I recently read a fairly detailed article about the controversy in Australia over the push to have Grand Theft Auto V banned due to it's graphic depictions of violence against women. As you can imagine, views on this issue were sharply polarized. But, for the sake of time, I'll just say that the author of said article brought forth some very truthful, insightful observations.

I'll be honest, I am a fan of the Grand Theft Auto series, and have adapted a fairly cavalier attitude towards the things depicted in the game. To be certain, there is no shortage of innuendo, violence, or vulgarity in GTA. It is unapologetically, a sensationalized playground of crassness. Perhaps this shouldn't come as any surprise. After all, throughout the series, you do play as an active criminal, always seeking to solidfy your standing/position in that underworld.

Some might argue that the protagonists are not REALLY bad guys, but merely... lost? Indeed, in GTA, as well as in movies, tv, music, the way we have come to view the bad guys has changed. Bad guys aren't evil anymore. Instead, they're just misunderstood. We're not supposed to judge them. After all, one never knows what led them to being that person, right?

They could have been abused, neglected, grown up poor, grown up spoiled and rich, been an orphan, someone killed their dog, stole their girlfriend, etcetera, etcetera. So there's that.

Our collective thinking has gradually shifted, to the point where many times, if you think about it, you may realize that you are actually rooting for the bad guy more often than the good guy. Consider last year's release of Man Of Steel, which saw Superman's return to the big screen. But the success of that film was laughable in comparison to that of DC Comic's Dark Knight series. Why? It's the same old story. Superman is too good. He's not flawed enough. We want characters that we relate to. At least, that's what we're told.

So what does any of this have to do with Grand Theft Auto, or women for that matter? Well, here goes.

Men, and society at large have two very serious problems with how they understand women, and relate to them. First, there is a fundamental disconnect between what men think women should be, and what they actually ARE. Second, our society, but to a very large extent men, have been seduced by warped and twisted ideas about the roles that men and women play.

If you've played through Grand Theft Auto, and wandered through it's vast virtual cities, you may sense that it bears some resemblance to the real world. But closer observation renders it far less convincing, even cartoonish in a way.

It is ironic that the most popular of the GTA games take place in a 3D world, because most of it's representations of people are in fact one dimensional. Indeed, the building's of the Grand Theft Auto series are perhaps the only things that seem to aim for accuracy, or integrity.

In Grand Theft Auto III, all Columbians drive big trucks, wear cowboy hats and boots. The most notable presence of Asians/Asian Americans is in The Triad and the Yakuza, who also have the nicest cars in the game and own high rise buildings and a casino. The most notable presence of blacks is the Uptown Yardies, a rastafarian gang complete with beanies, dredlocks and horribly fake patois' (accents).

This is standard fare throughout most of the GTA games. Minorities are mostly gang members, women are either prostitutes, or ruthless sociopaths, or narcissisitic air heads pre-occupied with shopping at stores like GASH (GTA's version of The Gap). You also have a smattering of random  NPC's to fill in the nameless, faceless masses that make up the rest of the world, but they are mostly unimportant.

At times, GTA will blind-side you with some commentary on the absurdities of modern life with the various talk-radio stations, or comments from random NPC's. But for the most part, Grand Theft Auto is all about extremes. There is little room for any in-between, and thus, little room for reality.

Why don't prostitutes fight back, or carry weapons? In the real world, I imagined you'd be hard-pressed to find a woman of the night who didn't carry mace, a switch-blade, or a gun. They HAVE to. And what about all of the little old ladies? I've known quite a few senior citizens that you would not want to approach in the wrong way. Unless you like the idea of 300,000 volts of electricity coursing through your body.

But you don't see these things in Grand Theft Auto.

I'm inclined to think that part of the problem is that when GTA first gained notoriety, perhaps we were naive, more pliable. Perhaps no one took offense simply because that virtual world being shown to us seemed so shiny and new. But now we are older, wiser, and we know that the real world we live in is not nearly so simple, or one dimensional. And here is where we stumble upon one of the crucial misunderstandings in modern society about women.

What is your image of the ideal woman?

What does she look like? What does she weigh? Is she pretty? Does she dress well, smell good? Is she intelligent, well educated? Does she like sports? Can she cook? Is she shy and demure, or bold and sassy? Can she fix a car, or would she rather plant a garden.

Now, whatever your answer is, understand that your image has absolutely nothing to do with what women really are.

Women are human.

No duh, right? Sounds too simple? It's not. In fact, many men do not get that... at all.

In my mind, one of the most damaging phrases to ever emerge in pop culture was the whole "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" thing. It's a stupid comment, and it perpetuates exactly wha is wrong in our society.

Young men DO NOT need to grow up thinking and perceving women as being like aliens from another planet or vice versa. And is there any irony in the fact that most films portray any would be "aliens" as aggressive and hostile?

Last time I checked, women require oxygen to breathe, have blood that flows through their veins, and need to eat, sleep, shower and poop like any guy does. Women have fears and doubts, but they can be courageous and strong. They get tired or depressed, or they can happy and full of life. Women can be clear and inciteful, or they can be misguided. They can be boundlessly good, or unspeakably evil. It's all there. The potential to be anything. And guys need to start with understanding that.

When I first heard about the #Gamergate fiasco/scandal, I admit part of me felt defensive. But not because I felt threatened by the idea of feminists, or just women trying to ruin gaming culture as some perceived it. I felt that Gamergate was just one more painful example of a beloved hobby of mine and so many others being needlessly politicized.

I'll be honest, I view Anita Sarkeesian with some measure of skepticism. I don't know whether she truly believes in her cause, or whether this is just an opportunity to become famous and make money. I hope there is some sincerity to her crusade.

Despite my criticism, Ms. Sarkeesian raises many points that are fairly irrefutable. The way women are portrayed in gaming is highly skewed, and imbalanced. And that brings me to my second point.

In light of the all of the recent events in the media related to women's rights, there was one thing that left me confused for quite a while. Ironically, it had nothing to do with gaming. In fact, it was a book. A book that eventually became a movie. You know it as Fifty Shades Of Grey.

I knew virtually nothing about this book until two seperate, female co-workers told me about it. I had heard about the book when it first began it's rise to fame, and what I had known at the time filled me with distaste.

Upon having the plot of the book explained to me, by these two co-workers, my sense of distaste was deepened and finalized. Ironically, out of the two women that discussed the book with me, one hated it, while the other enjoyed it. Therein lies the problem and what became the root of my confusion.

How, I thought, could any woman enjoy such a blatantly degrading and ridiculous book as this? How could it be a bestseller? Among women no less? How and for the love of god... why?

But the answer is simple.

At first, the answer that came to me is, "Well, I'm a man. Ofcourse I don't understand." But that would be just parroting more of that "Men Are From Mars..." insanity.

No. The answer is that the women who bought that book are also HUMAN, and they have all the complexities that go along with that. Women are not what we've been led to believe. "Women's Intuition" is about as real as the notion that all men love sports, and going to hardware stores on Sundays. Whatever you think you know about women, throw it out the window and start fresh with the realization that she IS someone pregnant with infinite possibilities just... like... you.

There is no one way to define or generalize women. What Anita Sarkeesian says is good for women might rub a good portion of them the wrong way, but it may also inspire and uplift another. Noone gets to stand up and say, "I represent ALL WOMEN" anymore. We are past that.

But what about rights, you may ask? Isn't that a real problem? Don't women want equality? I absolutely believe they do, but perhaps not as it has been expressed to most of us.

I believe women want equality to be whatever sort of person they wish to be. Some of us are not prepared for it. Some of us are frightened or disturbed by it. But, I believe that is what women want. Freedom to be nice, or not.. To be supportive, or not. To be crazy, or sane. To be promiscuous or monogamous. To be educated, or simple. But most importantly, to simply BE. On their own terms.

But, there's one last thing here, and it's a big one. Freedom is nice. It is. But at some point, men and women will have to learn the new ways in wich they wish to relate to another in a world that has changed oh so fast. These days there's a lot of talk about ethics, politics, and social progress, but very little talk about right or wrong.

At the end of the day, the problems that exist between men and women will not be solved until parents, whether they be married or single, woman or man, teach their sons and daughters how to have respect for one another and the MORAL obligation to do what's right.

If I think back to my very first encounters with video games... well, wow. It's been a long time. For the record, my love affair with video games goes back pretty far, at least in my opinion. But I do know of several GIO members who've been at this wonderful hobby for even longer.

I've seen a lot of changes. Changes that ranged between mind-blowingly awesome and complete tragedies. Throughout the years, many of the things I saw left me with more questions than answers. Sadly, the answers I desire may never come. But I can't help but wonder. Thus, this blog.

So let me take you back. I'll pose some questions, perhaps venture some speculation, and maybe you'll share your own ideas on what might have been. This blog isn't about making a statement, or some astute observation. This is just designed to get the mental machinery pumping, so let's go!

What If Atari's E.T. had been a hit?

You all know the story. It's 1982 and Atari is about to commit suicide and take the rest of the industry with it. The power of greed and the appeal of making an easy buck have crept their way into the video game industry, and what is arguably the worst video game in history will be unleashed on millions of unsuspecting gamers.

But what if it hadn't happened that way?

Imagine an E.T. that had been crafted with all the love and care of the orginal Super Mario Bros. or Zelda? The movie E.T. was already breaking records and setting the box-office on fire. Can you imagine what a AAA release of the game would have done for Atari? Would we ever have gotten to know who Mario was? And one of the big questions that has always nagged me was, even IF E.T. had been phenomenal, would Atari's decline still inevitable?

I have some mighty fond memories of my Atari 2600, even though it was a woefully underpowered console by the time I had one of my own. But despite my fondness for it being my first game system, I was always aware of Atari's shortcomings.

With every iteration of Atari's consoles and portables (the abysmal Atari Lynx), there was never that WOW factor for me. Even when the Atari Jaguar appeared in 1993, and it was a BEAST of a machine back then, I was never telling myself that I had to have one. Looking back, I am grateful I never bought one. That's kind of sad, but it's also the legacy of Atari. It's an image they've never completely shaken in my humble opinion.

Next...

What If Nintendo had embraced CD technology much sooner?

One could argue that Nintendo dodged a bullet by not realeasing hardware that would ultimately become a home for horrible FMV games, and the like. But still, CD's were a crucial step in the march towards what once was "the future of gaming".

Sure, others failed in that market, and failed miserably, but who is to say that Nintendo couldn't have found a way to do it better? They had two distinct opportunities. First with the SNES-CD, then later on the Nintendo 64DD. Both went sour.

Granted, Nintendo was doing so well with the SNES, it proved rather well that it didn't really need a CD-add on. The SNES was a powerful little machine on it's own strength, and it consistently delivered little surprise gems throughout it's lengthy lifespan.

Which leads too...

Sega.

If you talk about CD-based systems, then you must mention Sega because they are the one company that TRULY seemed to bet much of their fortunes on CD technology. Sega and FMV are practically synonomous. I was one of the loyal and naive kids whom Sega had hooked with their clever marketing.

I can honestly, and shamefully say that I actually bought one of the Make My Video FMV titles that were being unloaded on poor Sega dupes. For some reason, I never sat and thought, "Wow, these games are total crap!"

Sewer Shark came included with my Sega CD when I finally bought one. I remember having a strong feeling of anti-climax after buying it. Though in denial, part of me was saying, "Is this it?"

Later on, I would find better games as I became ever more picky. But, I never bought many. Sega CD game often sold at prices that even premium PC games never approached. I think I remember Doom 2 being $49 when it launched. Sega CD titles were routinely marked $10 to $20 more. Even for crappy FMV. Don't even get me started on how much Lethal Enforcers was with the pack-in gun.

Sad stuff. I can't help but wonder, what would have happened if Sega had just exercised more quality control.

The 3DO M2.

As gamers settled into the 32-bit era, the winners and losers were beginning to become more obvious. Sony had the console who would be king. There is simply no way to convey how huge the buzz was surrounding the original Playstation. It was powerful, it was completely new, and it was a sight to behold. If Sony had ever desired revenge on Nintendo for it's betrayal, the Playstation was most definitely that. The Sega Saturn was reliable popular and well-received as Sega had not yet destroyed all the goodwill extended to it. Atari had pretty much been on it's way out from the very beginning.

But their was one more player that had managed to capture a following amongst gamers, and that was 3DO. The 3DO introduced some very interesting ideas into a market badly in need of them, and proven that it's hardware was more than capable.

Not long after 3DO began to have success, rumors began to swell about it's inevitable successor. This rumored machine was a console killer. By all reports that I'd come across, the M2 would have run circles around the N64. In fact, the M2 might have been more on par with Sega's final console, the Dreamcast.

But ofcourse, history took another course. Such was the love for Sony, that gamer's really stopped caring about much else. If you ever go back and flip through old gaming mags from the 90's, you'll see just how thoroughly the Playstation dominated that era. Sega fought them valiantly, and Nintendo had it's fair share of software treasures, but Sony was it. Could the M2 have disrupted that success?

What if the Dreamcast had hung on?

A lot of people think (and say) that the Dreamcast failed because it simply could not compete against the more-powerful PS2. I would beg to differ. To say that the Dreamcast was undepowered would be to misunderstand what made so many people love Sega. But if you need a parralel, think of the Nintendo Wii.

Technology is not always a vertical line, meaning it doesn't always have to progress in an up or down fashion. New technology is not always that linear. Sometimes advancements in technology are not about doing things better, but doing themdiffrently, more efficiently, or from a different angle entirely. That's what the Dreamcast was. It introduced many game-changing ideas that are still being built on today. I, for a certainty can say that if there had ever been a Dreamcast too, that's where my gaming dollars would have gone. I think the Dreamcast and Sega remaining in the hardware biz is probably one of the greatest what-if's ever.

And finally...

What if there had never been an RROD issue on the Xbox 360?

The Xbox 360 has a secure place in the annals of gaming history as one of the greatest consoles EVER. Forget the fanboyism, forget all the usual nasty remarks against Microsoft. The 360 was a titan of a console. Despite competing with Sony's six-core monster, The 360 just managed to do most of everything that gamer's wanted better. Except for being reliable.

The single largest blight on the memory of the Xbox 360 was the legendary Red Rings Of Death scandle. But what if it  had never happened? Some might say that the 360 would have been sealed as the greatest console of it's generation, end of conversation. But would it?

When one looks at the lifetime sales for the 360 (84 million), the number is staggering. But now factor in that many Xbox 360's owners purchased 2, 3 and even 4 consoles due to repeated hardware failures. The failure rate for the 360 was rumored to be just a tad over 50%, but I've heard rumors that it was as bad as 60% or more.

The RROD was caused by a relatively small wiring problem, but it caused a trmendous problem, and raised many troubling questions. I don't understand why the problem when on for so long, but it certainly makes me wonder how things could have been. What about you?

P.S.

Please forgive whatever typos, grammar issues, and other errors you may find. This was done in a hurry.

Also...

I've never given up hope. Sega love dies hard.

I was bored and I kept thinking of all of the sub-par releases and broken games that plagued 2014. For some reason, I kept thinking of songs while trying to form an idea for a blog. This is the result.

And you can tell everybody that this is your song,

It may be quite simple, but now that it's done,

I hope you don't mind, I hope you don't mind,

That I put down in words,

How wonderful life is... when you keep your word.

If I could turn the page
In time then I'd rearrange just a day or two
Close my, close my, close my eyes

But I couldn't find a way
So I'll settle for one day to believe in you
Tell me, tell me, tell me lies

Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies

Never had a doubt in the beginning
Never a doubt
Trusted you true in the beginning
I loved you right through

On and on we laughed like kids
At all the silly things we did
You made me promises, promises
Knowing I'd believe promises, promises
You knew you'd never keep

Conventional wisdom dictates that there is greater strength in numbers. As a result, people are nearly always impressed with groups that seem to confer power upon their members. It is a way of thinking that is as old as the human race. But it is not without flaws.

Arguably, the notion that "we are stronger as a tribe" dates back to humans earliest survival instincts. No matter how skilled one "hunter/gatherer" might have been, a band of skilled hunters and gatherers would almost certainly fare better and reap richer rewards. This laid the foundation for tribes, and from tribes to cities, and from cities to nations. Therein lies a very brief summation of human history.

Ironically, this social dynamic is constantly being tested and implemented in the world of gaming. Access to the internet has changed the world in so many profound ways. Video games have been no exception. Once content to play our favorite games in blissful solitude, gamers have now fully embraced the experience of playing with and against each other. It could be suggested that the most successful games in recent years have been those that promote competitive play.

Certainly with games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Destiny and others, it seems clear that there is something immensely pleasing to this style of play. Again, this goes back to the "strength in numbers" philosophy. But is it all so perfect? Is there one or even several flaws to multi-player gaming and competitive play?

Oh, the joys... and miseries of competitive play!

By now, most of you have already heard about No Man's Sky. Conceptually, it is a fascinating game to say the least. It filps the whole idea of strength in numbers ideology on it's head with it's emphasis on exploration as a single, lone player. Yes, the game will have other players who you will conceivably interact with. But, that aspect seems to take a backseat to the core concept of the game, flying solo.

In reading interviews with the developers of No Man's Sky, I've been intrigued with how uncomfortable many gamers seem to be at the limits of interaction between players. As though the game will be fundamentally hampered by focusing on an almost exclusively single-player experience. Some of the complaints about rumored features of gameplay border on sounding... needy.

Scared to come here alone?

Granted, humans are gregarious creatures and we naturally seek the companionship, comfort, and affirmation of others. But that is only one side to our nature. What happens when we become afraid of acknowledging the other side? I have a story that I believe relates.

For those of you who may have read one or two of my blogs, you've probably heard me say that I enjoy mobile gaming. Yes, yes, I ACTUALLY do enjoy it. And probably my greatest joys in mobile gaming is strategy games. No, not Clash of Clans. I have actually been unimpressed by that game. But I do play several games that are quite similar.

NOT my cup of tea.

At any rate, the game that I have devoted obscene amounts of time to is called Jungle Heat. The style of gameplay is a subtle twist on Clash of Clans. Imagine if a strategy game was made based on the cast of The Expendables films.

As with all such games, you have the abililty to either form or join a clan. In this sense, players of these games are not all that disimilar from players of say... League of Legends or Destiny. The incentives for being part of clans is the promise of personal gain, perhaps with potential forming of friendships as an added bonus. Clans are powerful, and it becomes quickly apparent that nearly every player dreams of forming and leading the best clan to ever exist/compete.

It is actually quite common to see dozens upon dozens of clans with a paltry one or two members, each of them desperately begging other players to join. This is an important point, because it says something about our competitive and cooperative drives. It seems that most players desire the prestige of being leaders, yet in so doing are faced with isolation.

So... I decided I wanted to form my own clan. Yep, I'm no better. I named my clan M.E.R.C.S, after the Sega Genesis title. I wasn't expecting any good results. To my surprise, within a week, I had three members whom I promoted to Lieutenants (they have the ability to add more members). Ironically, I wasn't even the strongest player in my new clan. Nearly all of my Lieutenants were extremely high level players who for whatever reasons saw fit to join my clan. I felt honored and proud.

But then, I changed. Suddenly, I felt that I needed to exercise my "authority", and officiate over how the clan would operate. I begin scrutinzing player stats, and forming rules for how often memebers would perform certain tasks. All of this under the rubric and notion that as individual player's, we would all benefit from my plan. It didn't work.

In the beginning, we were extremely competitive. We fought hard and kicked butt without anyone nearly ever saying a word. No pushing or pulling. Everyone just knew what they had to do, and did it well. The clan shared resources, supported each other, and functioned like a well-oiled machine.

But then, we started getting... perhaps cocky is the word. We booted mebers for not having enough trophies, being too low-level, even for not playing often enough. And that was the beginning of the fall. Suddenly, all of our focus was on winning at all costs, and interestingly enough, that's when we started LOSING. Also, I began to realize that the task of leading and "managing" a clan was... well, exhausting, and the game was starting to not be fun anymore.

Yes, take your clan to victory, and watch it fall apart soon after!!!! Greedy bastiches!!!

Individual's didn't matter anymore. Suddenly, everything was about the clan and making the clan strong. It was kind of funny, and scary at the same time. You can study history and discover what happens when societies start getting all exclusive and elitist. Hint: It never ends well.

Eventually the clan, MY clan, began to unravel and disband. Lured away by promises and enticements from ravel clans, M.E.R.C.S was eventually reduced to two members. I was frustrated, dismayed, and a little bit down. What had gone wrong? Where did we lose our mojo?

I tried to rebuild the clan for a while, but to no avail. The glory days were gone. My clan was finished.

Resigned to that unfortunate circumstance, I abandoned my position as General of the clan, and sought another to join. Upon doing so, I began to see and experience what new, low-level players must experience all the time. Time after time, I was rejected.

"Nope, you need more trophies."

"Sorry, you need to be level XXXX"

"I'm a good player!", I would say.

It didn't matter.

Finally, after feeling just a tad dejected, and pitiful, I was excepted into a winning clan. They had high ratings in nearly all of the game tournaments, and frequently won. I, being a mid-level player was astounded that they would have me, but happy.

One day I logged onto the game, tapped on the clan's private chat tab, and cheerily typed something to the effect of, "Hey guys! Awesome to be part of the clan! Let's kick some butt!!!"

The replay that came back was, "Yeah, it IS an awesome clan. What makes you think you're good enough?"

Wait... what? Didn't they add me? Didn't that mean I was good enough?

"What are your stats?" came next.

After two or three questions about my stats, the clan's chat board went silent. A few seconds later, I was booted from the clan without so much as a word. Yeah.

I stopped playing for about a month. And the true bitterness of that moment was that I finally understood, I knew what it felt like for other player's whom I had handled the exact same way. I also realized, that it was perhaps a metaphor for life. Be careful of who you write off as being unimportant. And... karma can be a pain the a##.

I'd heard stories from friend's and acquaintances who played World of Warcraft or League of Legends. They'd tell me how they quit playing because the constant burden of being in a guild and doing whatever the guild needed became taxing and sucked the fun right out of the game. Rather than being fun, the game was reduced to a set of tasks/chores to be completed. Sure, you could opt to play solo and not be part of a guild. But these games are designed to promote clannishness. Solo players are usuallly destined to get the scraps leftover from everybody else.

So much fun. So exhausting.

After a nearly month long hiatus, I spent a brief period of time just playing on my own. Strengthening my base, upgrading my walls and armed units. And then, once I didn't feel so bummed about the past issues, I tried joining another clan. I eventually found one.

The clan  I am now part of is a winning clan. But ironically, once again,  no one is screaming at any of us about our stats or trying to tell us how to play. Everyone plays because they naturally enjoy the game, and we win as a result. In fact, we win an awful lot. To contrast, the clan that booted me? I don't even seem them on the tournament boards anymore. They certainly haven't been in the Top 3 tier, which my new clan has, consistently.

All of this reminded me of something GIO's much loved member, Saint said. "Be excellent to each other." No truer words spoken. Tribes, Leagues, Clans and Alliances may rise and fall. But how we treat and value each other, that's what makes things last, isn't it?

As a child, I grew up in a community where people were fiercely patriotic. That patriotism bled over into all sorts of things. One of the most common points of contention was cars. Back then, to be seen proudly driving a Honda or Toyota was tantamount to saying  that you hated America. If you drove one of the lesser foreign brands like a Hyundai or an Isuzu, it was deemed as merely a sign of your stupidity.

The 80's was a time when I think many Americans were never more certain of the superiority of their culture and all it produced. The automobile industry was a peculiar part of that. It never seemed to matter whether the domestic cars were competitive, or whether they had maintained the standards that American manufacturing once stood for. Instead, it seemed that pride over American products merely stemmed from the fact that they had produced... something.

Throughout the decades, there have been many campaigns designed to promote products that are "Made In America". There have been many who have pointed to the decline in American manufacturing and engineering as the main drivers for the nation's decline. Economists have studied the issue ad infinitum. For a certainty, one thing is clear: We now consume far more than we produce. We are undoubtedly a nation of pure consumers. Nowhere is that more evident than America's nearly insatiable love of video games. Although, the case could be made that American gaming markets are more robust than any other right now. The question is, does it matter?

Is it important for American-based companies to be competitive? If an American made product was viewed as the standard bearer in excellence and quality, would that matter?

I feel that these are irresistible and highly relevant questions now because to my way of thinking, there is no other time in American history when we have seen so many examples of entrepreneurship and innovation. There's a ton of good ideas out there, though many haven't worked out so well (looking at you Kinect).

Not too long ago, gamers across the world said goodbye to the man deemed as the father of video games, Ralph H. Baer. Mr. Baer was an American. Granted, he was born in Germany, but he was an American citizen. Ethnically, he was Jewish. As is the case with most Americans, Baer was connected to more than just one cultural heritage.

Two American geniuses.

Ralph Baer close working partner and co-creator of the legendary Pong, was Nolan Bushnell, an American Engineer who would go on to create the Atari, Inc. and the Chuck E.Cheese's Pizza Time Theaters chain.

Two of the most profitable corporate entities in the entire video game industry are Activision and Electronic Arts. Activision was the FIRST third party developer in console gaming. A company with long and deep roots that go way back to the very dawn of video games. Likewise, Electronic Arts is another American software giant that dates back to the earliest days of gaming.

John Carmack, Will Wright, Gabe Newell, and John Romero are all names of Americans who had considerable impact in the gaming industry. but there are far, far more.

The Atari Jaguar was the world's first 64-bit gaming platform. The original Xbox, an American product, was arguably the first critically successful American console since the Atari 2600. That success was only multiplied with the Xbox 360. On the other end of the spectrum is the Ouya, an American made product, founded and developed by an American, but which has failed to achieve critical or commercial success. The indie game development scene, which shows no signs of slowing, is a veritable who's who of American genius and innovation.

Does any of this mean something?

I pose that question because to look at the current state of gaming, there is a definite air of uncertainty. You get the sense that anything is possible, and that the future may hold some pivotal and perhaps unforeseen changes.

Sony has the appearance of being on top right now, but for how long? Nintendo has been on the ropes for awhile now, but seems to be fighting valiantly to correct it's course. Microsoft, no less determined, has certainly given the impression that they want back in the game (no pun intended).

But focusing squarely on Microsoft, they really are the only player that represents American gaming tastes in a big way. To look at the Xbox One, to me it seems very much like a product born of traditional western culture. Much like iconic American car design, the Xbox One is a large, hulking, beefy looking console. The games that sell best on the Xbox One seem to represent Western culture and our love of guns and the cowboy persona. Titanfall, Call of Duty and various others give American gamers exactly what they want.

Anyone remember the original Xbox controller? Until the Wii U gamepad appeared, I can't remember a controller that was larger. The one exception being the special Sega Saturn 3D control pad. There are some things that Americans just seem to naturally love. Size and power is one of them.

LOOK at that monster in all it's gargantuan beauty.

They literally don't make 'em like this anymore.

Then there was this behomoth, apparently designed for giant golems.

But what if Sony and Nintendo deliver a one-two punch this generation? What if their combined might proves to be too much for Microsoft? Microsoft is the last purely American console on the market. Sure, the Steambox is another option, but honestly that's a case of apples and oranges.

I find this whole issue fascinating, partly because of my early memories of attitudes on American products. There was a time when American automobiles were the standard bearers for craftsmanship. I can't think of anyone who doesn't fondly remember the beautiful, elegant lines of cars from the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's. That's four decades of excellence in engineering and innovation. And I can't think of many people who aren't mesmerized when they hear the roar of a classic muscle car or a Harley Davidson.

Try to contain your lust.

It's okay, it's okay!! Wipe the drool from your mouth. It happens to everyone.

But if we lose that, if that push for excellence becomes nothing more than a distant memory, if we become content to let all of the good ideas, and ingenious developments come from places other than that which we call home, is it cause for concern? Will we regret such complacence?

As an American kid, I hated most of the cars I remember from my childhood. All that I remember of the 80's was ugly Buicks, Cadillacs, and Lincoln's. Ford's were junk and a Chevy was worthless unless it was a truck. Even the car's that did excite me (the Pontiac Fiero) were mechanical nightmares.

My childhood dream car.

But now, things are different. I actually like a lot of the American cars I see on the road nowadays. Not only do they look good again, but many of them are actually raising the bar of quality throughout that industry. Likewise, the Xbox One is a console that is slowly growing on me. And Microsoft, for all of it's faults,  has truly had some exceptional moments in it's history. With many hiccups along the way, Windows has gradually gotten better and better. Gaming on a Windows PC has also improved exponentially.

So, with all of this to consider, as I sit here with my morning cup of coffee, and rain pelts at my living room window, the question continues to nag at me: How important is American gaming? What does it mean to be "made in america" anyway? Is there even such a thing in an increasingly borderless/globalized world and economy? What do you think?

A few days ago, I was talking to a co-worker about Watchdogs and how poorly it had been received. I hadn't really had the chance to experience it myself, but I had certainly heard my fair share of complaints. My co-worker essentially echoed what I'd already heard. That Watchdogs was not at all like the game that had been suggested in so many of it's demos and trailers. The "hacking" component was limited and repetitive. And the game lacked the deep sense of freedom that it seemed to promise. Essentially, it was Grand Theft Auto for hackers. Just not as good.

My co-worker is a pretty smart guy. He went to a very respectable school, and got a degree. But he also exhibits more common sense than most people I know. He was telling me how he had briefly considered majoring in some aspect of programming, but that he had grown to loathe it. "Programming is AWFUL." were his exact words. The disdain he had expressed stuck with me for some reason. I couldn't help but wonder, "Could it really be that bad?"

Then, I came across this little story about a comment made by Strauss Zelnick, CEO of Take Two Interactive – the company that owns Rockstar Games:

“It’s an expensive business, and the risk profile reflects that. That said, those very expensive production, marketing, overhead, in the case of sports titles, licensing, they do create a risk profile. And from our point of view it embeds the winners even further. It actually creates a barrier to entry in our business. Developers cannot get in without having a couple hundred high quality engineers and artists, loads of capital and lots of money to market the title.”

Now I suppose each person reading that quote might understand it differently. But I would venture a guess that Zelnick's comments are indicative of a certain anxiety creeping into the game development community. And if the sentiments expressed by my co-worker bear any indication as to the pressures in game creation, then we may have a significant problem looming over our heads.

I'm halfway joking with what I'm about to say next, but I couldn't help but think of the character Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Many were the times when the U.S.S. Enterprise was faced with some crisis, where Data's lightning fast synapsis' were needed and utilized. Tasks that would have been virtually impossible for ordinary crew members were to look routine for Data.

Well, Star Trek was fiction, but even the best fiction draws powerful metaphors from the real world, or maybe vice versa. Either way, we all know how computers have changed the world. In the modern business world, many refer to the process of "disruption", which can be described as
"an event which causes an unplanned, negative deviation from the expected delivery ... according to the organization’s objectives".

But disruption doesn't have to be negative as many will tell you.

What is clear is that the world is changing pretty darn fast, and I suspect that humans are gradually losing our ability to keep up with all of it. It is common knowledge how large development teams for AAA games have become. The amount of time it takes to produce games is getting longer as games become more and more complex. And the truth is, there is a realistic limit to how much staff you can have, and how long you can work them. Unlike machines, humans have a pesky habit of requiring food, sleep, and some semblance of an ordinary life.

This is why we need Androids, or robots, or hell... just really smart machines that will do a significant portion of the "heavy-lifting" that our brains cannot. Now I'm serious.

Think it wouldn't make a difference? Let me give you a small example that every blogger on GIO can relate to. Just think how spell-check has changed writing. Do any of you feel the slightest worry if you don't know how to spell something? Heck, we have software that fixes grammar, suggests synonyms, corrects punctuation, or even auto-predicts what you will type.

Why don't we have software that does something similar for the people creating games?

I found listings for some of the top game creation software here and here. Many of the engines tout their ease of use and "state of the art" tools. But their was no indication that any of them could troubleshoot themselves, isolate problems and begin fixing them, and to be honest, that seems odd to me.

To use a very human metaphor, if I get a stomach ache, I usually know why. I'm probably hungry and drank too much coffee, or had some bad food. Often times, if you're body is experiencing a deficiency in some particular vitamin, or protein, you will naturally start to crave certain foods as your body's way of trying to "fix" the problem. Why don't we have software that works similarly?

I often get the impression that many companies creating and developing games are so absorbed with the production side of things that they have little time left for testing and quality controls. Or maybe there's no budget left for it. I've even read a few disdainful comments about using focus groups or testers, and how they may or may not improve a product's quality.

So why not simplify?

The first factories in Europe changed our world irrevocably. The industrial revolution took that change even further. Now we have powerful computers that perform incredible tasks in relatively small periods of time. We routinely share large quantities of information at the click of a button. Aren't we overdue for a better approach to software development?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I want Skynet. But having decent, functional, powerful A.I. doesn't have to be... Skynet. There's a big difference between a very smart machine, and a construct that is self-aware. Much of what we humans categorize as intelligence, is in fact instinctual, hard-wired behavior. What's to say that some decent A.I. couldn't be as useful as you need it to be?

However, having something like Data would still be very cool.

The 90's. Without a doubt, a very bright spot, in my life as a gamer. I bought my first desktop computer in the 90's, and that purchase just happened to coincide with what would come to be PC gaming's golden era. The thing that I grew to love about PC games is that they always seemed to appeal to the cerebral type. You could play games like Civilization or Empire Earth, or you could solve mysteries in point and click adventures like Police Quest.

If you're old enough to remember Police Quest, and perhaps even played it, you just might recognize the one game that still stands out in my mind as a favorite:

I bought this game in a bargain bin from Software Etc. From the moment I saw the cover, I knew it would be a game I would love. Like a classic Agatha Christie novel, The Dagger of Amon Ra, is a classic murder mystery in every way.

"The game is set in 1926, primarily in a museum, and reflects the Egyptology craze of the period. The protagonist is Laura Bow (a reference to Clara Bow), a Southern belle who has just graduated from Tulane University and moved to New York City, where she has landed a job at a prestigious newspaper. For her first assignment, she is asked to write a straightforward, lightweight story on a benefit held at a local museum to celebrate their new Egyptian exhibit. When a murder occurs during the party, however, she is locked inside with all of the other suspects. As other guests begin dying one by one, Laura must solve the numerous crimes occurring before the culprits escape or kill her." -Wikipedia

For starters, let me just explain how beautiful the game is. All of the characters and scenes are hand drawn and painted. The colors are vivid. And exploring the vast areas within the museum is half the fun. When I bought the game, there was even a map that you could access and print from DOS mode. The cutscenes featured some of the most amusing  dialogue I've ever seen in a game. And every conversation that you hold, actually holds clues to help you solve the mystery. The game commands you're full attention and literally makes you feel like a detective.

The map for the museum.

I remember taking notes as I played through the game, trying to remember everything that seemed significant. The game does an excellent job of keeping you in suspense and guessing at the motives of each of the party's attendees. There are moments where you walk through empty exhibit halls, wondering where all the guests have disappeared too, and wondering if you are safe. Occasionally one of the guests will suddenly approach you and engage in gossip, or idle chit chat.

The facial expressions of the guests are all very expressive, down to the look in their eyes, as they speak to you. Some are arrogant, others malevolent, but most are simply strange. You literally never know who is your friend, or who is your foe. There are so many angles to consider, and the game frequently throws in unexpected twists. Especially as the body count continues to rise in increasingly gruesome ways.

The game is full of creepy locations such as this one.

And each room is full of secrets and clues.

Somehow, The Dagger of Amon Ra almost feels like you're playing a movie, or as though you just stepped into an episode of Masterpiece Theatre on public television. It's a smart game full of historical references to the 1920's and all of it's peculiarities. It is quite literally the gold standard for what a point and click adventure should be.

And yet, despite how much I loved this wonderful game, I never finished it. I was literally at the very tail end of the game, when I stopped playing it. I was starting college, and nearly everything in my life was topsy-turvy. The CD jewel case for Dagger of Amon Ra has sat untouched in my home for more than 15 years. Yeah. How does time disappear like that?

But I've never forgotten my time with that game. There are very few games I remember as fondly, and with as much of a desire to replay. I want to see the ending, figure out who killed all those poor party-goers, and who stole The Dagger of Amon Ra.

Okay... so, it's 1:24am and I cannot sleep. So what do I do? One of my favorite go-to solutions for insomnia. I make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, pour a glass of milk and veg out. Well, and in this case, maybe blog a bit.

How did this all get started? For some reason, I found myself thinking of the great New York accents of TV and film. Al Pacino came to mind. For some reason, as I thought of that trademark snarl that only Pacino can do, I realized that there was a bit of Kojak in many of his characters. For those of you too young to remember who Kojak is, he was probably television's quintessential bad-ass New York cop upon which nearly all others have been modeled. The character was defined by the legendary Telly Savalas.

The one and only.

Anywho, then I got to thinking about how you just don't see actors like that anymore. You just... don't. These guys, they came from another place, another time. We're talking about a time before special effects, and 3-D gimmick movies, trashy reality TV. We're talking about a time where an entertainment feature, whether on stage, film, or television, survived on the strength of the story, and it's characters.

And it's funny to realize how good stories NEVER get old.

So now, i'm stuffing my face with my delicious PB&J on wheat bread, and I realize that as great as those actors were, as different as those times were, they will never, ever come again. They'll never be another Kojak. They'll never be another actor like Al Pacino, or any of his contemporaries.

Sometimes, good things only come around once, and you have to savor it while you have the chance. That's hard medicine for a generation that at every turn seems to be grasping for something more real, something that feels more subtantive, something as pure as life ever could be. We reach back to decades that we never saw, nor experienced, wondering if it can help brighten the future and concretize the present.

So it is with gaming. We gamers, perhaps more so than most, know all too well about the difficulty of letting go. Ours is a life filled with fond remembrances of digital characters, sonic bleeps, and ethereal arcade halls. Most of us probably feel closer to Mario & Luigi then we do to Mickey and Goofy.

And yet, things are changing. My, how times are changing. Nintendo simply isn't the same company we so fondly knew and remembered, is it? Sega is but a mere shadow of what it once was. Electronic Arts became great, then awful, then went to being okay again. Hideo Kojima is leaving Konami and perhaps Metal Gear behind. What more can I say?

Yessir, Mr. Dylan, they most certainly are.

From time to time, enthusiastic gamers indulge wistful memories of a bygone era, and perhaps even give rise to some critical buzz, begging for a REMAKE of something from the past. Then, inevitably, along comes some party promising to faithfully recreate what we so fondly remember. And what happens?

Not only do they break that promise to be true to the original, all too often they butcher it, to the point where even if you wanted to, you can never see it the same way again. Something has changed, for the worse. And you have to wonder, were you wrong?

Were you wrong for wanting to relive that fond moment?

I'm not sure I can answer that. But I do know, that there really is a point when you have to just... let go.

Let go, let go, let go.

I'm convinced that there are some things that simply cannot be duplicated, or imitated, or fabricated. That's part of the sweetness and bitterness of life.

So with some small measure of melancholy, I find myself accepting that certain things were the best they'd ever be, the first time.

Nintendo was great, Sega too. Sonic was a bright spot in my youth. Transformers were better before they were in movies, and old Disney cartoons are STILL the best.

Like stars that sit in the sky, may those memories shine ever so bright, until they burn, burn, burn out of sight.

Edit- Yeah that bit at the end is me waxing poetic. (Bows dramatically)

Over the years, there have been no small number of consoles and games that I have missed because, well... money, and... yeah, money. For much of my early life as a gamer, my gaming experiences consisted of playing at friends houses or in arcades. The result was that I developed a pretty decent knowledge of a broad number of titles, but not having the privilege of experiencing the intricacies of their design.

Strangely, the first "console" to change this for me was Nintendo's Gameboy Advance. That little purple (ahem, excuse me, INDIGO) pint-sized wonder stole my mind for at least three years or more. At a launch price of $99, it was already an incredibly tempting impulse buy. But it wasn't until I saw a full-page ad for Castlevania: Circle of the Moon, that  I was completely hooked.

The game that single handedly got me back into gaming.

As a gamer, I often discover great games long after the hype has died, and people tire of discussing them. A peculiar position to find oneself in, without a doubt. Circle of the Moon was no different. I'd known about Castlevania from my experiences with it during the NES era. Back then, I found it to be fun, but not too much so.

Later, when the PS One ruled, I followed many of the detailed reviews and commentary for Dracula X, or Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. It was easy to discern that the game was well-loved, and one only needed to look at screenshots of the game to understand why. Symphony of the Night is one of those games that you can simply tell was crafted with love and care. By 32-bit standards, it was a visual feast as had never been before.

Sadly, all during those gleaming years, I never once sat down to play Symphony of the Night

That is where the Gameboy Advance comes in. Nintendo's introduction of the Gameboy Advance was quite simply a full-blown revival of the best 8 and 16-bit games ever made, with some new goodies thrown in for good measure.

For me, the timing could have never have been better. Here was a chance to become acquainted with games that had long been hailed and praised, and to see what all the acclaim had been about.

This brings me to the main thrust of this blog. Take one look at the GBA's catalog of games, and you will immediately recognize numerous titles that have been rehashed, repackaged, and resold countless times. some 10, 15, even 20 years after these games originally appeared, they are still raking in cash for the likes of Nintendo, Sony, and even Microsoft.

Namco, Konami, SNK, Activision, Sega and especially Nintendo are all keenly aware of the value of their various intellectual properties. But perhaps none so much as Nintendo.

Looking squarely at the big N, I've been noticing an incredibly consistent and frustrating trend. Every time we get a new console from Nintendo, you can pretty much bet that apart from backwards compatibility, Nintendo will be looking for a way to sell you the same game you already purchased ON THE LAST CONSOLE. Granted, they aren't the only ones. Here's Looking at you Last of Us, Halo and Grand Theft Auto.

Sometimes these reissued games are spruced up to try and make the purchase more appealing. HD graphics, new content, touched-up artwork, perhaps some swag thrown in as a bonus. But all too often, you're just getting the same old game. And I gotta wonder, how many times are you supposed to do that???

So... okay, the Nintendo DS and 3DS have been great pieces of hardware. And we've seen some rare gems show up on the Wii and even the Wii U. But, are you going to want to buy them on Nintendo's next console?

How many versions of Zelda are you willing to plunk down cash for? I pretty much guarantee that Nintendo will do a rehash of Twilight Princess for the NX. You know, just in case you didn't have a chance to buy it for the Gamecube, or the Wii.

I can just see a board meeting at Nintendo as they discuss the NX and marketing strategy.

Satoro Iwata: We must address this matter of lack of third-party support. We cannot continue to ignore it.

Nameless Executive: I don't think we need to worry. We can always do an HD re-release of Super Mario Galaxy, maybe throw in a Pikmin compilation. You know how those Americans are. They'll buy anything that says Call of Duty or Zelda. Ha ha ha ha.

Satoro Iwata: But people are getting upset. The Amiibo's situation has not helped.

Nameless Executive: Bah! We made money didn't we? These people are paying whatever we ask, for toys. FOR TOYS!!! Don't worry Iwata-San. We'll get Sega to put out some stuff for them. Maybe a Sonic MASTER COMPILATION!!! We'll throw in an artbook and a plush doll. They'll eat it up. I'm telling you, they'll buy ANYTHING!!! As long as it says "Nintendo". Bwah ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Of course, I jest. I know that a company has every right to use their IP's in whatever way they please. they also have every right to pursue a profit. I just think that many companies in the video game industry get by with tactics that simply would not fly under any other circumstance or setting.

There are markets where continual revenue is earned from repeated sales of old products. But usually, this is done in such a way that acknowledges the real value of the product, not the sentimental value. I mean, Donkey Kong country was an absolutely stunning game for it's time, but you'd have to be slightly drunk to imagine that it has the same retail value as a modern day console title.

So, all things being considered, I'd really like to know. How many times must I pay for things I've already purchased?

One of my favorite shows to watch these days is a show called The Profit on CNBC. The premise of that show is much like that of other shows like Shark Tank, or Hotel Hell with Gordon Ramsay. That premise is that the core of good business is about providing "VALUABLE" goods or services in a way that is profitable and competitive.

We're talking economics 101 here, not rocket science. You didn't have to graduate from Harvard to understand that any business seeking to earn a profit must also be able to offer something of value. Nonetheless, lately I've noticed a peculiar trend where it seems that many modern business entities seek ways to maximize profit, while providing relatively little to nothing in return.

Blame it on an increasingly vapid pop culture? Who knows.

With entertainment value like this, who needs skills?

Konami's name alone conjures some of the richest most satisfying memories in video game history. Sure, you know about Metal Gear and Castlevania. Maybe you even remember the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game. But what about Gradius, or Suikoden? Did you know Konami owned Hudson Soft, which gave us Bomberman, Mario Party and Bloody Roar?

Some defected talent from Konami also gave rise to Treasure. Yes, the beloved developer that gave us such gems as Gunstar Heroes, Radiant Silvergun, and Ikaruga.

"...frothing demand"??? PLAY IT, and you'll understand.

Konami must have had an incredible pool of talent in it's heyday. And look at it now.

You can infer anything you like from Hideo Kojima's abrupt departure from Konami. But one thing is certain. It wasn't a good sign. The truth is, Kojima's Metal Gear franchise was a reliable crutch for Konami. Perhaps too reliable, to the point where it seemed they cared to do little else.

How long has it been since we've had a new Zone of the Enders? What about a GOOD Castlevania? Now, Konami has set their sights on the world of gambling as they try to pursue "skill-based" gambling, which is an oxymoron in and of itself. If you're truly using skill, is it a gamble?

Gambling is about chance, not skill. Just pure dumb luck. It's the same odds that determine whether you'll be struck by lightning, or whether you'll win $10,000. Also, any attempt to apply skill in a game seems to suggest that the player intends to win at some point, not just wanting to. Most casinos have little interest in having too many "winners", let alone players with "skill".

Counting cards is a skill, and ironically, most casinos consider that "cheating". Why? Because you've used your mind to switch the odds back in your favor. So what is the likelihood that casinos would embrace "gaming" machines that allow players to use skill to win?

Introducing, the "skill-based" lightning strike...

What's most disturbing about Konami's push in this direction is that it represents the kind of thinking that many game developers seem to be warming up to, or at least considering. And for proof of this, one need look no further than the mobile gaming environment.

I say this with some measure of bitterness because in truth, I enjoy mobile gaming. And although I was once averse to any form of in-app purchases or paying for content, I now see it as a legitimate way of creating revenue. If it's done correctly.

I don't mind dropping $4.99 here, $9.99 there. But I do not appreciate games or companies that seem to expect players to feed them with cash in perpetuity. That's ethically vile.

As they stand now, Google Play and Apple's iTunes app store are essentially casinos in many ways. Except with one crucial advantage. They never have to pay out. For all of the money you spend, you're never going to walk away from an app purchase with more money than when you started. In fact, the only real payoff in video games... is happiness, or a sense of contentment.

Once you take that sense of contentment away, that sense of accomplishment, you've destroyed the very purpose for which video games were made.

I thought about this recently, because of a particular game that I've been playing for the past two years or more. Yes, it is a mobile game. And in the beginning, it was incredibly fun to play. But with each update that comes along, I see that the game is being steered more and more towards merely being a money vacuum. The game feels like it has less and less to do with skill, and more to do with my willingness to spend.

This is so disappointing, and it almost makes me feel... dirty. Like I'm some kind of gaming whore. Or is it vice versa? Maybe the game developer is the whore?

The very notion of using skill to gamble is laughable, and terribly deceptive. Granted, there are probably some professional gamblers who might claim that it takes "skill" to win. But, the true skill lies in being able to walk away with your winnings, and not come back.

"You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, and know when to run...."

Ah, that term... "skill-based".  Just try pairing that with "gambling", in your mind. It reminds me of people who say that they aren't addicted to drugs because "I do it everyday, and I'm fine!"

Every gamer everywhere should shudder at the idea of video games and gambling co-mingling. The two serve two very different purposes, and yield very, very different results. The recent advancements in video game technology have opened doors to new worlds, established narratives on life and it's endless mysteries, and spurred creative thinking in unfathomable ways. These are things that are all noble and worthwhile. Gambling, is not.

I'll pass on the "skill-based" gaming, thank you.

If there's one thing that I love about gaming, it's the ability to immerse myself in the lush fantasy world's of cyber culture. Like most people my age, the 90's were a high-point for sci-lovers. Movies like Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Johnny Mneumonic, Virtuosity, The Lawnmower Man, and numerous others formed the basis for endless dreams and speculation on what the not-so-distant future might look like.

Of course, much of what was dreamt-up in the 90's is now laughable at best. True A.I. has yet to be developed (unless it's a deep, dark military secret), we aren't being threatened with extinction by gleaming cyborg endoskeletons, people haven't begun augmenting their brains with manufactured hard drives, and virtual reality is not yet a commercial reality (at least, not for sale).

Science fiction and it's efforts to predict the future has always been a tricky business. I recently read an interview with famed sci-fi/"cyberpunk" author William Gibson, and he discussed his approach to his most-known work, Neuromancer.

"When I wrote Neuromancer, I had a list in my head of all the things the future was assumed to be which it would not be in the book I was about to write. In a sense I intended Neuromancer, among other things, to be a critique of all the aspects of science fiction that no longer satisfied me.

As I was writing it, when I really got to a fork in the path—should I do this or do that?—my guide was to just do the opposite to what I assumed traditional science fiction would do. I stuck with that, thereafter, and eventually brought it back to the present."

It could be argued that Gibson's vision of the future was as important as the works of Isaac Asimov and other luminaries of science fiction. Pretty much every great cyberpunk thriller, neo-noir, post-apocalyptic film you can think of draws heavily from Gibson's themes.

But something strange happened in the world of sci-fiction. We stopped getting smart sci-fiction movies, and began to be bombarded with special effects extravaganzas that seemed to be made for the knuckle-dragging crowd. The Matrix was a work of genius, but the subsequent films clearly pandered to mass-marketing pressures at the expense of depth and story.

There's been a few noteworthy films in the sci-fi genre in recent years, but the one dark spot has always been how we imagined and visualized artificial intelligence. Until now.

Ex Machina is the science-fiction movie that I've literally been waiting for years to see. It is visually breath-taking, the story is simple, but oh so clever, and the acting is flawless. No, I mean that. I didn't have a single critique for one inch of the film.

Ex Machina wastes no time presenting us with the critical question we've been struggling with ever since we began to think of artificial intelligence. What is the difference between a living person, and true A.I.? Would we even know the difference? Are we qualified to answer that question?

Ex Machina introduces us to Caleb, a programmer for the world's most popular search engine, Bluebook. The CEO of Bluebook is Nathan. After winning a random contest, Caleb is selected by Nathan to assess his new creation, an A.I. contruct named Ava.

Ava.

Caleb has many conversations with Ava, and as can be expected, he begins to relate to her, and perhaps even care for her. There is a constant air of unease, and uncertainty whenever Ava appears. Visually, Ava is beautiful, though incomplete. She seems child-like and innocent, but the viewer can never know how much of that persona is real, or artifice.

The irony of the movie, is that at times, Caleb seems to struggle with identity as much as Ava. How can he assess Ava without completely knowing himself?

Then there is the question that has always loomed large in every movie about artificial intelligence. Could we trust them? If we create something that has the ability to think for itself, to draw it's own conclusions, what would such a thing do?

Ahhhh yes. The lovable T-800's which wish to kill us all. Sounds like a happy future, no?

The most popular assumption has been that humans would be ear-marked for destruction by their own creation. Machines would inevitably see the destructive nature of humans, and discern that posed a vital threat to A.I.'s, and perhaps all life. It wouldn't be long before machines decide that humans have to go.

And that's what you keep expecting in Ex Machina. You uneasily wait for the film to devolve into another rip-off of the Terminator films.

But Ava is not Skynet.

At times, I found myself actually feeling guilty for mistrusting Ava. Whenever I've had conversations with others about views on A.I., I've always said that humans should respect such a thing in the same way they would a living, breathing creature. Why? Not so much for the sake of the A.I., but for the sake of ourselves. We need to respect that artificial construct and all that it represents for the sake of our own humanity.

The moment we feel comfortable with abusing, enslaving or violating another thing, simply because we can, we lose something. Something inside of us dies when we lose our capacity for empathy, mercy, and kindness.

But with that, comes an uneasy and heavy burden. The burden of vulnerability.

That, to me is what Ex Machina is really all about, and it handles it brilliantly. I haven't enjoyed a movie this much since last year's Her with Joaquin Phoenix. Ex Machina is cerebral candy.

I wouldn't dare spoil the movie for others, but I will say that the ending offers one of the smartest proposals on how the creation of A.I. would play out. It's unexpected, and provokes even more questions. This is the movie sci-fans have deserved and wanted for quite some time. Definitely go see it.

Those of you who've ever listened to Hip Hop music at some point or other, may be familiar with a song called "If I Ruled The World" by NAS. I was never overly fond of the song, but the lyrics often spurred thoughts in my mind about the roles people play in society. Particularly, the role of leaders.

Undoubtedly, you've heard the famous quote, "Heavy is the head that bears the crown." Most of us realize that leadership, although often a privilege, is also often fraught with deep frustration and disappointment. Nonetheless, we continue to believe in the "power" of strong leaders. Sometimes, power to lead is entrusted solely to one individual. Other times, it is shared by a collective group.

Having lived all of my life in a nation that is perceived as a democracy, I have observed one consistent and peculiar notion amidst the citizenry. Many people have felt and proposed that their respective "world/society" would fare better if it were lead, controlled, or influenced by someone that they could identify with. Someone very much like themselves.

You've probably heard such sentiments expressed in private conversation or public statements. "If we only had a ________ Mayor, this city would be better. If only we had more ___________ in parliament, this country would do better. If only it had been a ____________ judge, then we would have had justice."

All of these statements reveal a way of thinking in our society that is rarely, if ever addressed. It is the notion that the ability to build and maintain the structure and stability of a good and peaceful society is predicated on things that are superficial.

Full Definition of SUPERFICIAL

When the economic crisis of 2008 first began, the public was introduced to the phrase "too big to fail". Mostly used in reference to banks and super corporations, the term embodied the idea that there some business entities that could not be allowed to fail, lest they destroy entire markets and an incalculable number of human lives.

The public, with seemingly little choice but to capitulate, conceded to this notion, and with that concession, perhaps the majority of people unwittingly accepted something that may seem contrary to... well, common business sense.

Can a business entity ever really become immune to failure?

In Nintendo's case, I don't worry so much about the company as much as I do it's intellectual properties. Much like Disney, Marvel Comics or Warner Bros., Nintendo has created some of the most memorable, most iconic characters of the past 30 years or more. Most gamers have formed a deep attachment to Nintendo's characters, their stories, and their evolution over the years. 

That has always been "the ace in the sleeve" for Nintendo. Who doesn't love Mario? And even if you don't, chances are that you do love Luigi, or Wario, or Link, or any one of the other rock stars of Nintendo.

And unlike Microsoft or Sony, who often seem to be very "male centric", Nintendo ( at their peak ) always had something for everyone. Guys love Nintendo games. Women love Nintendo games. I've seen some pretty macho guys play Pikmin and become utterly absorbed.

Within the past several weeks, GIO has had three different features on Nintendo. The first feature, an opinion piece, highlighted why Nintendo may be reluctant to give fans the software titles they have clamored for. The second feature informed readers that Nintendo is well aware of fans displeasure with the newest "Metroid" title. That article featured a comment from Reggie Fils Aime which almost seemed to brush aside any complaints over the new game. The third piece, only posted today, details how and why the Wii title, Project H.A.M.M.E.R, never saw the light of day.

All of that coupled with the frustration over avoidable Amiibo shortages, a lackluster showing at E3, and a virtual drought of Wii U software. I have never seen Nintendo in this bad of a situation before.

The N64 comes to mind because of Nintendo's stubborn decision to stick with cartridges, along with a slick PR excuse that cartridges offered much faster loading times than CD's. But, even the N64 had several gems in it's software lineup. Something that could even be said for the Gamecube, and the Wii. Sadly, the Wii U has not fared as well.

Honestly, I'm confused.

On paper, the Wii U STILL sounds like a console I would love. A game system with a tablet-style controller, motion controls, with the ability to watch TV on said controller? I love that. Full backwards compatibility with Wii titles? Fantastic! The option of using the Wii U gamepad, or the pro-controllers, or the Wii wand and Nun-chuk? Sure! Why balk at options?

And yes, the Wii U is nowhere near the power of the PS4 or Xbox One. Do I care? Not a whole lot. I just want games that make good use of what the Wii U CAN do.

Look, if people can still go back to their Super Nintendo's and have fun with a piece of hardware over 20 years old, I think the Wii U's lack of power is probably not it's greatest issue.

And what about Amiibo's? Part of me can acknowledge that it's a clever way to sell toys. Considering Nintendo's origins selling trading cards, Amiibos seem like some natural sort of evolution for them.

But MY issue with the Amiibos is that their digital functions almost seem like an afterthought. As though Nintendo simply wanted to sell toy figurines, but decided to throw in some token functions at the last minute. Don't their loyal fans deserve a bit more?

And I wonder, how much longer can this go on? How long can Nintendo turn a deaf ear to it's fans and their requests? Does Nintendo have to be worried at this point, or are they just immune to failure?

I've watched Nintendo with some measure of bitterness and awe as they have somehow kept the Wii U limping along, bolstered by a new Super Smash Brothers, and rumors of titles that are not yet a reality. That's either genius... or evil. Okay, maybe not evil, but it isn't good.

In the business world, brand loyalty can be a very powerful thing. But if not handled with respect for their consumer base, it can also be the kiss of death. If you buy a brand that is relatively foreign, and it fails you, usually it doesn't linger in your thoughts. But when you've formed an attachment to a brand, and developed expectations based on that relationship, emotions can and do run high when you are disappointed.

Though Nintendo is well-loved, and has a special place in the hearts of many, that cannot be taken for granted. And blaming your lack of sales on the shifting tastes of consumers is just poor form. The nature of business is always ever-changing. The ones who win are the ones who can anticipate and adapt. Nintendo's actions of late smack of not adaptation, but almost a certain apathy. Or even complacence. Either way, apathy or complacence are not attitudes for success, and Nintendo certainly isn't too big to fail.

When pictures first emerged for the controls that will accompany the Oculus Rift, I found myself simply trying to imagine all the new ways in which people will play. But I also found myself thinking about something else. Gaming Journalism.

As things stand now, we are still stuck in 2D gaming worlds. Yes, I know that modern games feature astronomical polygon counts, impressive 3D rendering, and unprecedented scale. But, even the best game graphics are seen through a flat plane that is our television, or our handhelds, or tablets, or phones. While humans experience life through stereoscopic vision, video games have always existed as a mere projection, a prism through which we indulge fantasy and epic adventure.

Virtual Reality, and even Augmented Reality will undoubtedly change the way we play games in a big way. Not only that. It will also change how we communicate share and discuss games. And perhaps what makes VR so utterly fascinating is that so much of it is still shrouded in uncertainty. We THINK we know how VR will be implemented. But I suspect that it will be much like the explosion of the internet in the 90's. There will be a rough adjustment period, and an initial giddiness over the "newness" of it all.

Then will come the age of the true first architects of VR development. And it will be hard to remember gaming as it existed before. Am I exaggerating? No. At least, I don't think so. How can I be so sure?

Remember these days?

If you ever stop and consider that there was a time when humans genuinely believed that the world was flat, the concept is a bit mind-blowing. There was a time when men believed that they could literally sail over the edge of the world, and be lost... forever. Who knows what they imagined lied beyond those borders? They certainly couldn't see it, and most dared not guess. VR is the same. It is the great unknown, even now.

Now maybe you CAN imagine running around hyper-realistic worlds, fully immersed, awe-struck by how real it all seems. But there's one thing that will definitely be changed, and none of us can say how. Video game journalism.

If you are a long-time veteran gamer, you may remember flipping through the first issues of Nintendo Power. You may have grown-up pouring through magazines like GamePro, and EGM (Electronic Gaming Monthly). If you can remember those days, than you know the excitement that surrounded gaming back then.

I still have old issues of GamePro dating back to the launches of Sonic 3, and Sonic & Knuckles.  I have old issues of EGM with reviews for Sega Genesis, SNES, Sega CD and more. I even have a few issues of S.W.A.T Pro, GamePro magazine's supplemental strategy guide for then popular games.

I actually HAVE this issue.

All of that printed media was the go-to method for getting informed, and hyped for whatever was next. It was a perfectly acceptable form of media, because it was all we knew. The internet was not yet a reality. We couldn't have imagined watching live video feeds of E3, or trailers for upcoming games. Who could have predicted Let's Play videos? In the age of VHS tapes?

So much has changed so very, very fast, I don't think we even realize it. We don't have time to realize it. If you blink, or sneeze, whoops... too late. Everything has changed.

And so, with all that having been said, I begin to wonder. How will VR games be covered and reviewed? I mean sure, you could still see write-ups on games for the Oculus Rift in your latest Game Informer. But printed media really wouldn't do a virtual reality game justice, would it? Even video reviews wouldn't truly convey the feel of a game. No, the reality is that in just the same way that e-readers disrupted the book business, and tablets and phones have disrupted handheld gaming devices, virtual reality will disrupt ALL visual entertainment.

Just wait until movie makers start tinkering with the technology. You won't have to watch the film as a spectator. You could be on the set! Think of it. Watching Alien for the first time is an experience almost no one can forget. But imagine BEING there, on the ship?

I suspect that video game journalism will be transformed by VR technology. Game previews and reviews will almost certainly have to be constructed in the same environment that the games were. How else will you appreciate gameplay footage that doesn't conform to TV's and LCD monitors?

I could be wrong about some or all of my prognosticating. Technology like the Oculus Rift and Microsoft's HoloLens may end up being flops. People may reject it all in favor of the ways they've grown accustomed to playing. But nobody knows for sure.

It's funny. On average, a human may live the better part of one century. And in all that time, how often do we get to see something that feels truly NEW. I can't help but feel that this is one of those times.

When I was a kid, one of my favorite pastimes was a trip to the local supermall. Which... nowadays is just Walmart for all you younger whippersnappers. I kid. Fortunately, malls have still survived. But, back on topic!

Of the numerous places to aimlessly wander in and just get lost, there were exactly three that still stand out in my mind:

Kay-Bee Toys, Babbages, and Software Etc.

I also had a weird fascination with Banana Republic, but that's another story. But here's the thing. Growing up in the heyday of the original NES was simply a great, great time to be a kid. For me, walking into a Software Etc. or Babbages as a 7 or 8 year-old was like pure geek heaven.

Looking back, I realize that there was a sense of environment to those stores that always kept me coming back. I didn't go into those stores simply because of what they were selling, but because of how it made me FEEL. Back then, Software Etc, and Babbages were much more PC Centric. It was THE destination for computer nerds looking for 3.5inch floppy disks of their favorite games. Both stores sold console games as well, but their inventory somehow felt more... balanced.

I can remember walking into Babbages, with their pristine white walls and racks, all displaying the latest and greatest games, computer programs, hardware, and peripherals. There was the sleek black, or silver NES game boxes, or the Sega Master System's in their iconic white grid packaging.

Why does every Gamestop have a guy who looks like this?

You might have seen a Turbo Grafx-16 on display, or some other cool piece of technology., but the theme was fairly clear. These were the stores were you went to see the future. That's what Software Etc. and Babbages used to mean to me, as a place to shop.

Even into the 90's, I continued to love my occasional stroll into a Software Etc. before I'd head over to Mrs. Field's cookies. I used to love the sheer diversity of the store. You used to be able to buy cool programs like Painter, Paint Sop Pro, Corel Draw, Corel Paint, Bryce 3D, and countless others. They had books on all things nerdy, and related to tech.

But perhaps one of my favorite memories of shopping those stores was the bargain bin. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh the bargain bin. Let me just say this: There are very few things that are more pleasing than rummaging through a pile of old games and stumbling across something you had forgotten, but had been dying to play. And then, you see that bright red or orange sticker indicating that you're about to pay a little bit o' nothin for it.

You're eyes stretch wide, and you covertly look around you, as if you are afraid of being "caught" discovering such a bargain. Then you dare to take a second look. What??? This game is only $5.99????

SOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A ding ding ding goes off in your brain, and you start to feel like you won the showcase showdown on Price Is Right.

The paradox to all of this is that not all of these stores were immaculate in their presentation. But in some ways, that was part of the appeal for me. I remember walking into a Babbages around 2001 or so and seeing a wall of discounted PS One software that was perhaps 8 feet high by 6 feet wide. They were not in alphabetical order, They weren't in any conceivable order that I could discern. They were just there. And... I loved it.

It had the feeling of being in a garage sale, where only video games were being sold. You never knew what you might find, and that was part of what made it fun. In my case, I found a handful of Natsume and Atlus games, and headed home thoroughly pleased.

What Has Changed

I had never heard of a Funcoland in all my life until 2002. Someone had brought it to my attention that the store was having a huge sale on Sega Genesis games. I was thinking about stocking up, so I made a little trek into the store to see what was what.

First Impressions

I'll be honest. I didn't like Funcoland much. There certainly wasn't anything interesting about the store besides what they were selling. And what kind of dumb name is Funcoland? What the heck is that supposed to be? Is it a toy store? Is it a mini-golf park? Yes, I get it. Video games are fun, but... really?

You know what I love about Software Etc and Babbage's as store names? They tie you into the whole history of geekdom and the nerdy joys of video games. How many of you know who Charles Babbage was? Better yet, who knows what Babbage's Analytical Engine was?

Believe it or not,  as a gamer, it's part of the history of what you love to do.

Nowadays, when I walk into a Gamestop, I am mostly irritated. The first thing I usually see is obnoxious Disney Infinity toys, Skylander's figurines, and Amiibo's. The stores are usually poorly lit and depressing. The carpets are almost always filthy. And there is a perpetual stinch that reminds me of a cross between a locker room and baby vomit.

There is no tie-in to the history of computers or even gaming for that matter. It mostly seems to be about pushing pre-orders for the latest, over-rushed "AAA" release. The used games... are usually in okay condition. But nothing urks me more than the used games that are merely slid into paper sleeves, sometimes with the price written on the outside. Really?

The selection of PC games at Gamestop is pretty pathetic nowadays. If it's not one of the top 20 PC game releases of the current year, you're chances of seeing it in Gamestop are slim.

There's no special events. Nothing just for the customers to enjoy. Nothing to build a sense of loyalty.

That stuff matters. Back when I used to collect comic books, I remember when the Death Of Superman was a big thing. When it came to the launch of the final black bagged issue where Supes is killed, the Comic shop that I frequented made a full-on memorial display. There was a black coffin with a red S-shield, and flowers laid over the coffin, along with a torn cape.

It was amazing to me that a comic shop would go to such effort to promote such an iconic event, but it is one of my favorite memories.

The issues I have with Gamestop are so strange to me because it stands in such stark contrast to the community that you find on Game Informer Online, which wouldn't exist, or have the readership it does without... Gamestop. What happened?

If you've been on GIO for any length of time, then you well know how many of it's members feel about it. And you also know why so many of us STAY and continue to be actively involved in it. How does that not carry over to the very stores that sell the magazine? Where's the passion? Where's the love of all things geek?

I don't know. But until Gamestop gets that feeling back, I'm in no hurry to shop there.

One of my favorite journalists of the past century was the late Andy Rooney, the iconic commentator of the TV news journal, 60 Minutes. Always clever, seemingly without effort, Rooney often said things no one else could. This is my attempt at emulating his style.

I got my copy of TIME magazine in the mail today. I was expecting to see something about Donald Trump, or the Iran nuclear deal. Instead, I found this on the cover.

Why does that picture remind me of an ad for fabric softener? And why is this man not wearing shoes or socks? Is the experience different with each pair of shoes you wear?

I have three pairs of shoes, but only one pair that I really like to wear. My wife keeps trying to get me to throw them away.

Before I wrote this piece, I figured I'd do some professional research, and find out what all this VR hoopla is about. I tried to get a hold of one of these Oculus Rift things (I don't like that name), but was told they aren't available to the public just yet.

So, I settled for the next best thing. I got this little thing from Google.

It's called Google Cardboard. It's supposed to work with your smart phone, which is a problem for me because I don't have a smart phone. I never understood what a smart phone is supposed to be. Do they measure their IQ?

I borrowed a "smart-phone" from one of my co-workers to use the Google Cardboard. I think they had something like this when I was a kid. It was called a View Master. It wasn't one of my favorite toys, and I certainly don't understand how it's going to change the world.

Maybe I can ask the "smart phone", and it will explain it to me.

The best things in life often come down to the most basic things we always take for granted. A deep, and utterly refreshing night's sleep, hot showers, freshly laundered bed linen, and food. That's it. Now couple some of those simple creature comforts with video games... and, well my friends, few things are better.

Gaming is one of those activities where it might seem counterproductive to have distractions like stuffing your face with snacks. But, it doesn't have to be that way. The foods have to compliment the activity like movies and popcorn, bowling and nachos, poker and beer nuts. The right food and drink can kick your whole gaming experience up a notch or two. And with friends? Well, the promise of yummy delights can add more ready excuses to bond with friend's.

So, let's get down to brass tax. There's basically two types of snacking. Healthy snacking, and then the "What clogged arteries? PASS THE BUTTER!!!" approach. Actually... I suppose there can be a happy middle ground.

But, as a responsible citizen, I'll break things down to two types of snacks. Healthy, and Not So Healthy. And remember, it's just me. You may totally disagree.

Healthy

Grapes- This one is so ridiculously easy, and guilt free. But I cannot tell you how many times I've sat in my living room, where the only light was the white glow from the tv set, and as I madly fidget through some game, one hand repeatedly dives into a deep bowl of cold, sweet grapes. Nature's perfect finger food, they leave no sticky residue and won't add inches to your waist line.

Kettle Corn- Popcorn, it turns out, is an excellent snack when you're trying to watch your weight, or just looking for a guilt-free snack. It's the heavy drowning of butter and salt that is the problem. And while I often have my "I don't care" moments where I love a bag of extra butter popcorn, kettle corn doesn't weigh on my conscience nearly as bad. Sweet and salty, yet light and airy. It's the best of both worlds.

Honey Nut Cheerios- Whoever invented Cheerios was a true genius. It is perhaps one of the best cereals on the planet, and it is timeless. No one EVER tires of cheerios. Honey Nut Cheerios... was virtually a gift from heaven. Utterly delicious with a bowl of milk, yet completely satisfying without any milk at all. And... it's good for your heart!

Triscuits with Toppings- Oh Wheat Thins, long have I pondered your exquisite flavor, your wondrous texture and crunch! Yeah. On a serious note, it used to be that Ritz crackers where the go to cracker for party treats. Then came Wheat Thins, and then Triscuits. And then there were none. There are so many unbelievable flavors, but adding toppings??? Insanity. Pure, delicious insanity.

This next one may be pushing the boundaries of what could be considered "healthy", but heck, it's my blog and I'm going for it. At least one ingredient is good for ya!

Uncrustables & Milk- I've said it time and time again, but there are very few pleasures like a plate of PB&J's and milk. Uncrustables makes it extra easy to indulge that pleasure. They don't use the best Peanut Butter, nor the best jelly, but Uncrustables get the job done quite nicely.

And now... it's on to the unhealthy.

Unhealthy

Jack In The Box Tacos- I've honestly eaten so many of these things, I probably have their cooking oil permanently in my blood stream. Such a simple menu item. But at a price of roughly 2 for a $1.00, this has always been one fo my go to gaming snacks. And... they have a nice wax paper sleeve, so your finger tips aren't covered with greasy oil after eating!

Twizzlers- A tub of twizzlers is a very dangerous thing to have around while gaming. It's just all too easy to go back, and back, and back... ooooops, empty. Yeah.

Chex Mix- The sheer variety of crunchy little pieces of salty perfection is just too tough to beat. It's just wayyyyy too easy go through bags and bags of this stuff.

Little Caesar's Pizza- It is perhaps the most bargain basement, lowest quality pizza you can get. But like Jack In The Box, it's dirt cheap and still pretty darn good for the first day before it turns into thin pieces of wood.

Slim Jim's- there's all kinds of beef jerky out there, and frankly, I don't even know if Slim jim's officially qualify as jerky. The packaging merely refers to them as meat sticks. Although, I think a more accurate term would be "mystery" meat stick. Nonetheless, on those occasional nights where you pounding nacho chips, and drinking foreign ale's, a simple little Slim Jim, ain't half bad.

And finally, the one... the only...

French Toast Crunch- I know, I know! you're like... huh? But yes, damn it, French Friggin' Toast Crunch people. You NEED this item in your life, yesterday! You know how good Cinnamon Toast Crunch is... right??? Well, this cereal is better times ten, multiplied by ten billion, squared. No, I'm not even kidding. It's scientifically proven that this is the best cereal EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This heavenly cereal had disappeared off of store shelves for quite some time, but now... it's BACK! I implore you all to buy a box today. You'll thank me later.

So, obviously I could go on and on with this one. Food, after all, is one of my favorite things in the world. Hopefully, you may agree on some of my choices. And, if not, well... let me know what satisfies your pallet! Till then, happy gaming to you all!

Quite a while back, I wrote a blog where I speculated on what were the elements or factors that contributed to greatness. I found it curious that in the world of gaming, it seems that there are certain names and business entities that consistently, reliably produce quality, while others languish. I wondered if it was something that truly occurred by design, or whether it was purely incidental.

I am a one who believes that there are very few things that are truly accidental. What may initially seem random, may actually be filled with purpose when seen from the right vantage point. I believe that much of what we understand about life boils down to perspective.

At any rate, in recent months, I've had a lingering thought. Something has been buzzing around in my brain, and it wasn't until now that I could assign words to it. I perceive that now, more often than I ever recall at any other time, fantastic success seems to be a prelude to mighty failure. And at times, that pattern reverses. How so?

To look at the Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo of today, one could hardly conceive how drastically different things were for each of them in the last generation of consoles. And even though nearly all of us watched that history play out, the how's and the why's are still unclear.

Certainly, we understand the basics. Nintendo relied too heavily on gimmicky hardware, and lacked third-party support. Sony was arrogant, obnoxious and over-priced, Microsoft had unreliable hardware, and was growing to be as cocky as Sony. But the question I pose is this: What made these entities commit to the paths they chose? Was it deliberate? Was it avoidable?

Take a trip with me back through video game history and see if you recognize a trend.

Nintendo rises to market dominance with the NES.

Nintendo grows complacent, and nasty with third-party publishers and developers.

Sega comes along and steals away the majority of market share.

Nintendo refuses to acknowledge Sega as a threat.

The SNES arrives. Nintendo is absolutely confident that they cannot be bested.

Sega's brief success goes to their heads like opium. They began on the perilous path to irrelevance with the Sega CD add-on, to be followed by many more.

Sony arrives and loyalties to Sega and Nintendo are dropped in favor of a mighty newcomer

Sony crushes it's competitor's and becomes the dominant console of the 32-bit era.

Nintendo, still defiant and stubborn, refuses to adapt to new technology and isolates itself even more with an insistence on using cartridges.

The Dreamcast arrives, but as a mere footnote in gaming history.

The PS2 launches and confirms Sony's absolute dominance of the market. Early signs of arrogance and general doucheyness begin to appear.

Microsoft enters the fray, seemingly from nowhere, but with a palpable hunger to succeed, and commitment to succeed.

Sony follows up the phenomenal success of the PS2 by launching the most expensive console since the Neo Geo, and arrogantly insists that "it's worth it". The PS3 also has the distinction of being the most difficult console to develop games for, leading to quality issues on multi-console titles.

Microsoft fights and wins the console war with hardware that is less powerful, and plagued with errors.

All of that, of course, brings us to today. Microsoft is still licking it's self-inflicted wounds from the disastrous launch of the Xbox One. Sony seems to be basking in the runaway success of the PS4, but I am ever wary, and can't help but wonder how long their winning streak will last.

What's worse, the same poor decisions and thought process that affected hardware makers seems to have bled into other areas as well.

Assassin's Creed: Black Flag was one of the crowning gaming experiences of the last generation. so how could Ubisoft so effectively ruin all of that goodwill with AC: Unity, Watchdogs and other titles?

Watchdogs was primed to be the definitive open-world demonstration of next-gen technology. Instead, it arrived as a sad, half-baked game that will always be remembered for "what it could have been".

The recent failures with Kickstarter don't really apply here, because many of those scandals involved fledgling developer's who hadn't yet experienced broad success. But look at a company like Nintendo, and you just have to really wonder, "What the hell happened to you?"

Everything I've seen along these lines reminds me of the old Rocky movies. Remember how Apollo Creed wrote off Balboa in the first movie? The mistake is repeated in almost every single movie. But even beyond the world of cinema and games, it seems that there is something in human nature that struggles to maintain greatness.

Perhaps the most baffling aspect of this whole issue is that logic seems to hold no power. If I think back to the E3 of 2014, it was as if noone... not a single person on Microsoft's staff was able to look at their approach and say, "This is not right."

To look at Nintendo, it is now clear that their internal workings may have become strained as Satoru Iwata fought to put a brave face on a personal tragedy. But beyond that, what more was at work? It was startling to hear admissions from Iwata himself, that the Wii U was performing poorly, and was not meeting their expectations. One can't help but wonder, will Nintendo calculate better with the Nintendo NX?

Some may say that success is often a matter of taking a shot in the dark, and hoping your aim is true. Risk. Perhaps, but the nature of the video game industry does not seem to be one that has great tolerance for such randomness.

Then again, there is Flappy Bird.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."- Aristotle

Sooo... there was little bit of hoopla this week over some comments made by Jimmy Kimmel about people who like to watch Let's Play Videos. A lot of people got mad, all-around craziness ensued, although I haven't the faintest clue why. Not really.

I wasn't upset by Jimmy Kimmel's statements. I didn't feel threatened. Honestly, after hearing his monologue, I thought "Really?" And then shrugged within myself.

First, there's the question of whether the joke, was actually a joke, or whether the monologue honestly reflected Kimmel's personal views. If in fact, it is the latter, rather than the former, I would be inclined to think that Kimmel is experiencing a generational gap between himself and other gamers.

For example, contrary to his statements, statistically the average gamer is 31, with the full range being between 18 and 35. Moreover, there are many gamers who are well into their retirement years. I personally recall reading a story about a woman in her 90's who played her Nintendo DS daily to keep her mind sharp. So... gamers are hardly a group solely consisting of 12 year-old boys.

And then there's the assumption that these gamers are mostly boys to begin with. Ironically, yesterday I was perusing through GI Editor- Margaret's "Friday Links". There, I discovered that Ronda Rousey is a Pokemon fanatic. Ronda Rousey people! I love that woman already.

So.. there's that.

Yep. She's a gamer, AND she's loves Pokemon. My heart just skipped a beat.

Now, everything I've just said is based on the assumption that the monologue came from a sincere place. But, how likely is that?

In all truth, if watching Let's Play videos is a waste of time, then it only seems fair that the same could be said about watching Jimmy Kimmel. I mean, since when did watching TV become an activity preferred by the highly accomplished and brilliant set? There's a reason why TV has been called the "Idiot Box", or the "Boob Tube".

In most cases, people do not watch TV to be enlightened, or educated. TV has always been about entertainment first, and everything else second.

People have a lot of hobbies and personal joys that other people don't get. I've never understood people who like to crochet, or collect stamps.

A better way to spend your time? Hmmmm...

But, let's play devil's advocate, and assume that the whole thing was a joke (which it probably was). Are there any legitimate reasons for watching "Let's Play's"? Are they a waste of time?

Okay, so here's my thing. I've watched playthrough's, "Let's Plays", and whatever else you'd like to call them. To be perfectly honest, it has been the rare occasion when I could stand to sit through the entire video. So why do I watch videos of someone else playing games?

Sometimes, when I consider my ridiculous personal backlog of games and the constant flood of titles being launched every single year, it becomes abundantly clear that there is a whole lot of games I am never, ever going to play. But, I still may be curious as to how the game plays, how the story of the game may unfold, or simply soaking up the graphics.

At other times, I find myself looking for tips on how to beat a game, or things that I may have missed. Sometimes I've just grown fond of the humor or narrative style of whomever is hosting the playthrough. Most modern movies and TV shows are not fantastically deep. If I can waste my evenings in 30-minute increments with stupid sitcoms, I think watching "Let's Plays" is not going to be much worse.

Shortly after Call Of Duty: Advanced Warfare launched, I watched the playthrough for it. I was curious about the game. After a while, I realized that while the action was incredible, and highly entertaining, I had no desire to play it. I just wanted to see it from start to finish in the same way I might watch a movie.

I enjoyed the ending. I enjoyed how the game was wrapped-up. But, I will never buy the game. I'm quite pleased that watching a playthrough spared me the trouble of buying a game I wouldn't want. And, it's just as simple as that. How about you?

If you spent any amount of time on the internet in the last five years or so, you probably became highly familiar with banner ads for a game called Evony. Upon first glance, you might have been confused as to what sort of game Evony was supposed to be.

Was it an RPG, an MMO, or a simulation? There was rarely any way to know for sure. The advertisements for the game were sparsely, though provocatively worded. Screenshots from the actual game often seemed out of sync with the ads promoting the game.

That's because the ads for Evony frequently looked like this:

or this...

No, I'm not even kidding.

While the internet was ablaze with recent scandals like the Gamergate fiasco and the controversial Anita Sarkeesian, games like Evony somehow managed to slip completely under the radar of mainstream media, and yet covertly implanted their ads in the subconscious of many. the success of a game such as Evony raises some mighty interesting questions about gaming culture, as well as society at large, and our attitudes on human sexuality.

At root, Evony is little more than a Civilization/Age of Empires clone. The one major caveat being that while both Civilization and Age Of Empires can be enjoyed for a one-time, utterly miniscule fee, Evony is a "free-to-play" MMORTS with micro-transactions a plenty.

I can still remember the first few times I saw an Evony ad. They were both annoying and yet intriguing at the same time. I frequently found myself scoffing, and thinking silently, "Who would play such a stupid game?" But what irked me the most was that I couldn't figure out for the life of me what the game was about.

One day I might stumble across an ad featuring a buxom maiden, beckoning would-be players to come to her rescue. In my mind I would naively picture a more racy version of Zelda or Final Fantasy perhaps. Then, in another sitting, I'd be thrown off by an ad featuring a thoroughly modern, and scantily clad woman whose pose and gaze hinted at decidedly more adult themes.

What the ...?

I couldn't tell if the game took place in the middle ages, or a more modern setting. I couldn't tell if the game was some bizarre adult game, or a game about slaying dragons. All I knew is that every time one of those ads appeared, my screen was being filled with boobs. As was probably the case for many, I temporarily set aside my smugness and allowed my curiosity to hold sway.

Upon clicking on the ad banner, I was transported to the sign-up page for Evony. It took mere second to create an account and be greeted by... an utterly disappointing, bland clone of classic strategy games.

Deceived! Treachery, thy name is Evony!!!

Yes, the game was free, but as a gamer who regularly plays free-to-play games, I knew the truth about what to expect. The game would allow some small measure of interaction and choice, while strategically bleeding you dry of every cent possible.

Reeling from the anti-climax of seeing the actual game, I felt curiously indignant, as though some truly gross deception had taken place. The truth was that at least in part, I had been taken in by my own expectations. After trying to get into the game for about 30 minutes, I simply found it intolerable. I cannot ever recall being so bored or disinterested by a single game, online or otherwise. If the game had been as lecherous as it teased, would I have been more interested?

Apparently 27,000,000, yes,  MILLION people had the same questions. That's how many registered users Evony was able to lure in with a very simple hook. And it just so happens to be one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Many reviled Evony as being a grossly precise example of how women are objectified and how mysoginy persists in the games industry. But the IRONY of EVONY is that it wasn't really doing anything new. Not by a longshot.

I, like many millions of kids worldwide, grew up collecting comic books, and avidly following the adventures of my favorite super heroes and heroines. Which means that I also grew up seeing female characters that often looked like this...

Though I never would have complained about the way certain characters were portrayed, I frequently pondered the practicality of a super-powered female running around with scarecly more than dental floss and patches of material to cover her.

Even in the world of science fiction and fantasy, I couldn't quite grasp why a powerful female elf, witch, sorceress, or warrior would prefer to trudge through mountains, forests, caves, and dungeons with fur thong underwear, and a leather/steel bra. What happened when it got too cold? Didn't all that exposed flesh make her extremely vulnerable? Or was that level of bodily exposure supposed to communicate how secure this woman was in her powers?

Something tells me that her attire is not designed with combat in mind.

Though most of us carry some personal scale of ethics about entertainment that seems gratuitous or lecherous, there is also a side to us that is secretly drawn to the taboo. And while many might be inclined to conclude that sexualization of women is mainly perpetuated by men, there are at least a few examples that indicate women do as well.

One need only pick up a copy of COSMOPOLITAN magazine to see this.

So, perhaps the question is, how should we view games like Evony? I won't play Evony, but I do play another MMORTS titled League Of Angels, and it is just as saturated with T&A, if not more than Evony. I've thought to myself many times, "Well... if women were making these games, they wouldn't be like this." But, I'm not quite so sure about that.

League of Angels

But then again, who says that woman CAN'T be sexual in games, comic books, or anything else? What sort of imagery should be considered "proper"?

There are certain aspects of sexual identity that men revel in. Most men, at least. Men strive to be seen as powerful, both physically and mentally. Men enjoy being seen as problem solvers. Men tend to relish competition and the affirmation that comes from victory. But what of women?

Should women endeavor to be more "masculine" according to traditional societal tropes? Is a woman only validated through competition with, and victory over a man? Should the typically "male" activities and standards be viewed as the ultimate challenge for women and their quest for equality?

Considering some of the female representations in video games, one could quite easily conclude that gamers must be overwhelmingly male in mind, if not in person. One could easily say, "Ah ha! Proof of the great inequity!!!"

But then you see things like this.

Superhero, or Chippendales dancer?

While women are often sexualized in every form of media, it seems that increasingly, men are as well. Perhaps when we respond to click-bait Evony ads, or overtly sexualized characters, what we are responding to is some instinctive adoration of strength and beauty.

The ancient Greeks took physical beauty and fitness very seriously. And what could have been more sexualized than the pantheon of Gods and Goddesses from Greek and even Roman mythology?

I don't know. The more I think about it, I don't ever see games like Evony, or it's brand of gimmickry ever going away. To steal lyrics from an old Paul McCartney duet, "Evony and Irony live together in perfect harmony."