Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not neccessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. Where am I and how did I get here? Don't say we didn't warn you.

Well, the quarter is winding down, which, as most of you know, means two things: soon I'll be forced to see my family again, and I've got tests and papers choking out other lesser activities like sleeping and eating.

On that note, I got a good number of excellent letters today; far more than I could possibly print, and far more than I will, since I've got to get back to studying, pronto. I know it's more fun to think that I'm a liar, and I slight you with a rushed column out of spite, but, honestly, I don't hate you all that much. Well, not most of you.

So now that I've wasted valuable space with a shoddy excuse, let's get to the column!

I'd definitely agree that one of the most frustrating things about the Soul Reaver series to this point has been the wasted potential. The characters are interesting, the storyline is generally enthralling, yet the gameplay mechanics never really matched suit. The first game received decent scores, but I was underwhelmed by the monotony of the block puzzles. Sure, I'm jaded, but I've really had enough of those at this point.

With the dozens of great games coming out in the coming months, it's going to take more than SR2 apparently offers to catch many gamers' interests. Or in the words of a reader:

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I feel, too. If SR2 had the atmosphere of the first two games with the slick gameplay of, say, Zelda: OoT., you'd better believe I'd be all over it. As it stands, MGS2 and HM are both due out soon.

Look at it this way, Ian: now that the Xbox has a built-in hard disk and 'Net capabilities, we can just download patches to fix problems that made their way into the retail release of a game. It'll be beautiful! Just ask any PC gamer.

I suppose, in retrospect, "shortcomings" may have been a better choice in wording, but now we're just arguing over semantics. We've discussed reviews in this column so many times I'm filled with a burning sense of ambivalence at this point, but to recap:

The GIA's reviews are, of course, a product of the reviewers' opinions and gaming experience. However, we've all played hundreds of games in our time, putting us in something of a position to call out a game based on its shortcomings. We've seen what a game can be when its developers achieve what they set out to do with efficacy, and we can tell when that didn't happen. However, we know full well that any game, regardless of shortcomings, can be enjoyed by some people, and that's pretty much why we have the ratings system. Yes, I know, you thought it was so you didn't have to read the entire review, but it's not; bear with me here. Here's our definition of a 3 of 5 title, taken directly from the ratings explanation page.

A rating of three indicates an average game. These games have many strong qualities, but also have their share of weaker elements. Despite their flaws, most games in this category are still well-made and enjoyable to play. Each gamer's reception of these titles will likely vary with personal factors such as the developer, creative staff, franchise, genre, etc. These games come recommended, but with reservations.

...and that pretty much sums up the sentiment in 90% of the letters I received. Glad to give nearly everyone who bothered to write in a lame response in a single, broad stroke.

Closing comments:

Okay, the time is now right for this topic: let's hear your GameCube purchasing stories. What did you have to go through to get one? Anything much at all? Would you say the purchase has been made worth it by titles like Luigi's Mansion and Rogue Squadron II, or did you pretty much just pick it up with the future in mind? Just let Erin know whatever you happen to feel like telling her about all of this.

-Drew Cosner, who feels it.