"The slavish attention to detail (and the choice to set the game's songs chronologically) does present a few challenges, namely, in the last fourth of the game, which takes a decidedly down-tempo turn and just isn't as fun to play as the rest."

First of all, it would drive me crazy if they weren't chronological (It actually kinda still bothers me that they're organized by venue instead of album). Secondly, you're on crack! The first fourth of their music is shit, and I couldn't wait to get past that crap and onto their mid career, and to their best stuff towards the end of their career. Sure, Let It Be was ho-hum, but Abbey Road, Sgt Pepper, and the white album were all spectacular!

EXACTLY what I was wondering. WTF engadget?

Hey pigfister, are you wearing a tin foil hat?

Well, this is exciting news for me. The PS3 is a nice little multimedia unit and can be used as a PC, all for for less than the price of a Blu-Ray drive. Seems like I'm the only one who thinks this is a nifty little unit though.

I know everyone keeps bashing the PS3 and saying it has "no" games. Well, you can say the same about all new Consoles right now. I made the mistake of buying a Wii--it's a nice paperweight. The only advantage I got from that was a smaller GC which I can use to play the only 2 good games ever realeased for GC.

How about XBox you say? OK, it's got a new Halo for a bit until it gets released for PC. But am I the only one that sees Halo as just another shooter except you have to use a limiting console controller instead of keyboard/mouse? FPS's will always be a PC thing for me.