chimp o death

@Dick Socrates
I submit that at least one part of your screen name is totally accurate.

It sounds a lot like my job. But without the game tapes.

And it's great to see you pop up here, Arthur.

My favorite beverage would be, if they still made it, Orbitz.. It's exactly the kind of drink I would have expected to be enjoying in the future when I was growing up with 70s Sci Fi flicks.

Just to let you know how wrong reviews can get a movie, check out this from Variety's original review of "The Matrix" back in 1999:

"It's Special Effects 10, Screenplay 0 for "The Matrix," an eye-popping but incoherent extravaganza of morphing and superhuman martial arts."

So the reviewer, Todd McCarthy, didn't like the film. Just his opinion, right? Well, as it turns out, McCarthy didn't even UNDERSTAND the film. He constantly says things like:

"utterly indigestible"
"confoundingly answer(s) few questions and follow no rules"
"frustrating and ultimately wearying"
"one gives up making any sense of it"

And this is the best bit of all:

"(Neo) agrees to be refitted to cybertronic specifications in a gruesomely spectacular sequence in which his natural body parts are replaced or reinforced by metal and synthetic material."

Wow He thought that when Neo was removed from the Matrix, that Morpheus, etc. put the plug into the back of his skull, and completely missed the fact that this was instead what the Machines were doing to every human being born into the Matrix.

Now that may seem off topic, but you'll see the same sort of snarky, elitist tone creeping into the reviews coming out of the mainstream press. These are the same people who missed the boat on things like William Gibson's "Neuromancer" because they didn't conform to their expectations of what art could be. Actually, these are the same people telling us what that video games will never be art. Check out Anthony Lane's New Yorker review where he deigns to admit "Maus" and "Persepolis" to the pantheon (since they emerge from a recognizable, non-genre place in the universe) and then proceeds to crap all over "Watchmen", Alan Moore, and the costumed hero in comic fiction overall.

I'm not saying that the film of "Watchmen" is going to be either a good adaptation or even good unto itself as an original film. But I will say beware of the mainstream press that has neither the patience, fairness, or even capability to appreciate or understand genre films tell you what's what. Do you really want some ass clown that, literally, couldn't understand the Matrix explain "No Country for Old Men" to you?

I know what you mean, the 360 line-up is a little sparse for 2009. But on the other hand, at this time last year, Gears 2 wasn't even officially confirmed. Plus one of the best titles of 2007 (COD4) only became awesome at E3 of that year.

You get: A whoopee cushion

Pair it with: The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

Exactly! The "Star Wars", as we once knew them anyways, are OVER. Even if you liked the prequels, they're OVER. Unless Lucas wants to make the final, post-ROTJ trilogy, I don't want or need any more of this stuff. It's just a wank job for the fans that can't bear the thought of leaving this flimsily constructed "universe".

Gears of War 2: Badass is Better Than No Ass At All

@ why not:

When you call customer support, you TELL THEM you have the three red lights. What are the chances that they're wasting time verifying all of the RRODs?

Yeah, I'll second and third the dissent to that comment. Even though RE4 was light years ahead control-wise for the series, almost every action could be smoother to perform, more "western" if you like. If your game is asking me to shoot dynamite out of the air while I'm being assailed from all sides...a little help, please?

And as far as close quarters in Gears, I always found the melee attack quite effective, even forgiving (every weapon except the Lancer). I'll grant you that most firearms can get a little janky at close range, but I still found the ability to MOVE AND SHOOT AT THE SAME TIME worth the trade off.