In regards to the "Too Brief" comment, it's very valid, but again--SmashPad isn't like everyone else. We won't go to great lengths to provide our readers with something they'll read at every site. We stand by our writers and our notion that we'll be as real as we can 100% of the time.

As John said, this is no longer the age of print and radio, but the internet is continuing to grow as well. One of our lofty goals is to be the go-to site when you need information right off the bat. Our previous brands, Amped News (and Gamer 2.0 after that), did what no other gaming site would dare do--provide news that wasn't our own. If you wanted to read solid editorial pieces on your phone, we want to be that quick read place. That's why our reviews are shorter than most other publications. We won't waste our time writing about the history and giving you every nitty gritty detail--especially if it's a sequel or a rehash such as MLB 2K11.

Of course, the bigger the game, the more we'll have to say about it.

We're a small staff. We're not going to waste time writing news because you can read that at the bigger sites. We want to offer commentary and give you, the reader, a chance to offer your commentary as well. If we were offended by the comments mentioned by you guys in this review, we would've deleted them. But we allow you to voice your opinion because you matter. Even if you come here for the sole purpose of being an asshole (I'm real too), you're still helping us out by taking the time to click on our page.

Honestly, if you think you can do better, join us. We're a small site. We would embrace new and talented writers. We aren't paid, and that's where I think our current strengths lie. We buy our own games and let you know if they're worth the money. We self-motivate ourselves to provide content to help and entertain our readers. Eventually we want to get there, and our site has been a stepping stone. Kevin VanOrd and Carolyn Petit are two such examples of people who have used SmashPad as a stepping stone. They're now with GameSpot pushing editorial content, and I know that SmashPad was a key driver to their current success.

Chris, I definitely agree with you on that part, but it might have been for the best. The enemies were hard to ignore, and if you did, you'd often get screwed when fighting a boss or something. Dying in this game SUCKS.

The one thing I didn't mention in the review is the fact that every place you're in doesn't have a map of its own. It really could save the suspense of knowing whether you're near the exit, or whether you're running into a dead end or invisible wall--which there are more than enough of.

I wanna say it is a preferential thing. To me, there's no fundamental difference with the gameplay mechanics because both the Xbox 360 and PS3 have the same button layout. The graphics are a tad better on the PS3, and the game also performs better.

It really depends on what kind of Madden player you are. If you're an Xbox Live Gold member, you probably should get it on the Xbox to justify your Gold subscription--not to mention the online experience is vastly superior.

But if you're into just playing with your friends and being the armchair QB, the PS3 would be the better choice.

When I write reviews, I will tell you the definitive version to own. With Madden, it really doesn't matter too much.

We don't cover PC games that are multiplatform.

Most 18 year olds are late high school to early college students who still have their parents pay for a majority of their stuff. Whatever happened to getting a job and getting what you want after saving?

Golden Sun will be on the Wii before it ever goes to an Xbox system.

Bought off? Sorry, but I don't even make money writing for this site. Nobody here does. We do it because we love gaming.

5 years ago, we were in a different era of gaming. Madden NFL 2005 was better than what we have now. I'll admit that. But we also have a very different game. One that's more realistic and less arcade-like.

So if you want to stroke your ego and hand me your five word review, be my guest.

Unfortunately, there is no chat or voice support for Dragon Quest IX. The only means of interactivity is through battles and visiting each other's worlds, similar to Animal Crossing.

It may seem very limited, but it's still very much a core Dragon Quest title with online components. It wasn't meant to be an MMORPG.

Heh. Looks like I struck a cord.

If it means anything, Tiburon and EA Sports made the game. Nintendo has nothing to do with it. And I don't see how Nintendo has ruined gaming for anybody. This year top-quality titles like Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Sin & Punishment have been pushed out. We also got Metroid game in a couple weeks developed by Team Ninja.

The GameCube's graphics weren't pathetic.

eBay.com is where I got my PS3.

Technically, the graphics are better than the PS2 version.

But I can understand where you're coming from. Since EA Sports decided to go with a more casual, arcade look--it's become more of a Toy Storyish kind of look. Instead of making it look kid-friendly, they should've just made it more fun-looking. They could've made it resemble something like NFL Street.

In some cases, I do agree with you though. Last generation, the GameCube version of Madden was actually my choice, and that blew the PS2 out of the water. I preferred it because of its controller and its overall look. Now when I play Madden on the Wii with my HDTV, it looks like a bright mess sometimes.

On this site, and a whole lot of others, followups usually always score lower than their predecessors unless drastic changes are made that truly make the game better.

11 is better than 10, but since not much has changed, it's relatively the same game. It has the exact same problems as last year and they weren't addressed. The Franchise Mode is fun, but it doesn't drastically make the game any different.

The biggest critical categories on our publication are Gameplay, Value, and our own tilt. The gameplay actually stayed the same, so that didn't affect the old score. The value was decreased because it's essentially the same game as last year with a new mode. Because of this, overall I didn't see enough new stuff to warrant upping the game's total score, and to me it's definitely not worth $50.