Review Index:
Feedback

The Five Stages of Griefing: Death of the Consoles

Manufacturer: PC Perspective

Depression: What good are consoles

As we discussed, my largest gripe with console gaming is that you are locking art to a specific set of standards which are legal property of a third party. I am a very big proponent of the cultural impact of art which inherently implies the permanence. I am sickened by the industry as a whole, even beyond the scope of console gaming, and their attempts to strong-arm content that could very-well be timeless into disposable entertainment. Consoles promote this practice by themselves being disposable along with any content that relies upon them for access.

View Full Size

Okay, so this page is more ‘depressing’ than ‘depression’. Belated warning.

Art is simply not valued enough by the average person. The purpose of art is the expression of our human nature and our attempt to contain complicated ideas and emotions in a communicable medium. Culture is often created through the experience and study of the received information. This culture advances us as much as it attempts to define us: the issues discussed are just that, discussed; the experiences had are likewise just that, experienced. We see echoes of art as positive forces on society: reduced crime rates often trail the release of violent media (and according to Slate, reduced violent sex-crime rates trailing increased Internet access -- food for thought; Avenue Q would agree).

Art should be thought of as a multi-directional entity. Communication is not necessarily from an author to an audience: during your experience with a video game you are constantly interacting and potentially expressing yourself in the process. A complicated interactive packet of content allows the user to express themselves just as much as those who developed the art itself: a little part of you being communicated when you choose to do good, evil, both, or neither in a well-made RPG; a little part of you being communicated in the style you use to gain advantages over your opponents in multiplayer games particularly during strategy games like Starcraft, but also in shooters and other games as well. That piece of you is then communicated when you discuss what happened with friends and others; this thought extends to mod communities without much explanation. While entertainment is important in our lives, the perceived profitability can dangerously encroach on the benefits of art.

View Full Size

Back in my day, our games had a single-digit number in the title! Even Final Fantasy!

Also, imagine the difficulty to be endured when this art is attempted to be studied. How often have you seen scholarly reviews of art just four years beyond creation? More often forty to four hundred? The merits of video games as an art medium are being debated at the same time as the industry debates the merits of PC gaming to conflicting results. Progress is made in developing timeless narrative for art that cannot be timeless without constant re-release by the original creator should they still exist; also, art attempts to unite a culture that is segmented by purely artificial boundaries.

A final note: the general acceptance of proprietary platforms is not even natural. There were intense apprehensions in the general public preventing the adoption of high-definition media discs for movies as the view was that they could not co-exist. At around that time there were no fewer than seven co-existing incompatible platforms for video games. Unlike the music, video, and print mediums where the constant struggle is to open up: the video game industry believes they are contented with progressively closed platforms despite obviously combating the negative corollaries that fall out as a result.

Accepting that PC Gaming is better?

December 6, 2011 | 07:25 AM - Posted by Justin Bell (not verified)

While I agree with many of your points, the $10 price difference for PC games is quickly eroding.

December 6, 2011 | 10:32 AM - Posted by Scott Michaud

Not quite actually.

The $10 price-jack on PC games is done by *publishers*. They are doing it because they feel that price vs. units sold justifies that cost, and they justify it with "to counter-act piracy".

There was a time where many console games, such as Madden, were $10 more expensive than they are now ($70 CDN when every other console game was $60 and PC games were $50). Eventually they found that the reduction of sales warranted dropping the price back down.

The point is that the $10 extra we're getting charged right now is not for an actual cost like it is on the consoles (royalty fees).

If people simply stop buying $60 PC games until they go on sale, or more people use the PC so they can't justify "to compensate for piracy", or whatever -- then it will go back to the way it was for more publishers. It's just their attempt to increase profits per unit sold... just a little bit. I actually addressed this point in an earlier draft of the editorial, but I cut it for reading-flow.

December 6, 2011 | 02:42 PM - Posted by Justin Bell (not verified)

Sure, the prices may be increased by publishers, but the end consumer is still seeing the increased price, so the math stops working.

I agree, I always wait for steam sales or the like, and frankly a steam copy should cost less than the retail copy with box and disc anyway...

December 6, 2011 | 03:52 PM - Posted by Scott Michaud

The key point is that we're temporarily seeing the increased price so the publishers can see if they can get away with it. Prices will vary over time, but they can only vary to what would be profitable.

With less money "already spoken for", they are capable of lowering prices further. It's our job as consumers to make them lower it.

December 7, 2011 | 11:58 AM - Posted by Shorty (not verified)

Not for the games I purchase. My games run in the 20-40 range. I dont go anywhere near 60. If it starts high (Skyrim) I wait until it drops. Thanks to Steam I usually get fairly new games dirt cheap.
New Vegas dropped by 40% right after it debuted, during Steams Thanksgiving sale. Most of their games are around 50% of the MSRP. I can get a lot more for less money day to day. And waiting for a sale can save me even more.

December 6, 2011 | 07:42 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Ready for flame bait?

"The PC is better because... it can provide no lesser of an experience than a console."

Until you play online and join a server that has someone cheating (dern BF3 and its knife hax). Happens far less often when I'm playing console games than it does on PC.

Though, if I'm being honest, I STILL have far more fun on PC than I do on the 360.

December 6, 2011 | 10:36 AM - Posted by Scott Michaud

I actually have experienced *way* more cheating when I played on Xbox Live than I did on the PC.

I play on dedicated servers with admins... something the consoles do not have.

It is also a better experience, because then you play with the same people over and over again... develop mini-friendships and rivalries over who can knife the heck out of each other the most, etc.

December 6, 2011 | 12:57 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

tl;dr: PC gaming is great. But there are areas it falls short. Saying consoles have no redeeming qualities and PCs are "better" is like saying a Mac has no redeeming qualities and [insert OEM of choice]+Windows is better (or the reverse). Its just not true.

Prepare for a wall of text.

I've been in rooms with people lag switching, but that's about the extent of the (obvious) cheating I've experienced on XBL. On BF3 alone though I've personally experienced at least one aim bot, a guy knifing me from across the map, and another guy who somehow didn't stay dead. Maybe I've just had a bout of bad luck.

Either way, I'll grant you that one. Having dedicated servers is a very valid point. And eventually like every platform, there will be console exploits that are found and...exploited.

However, if the goal of your argument is for PCs are all around better than consoles, and should become more mainstream, where do dedicated servers fit into this? Managing a server list breaks the simplicity of gaming, and if Apple has taught us anything when it comes to consumer electronics, it that you keep it simple.

PCs in my (admittedly limited) experience just don't have the same kind of matchmaking flair. I spent quite literally years playing PGR3 online on an almost nightly basis. NFS Shift 2 came nowhere close to that. Same thing with Halo 3 and BF:BC2.

There are many areas in which PCs are better. I'll admit that one whole heartedly. The fact that I can decide how well I want my game to play, buy a game once and play it in multiple places (desktop and laptop), and with things like Steam and Amazon I gain easy access to buying and managing games with non-suck DRM.

I have the option of using a controller, a mouse and keyboard, a joystick, a flight stick, a steering wheel, a game board, etc. I have options and control.

I have the option to upgrade. With BF3, I drop the cash on a better GPU, and go on about my business, or drop quality settings. With Halo:Reach, when I have ridiculous frame rate drops, I just have to live with it.

If something breaks, I have the option of troubleshooting it myself, becoming a parts swapper, or dropping cash to get it fixed.

These are all things I LIKE about PC gaming, and what will keep me a PC gamer. NOT because I think PC gaming is all around "better".

This is all to say, I hate when people say something is "best". Better in many respects? Sure. But rarely in things of this nature is something "best".

December 6, 2011 | 01:08 PM - Posted by Scott Michaud

I want to clarify my point carefully: it is not that the consoles do not have redeeming qualities, it is that every one of those redeeming qualities fit on the PC if it was supported properly and had a large user base AND with the PC there is no baggage to go along with those console benefits.

There are good matchmaking methods on the PC, such as Starcraft 2. For many games, however, the option for a server browser is a better alternative.

As for cheating, the reason why I said dedicated servers with admins is because if someone cheats? They're banned from the server by the owner. Also, if someone griefs? They're banned from the server by the owner. If the server has special rules like "don't waste a vehicle to get another vehicle", violators can be banned from the server by the owner.

On the consoles, you are stuck waiting for the developer or platform owner to step in... if they do.

August 27, 2013 | 05:20 PM - Posted by Penney (not verified)

Today, I went to the beachfront with my children. I found a sea shell and
gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said "You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear." She placed the shell
to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear.
She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is totally off topic but I had to tell someone!

December 6, 2011 | 08:16 AM - Posted by shellscriptz

Good editorial! Why I don't play Xbox/PS3 >>> http://goo.gl/kvoDo

However.... I do own a PS3. Back in 2009 if you bought a HDTV at best buy for black friday, they gave you a 250$ blu ray player. If you were weaselly about it, you could convince the store associates to credit you $250 for a ps3 which cost $299 at the time; therefore $49.00 ps3.

If you're like me, also, you buy console games used. This is an option to anyone within driving distance of a gamestop/video game retailer, and should probably be considered, right?

December 6, 2011 | 11:05 AM - Posted by Scott Michaud

Thanks for the compliment.

I know used game sales make the console appear better... but:

1) The PC used to have it before the piracy boogyman made the customers allow publishers to take that away.
2) The consoles are well on their way to losing it too. Sony wanted 25-character CD Keys with games. They're just having a hard time justifying it.
3) The underlying problem is DRM... which we need to address for the platform as a whole.

December 6, 2011 | 01:53 PM - Posted by shellscriptz

especially with game-breaking DRM like Origin which is so invasive that it makes some gamers not want to play their games (including myself).

The point of the comment was not to make consoles appear better or argue for that point, it was just to say maybe the ability for people to sell used console games back to the retailer and vice versa versus the inability for retailers to buy and sell used pc games should be considered in the cost calculation. Even if its only minute, they do offer competitive buyback prices for newer games.

December 6, 2011 | 02:06 PM - Posted by Scott Michaud

I acknowledge that doing a cost breakdown is ridiculously complicated and that used game sales (while the publishers will still allow it) can reduce the cost for gamers.

At the same token, I also did not account for the owning of multiple consoles + accessories, purchasing the same console multiple times, etc. So it is not like I approximated favourably to my point... I simply approximated because I couldn't do it precisely.

December 6, 2011 | 08:55 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I love how all the numbers are made to make it look more expensive.

Use the Xbox so you can include Live fees when they don't exist on PS3 as you can still play for free. Exclude the huge used gaming market which doesn't really exist on the PC and you can get games much cheaper than the $10 difference.

It's easy to make the numbers look in your favor and I expected no less.

This is just the typical garbage that gets re-hashed year after year by the PC Elite crowd.

I wonder where PC gaming and the Devs would be without the money they make in the console Market. The last numbers I saw for BF3 were something like 5-8 million sold and out of that 500k were sold on PC.

December 6, 2011 | 11:01 AM - Posted by Scott Michaud

There was a time that you could purchase used games on the PC as well. DRM pretty much killed that for retailers.

Here are the two reasons why I did not consider it:

1) The consoles are on their way to losing that as well... they just cannot justify it with piracy (they can't with PC either, but people believe them when they say it there)
2) DRM harasses PC gaming in many other ways... and is one of the key problems that we need to address. The thing is, we *can* address it... "the couple that are valid are completely eliminated by a larger core user-base". It is not an inherent flaw with PC Gaming.

Also, that's 500,000 *reported* PC sales of Battlefield 3. EA's Origin Service... probably the dominant method of purchase for the PC version as it's required even if you did not buy it from there {I believe everyone on my BF3 clan purchased it from Origin except one, who purchased from Direct2Drive which is also not counted}... did not disclose their sales figures so they're not included.

Also, even if you remove Xbox Live fees: it is still on par with PC Gaming. (The PC would still be ~$38 cheaper.) I was also very generous with sales of accessories... a single Kinect or PS Move w/ Navigation controller blows that $150 figure out of the water.

August 23, 2013 | 08:41 PM - Posted by Clarice (not verified)

Steven Rhodes, a former television reporter and small-town
newspaper owner who created what became Journatic six years
ago. Jubilee line trains were running normally but were
not immediately available", he said," news [reversenumberlookupphone.com]
Holy Mother of Gynaecology! After this, you know that catnip is ten times
better than that of Motown, somehow it just didn't possess the same mystique.

December 6, 2011 | 08:57 AM - Posted by Multi-Gamer (not verified)

Yet another one sided silly argument on why PC's are superior.

I game on ALL platforms, and have so for years. I am a PC gamer first and have been since the Atari 400. However that doesn't stop me from enjoying both platforms as they were intended to be used. You failed to address the only important factor when it comes to Console vs PC and that is comfort and setup for the average person. Sorry but a Couch/coffee table is in no way equal to a Desk when it comes to a proper place to have your mouse and keyboard. In this respect a PC does not work in most living room setups.

Games that I prefer a mouse and keyboard on (most) get played on my PC at a desk where I have proper ergonomics and with a 24" widescreen get just as good of an experience as sitting across the living room from my 55" lcd. Games that I don't prefer a mouse and keyboard get played on one of my consoles as sometimes it is nice to sit back in the recliner and just play a game with your thumbs.

The PC isn't dieing and neither are consoles. They both have a place and frankly articles like this are getting more than a little tired.

December 6, 2011 | 11:08 AM - Posted by Scott Michaud

I did not say consoles will die... I said:

"The concept that consoles are better than PCs, given a fraction of the support that consoles receive, is about to die; console supporters are in various levels of grief."

You can easily put a home-theatre PC in your living room and play on it with a controller. As I shown in "Bargaining", you could get that Home Theatre PC for just as cheap as the consoles all-expenses considered.

The point is simple: it is not an inherent problem with the PC.

December 6, 2011 | 09:05 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Would also like to add there is a a lot that goes into how easy it is to game on a console.

Lets compare BF3, right now, guess what, no easy way to establish VoIP in game without getting everyone on your list on say TS, etc... or through Battlelog, then who knows if they have a microphone hooked up.

I think every xbox these days comes with a microphone so everyone can jump in a game and you can squad up and be talking right away, not so easy on the PC.

Also, like it or not, the PC does require some knowledge to operate and some people just don't want that. They want to come home turn on the console and be online. The consoles make it easy and yes you are giving up some stuff that the PC provides but it's obvious judging by sales that its working.

I game on PC, XBox and PS3. In fact I spent $2500 just to get back into PC gaming and run BF3 maxed at not less than 60FPS because that's what I demand on PC. I am in IT and I have lots of friends who aren't that just don't grasp the idea of gaming on a PC, I don't blame them because at times it can be a PITA.

Is the overall experience better on the PC..? Yes even if only from a graphics standpoint.

Consoles are here and are making a ton of money. If you go the route of hitting the used market, buying Live from eBay or waiting for deals you can cut down the costs a lot.

December 6, 2011 | 11:25 AM - Posted by Scott Michaud

There are friends, family, small business computer stores, and larger computer OEMs (who would fit the experience offered by console manufacturers) for hardware support and some software support.

Also, the "PITA" problems are not the fault of PC Gaming as a platform, rather the current state of PC Gaming. I think Jeremy on the podcasts is vocal enough about the current state of the platform, but those problems can be solved; the current and future problems of the consoles simply cannot be.

You could of course say unless people settle on a single, unified, open console. The point I'm making is: that's a PC.

----------

Also, going back to the point I made about the W3C -- the internet used to be complicated to use as well. All the members of the W3C innovated in their own ways... and that barrier to entry reduced a lot (amongst all the other things they did, like compatibility). There's no reason the same cannot happen for PC Gaming.

December 6, 2011 | 07:42 PM - Posted by ThorAxe

I plugged my headset into my PC and that was it, I was talking to my squad in BF3. I also didn't need to pay a subscription to play online....perhaps BF3 on 360 is not so easy after all!

As for sales, the PC is about equal with the 360 once you count digital sales for BF3 and leads all platforms on Skyrim.

December 6, 2011 | 09:59 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

For all the words you put out, someone could have thought you put some actual though into this. The Wii, Xbox360, PS3 and PC serve very different markets. Obviously you havnt actually looked at whats available. Ill admit there is some overlap between consoles and PCs, but you wouldnt play a platform game like Uncharted Drake series on a PC. Youd play it in the living room, in a big environment with others. Go look at whats available. I can but will not ever get a Xbox because they just dont have the types of entertainment i like. Same with Wii. As for PCs, youve got to be kidding. There is always some sort of tweaking necessary even on generic Intel/Nvidia, ie they shipped crap.

The costs dont even make sense. You can always sell your console games or rent them or buy them used.

Article just doesnt make sense. PC platform is for games that need keyboard and mouse to properly navigate their environment. Although you can get console controller for the PC, it loses out on the ease of use of consoles.

Every single $60 game on PC has required me to go through the setting options and change a million archaic graphic and other settings to get it to look and play nice.

December 6, 2011 | 11:20 AM - Posted by Scott Michaud

"The costs dont even make sense. You can always sell your console games or rent them or buy them used."

Not if the publishers get their way, you cannot. You used to be able to do that with the PC as well. DRM got in the way. Also, the PC in the figure has a MUCH better experience than the console in the same figure.

Also -- I play platformers on my PC. Often with a controller. I could play it on the couch as well except I actually don't really like the couch personally. When I played on the 360 I actually bought a VGA adapter to play it on a computer monitor. The point is that the PC gives you the choice. You could use "a PC" as a home theatre PC with a controller and a media center interface such as the discussed Steam Big Picture -- configured by a local small business computer store if you desire.

There is nothing that the consoles can do that the PCs cannot -- at least as well, if not better. In the long run, consoles are much worse. Sure you could point to issues *now*... but those issues just need a larger user base and more platform support to be mitigated. For the consoles, I could (and did) point to a huge number of issues that simply are not, and never will be, going away.

December 31, 2011 | 06:08 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

" Go look at whats available. "
i quote you.^
obviously, you can hook up any pc through hdmi or s-video or.. rca--- to a tv. in your living room. 8ft from the couch/recliner. all the materials to do this you already own. if not they are availible. furthermore, let me say that a common end-table or tv-tray makes a great place to put a wireless mouse.

"Every single $60 game on PC has required me to go through the setting options and change a million archaic graphic and other settings to get it to look and play nice. "

pc ALwayS? needs tweaking? you are sitting so much closer to the screen on YOUR pc setup, that all those imperfections u have forgiven on the blurry ol ps3?+hdtv show up More.

id bet if you compared pc to ps3 to 360 to wii. you would find out that they are all computers! the article does a great job explaining the differences in them. dont forget that consoles:gaming as apple:cellphones&tablets. You wanna be associated with the crowd that whines, " it just works!"

a true multimedia pc is a lot of responsibility. it is not for everyone. for someone like me (hundreds of games spread over generations) i have two choices lose my sanity and quit gaming, or, consolidate all my games onto pc, using simple backup techniques and free emulators. there are so many advantages it really makes it tough to understand your argument.

best wishes happy new year. ps. with the discs stored safely away. you dont risk damage. best of all you dont have to get up to change the disk.

December 6, 2011 | 12:19 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Great article! I just wish some console-only titles were available on PC, like Fable 2.

December 6, 2011 | 12:21 PM - Posted by Scott Michaud

Thanks. I agree -- but without the proprietary platforms like the consoles, there wouldn't be exclusives at all.

December 6, 2011 | 12:34 PM - Posted by Norm (not verified)

I have been using the PC for...well more years then I like to admit at times. I have also been using consoles for just about as long as computers.

Some points I think that have been touched but not clearly stated are as followed:

Support and Accounts:

Do to service obligations, I find myself deployed. Not using my unnamed console for about two months, I receive a letter stating my account is banned for market place theft. I have been fighting a battle to get it reinstated (which has been proved to be a false claim) for the last 4 months. Now without the used of this account the time and money I have spent are down the drain and have to start over again. The problem lying in separate entities within a company for handling support issues. Not once in 20+ years of PC gaming have I received an email saying I can not use any content for any game I have ever purchased on the PC.

Another issue is the bugs. Now I agree that the PC can have more issues with a game then the console, but the inherit reason behind that, is the multitude of choices of software and hardware that interact on a PC. The freedom of choice does come with some pain, but it is that choice that has given us the ability to do for years what consoles are not starting to let you do.

PC games will usually have a longer life span of fixes for games then Console markets. As stated in the article, user base mods, and other supplements have given PC games a longer life span and greater enjoyment to go back and play years after it is off the shelf.

The big console game that has turned my wife into a hard core gamer is also one of the biggest ones she has pulled her hair out about. Fable 3, was not a bad game, but bugs and glitches dragged it down. My wife would check forums and read news, awaiting for information on when there was a fix coming for many problems. To no avail did it come.

Open Platform:

The ability to have an open platform would be great, but I doubt will ever happen. I think the next best thing would be allowing for software openness on an OS level on consoles. The PS3 did start a good thing when they allowed people to install Linux to be installed on a PS3. For the time when this was allowed, the hacking scene was pretty quite. Piracy was not a concern, people could do more of what they wanted with their console. It gave them the freedom to have almost everything they wanted for a box hooked to the TV. Once Sony end that era of freedom, hacking ensued, and piracy grew.

I was one of the people that enjoyed unlocking my original Xbox for the simple reason of installing XBMC on it. To me that was an answer to my want of having something that could steam my media to my TV and still have the ability to play my purchased games without an issue.
----------------------------------------------------------

I do think both PC and Console systems have their merits, but neither will ever be that full and complete solution to the masses. I think the right and left are to divided to ever find something truly in the middle that will satisfy either party.

When you argue simplicity over function. Expand-ability over Stability, you are always going to but heads, and in the end just comparing apples and oranges.

I think what it will always come down to, is that there is a place for both Consoles and PC in the gaming segment as well as the home entertainment segment.

December 6, 2011 | 01:01 PM - Posted by Scott Michaud

Thanks for the great comment.

I disagree that the PC *cannot* satisfy what the consoles do (honestly: if the stars align, but they still can)... but you make great points.

December 6, 2011 | 03:38 PM - Posted by JSL

The PC vs. Console debate is as bad as the Android vs. iOS debate in the mobile industry. Frankly, I believe that PC gaming is still by far the best, regardless of bugs (brought on by shotty console porting and developers that don’t know how to code properly because they don’t really care regardless of how they make you perceive it). People are fed BS by publishers and believe it left right and center (can be considered Sheeple / COD Die Hards).

I wouldn't doubt most pc gamers have an android device. Most of the time, perferring to be in control of their experience, moulding it to what they want.

My pc gaming experience: little to no load times (yay 4ssd array in raid 0), higher quality graphics all around (even if I was using my dated HD4890, or even HD3850), ability to be controlled by an exasperated amount of interface devices (including an Xbox 360 controller of all things).
My now extremely dusty desk ornament known as my PS3: other than the 3 or so titles that I actually enjoyed and the embedded Blu-ray player (which I don’t even use), I can’t be bothered to play on it or spend any more money regarding it or titles for it (even used). The current titles available for it are available on PC and it is much more enjoyable to play them on my pc.
EG: Skyrim (Latest hot topic) - graphics difference by 10x(a little exaggerated) ...even without modifications. What save game loading time waits/slowdowns during play? Even the easily fixed issue of backwards flying dragons with the latest patch (I havent experienced it)... let alone the insane amount of user mods available for it on the PC only (of what I know).

Now other titles which Are awesome: Witcher 2 (yeah, I know, PC only), BF3, Metro 2033, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Rage.... can go further back to Mass Effect 2, AVP (the newest one), DA: Origins (pfft at DAII), Fallout 3, the list goes on...

Other than the glitches caused by developer stupidity in testing and shotty code for the ports, the games are all much more enjoyable on a PC.

The only real argument console users have is the simplicity of plugging it in and generally just playing (even after updates from the disc are installed); they're also probably iOS users with their iPhones - It’s a cult following (no offence Allan) just like console users.

Consoles muddle the difference between the excessive simplicity experiences for mouth breathers (as I generally see console gamers staring at the TV breathing through their mouths as they hang open... not in awe) rather than visually encompassing experience for users that demand quality and a truly awe inspiring moment. I wouldn’t doubt that most users of gaming consoles also stream excessively garbage versions of bootlegged movies off malware riddled 'underground' websites.

Justification for spending money on my PC is offset by everything else that I use it for, Running my personal business and finances, Android development, Image editing, Video Editing, 3d Rendering, CAD, etc... my $300 PS3 + 3 enjoyed games was a waste of ~$480 in my opinion which I could have spent on something else that I would have made more use out of.

Troller's will now probably flame in regards to my comparisons or generalized opinions (since this is an enthusiast site), but for the general public I have no doubt that some of my comments may as well be very factual.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.