- 11 Jun 08, 13:04 GMT
I always look forward to my copy of Edge magazine flopping through the letterbox.
It's one of the few sources of intelligent games journalism, and I've always loved the attention to detail in the physical design - although I've felt their legendary cover images have been a bit less tantalising of late.
Amid the game reviews, previews, columns and features I've always enjoyed the small bits of editorial - because it's often here you'll find the soul of the magazine.
This month's text asks whether action games are really, truly evolving. The magazine previews Killzone 2 and reviews Haze, while the back of the magazine looks back to 1942 and Commando.
Its point - articulated more eloquently than I do here - is that the basic thrust of these games, killing things, has altered little over more than a decade.
While attempts at making narrative more mature (Haze) and the production more cinematic (Killzone 2) have undoubtedly succeeded is the point of these games really changing, or advancing in any way.
I was asking myself that question as I played Gears of War for the first time; I described it at the time as 3D space invaders, and I stand by that.
From the look of Gears of War 2 the formula will change little - and the "on the rails" elements of the trailer make me more worried than ever.
But there are plenty of action games which buck the trend: at midnight tonight Metal Gear Solid 4 hits the shops in the UK.
I was a huge fan of the original game and its sequel but ever since the series has become a preposterous pseudo-cinematic affair, with more to watch than to actually play.
Surely there must be more to action games than the two extremes represented by Gears of War 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4?
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites