Yeah...he definitely does seem way too supportive of the 360 to be writing in PSM...

He reviewed both Lair and Warhawk right?

 I don't know, but that is interesting. 

I found it odd that on the scan, he says the game was mediocre and then talks about all the good things then at the end of the page, he complains about no bots. 

It's like "Yea, this game sucks. . . but let me list all the awesome parts about the game!"

Stof disagreed with me on the warhawk thread!

Wait, was Killzone3 accusing me of trolling?

** That's a very weird hire. Not neccisarily saying that hiring an alternate POV is bad, and some may dislike home or the copying of achievements, but the claims about the media center? That really will need to be seen.

I've only seen Warhawk attributed to him but the pictures don't really reveal anything.

Oddly enough I saw people jumping on him for his comment about there not being bots in the game. That's a fairly understandable letdown. Have you ever played a multiplayer game against a single friend on a huge map? Boooooring. The last time I did that, we spent about 75% of the time searching for each other. Considering the game allows you to play versus friends in split screen mode, the ability to be able to add bots to a group would be nice. What if only two people are playing and don't want to play online against a bunch of strangers? The rest of the article gets cut off so you can't see the rest of the list of complaints.

Ceres: Yea, there are lots of games that don't have bots. The reason they gave for not having bots (at least at this time) is that they couldn't get the bots up to the standards they wanted because the levels are so large and there are so many options of things to do and I can agree with that.

If you've ever seen or played Battlefield 2, the bots are almost brain dead you can only play with 15 bots in the smallest versions of the maps (sized for 16 players) which totally negates what's cool about the game to begin with (HUGE 64 player maps). Since Warhawk is similar to Battlefield 2 in regards to lots of options and large maps, I'd rather not have bots as opposed to the game being restricted because the bots suck.

If you look at other popular multiplayer only games like Counter-Strike (1.6), Team Fortress, Battlefield 2 (no actual multi-player bots), and many others, there are no bots yet they're still very popular. Not having bots was WAY too big of a deal to throw the game down like 3-4 points, don't you think? In fact, does Halo or Halo 2 have bots, yet multi-player in those games is/was still very popular. Hell, I can answer your question by using Halo and Halo 2 as the example.

Rob isn't the Warhawk reviewer according to this comment on the PSM site. 

http://www.psmonline.com/2007/08/21/psm-october-2007-issue-129/#comments

I was referring to the Warhawk review when saying no big source has reviewed it yet.

counter rant/ O_O

But the problem is that the faults the reviewer found with the game. If you saw the scan and could make out the words, the reviewer says it was mediocre, but then explains how good it was only to say the parts that docked it were not having bots, a $45 bluetooth headset was included with the retail version, and warhawks were like glass cannons (as stated from the quote from the PSM comment section). In fact, the only spot where I could agree with the reviewer is when he claimed to have some trouble aiming.

These 'major problems' are a weird way to say that the game should have a low score. I can refute these complaints easily from my experience in the beta as well as other games such as Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, and Battlefield 2 for example.

-No Bots: Not every multiplayer game has had bots, why is Warhawk taking the brunt of that? You can change the size of the map for fewer people much in the same way Battlefield 2 has 3 variations of each map to suit 16, 32, or 64 players. Like I said, lots of games don't have bots and if I looked at Battlefield 2, you can play with bots, but they're 15 of the dumbest bots you'll probably find in a game and you can only play on 16 player sized maps, which kind of negates why the game is cool in the first place.
-Bluetooth headset: First, the headset is more like $20 from what I've seen and offsets the differences in cost between the PSN and retail version. Seeing as new retail games for the 360 and PS3 are all $60, a $20 bluetooth headset is a bonus and it confuses me how you can fault that even if they end up being pieces of crap (which reviews of them say otherwise).
-Warhawks are vulnerable: Yes they are because if they weren't, a warhawk in hover mode can lay waste to people on the ground and keep people pinned down. You have to know how to use them effectively (just like aspects of all other games) to get the most out of them. I like to call them glass cannons because they're powerful, but easily defeated to make things balanced.
-Hard to aim: again, the only aspect I can agree with the reviewer. The aiming on the ground felt a little loose and sloppy to me, mainly till I adjusted my sensitivity to suit how I played, but it was still a little loose after that.

end counter rant/ -_-

I cant help but laugh, because lair was meant to be one the PS3's killer games. Iam surprised because factor5 made great games for Nintendo.