What a year. The rig I had built in 2007 has died a slow and painful death over the last eight months. First, the integrated NIC went out on the motherboard. A couple months later, the video card died. The day that was replaced, the monitor crapped out. The bleeding stopped for a while at that point. I had another network card, and a wireless network card installed. I replaced my GeForce 8800 GTS with a GeForce 260 and finally joined this century by purchasing an LCD monitor. Beautiful!

Everything was fine until the motherboard finally gave up the ghost a couple weeks ago. Argh!! Instead of doing a scheduled major upgrade next year, I decided it would be smarter to do everything now -- if not necessary, at least in regard to the motherboard. I've also replaced my E6850 CPU with a Q9550. Should be a fun new toy. I just need it to last at least a full two years before doing another major upgrade. Talk about unfortunate luck! I've never had so many components fail in the same year. Crazy!

This has been a rare instance of gaming disappointment. I just finished playing Crysis this week. While the technology was stunning, I have to admit I wasn't knocked over by the gameplay. Actually, I found it just slightly above average. Other than some of the dumb rants by people on the forums, I'm curious if anyone else feels the same way?

A disclaimer: This was played at 1024x768 resolution on Windows XP, all options turned to High and the difficulty set at Delta. I ran the game with the 169.44 Nvidia beta drivers, which gave me the least amount of problems. Other than a few weird slowdowns (especially in cut scenes) and some graphics anomalies, the game looked and played superbly. But, my real issues had nothing to do with the technology.

Things that bothered me:

A. The game starts out interestingly enough. However, while I loved the tropical island setting, I got the feeling numerous times that I was trekking through a new and improved Far Cry. And perhaps I was, but it seemed a bit stale in some places.

B. While I don't normally feel the need to play any game at its most difficult setting, I chose to go that route with Crysis because I didn't want all the extra help the lower settings give you, and I really didn't want to hear those awful audio barks from the Koreans in English. Complete and utter cheese.

C. Speaking of audio, I look forward to the day when game designers speak to real human beings and get an idea of how those people talk. The dialogue in Crysis sounds like it was written by a 7th grader with too much testosterone.

D. Maybe it was just the difficulty setting, but with the exception of the VTOL, driving the in-game vehicles was worthless. The AI could go from not noticing you at 100 yards away to knowing it was you who just opened the door of the Hummer. On the Delta setting you can't drive or pilot the land vehicle or sea vehicle and shoot the mounted gun at the same time. While this is realistic, it's not exactly fun. So, you either drive as fast as you can past everyone (and everybody is now targeting you) or just bypass the vehicle because it's not worth the hassle.

E. The AI is better than it was in Far Cry. However, it can still be a bit too clarivoyant or as dumb as buttered toast. Helicopters seem to be able to spot you swimming underwater or buried under tropical bushes, but a group of soldiers on patrol in your area are not as bright.

F. As much fun as the destrucible environments were, I was disappointed they didn't seem to have much tactical use in firefights. The AI wasn't always good but was generally smart enough to not be lured into a shack you wanted to collapse. Falling palm trees didn't seem to rattle the AI much either. The only destrucible items consistently useful were fuel tanks.

G. I wasn't pleased that despite having the nano suit, there were just some areas where the game does not allow you to go. I spent 20 minutes one night attempting to climb a waterfall with rocks that were stepped perfectly for doing so, but no matter what I tried, the nano suit nor creative thinking allowed me to climb those rocks all the way to the top. I could climb a couple and then I would always slip off down to the bottom. Absolutely annoying, particularly since it meant I had to go all the way around an encampment again to get to where I needed to be.

H. Speaking of places you shouldn't go...I also had a fair amount of "instant failure" deaths for apparently straying too far outside the bounds of the sandbox. There were a couple times I suddenly drowned. Another instance I was in the jungle and for whatever reason just died. I realized later I was too far off the path I should have been going. That will show me!

Again, I'd be interested to hear if anyone experienced some of these same annoyances. I will probably go back sometime and play on easier difficulty settings to see if that changes anything. But, for a game I built my PC last summer to play, I surprisingly found a lot more to like in Call of Duty 4, which didn't need nearly as powerful of a rig.

Crysis was obviously built to become a new franchise. My hope is that Crytek refines a few things for the next installment. When I look at what they've done with Far Cry and Crysis, I have faith that they're up to the challenge.

I'm having another one of those "why do I still subscribe to a gaming magazine" moments...besides the fact that I like to see something in the mail every once in a while that isn't a bill.

PC Gamer was my first choice several years ago. Generally, they had tough reviews where a high rating meant something. Reviews also seemed to mirror my experiences in games, so far as what I liked, what annoyed me, etc. But, the writing was always a bit juvenile and quite frankly as a 30-something I'm no longer amused by pee pee and boobie jokes. I got to thinking that I must be about 20 years out of their target demographic. Even more disappointing is that they now appear to rate most AAA titles highly, even if no one else does. I'm still stumped by the 93% Editor's Choice rating that Just Cause received from the U.S. publication when most other credible sites/magazines were giving it very average scores--something that totally matched my experience with the game.

So, along the way, I canceled my subscription and started up with Computer Gaming World which has since become Games For Windows Magazine. While the writing isn't a whole lot better and their editorial policies flip-flopped once they changed their name, I have thought that it is a better rag than PC Gamer. That being said, I really question their judgment on some things. I particularly wonder what they were thinking back in 2004 when they awarded Painkiller their Shooter of the Year award. This was the same year that saw Far Cry, Doom 3 and Half Life 2. WHAT?! I remember them being alone in that decision.

In what seems like deja vu, they have apparently made another attempt to separate themselves from their competition by awarding Portal their 2007 Game of the Year award. For the record, I think Portal is a blast--creative, unique and challenging. It certainly deserves kudos on those merits. But GOTY for a short bonus title in The Orange Box? In one of the best years this decade for PC gaming...Crysis, Stalker, Call of Duty 4, Supreme Commander, World in Conflict and Bioshock--the latter of which they gave a perfect score? Didn't see that coming. Which brings me back to my point of why am I still subscribing to a gaming magazine?

In the end it seems that GameSpot remains my primary destination for reviews and news. They lack the histrionics of PCG and GFWM, they're dead on in their assessments and they're not so off the wall with their awards choices. That and they write like they're communicating with adults. I guess that's really what it's all about for me. I love games, but I also like being treated like an adult, especially in a hobby that is still viewed, unfortunately, as adolescent by a lot of society. Why spend money to have my intelligence insulted?