FlarePhoenix

Really, the only thing the PSP Go has over the PSP 3000 is the fact all your games are stored on the system and easily accessible (a huge plus for portable gaming). The problem is the PSP Go came out at a time anyone who wanted a PSP Go already owned a PSP 3000. The sales pitch for the GO was basically: Hey, buy the newer version of the handheld you already have, but you'll also have to re-buy any games you bought on UMD if you want to play them on this new handheld. Oh, by the way, it's sketchy at best whether the games you want will actually be released on PSN so good luck with that".

Not to mention, with the PSP Go you are locked into whatever region you live in. With my PSP 3000, I can buy a game from another country and comfortably play it with no issues. It also means you are locked into whatever price Sony decides to charge for it, whereas with a PSP 3000 you can almost always find a good bargain on places like eBay.

Finally, your video didn't really show anything that made the PSP Go unique. Everything you showed, I can also do on a PSP 3000.

@Atramentous said:

Nothing was wrong with the Go to begin with. The only thing it did wrong was not live up to Gamer Entitlement.

Music choice made me angry though.

So entitled has now been changed to include "having a legitimate problem with something, and not liking it due to that problem"? I better go and update my dictionary then :)

The PSP Go failed because it came out at a time most people had lost interest in the PSP, and offered no way for people who already owned a PSP to transfer the games they'd bought a physical copy of onto the digital-only platform. On top of that, a lot of PSP games haven't seen a digital release, and you're locked into whatever games were released in your region (PSP Games are region free).

Honestly, I'd wait for the Vita to come out. Even if you don't want to spend the money on that, it's more than likely going to knock the price of the PSP down. Whenever I decide to buy a console/handheld, it's usually because there is a game on it I really want to play. I remember I bought the original Playstation entirely because I wanted to play Dragon Ball Z: Budokai. Is there any particular games you really want on the PSP?

I have to wonder what the reason behind their decision not to have the characters fight along side their Personas. I was actually looking forward to seeing that in real time, and it's a disappointment to me that they decided to just have them standing around. Yeah, having both Shadows in one episode was a mistake; in my opinion the episode should have ended when Shadow Teddie appeared and continued into the next one. I kind of wish the series would just take a breath once in a while; everything goes by so fast its difficult to take in sometimes.

The 3Ds is a experimental piece of technology, which quite honestly doesn't work most of the time. Having to hold the handheld in one specific location at all times to get the 3D effect is a huge stepping stone made far worse by the fact most people consider 3D to be little more than a passing gimmick. When you add on the fact the original line-up consisted of no really great game (remakes don't count, in my opinion) it's not surprising the 3Ds has had such a poor beginning.

That's nothing... 40 Days and 40 Nights has the male lead getting raped by a woman, and he has to apologize to his wife and beg for her forgiveness because he was "unfaithful" to her.

Eh, the characters are instantly recognizable to me so I'm happy. I'm not going to judge the quality of something based on a single trailer.

Why do you bother to look for a relationship, when you'll likely only get a handful of people who will agree to date you?

Some dudes took off with a bunch of copies so the reviewers couldn't get any.

Or maybe they saw the amount of hate they were getting for not giving popular games an instant 10/10, couldn't do it for MW3, and decided not to review it at all.

Alright, in all seriousness, I don't know.

@Gamer_152 said:

@FlarePhoenix: Actually, I'd been thinking about writing this for a very long time and began writing it before the Arkham City controversy. I assure you that my intention is not to stir up controversy here, I'm presenting what I believe to be a collection of reasonable opinions in a rather calm manner. What's more I honestly don't think I've been lazy with this, I spent a considerable amount of time preparing to write, writing and refining this blog. Am I not allowed to blog about topics which I know a fair number of people might want to comment on?

My post was directed at Winternet's question asking why so many topics about sexism in video games popping up lately; it was not directed at you or what you wrote. I can see how it does look like I was attacking what you wrote, and I do apologize for not making my point clearer. I was merely offering up a suggestion as to why so many topics about sexism in video games seem to be popping up lately. I was not trying to suggest it to be the only reason someone would talk about it.

Again, I'm sorry if I offended you with what I said. It wasn't my intention.

Because some people pointed out that certain things in the new Batman game come across as sexist. Oh, and it is the laziest way to stir up controversy and get traffic for your website/blog area/wall you scribble on etc...