insertnamehere

Any one else wondering what a "World of Warcraft moment" is? Especially in context?

Xizer, I think that the Black DS Lite looks very sexy, and judging from the readers here who complained when only Europe was getting the Black DS Lite, I don't think I am alone.

I wonder if Bush will find this mildly insulting. I recommended the game to my Dad, and he took it as an inferred accusation of senelity and stupidity. Bush must be sensitive about the glut of "dumb Bush" jokes that began in 1999 and never stopped, and coming on his 60th birthday, it also becomes an old age jibe too. Maybe they should have sent him Nintendogs instead? Then he'll be able to make virtual Barney (his dog) Christmas videos.

BTW, notice England gets the Black DS, but the President of the United States is relegated to merely the lowly white version.

Thank god Ensemble was able to find a host on such short notice, after MSFT pulled the plug on the Zone abruptly. Though ESO (Ensemble's battle.net) would have been far better than the less than desirable Gamespy Arcade.

All I can say is Sonic and Tails done Sonic 2 style (like the Ice Climbers, but different), would be the greatest mixture of awesomeness and nostalgia I can think of in an SSB game.

About whether non-gamers will get into the wii: I seriously doubted it. I thought that it would mostly appeal to those gamers who are burnt out on the current offerings and wanted something new in their gaming pallet; the type of people IMO most attracted to the DS and thus the wii as well. However, I was told by a number of casual gamers (of the never-owned-a-console, played-Madden-at-a-friends-house variety) that they seen the Wii on some mainstream news show and were interested in it and might buy it. And everytime, it wasn't the things I found interesting (Mario, Zelda, etc.), it was "playing tennis for real". Its unlikely, but Nintendo might be on to something here.

As for the asinine job of ranking the "Big Three's" e3 performance, I think it went like this: Microsoft wasn't expected to do much, but had a strong show, Nintendo had a lot of expectations, and they delivered, and Sony was expected to have a strong showing, but underdelivered. All rankings then derive from that.

I said Wii solo, but my roommate has a 360, so I will be able to play the 360 games that interest me.

Scott-I am almost certain the Wii uses standard DVDs. At least it did at last e3 when it was still a Revolution with an unknown input devise. Reggie mentioned it at the press conference and the prototype Revolution logo had DVDs for O's to drive the idea in. I thought it was an interesting somewhat unnoticed retraction from their stance on the Gamecube. Who knows, maybe these DVDs will spin backwards too...

My impressions, having only played the demo, echo Andir's. The game had a lot of potential. The civs were new and interesting, and the game seemed to be a streamliend version of the convuloted mess that was RoN. But in the end, the game seemed plain weak sauce. It was a simple hollow game coasting on its uniqueness. It cut away a lot of the crap from RoN, but added no true depth. It also retained a lot of RoN's artificial fixes that made the game so unfun and maddeningly repetitive (punishing people for making many units, attrition, etc.). I have complained that RoN was a mile wide but an inch deep, but RoL seems to be merely a foot wide and still an inch deep.

Maybe BHG's games aren't meant for people like me.

I actually think that the 75=average rating works well. The reason most schools use this curve is because there is much more differentiation in any sort of work at the bottom than at the top. The average curve resembles the expected bell curve with a long tail into the failures to cover the range from mediocre to fatally flawed. This game, while flawed, worked as was intended, had ok graphics, and a intact game mechanic which will be fun to some people. Its just a simple, below average game. Go to IGN and Gamespot and see what types of games got the ratings you want to give this one, and you'll see the difference. The main problem with this set up, is that it offers less differentiation at the top. Gamespot, which has given 3 perfect reviews in its existence, and few 9's a year, does not seem to have that problem. IGN gives out 9's like candy, but thats due to the way they set up their site and not the rating system they use.

Did anyone find it interesting that the top two shows and the top movie are produced by FOX, who happen to own IGN? I am curious to see how the questions were phrased and what options in what order where given. The tail may be trying to wag the dog (other gamers watch our shows/movies, so should you).