I love how this article says "Though E3 doesn't officially begin until June 15..." Sorry Microsoft! Looks like your conference wasn't at E3. It was before E3. Thanks for that, Gamespot. This is a great example of another reason I stopped being a subscriber for 4 years----can't even get the dates right for the biggest annual video games conference in our own country.

Honestly? Wait! With the games that are coming out for the PS3, it's just a question of time. There are a lot of things Sony can do to make the PS3 MORE attractive and more user-friendly, etc, but the games make the system. I'm calling on the new Unreal Tournament game-------even though it's non-exclusive now, development started on the PS3 and looks to optimize what the PS3 has to offer. Doesn't anyone remember how bad the 360 looked at first? It was carving craters in $60 games, burning out power supplies, HD support was too difficult to set up, and plenty of other problems that make the PS3's issues look like a wet dream. . But the bottom line is the games sell the system. I can't find a Wii. Nobody can. So I'm buying a PS3.

Snipers! I remember playing Quake 2 online in college, and always getting "sniped" from out of nowhere-----they would hide in the darkest corners and be virtually invisible due to the lighting system in the game. We learned to download a skin that was basically all pink or "null" and wasn't affected by the lighting effect, which meant when you were sniping from a dark corner, you stood out as a pink crouching target, begging to swallow some grenades. Snipers still exist in all FPS games it seems. Gears Of War is a blast online, but can you imagine what if would be like if the sniper rifle was AT LEAST an option you could turn off? I mean, how much fun would all-pistols or all-machine-guns be in that game?! Halo, Battlefield, Unreal Tournament, all of them. The only FPS I can think of right now that DOESN'T have a sniping problem is the Doom series. The problem isn't getting sniped. The problem is that snipers do NOTHING BUT SNIPE, and they get VERY good at it. To the point where sometimes I just give up, and ignore all threats and just go all-out to kill the snipers at all costs, just for the satisfaction of knowing he has to respawn and look for the rifle all over again. It's just an often unbalanced weapon that many games would often be a lot more exciting without.

Microsoft said Vista is going to be a more significant upgrade than Windows 95 was from DOS. I know many of you did not use computers before Win95, or perhaps even didn't use Win95 either, but looking at the numbers above and the new Vista features, I think that statement was ONLY an attempt to sell more copies of the O/S, and doesn't really describe its significance. . If I want to game these days, the consoles have it beat-----it used to be that the highest-end PC's could run the "most advanced" games, of which there were only several a year. But now, the consoles are so powerful, even if there are a few more advanced games on the PC, it's hard to argue with console gaming. . Otherwise, it used to be PC gaming was exclusive to online play. The last generation of consoles worked out the initial kinks, and now online play is almost standard. Put it this way--------for me, I'll still play a 6-year old F1 game on my PC just because I can play online with my brother and other fans on the weekend of a race (even though it's so out-dated that only half the current tracks are in the game). However, now they're coming out with F1 06, AND releasing it in America, AND it's got online play....for the FULL GRID! And F1 06 isn't coming to the PC, as far as I know. But if it was, it definitely wouldn't be enough for me to spend a few hundred bucks on an O/S upgrade. . Now you're saying, "wait, online gaming is one thing, but consoles don't have MMORPGs!" That's right, they don't! Well, not the same way as PC's do (let's face it, FFXI just didn't have the same feel as PC MMORPG's like WoW and EQ2). But I figure even MMORPG's on consoles is just a question of time. Voice chat, keyboard support, it's all possible now, and I'm sure the game developers and publishers all notice the success of PC MMORPS's. . However, with that said, MMORPG's have pretty much never been at the forefront of graphical and technical advancement. Take WoW for example-----you can play that game on just about any PC setup these days. If a PC can run Windows XP, chances are it can run WoW well enough to enjoy it too. I play WoW, and in 1600x1200 resolution. Even if there was an increased frame rate or any kind of increased performance in Vista over XP, I don't think I would notice it. And if I did notice a difference, I doubt it would be as significant as the jump to Win95 was, like Microsoft claims Vista will be. . I used to always try to be at the top of my PC performance game. I'd build a new setup about every 16 months or so, just to be able to play the latest games. I think I stopped when trying to upgrade for Doom 3. It got way too expensive, and seemed a bit unneccessary as the consoles seemed to gain ground more quickly, and fewer PC titles were being released. I still play Unreal Tournament 2004 on my PC, and a keyboard/mouse always feels better to me than a console controller when it comes to first-person shooters. But it seems like even for FPS games, for every good one that comes out on the PC, there's a dozen released on the consoles. . So what's that got to do with Vista? In a word, gaming. I remember being so excited when I was reading about the first 1Ghz CPU being made. I couldn't believe it. "What's that new letter, a 'G'!?!?" Computers have gotten faster since then, but who has noticed? Gamers, right? Anyone else? Probably not. Pretty much all of the functionality a "regular" PC user needs (anything other than gaming, pretty much) doesn't really seem to benefit from faster speeds at this point. Word processing, watching videos, downloading information, sending emails, listening to music, doing your taxes, all of these things don't really benefit from faster hardware or a new O/S. You used to need a dedicated PCI card just to watch video------now your CPU is fast enough to handle video on its own, and still stream music at the same time. It's like computer hardware technology has gotten too fast for its own good. People don't need to update their systems as frequently anymore. That's a good thing for the consumer, but obviously not so great for Microsoft. Fewer new systems = fewer new sold copies of an O/S. I'm not bashing Microsoft------I use Windows on all my computers, and even though I was initially reluctant to upgrade to Windows XP, I've been mostly happy with it. If it were up to me, I'd still be able to run Windows 98 SE, but on a long enough timeline it seems like everyone upgrades to a new O/S whether they like it or not. And I'll probably upgrade to Vista, eventually. But for now, Vista definitely doesn't seem like the jump Windows took when it went from DOS to Win95. It doesn't even seem close. If it was THAT significant, I'd be buying a copy of Vista ASAP. Still, that doesn't mean I won't buy Vista. Just not yet...

Dude wants a DS game, but WHERE ARE THE DS'S?!?!!?? I have been trying to get one for MONTHS now (and now I won't pay more than retail on eBay, etc). . Everyone was so upset about the PS3 shortages at launch, but I can't find a Wii or a DS Lite and I've been looking since the Wii went on sale. No dice. And not only that, but nobody can tell me WHEN they might get more of either system. One store told me they were getting DS Lites in ever color on Jan 20, but it turned out to be false. D'oh! I have a PSP and I've been saving for these other systems long enough, it's time for me to go get some new games...

I WANT to buy a system at launch. I was the first person I knew to have the original PS, and nobody seemed to be able to believe games came on discs at the time... I waited (too long) to buy a PS2, then eventually bought the XBOX and Gamecube. But especially with the F1 game coming to the US, I want to get a PS3 as soon as possible. However, when will that actually BE possible? I don't doubt that it will be worth the wait (but I'm not about to swear my allegiance yet like many people already have BEFORE the launch of the PS3 and Wii), but I don't WANT to wait!

What would really help the PSP out is if you could (legally) store games on the memory sticks. But no, too many hackers out there for Sony to support that. Does anyone remember Castlevania: Symphony of the Night? Remember the loading screen, and you could manipulate the words "Now Loading" to make them twist and curl? It wasn't a HUGE deal, but it did help-------I wish more games would make the loading screens SOMEHOW interactive. I can handle it on my PSP because yes loading takes a long time, but they're relatively rare once you start a game up. Still, interactive loading screens really should be more prevalent since loading screens are in EVERY SINGLE GAME.

And yes, I have (and love) my PSP. Usually when I play, I stick with the same game for a long time and use the standby mode quite a lot. Yeah, load times suck, but once I get playing a PSP game, it is usually in there for a week or more, so the load times aren't such a headache. However, I guess that's all just a case of learning to deal with the system---------I remember when I realized you can put the PSP in standby mode, and I thought it changed everything!

I just rented the new Mortal Kombat Armageddon------when you play a match, or lose a match in arcade mode and choose to continue, you ALWAYS go back to the character selection screen (time to load), you can't just continue with the same character! Then it takes you to the world map (more loading), then to the next match (load again). I timed it, and I was spending MORE time loading and in the menus than I was playing the game! That just seems so strange-----how do developers miss things like this? And no, there's no option to use the same character without returning to the selection screen, etc.