I guess after the almost magical year for computer games, more specifically 2007, the pace and frequency of really great games have slowed down for a bit.

WoW is still huge (although not my favourite, the few MMO tendencies I have is treated with EVE online), Bioshock is arguably still one of the best games in recent years and Forza 2 still hold the crown as the best driving "simulation" game out there. Butwhen the talk comes to new games, 2009 still hasn't showed us truly great games yet.

Is that a bad thing? Not really. It has given me time to look at some of the niche games made in recent years, or big titles I've previously ignored in order to play the next great thing. Even games that had some mixed reviews upon release has been tried, and it has given me some good surprises as well as total letdowns.

Take the Need For Speed series - I've been avoiding the series since Carbon on the PC, mainly due to some horrible technical flaws (and driving mechanics). Well, I gave Carbon and ProStreet a chance on the trusty Xbox360 - my reasoning was, that EA must have ironed out the technical flaws on the console. The short answer is a resounding NO, both Carbon and ProStreet has a really flawed engine, which runs really bad on the consoles as well... Stuttering framerates (with really low dips) is an unforgiveable achievement on consoles, and especially driving games should be silky smooth - anyone who has played Forza Motorsport2 knows what steady 60 fps does for your driving skills.

So, if you really want an Urban themed driving game, look for Midnight Club: LA, which has much more stable framerates than any NFS game in recent years, and at the same time MC has somewhat similar (if notbetter) gameplay than the almost classic NFS: Underground 2 game - which is classic, because IMO its the last great game in the NFS franchise I can remember.

Other games that have surprised me? Well, Blue Dragon is a worthwhile experience if you're into the old-school JRPG games. The art direction might seem a bit bland, but I'm still impressed by the very clean look of the game, which comes from thevivid colors, Depth of Field effects, the character designand liberal use of AA. Gameplay-wise the game has some interesting ideas of how tocombine skills, and the 'shadows' of your main characters (basically magical avatars), has an interesting role in the game. Blue Dragons is not a great game, but neither is it as bad as some reviews would suggest.. Its a matter of personal taste and expectations, really, as sometimes a finely tuned, workable, game with its own distinctive charm, can supply many hours of fun.

So, while we wait for the next wave of great games, I suggest you browse the local gamestore for some of the games you've probably missed in the last hectic years.

I sometimes hear people say - mostly in different tech forums - that games in the 'old days' were better. Since I've been around since these 'old days', gaming wise, I will tell you about my own thoughts about this topic.

When I started to play games back in '82, it was on my brother's Spectrum ZX. I don't remember much about the games to that platform, and the only memory I have, was of a math program he programmed in order to learn me some of the basics. At that time, I was 5 years old. Soon he got a C64, I believe it was in '83 or '84, and even though I was only 6-7 years old, that computer became a revelation. I learned how to play proper computer games. The first two games i remember was Hunchback and Frogger. Soon thereafter games like Blue Max, Paradroid and Pit Fall followed. At the end of the C64s lifetime, I played The Bards Tale and Elite, and the idea of saved games began to appear (however loading and saving games on a tape deck was no trivial task)

Later, the Commodore Amiga followed, then the PC and finally I moved on to the consoles - more specifically the Xbox360. I bought the Xbox360, my first console ever, back in december 2006, and within a year it had replaced my PC as my primary gaming platform. Why do I tell you that story? you might ask.

Well for two reasons - 1) To give you an idea of my gaming history 2) To make you understand how old computer games are becoming. Of course there had been console and computer games around before the C64, but IMO the modern era of computer games began with the C64. Because of 2 reasons: The sound were of a decent quality, the C64 could produce comprehensible (if somewhat crude) pictures in 16 colours, and it was an affordable computer for just about everyone.

Was gaming better back then? Definately no. Although there were some great games back then, the quality and gameplay mechanics had to be limited according to the computers limited hardware resources back in the 80's. The internet was more than a decade away, and there was no way to patch poorly coded games (of which there were a decent amount of back then, something people tend to forget when talking about the 'good old days')

I've recently bought Dead Space, Guitar Hero World Tour and Fallout 3, all games I consider to be great - and games that are lightyear ahead of the simple, almost naive, games of the 80s. When people talk about the golden games of the past, they simply seem to have forgotten about the many, many games that really sucked back then. There were piles of rubbish games like Transformers, Jet Set Willy (although considered a great game back then, it was impossible to complete in the first version on the C64 due to bugs) and I could continue.

No, gaming have never been better - the consoles nowadays are easy to use, affordable and powerfull gaming platforms as well as entertainment centres (at least the Xbox360 and PS3 are) - and the Wii console helps making video games a more widespread and common passtime. We don't have to imagine the gaming worlds anymore, as we had to in the early days, nowadays we are experiencing the games on a different and much more immersive level compared to then.

And if people claim that Lords of Midnight or Paradroid are better games than Bioshock or Dead Space, they have lost their sense of perspective.

Well, it had to happen.

The point where I got tired of the big upgrading show PC gaming has turned into, and finally I made the decisive move to throw in the towel.

I'm selling my enthusiast gaming system, and instead buying a gaming capable laptop with decent specs, but a far cry from the enthusiast level PC I've been working on for the last many years. Actually, the last pre-built PC I've bought was back in 1998, since then I've been upgrading. Constantly.

I guess buying a laptop will ensure I don't fall for the temptation to buy even more hardware I don't need, in order to play games, that simply will be more fun on the 40" screen in my living room (in my case, on the Xbox360)

A laptop is, per definition, more practical and flexible, consumes less power and - if you are careful - will be powerful enough for most games. Yes, Crysis will probably not run well, but same goes for just about any other system in this part of the galaxy.

And gameplay isn't hurt by dialing down some of the more performance hurting capabilities - more importantly, I hope I'll start enjoying the gameplay and ideas behind games, instead of just benchmarking them (or looking for technical details) - a bad habit, I've had for the last 5 years or so.

Said in other words: I'm downgrading in order to enjoy my computer, instead of constantly working on it. I'm downgrading because I'm tired counting shader effects in games and I'm getting a laptop, because I'm tired of loud, demanding and expensive desktop computers, which you'll have to upgrade twice a year. And finally, I'm downgrading because I have a console, which is much more fun - and the games I do prefer on the PC aren't that demanding anyway.

If you have any comments, please do.