I can honestly take or leave social networking sites. I usually find myself logging in and staying logged in most of the day, just for something to look at when I'm bored. I like to see how some of my school colleagues are doing and try and sneak the odd live chat in with them if I'm free.

My girlfriend's cousin is an incredibly sad person when it comes to Facebook. For starters she's added about 500 "friends" to her list that she hardly even knows. Some of them are friends of a friend, some of them are even friends of friends of friends of a friend. She is also one of these dickheads that feels the need to inform everyone of her status every five seconds. "I've just got up!" she'll put one minute, "I'm just about to have some cheese on toast!" she'll add five minutes later "Just about to wake my son-shine up!". I am waiting for the day that she puts "I've just struggled with a monsterous turd."

What bothers me though, and what takes this woman one rung lower on the 'Sad Bastard' ladder of social networking in my eyes is that over the months she has had a laptop she has painted this rosey picture of her life (of which most of it is utter bullshit) and worse of all she actually cares what people think of her pointless musings.

My girlfriend and I go round to her couin's house on a regular basis and the truth of the matter is that she is a bit of a scrote. She has two kids, one of whom is bordering on being a teen that is probably going to end up in jail at some point and the other that is one of the most annoying, mard-arse, manipulative toddlers that I have met in my life.

Her fiance is actually a fairly nice guy, but has no financial sense whatsoever and would rather spend the little money he gets from his job on a new x-box 360 game than buy food for his kids. They live on borrowed money constantly and buy their TV, furniture and gadgets at 160% of the normal price from these high interest stores. When I pop round to watch the football (soccer) she'll sit with a face on her playing on Facebook or internet bingo.

They argue, she'll scream and shout on a regular basis whilst my partner and I sit there wondering why we visited there again and I can't help but think that she lives in a self-created shit life.

Yet on Facebook you'd think that she lives in The Grange. What a great and sunny life this woman must live! She calls her toddler son "My son-shine" even though the kid is clearly a little shit and I have actually seen her post "I love my boyfriend <3 x x x x x x" on Facebook about two minutes after we've witnessed them both have a huge slanging match and the atmosphere is still in thei air. She posts opinions on things that she really doesn't give a shit about just for a reaction. She once asked me "How did Manchester United play just now?" and then seen my opinion dressed as hers on Facebook that very evening.

I got tired of this charade at one point and posted up something funny on her boyfriends Facebook page one day at work. I saw her log out of her facebook account, log into her boyfriends account (she must have nicked his password) and then my post was mysteriously deleted. She's done the same with stuff I've posted on her Facebook site in response to her comments. She'll tell me that her boyfriend wasn't happy about me posting something on her site only for me to find out later that he didn't even know about it.

It obviously means a hell of a lot to her to keep up this pretense that her life is absolutely rosey, when it is actually a pile of steaming, sticky shit. Then when someone like me pops up and jokes that she is a "cheesy f***er" she removes it as quickly as possible because it is actually a nugget of truth in her otherwise perfect virtual world. I suppose I should feel sorry for her as much as anything.

Why does it mean so damn much to people like her?

As an Englishman I think that the USA and Britain are different when it comes to sports. American sports appear to involve or encourage higher scoring with plenty of stoppages, time-outs and breaks, in part to do with the nature of the sports but no-doubt influenced a little by advertising and sponsorships. I also get the impression that sports in America have more of an emphasis on 'the event' with razamatazz and high production and entertainment.

British sports on the other hand emphasise grass roots development of the sport from amateur level and working up. It is not so much working to an 'American Dream' in Britain, but striving to represent the area that you're from. Your rivals are a lot closer in Britain than in the states, each region having complicated and sometimes violent histories with the ones around them- so for some kid to grow up and represent his town, city or county is deemed a great achievement, almost more so than representing your country.

The sport I follow is football (or soccer as you might call it), a sport that is drenched in history. In European soccer rivalry (especially with your closest enemy) may have been forged as a result of thousands of years of history- even before the sport as we know it came to be. Some 'derbies' (games between two local teams) have a history of politics, religion and civil war behind them- and the passion runs high as a result. This is why in Britain, relocating any professional sports team from one area of the country to another just doesn't happen as it has done in the USA. (The one exception I can think of is Wimbledon football club- which involved a huge backlash from fans.) The team, and the history of that area that the team is located in, is just too interlocked to even consider something like that.

This is why I think that gamers who play sports games on-line (or even offline for that matter) as one of the 'big clubs' when they don't actually support that club, are not very genuine, and rather more motivated by an on-line rank than the club or team that they support. I am just fortunate that my team is Manchester United (and for the record I was born and raised in Greater Manchester, and I live 4.2 miles away from their stadium, Old Trafford,) but if Manchester United were not a very good team then I would still choose to play with them rather than opt for Barcelona or Real Madrid as a lot of people tend to do. I think any true sports supporter would agree that the love you your club or team over-rides all.

Worse still, I feel are those guys that post up on the EA Sports forums, from random places like Australia, Texas, Mexico, Sweden and New Zealand that claim to 'support' a British football club, or a club that is about 200 miles away.

Aside from the fact that they hardly ever/don't physically go to watch those teams and don't 'support' them in the sense that they're lending their voice and presence to a game of soccer, they can never truly understand the history of being brought up in the area that there team was from and feel the true significance of that team representing their 'area.'

Yet they have the avatars and the amusing names like 'ManUnited001' and harp on about playing as 'their' team in the latest EA or Konami game fest. I find this slightly silly and also slightly offensive. Are these people devoid of a local club or something? No. Are these people helping their local club to maybe grow financially and through support achieve some greatness? No. Instead they are piling their attention, money and time into a club that could be a thousand miles away whilst their local team shrivels up and dies. How do these people think that teams like Manchester United, Liverpool and Chelsea started? As small, working men's teams, that’s what! Then they got support from the local mob and so they grew into the super teams that we know today.

If a person's team is not featured in a sports title then it is fine by me if they 'adopt' a team to play with, but they can never claim to 'follow' that team. That is the difference I think.

It appears that EA sports are using the popular achievements system on the xbox 360 to highlight douchery amongst people playing their games.

This is something that I only semi noticed myself and a friend later highlighted to me. The game in question was 'FIFA 10' and the 'achievements' are worth zero points and seem to just be there to highlight that you are indeed an asshole. The first one is the 'Glory Hunter' 'achievement' that you obtain for playing ten ranked on-line games with a five-star (top notch) team. The other, and more significant one is 'Bad Loser' an 'achievement' that you get for quitting five games.

I think the 'Glory Hunter' achievement is a little harsh- of course people are going to play on-line with the best teams available. I just so happen to support one of these 'glory' teams because it is indeed my local club, therefore it is the club that I automatically select on-line.

The 'Bad Loser' achievement on the other hand is a double edged sword in my opinion. On one side of the coin it is going to discourage people from quitting the game because then they are going to have this hanging round there neck like a FIFA albatross- I know one friend of mine in particular who is a terrible quitter that might think twice if everyone knew that he was a sore loser. On the other side of the coin, it might actually encourage people to quit in order to get this achievement to finish their 'collection.' It could also encourage people to just disconnect by turning their '360 off rather that go through the 'quit' option on the menu- depriving some people of a result.

I am not sure if this is the first time that achievements have been used in this way. They are visual representations of what you have done on-line that are accessible on the web and also via your xbox 360. They're permanent badges that show what you are about. To be labelled in a negative light- especially with an 'achievement' seems quite odd, but also strangely appealing to me.

I was thinking to myself this morning; I have considered myself to be a gamer my whole life. I have eagerly waited, as no doubt many others have done for birthdays and Christmases to get new games and consoles from the NES through to the N64, from Mortal Kombat 2 through to Lylat Wars, but for the past couple of years I have found myself sticking most of the time to the same on-line sports simulations.

It started with Mario Strikers Charged for the Wii that I somehow got addicted to and moved onto the FIFA games on the xbox 360. I have tried playing other on-line games such as World of Warcraft and FEAR on the PC, but I never connected with then and there is something about playing sports against other people on-line that really clicks with me. for the Does this make me a complete arsehole in the eyes of the on-line community?

I wonder this because it seems to be a badge of honour to have played more games than others and be knowledgable across a wide plethora of titles. Don't get me wrong I went out and bought games like 'Bioshock,' 'Super Mario Galaxy,' 'Fallout 3' and even downloadable stuff like 'Super Mario RPG', 'Megaman 9' and 'Braid' but most of those titles I have barely touched when at one point I would have played them to death. I just find myself wanting to play a quick game of on-line soccer and I feel slightly ashamed to say it.

I know that 'Madden' fans have this reputation in the States as being fanatical, beer swilling, sausage eating airheads that spend hours and hours just playing Madden and Madden alone. They sweat over their rankings, stats and enter leagues where they can win real-life money. I listen to Podtoid semi-regularly and listen to Reverend Anthony et al rip ten bells of piss out of Samit because he likes his NHL, NBA and Baseball games. I can't help but wonder if this is how the entire gaming community approaches people like me?

I suppose I can say that I am as knowledgable as anyone else when it comes to retro games. I am 27 years old and experienced playing Mario Bros, Duckhunt and even games like Megaman 2 and 3 when the games were brand spanking new, I remember the launch of the SNES, N64, Gameboy and Gamecube. My first ever console was actually an Atari 2600 with Defender 2 and Galaxian.

My tastes have just changed I suppose, but not only that so has my lifestyle. One of the rare games that I bought and played to death recently that didn't have a soccer ball in it was Resident Evil 5. I completed the game in about 5 days, playing after work. One of my colleagues also had the game and wanted to play a co-op mode on-line. I had heard that the co-op was pretty damn amazing, but despite this I felt that I just couldn't be bothered.

I think it is all to do with that quick 10-15 minute buzz that a sports game can give you when played on-line. The fact that every game is different because people use different teams, tactics and approach it in different ways. Even the abuse you get when you win or lose is something that makes me smile. I can do all this, fit in my house chores and even manage to sit and watch a movie with my fiance. So am I an arsehole or what?

I wrote a blog a while ago called 'disillusionment with the Wii' which basically described how I traded my Wii in for and Xbox-360 because I was sick of the low quality of games available for the console and the patronising attitude that Nintendo seemed to adopt with it's customers.

Boy; Did I dodge a bullet there eh? Collette mentioned in a post about how about 30% of Wii games are not even reviewed- probably because they are a bunch of shovelware crap and I can honestly say that I saw this one coming. The only thing that kept me with the Wii for so long was (a) because I have always been a Nintendoid and (b) because of the Virtual Console. It all got too much for me when I saw the upcoming games schedule for Wii and XBox 360 and saw "Streetfighter 4" "Resident Evil 5" and "FIFA 10" coming out on the '360 and some cheap Dead Rising port coming out for Nintendo's white box.

It now seems that the XBLA has overtaken even the virtual console in terms of quality games. At one time I would have a giggle at Topher Cantlers XBLA reviews on RF Go, but more recently (before the short break anyway) he had nothing but good things to say, and with games like Braid, Castle Crashers, Shadow Complex, Castlevania SOTN, Zombie Apocalypse, Trials HD, Battlefield 1945, Monkey Island, Worms 2 and 'Splosion man (to name a few) I cannot but agree. Virtual console is now second best.

I would be interested to see what the opinions are of people that have stuck with the Wii until now. What is keeping you attached to the little white box, or do you also have a PS3 or Xbox 360 to slake your gaming thirst? Do you agree with me that the only 'big name' titles that the Wii gets is crappy ports created by the software houses 'b' team (probably the same bunch that does the DS port)? Do you think that decent Wii games like Mario Kart, Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 and Wii Sports resort justify you actually owning a Wii?

I opened my wardrobe yesterday morning and realised that a couple of the shirts that I still wear for work are over ten years old. Aside from being a little faded they are still in perfectly good condition, and I wear them at least once a fortnight- buttons intact, collar still stiff.

It made me think about quality and longevity, and how this is a rare thing these days. I remember some guy coming to tune the engine of my car and telling me that there is absolutely no reason why a car shouldn't have a twenty year warranty if the engine and body was created with the craft and attention that it should be. It is all to do with reducing lifespans of vehicles, making new cars and making more money he said.

I think that this can also be applied to videogames- we have the whole silly issue going on with the 'Left 4 Dead' sequel, with people complaining that there shouldn't actually be a sequel, but the updates as promised and we also have the annual sporting updates like Madden, FIFA and the golfing games. I suppose it could be argued that these games are little more than updates anyway, and with the internet being as common as it is today, then why can't we just buy a patch rather than fork out big money for the game in CD format?

Some of the best games that I have played, I still own in their original format because they stand the test of time. Games like Chrono Trigger, Ocarina of time, Super Mario World and Resident Evil 4 I still love these games now as much as I did then, and in many ways they are irreplacable and have not (arguably) been bettered. Some of the worlds that you experience in these games (especially some of the RPG's) are beautiful and whimsical places that you really don't want to leave- some of the games that last the test of time are so well designed and so beautiful that they still look and play good 15 years on.

I suppose I am wondering why games cannot evolve rather than 'new editions' and 'sequels' taking their place. Why can't the game designers create a brilliant and beautiful game from day one? Why do I have to fork out another £40 for FIFA 10, when they could have easily updated FIFA 09? Is it just an excuse to make more money are am I being too cynical?