I just came up with a clever way to consider the current console wars, as they have been dubbed. Really, this contribution is completely arbitrary and frivolous, but I thought it was a tad cunning. See, my idea is to go to Metacritic (I don’t usually trust them, but this isn’t a game-specific venture; for more reading, leave this parentheses). Then I go to the list of top-rated pieces interactive video entertainment software -known to most as games- and look at the score for the #25th highest game. I don’t know why I picked 25, it just seemed very palatable (10 was too low and beyond that, the differences don’t change much).
To me, it just seems like this is an apt way to gauge the quality and quantity of a console’s games. Exclusives don’t matter in this situation if they aren’t any good then they’re not on the list. Bad games stay off, good games stay on. Simple enough. More good games, the higher the 25th score. Less good games and the 25th score is lower. You want a console with a lot of games and goddamnit, you want those games to be good. Well, past a certain point, that doesn’t really matter. And that point just so happens to be #25 in this case study. OBSERVE:
That leaves us with
Wii- 82
PS3- 86
XBox 360- 89
Of course, this only shows games, and only those that are existent.
Also, to test this theory, I applied it to the last generation. Those scores came out to:
XBox- 90
Gamecube- 90
PS2- 93
I’m pretty sure that reflects what most people thought of those consoles. Then again, there were no crazy media center features in the olden dayes.
Considering the scores of “last gen” being higher than the current console lineup’s also displays part of this system’s facileness. As consoles get older, more games get developed. More games means a higher chance of enjoyable games being developed for that platform. Viola.
Oh, and the Dreamcast scored an 87 whilst the Windows-based personal computing system achieved a supercilious 92 (however, it has 400 games scoring equal to or above that of the Wii’s 82).
The first thing that you notice about the Iron Man movie is that every single thing in it is goddamned amazing. If cool gadgets were horses, then this movie would have a shitload of horses. Let me break this down. Tony Stark has this amazingly intuitive GUI on 2 huge computer screens where he can drag everything around with this tablet pen thing midair. He then drags it to a flat surface nearby where the blueprints to his Iron Man suit become a tangible hologram, which he then manipulates physically with his hands. Once the geek euphoria set in, I realized the movie was actually really, really good. Sure, it wasn’t deep like Batman Begins, but the action, effects, and possibly even dialogue were better. Robert Downey Jr. excellently played the boozehound-genius-millionaire down to the attitude and even decent character development. Most superhero movies have had struggles with overly-cheesy dialogue and romantic themes that are too heavily used. The “romance” “story” isn’t too good in Iron Man, but it’s not overbearing or tacky at all. The dialogue and acting are not only good, but very high above the expectations of a spring/summer superhero flick.
YouTube has changed around their user interface on video pages a little and added something called “active sharing,” which is showing off what you are watching and have watched on your channel page. However, the most significant recent update is the addition of a preference to watch high quality versions of every video, which are impressively good. Also, the loading times (at least for me) have not increased unless your connection is bad or under heavy duress.
The original gameplay was revolutionary, giving you a grapple arm that could be used to move and attack, which was your only form of movement. The bad guys were classic (vaguely like Nazis, but with different colored uniforms). The shooting element was not overdone, but hell, this was a NES game. It always seemed strange that the good guy wore bright green, but hey, the 
