, but economics play a big role. Back in the day, gaming was more of a niche market. It didn't have the mass market appeal that it has these days. As such, I believe that gaming companies were less concerned about driving away the casual gamer. They could afford to have you spend hours feeling frustrated or struggling to beat their impossibly hard boss. You were a gamer and that's what you did. Now with the explosion of gaming into the mainstream, things have changed. More and more people across varied backgrounds are gaming today. Companies are tailoring games more to the general/casual gamer and less to the more "hardcore." As such, I feel that they want to make games that any reasonable person could finish. They may be afraid of alienating the more casual or weekend gamer by making things too challenging. No more of the frustratingly impossible bosses or levels. With the cost of development escalating, game companies can't afford to drive away potential customers with less than steel resolve. Also, game companies are in competition with other industries to try and capture our ever decreasing attention spans. They don't want to force gamers to spend tons of hours (hours that the aging gamers may not have) in trying to complete their title. Instead they want the gamer to have an enjoyable and fulfilling experience by completing their game. That way, people come back for more.

It's not all bad. I'm certainly glad to be rid of those games that weren't just hard, but "stupid" hard. You know, the ones where you wonder if the developer was just trying to make you angry. The ones were skill didn't play a role, just blind luck. The ones which left holes in your walls and controllers flying around your room. Just kidding on that last one (I hope). However, I do miss the challenge of some of those old games. The exhiliration of beating that last boss or finishing thatlast level. The ones that no one could beat. Nothing beat that feeling because it was so rare that you could do it.

I've never had a problem waking up at the right time. It's almost uncanny. I know your body can get in the habit of waking up at certain times, but even if my schedule changes, I'm always up at the right time. If I have an early meeting or need to catch an early flight 2 hours before my normal rise time, I still wake up at the right time. No need to set an alarm clock. My body just seems to know for some reason. Strange but true.

I've always been a competitive person in life. Whether it be in outperforming the class on an exam or out husseling someone on the basketball court, I had to come in first. It's really no surprise that this drive carries over into gaming. Since the days of Atari's "Combat" on the 2600, to the arcade matches on "Street Fighter", to the Halo Lan parties, Iwanted to dominate the competition. Although I loved playing games against my friends and others, there always was a little bit of anxietyassociated with it. I hated to lose.

Over the years, I've spent countless hours playing either against the AI or other friends. The more you game, the more you develop a "feel" for playing games. Certain strategies and tactics carry over, and it's easier for you to pick up new titles and excel at them. However, my competition has always been limited. Until the recent wide availability of high speed internet, most competition came from friends, family members, or the local arcade (now long since defunct). In those arenas, I was the champ. It felt like no one could take my title, I was the true zen master of gaming in my neighborhood.

Still not investing in DSL or cable, my first big challenge came from LAN parties. I had gotten an XBox for a holiday gift a while back, and had fallen in love with Halo CE. The single player mode was enormously fun and I also spent many late nights playing co-op on legendary difficulty with my roommate. Unfortunately, I never played much multiplayer since I lacked the hi speed internet to do so. That changed one day at work. I overheard a couple of my coworkers talking about setting up their next halo tournament. Intrigued and excited, I soon found myself invited to the next big get together. We set it up at work after hours. They had 2 big LCD projectors that we hooked up to 2 xboxes and played 4 on 4 team slayerand also free for all games. Never having played MP before in this game, I was a little nervous about how I would do. That quickly evaporated. Pretty soon I was getting killtaculars and killing sprees every few moments. The shotgun/pistol combo worked wonders on the competition and I was soon doubling to triplingmy nearest opponent in kills. Of course, this all went to my head. It felt good to be the best and be the king and I wanted more.

That day, I decided I would take the plunge and get hi speed internet and Xbox Live. Why not? I had been holding out for so long, I may as well spoil myself and get it. When Halo 2 came out, I got it and the internet service. Like a little kid at christmas I eagerly anticipated the arrival of the Cable modem and then quickly jumped to setting up the XBL on my XB. Soon I was online and getting ready for my first rumble slayer match. It was easy. 8 player free for all, myself and my opponents all level one. I ran away with the title using a plasma/magnum combo. Next couple matches went the same way and my level quickly rose. I was slicing people down with the plasma sword or sticking them with the plasma grenades.All was good in the online world. Delusions of grandeur entered my mind. This was easy and I was picturing making the top 5 on the leaderboard. Lvl 30? No problem, I'll have that in a few more matches at this rate.

However, matchmaking has a way of catching up with you. Soon, I was no longer being matched up against low level players but rather experienced vets. My bubble burst and it burst quickly. I entered a rumble slayer match with all lvl 16 players. At first I was excited because I figured it would advance my rank faster. High level kills means more points to my rank. I shook with excitement as the game countdown began. Bam! Out the gate, looking for a good weapon. Come on, come on, give me a good drop. Ah, shotgun!!! Sweet. And look whats over there, my first victim. Ha!! He's toast. One point blank shot to the chest and I'm on my way to 20 kills. I got within a few feet of him before my carcass hit the floor. Huh? How did I die so quickly? He just had a pistol and an smg. Hmmm..... must be a ringer. I may be in a tighter race than I thought. Respawn. Ok, lets get another good weapon here, let me see, ah, there's a BAM! Headshot and I'm down. What hit me? Hmm. Sniper. How did he get me so easily, I was moving. Respawn. Ok, now I'm pissed. No more mistakes, let's get some kills and get on a roll. Back to basics, the old plasma rifle/magnum combo. I'll just cut through their shields and a couple of head shots with the pistol and their down.There's a guy dual wileding. No shotgun. No sword. Easy pickings. He's mine . . . wait I can't seem to hit him, keeps moving, darn gun overheating, . . crap, shields down, ugh, dead again!!! Now I'm really ticked, time to BOOM!! Rocket launcher. Crap. Ok, calm down, think. How can I take these guys down, need to keep moving, play smart, and crap. . . guy with sword, move!!!, dead again. OMG, I stink!!!!! I can't get a single kill. I'm the worst guy out here. Match over. How did this happen?

Maybe it was just a fluke. I take a breather and then sit back down. Ready for round 2. Round 2 goes about as good as round 1. Round 3 - even worse. Rank now dropping. Confidence gone. I'm horrible at this game. I must be the worst player on the net. Can't beat anyone. Bunch of cheaters, that must be it. Game can't be balanced well. Yes, that's the problem. Stupid game. Let's try something else. OK, hmm, ah, I know. Just hook my PC up to the net. Got Half Life 2 with CSS. I was a ringer in my time, should be a snap to pick this back up. Better controls. 30 minutes later . . . . 5 kills, 47 deaths. Over the next few months I try several other games, with generally the same results. Sometimes I can carve out a little wining streak, but I always end up getting humbled by someone or somebody who is light years ahead of me.

Eventually, I tire of losing all the time and go back to single player or me versus the computer. Recently, a couple friends of mine and I started getting into guild wars. Played a ton of PVE for fun and also to learn the ropes. Eventually, I get up enough confidence and start doing a little PVP. However, no matter what I do. No matter, what strategies I use. I always seem to get annihilated. Seems like I hit the wall in terms of the learning curve. I can beat some peopel, but there's always that elite group in every game that I can't even come close to. How do they do it and why are they so better than me?

These days, I'm enjoying PVP more than before, but mostly because I just don't take it as seriously. I still lose quite a lot and quite badly at times. Enough to keep my ego in check, for sure. But the pressure is gone and its fun. I guess being a zen gamer isn't in the cards for me. Being decent will have to suffice.