I couldn't agree more (which is kind of sad): I bought the PSP on day one from the US and I loved it. As a device. It's sexy, heavy, has a great screen. But from the beginning there was something wrong about the games. They were too complex for handheld-stuff, too much like downsized versions of bigger games. Now, almost five years later I just dust it off once a month. The last game I played was MotorStorm: Arctic Edge, which was good, but again like a small version of the PS3-game. For music on the go I have my Creative Zen, which is smaller, has more space, uses less battery-power and is more comfortable to use. I almost never used the video function of the console, it was all too complicated and I never felt the need to watch new episodes of my favorite TV-show on the way to work. I already watched them on the big screen slacking on my couch...

Maybe I just have the wrong lifestyle for the PSP, but I simply don't find any use for the console. At least I learned a lesson, that I shouldn't buy new hardware just because it's nice to look at. Sorry, iPad... :)

Hm, but what's the deal? First of all, no one is forced to buy crappy games and I don't see any good Wii-game being any worse, just because you can buy millions of shitty titles for the system. Then, there's the technical potential of the PS3. Even on Wii there are games that not nearly utilise the power of the console and porting them to a PS3 will result in something terribly hurtful for the eye. But whoever pays 60 Euros for such a crap, doesn't deserve better. ;)

Plus you have very different demographics. The amount of Wii-owners who can't see a difference between Metroid and FarCry (that crappy one for Wii I mean) is far bigger than people who own a PS3 and will easily buy crappy waggle-software because of the nice screenshots with lensflares in the package. But I admit, that this is going to shift, as soon as Wii-owners (or people interested in that matter, but still unsure) will buy a PS3 and don't know what to buy. But hey, Sony is welcome to take the role of Nintendo in that matter: support their own system with high-class-software, that gives reason to own the console.

I'm confused right now. I'm not a fan of Final Fantasy and I don't play RPGs very often. I don't give a rat's ass if FF XIII is good or not, but a 5/10 for me is a seriously flawed game, mediocre at best. So while I know there's nothing comparable to a game like Dante's Inferno, it got a 6/10 and (in my opinion) it was a cheap rip-off with no soul and more flaws than I could count. A bad copy of a brillant game, where three levels were the whole game and the rest was repetition of bad moments and boring set pieces. So, even if the two games have nothing in common, the sheer effort that went into FF XIII must be worth something. It just can't be, that a quickly stitched rip-off of a great game makes a bigger impact than a five-year-in-the-making RPG from Square Enix, that doesn't get it quite right. This seems so wrong, I don't know why.

Huh? That's exactly what seperates Tomb Raider from Uncharted and especially the remake Anniversary was pretty much what you described. I wouldn't say that Underworld was anything special, but it was entertaining. My true favorite is Legend, a game so perfectly balanced and so well crafted, I spent tons of time in getting almost all the gamerscore - something I usually ignore. :)

Don't relax just yet, marines!