Today marks the 10th anniversary of my Gamespot account, even though it certainly feels like much longer.

In fact, it has been much longer than ten years. Today actually marks, in an unofficial way, the 10th anniversary of my entry into high speed internet. Before that, using dial up, I used to visit this website on a (much as possible) regular basis, even before it was actually called Gamespot, way back when, through AOL, when it was called VideoGames.com. My actual earliest website memory was looking for a demo of Quake 2 and stumbling into an in depth guide to Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy Kong's Quest, from which point, I turned into a regular visitor. I'm awfully sure I had an user account from when accounts were actually implemented to the site, but that has been lost thanks to the numerous moves and email address/computer changes, from which I was never able to remember or find what it was.

There are many things I'm thankful to Gamespot for for these past ten years. Many, if not all of my best friends abroad have come from visiting this site and interacting with the community. When I previously worked at an union called Community Contributions, I met some of my most cherished buddies that I keep contact 'til now and have even met in person a few times, like Austin (MrCHUPON), Al (The_Antipode), Brian (DrFish62), Pete (Ryvvn), among many, many others. From that union, my interest in writing about games grew into what ultimately brought me to an event like E3, a dream of mine for years, and having the chance to meet many of the people whose work I've followed over the years.

It's unfair to list everyone I've come to know through this site since the beginning. Among the staff, I've had the chance to learn a lot, not only about games, but about the culture as well. Some of my fondest (and also most annoying and frankly depressing) moments have come from being called in to help out as a moderator for the website, in 2007. From then on, I've had the chance to take a casual look at tip of the iceberg that is managing such a gigantic community, a daunting task for the staff, which, for the majority of my time contributing, fell to Jody, who among the editorial staff, has always played an integral part in keeping me going with Gamespot over the years.

I couldn't write about the past ten years and not mention interacting with Gamespot's live video shows in between all the reading, arguing and writing. Those are probably my favorite memories of being around and checking the site out, by watching shows like On the Spot, chatting community members up and even somewhat interacting with the staff through questions. An easy smile comes from remembering all the inane babble that came from chatting with friends during those shows, that like the CCU, have endured through friendships that I still hold dear 'til today (you guys know who you are, I hope you are reading this - if not, bah, Dave, shame on you). Some of them have even moved on to be part of this site's staff thanks to their participation!

In contrast, certainly there were moments when I wanted to leave Gamespot behind. The chaos that was Jeff's firing in 2008 was easily the most likely of moments to have dropped this site forever - but I'm glad I didn't. It's amazing that Gamespot was able to pick up the pieces of an otherwise shattered state and have come back to be once again one of the most referenced websites around. I wouldn't dream of thinking I had a pin of an influence in that revival, even though, in many ways, I'm positively amazed to have been around to see it. And even though I'm hardly as active in the main website community as I've once been, I love to dive in sometimes, to check its pulse.

It's hard to imagine keeping active with something for so long, and even more so to imagine if it'll still be going ten years from now. But instead of worrying about where we'll all be so far ahead, I'll enjoy and cherish the memories of where I've been since then. Even the bad ones are worth keeping around in the corner of my mind, as reminders of how I've come to appreciate the best moments even more. Those moments when you give them more than a chance when you're expected to quit them... and are rewarded so much for doing so.

Thanks, Gamespot!

And thanks to everyone I've met on this cheesy, insane, frustrating and utterly amazing journey!

*Warning - This Blog Contains Spoilers!*

Like film, there are some games that require us to repeat the experience before more complex story ideas become clear. Perhaps its because those ideas are buried under spectacular gameplay or simply don't register over visual fidelity. Bioshock Infinite is one of these games and it's a testament to its difficulties regarding comprehension that it should culminate in one of the most talked about endings in gaming history. But a lot of that talk has to do with the philosophical and downright bizarre images that bombard the player for the final ten minutes rather than any fundamental element that goes into the definition of a computer game. One element in particular is the boss fight - Bioshock Infinite doesn't have one. It certainly has its share of villains but all are presented with the least amount of interaction by the player, choosing instead to act out their fate via scripted in-engine cutscenes.

This departure from one of the oldest established rules of game design can easily be forgiven considering the focus on storytelling over gameplay. This is also probably why combat, exploration and puzzle solving in all of Ken Levine's games are somewhat generic despite their much touted freedom of approach. Again, this is all fine because the sheer beauty of the settings, heavy use of thematic elements and outstanding story should allow us to easily forget the lack of innovative gameplay in all three Bioshock games. In fact, it came as great relief that Levine wisely chose to focus on his strong point and give Infinite such a memorable send off by overpowering the senses with a combination of image and exposition rather than gameplay. It was the latter that led to my disappointment with the send off given to Jack in the original Bioshock. After being taken on such an expertly crafted journey through one of the most artistically memorable settings of the last decade, it all ended in a boss fight that was jarringly limp by comparison. The villain of Frank Fontaine is unthreatening looking like a cross between the Hulk and The Watchmen's Dr. Manhattan. The bland environment fails to mirror the profundity of the plot while the gameplay hits rock bottom by resorting to one method of defeating Fontaine with a rinse and repeat attack surely not seen since the days of the 90s iterations of Super Mario Bros. In short, the moment Jack steps off that final elevator to meet Fontaine, the profound commentaries on civil unrest and government oppression go completely out of the window.

There is a substantial challenge present in creating a great boss fight in the industry's current transitional period of becoming more story driven and closer to a cinematic experience. How can games give the player direct involvement in the defeat of a villain without putting compelling themes and emotional resonance on hold for the duration of the fight? If Bioshock is any evidence, it seems developers must decide whether to give their game's final showdown a story or gameplay focused perspective. But is a great boss fight really made by finding just the right balance between both? Given Levine's expertise residing firmly in the realm of storytelling, this may be why he was unable to provide us with an effective climatic showdown.

Part of the problem with Bioshock's fight with Fontaine is the lack of any real difficulty throughout the course of the game. Death has no penalty thanks to devices known as 'vita-chambers' that allow the player to instantly respawn with no downtime or inventory cost. This happens in real time rather than reverting back to a previous save point meaning tougher enemies like the Big Daddy can be worn down without any fear of starting from scratch. This also applies to the confrontation with Fontaine resulting in the loss of any sense of urgency and tension in what should be the pinnacle of both. However this can be argued as essential if developers decide to lean more towards story than gameplay as being hampered by challenging enemies defeats purpose of moving forward with discovery and exploration of plot.

Even so, there is no rule that gameplay cannot result in an emotionally satisfying, not just exciting, boss fight. Rewind to the early 90s were games were oriented around difficulty and Super Mario is surely one of the leading examples. The Japanese developed games became infamous with The Lost Levels for releasing an entirely different Mario iteration for overseas gamers on the assumption that non-Japanese gamers were not adept at handling higher levels of difficulty present in the former. Nevertheless it's precisely this difficulty that gave Super Mario Land 2: Six Gold Coins such a memorable final level. Mario must traverse Wario's castle avoiding devious traps, pitfalls and new enemies out of left field. Previous levels included a bell that could be rung to activate a checkpoint at the half way mark a - bell not present here. The level's raised difficulty gives the subsequent boss fight enormous resonance as the game's climax by giving the player emotional leverage that is provided by this 'descent into hell' - the triumph through adversity that all fictional characters must go through in order to reach their goal. On reaching Wario himself, the showdown is announced with a midi-version of a drum role as he steps off his throne to confront Mario in person before charging towards him. The fight happens in stages with each taking three hits to defeat. Each stage features Wario with a new ability including flight providing a tense reminder that he is not the pushover encountered in previous zone bosses. All of this ensures his defeat is a memorable and satisfying one. Six Golden Coins manages to achieve through difficulty what modern games seldom achieve through story - a climax that pays dividends to the challenge that has immediately preceded it. This makes Bioshock's ending even more frustrating as it was a rare example in today's market of a game that had enormous character and thematic power at its disposal to create a truly unique payoff. Instead it wastes them by attempting to make use of something it most certainly did not have - challenging gameplay.

So what of story? How can it hope to achieve a satisfying ending in the form of a fully interactive boss fight? Apparently with great success when discussing Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Despite featuring intriguing gameplay elements centred on stealth and subterfuge, it seems clear the overall focus is on narrative. The game makes heavy use of cutscenes and codec communications Both involve long winded plot exposition and revelations adding to a complex overall plot that would make Christopher Nolan proud. The frequent use of codec conversations do well to remind the player they are not alone in their mission despite spending the majority of the game alone. Central character Raiden has a number of allies to call on including his commanding officer, girlfriend Rose and Snake himself whenever he should need vital pieces of information. Both the flow of information and gradual development of character relationships are what the player invests emotional connection in when navigating the various obstacles. One example is a confrontation with a Harrier jump jet. Rather than leave the player to face the threat alone, Snake is ever present providing support of both the emotional and firepower kind.

Towards the end of the game, this investment begins to be used against the player in preparation for the final showdown with Solidus. Multiple characters are either killed or removed from the story in some fashion. The colonel who has been Raiden's primary conscience throughout is revealed to be nothing more than an artificial construct and a young girl who Raiden had saved and protected earlier is brutally stabbed to death. Solidus is revealed to be the primary antagonist which ultimately leads to the final showdown taking place on the roof of a ruined Federal Hall in New York City. After being supported by allies, the player is suddenly left to face Solidus alone. The disconcerting cut off from friends adds to the knowledge that Solidus is ultimately responsible for the loss of every one of them. So there is no shortage of personal motivation for defeating him. Adding more resonance is the setting of a crumbling icon in the form of a statue of George Washington. Washington is arguably remembered most for leading the American Revolutionary War, a conflict costing countless lives but with the goal of achieving independence for those who had become indigenous Americans since the arrival of the Mayflower. His selfless idealism is juxtaposed with the presence of Solidus who, as a politician turned terrorist, spent a lifetime manipulating public opinion through staged environmental disasters. This in turn allowed the creation of powerful Metal Gear weaponry with which to hunt down The Patriots also at the cost of countless lives. Both George Washington and Solidus Snake cemented a legacy, but for Solidus it was a far more self centred goal thus making him the antithesis of Washington. How fitting then his final moments should be spent at the foot of Washington's statue desperately reaching up as if wishing history would remember him as such a powerful icon.

The finale of Sons of Liberty is a master class in catharsis as both story and symbolic imagery join together to create one of the most effective boss fights of the last decade. The general rule of all great boss fights is a feeling of a one on one battle to the death. With Solidus and Raiden, after such an outstandingly staged narrative, it's impossible not to feel rushes of adrenaline as personal anguish, loss and powerful metaphor all culminate in a case of 'you or him'.

How does Bioshock's boss fight compare considering the games high praise for storytelling? Quite simply, it doesn't. The reason being that although the game contains some highly intelligent and intriguing commentary on politics, genetic experimentation and civil liberty, these are represented more by the city itself rather than through character. Jack spends virtually the entire game alone with the only 'interaction' with others being through pre-recorded messages from various citizens of Rapture. No close friendships are formed and there are no allies to call on for help as every message you receive seems to be laced with manipulation as Fontaine, Ryan and Tenenbaum all struggle for influence over Jack. All of this leaves a vacuum for the player by the time he fights Fontaine as he has suffered no personal loss and without the presence of any relevant imagery representing some kind of narrative element, the fight is left hollow and meaningless.

To close this editorial, the question now is perhaps why game developers apparently find it difficult to create a game that can bring all parts of a whole together for a showdown that delivers both heartfelt story and exciting gameplay. It's not a question of talent as Ken Levine and Hideo Kojima are among the most talented members of the industry. But is there a tug of war occurring between objectives? Like boss fights themselves, story and gameplay constantly vie for the player's attention in all games but if they could only call a truce and learn to coexist, the potential for mutual improvement is almost limitless.

I'm sure most of you know by now that MS has filed a patent for achievements for watching TV shows.  

http://www.gamespot.com/news/microsoft-files-patent-for-television-achievements-6408924

This isn't anything entirely new.  GetGlue does the same thing if you watch something online, and they even spread the news across your Facebook friends.    But having an achievement unlocked for watching a show you genuinely want to watch isn't a bad thing.  The problem with achievements is they coax some people into spending time on something they don't really have an interest doing.  

In 2005, I remember the first achievement I unlocked.  It was for Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie.  I finished the first level and the iconic little blip appeared on my screen.  I just received my first 100 points to my gamescore, or as some affectionally refer to as e-penis.  Kong was also the first game that I achieved 1000/1000 on.  Is that really an achievement, though?  Anyone who plays through the entire game can do just what I did. 

The following year, the PS3 released and I bought one.  As the years went by, I found myself buying the majority of multiplats on the 360.  It wasn't because of the 360 being the best in graphics or performance or playing online, or even the preference of the controller.  What got me buying multiplats on 360 more was the actual achievements.  I became addicted to them and had to play the 360 versions to increase my gamerscore.  Meanwhile, the PS3 got ignored.  Even great PS3 exclusives weren't enough to entice me to play the machine again because "I can't get achievements for playing them."

Addictions are problems.  I'm not saying everyone who plays for achievements are addicts, but I know some are.  I know one person who was the first in my group of online friends to achieve 100,000.  Wanna know how he did it?  He played bad licensed games.  He played kids games.  He played Barbie.  He bought XBLA games he didn't even like because "they were a quick 200."  He spent time on xbox360achievements.com to research his next quickest path to gamerscore domination.  Did he enjoy getting there?  I'm sure he did, so where exactly is the problem?

The problem is that's not what achievements are meant for.  They were meant for rewarding you for things you wanted to do, and to entice you to try something you normally wouldn't - within reason.  Having to play a bad game, having to play a kid's game, having to play a Barbie game to increase your gamescore should not be encouraged.  You should be playing games you WANT to play and games that you LIKE.  You also shouldn't be driven mad trying to unlock some stupidly hard challenge for 10 GS or spending two hours killing people with the same gun for 15 GS.  I've even heard people paying other people to play games for them under their profile just so their gamerscore could continue to grow when they themselves weren't playing.  Is a gamescore really worth that much to some people?  Apparently so.

I will admit, I'm guilty of this.  Although I never had it as bad as needing to play a Barbie game, I did play games I had no interest in for quick "chievos".  Hell, I even got the Burger King games because they had achievements.  I also spent far too much time on certain games trying to get all 1000 out of 1000.  Whenever I get a Lego game on the 360, I feel compelled to get every single achievement, and I can't seem to convince myself that it's not worth doing.  It's not enhancing the gaming experience, more as it's just wasting time that I should be spending playing one of the over 200 other games I've yet to play.

Granted, one could make the argument that the achievement system was designed to lengthen the life of your game.  If you just sped through a great game in five hours, you're most likely not going to spend anymore time on it.  But, if you get an achievement for finishing the game on Hard, that's another five hours.  You might be encouraged to play with your friends online for some more achievements, or explore levels that you would normally pass over.  In the case of bad games, though, you don't want to spend anymore time on a game you don't like.  It's like ordering a disgusting sandwich.  Do you keep eating the sandwich just because it's there?  Do you get an achievement for keeping it down when finished, or should you just have the sense to put the thing that's making you sick down?

Another problem with this kind of achievement hunting is that it doesn't reflect accurately what kind of gamer you are.  When you compare gamer profiles side by side, you see the games they've played and the achievements they've unlocked.  You get a general sense of what they like to play and just how much they like to play it. When used correctly, the system is brilliant, but what do you think of someone who just plays kids games for the easy points?  Doesn't that strike you as a waste?  Shouldn't you wish that gamer spent his time better?  Well, it is his time after all, but then don't you wonder if he really enjoyed himself, or that he could enjoy himself better had he been playing games he truly was interested in?

So this brings me back to the TV "chievos".  Now granted, the idea of physical rewards is always nice.  If you're going to get something that you can actually use, that's more than just a boost to your gamescore.  You might actually be encouraged enough to make a point to watch something.  Now, if these are just going to be simple point boosts, then I begin to wonder just how many people will continue to watch a TV series they don't like just so they could get the achievement for it.  

Aren't there other TV shows out there more deserving of your time?  Aren't there other games out there more deserving of your time?  Wouldn't the real achievement lie in knowing you truly enjoyed what you experienced?  Too bad there isn't a real achievement for that.  

When Microsoft first held a tech demo of Kinect at E3 2009, I remember being blown away by the sheer potential that was on offer. The game being showcased was called Milo and Kate, a sort of virtual interaction between the player and a 10 year old boy. When I first read about what Kinect was intended to be, I dismissed it as an attempt to rival Nintendo's motion control technology. But it was quickly revealed to be a lot more than the copying of arm movements. One particular awe inspiring moment came when the demo tester quickly drew a picture and held it out to the screen where Milo then reached out and 'took' the drawing from him. A digital version of the piece of paper appeared in his hand with an identical drawing on it. It took me a while before I could quite believe what I was seeing. This clearly went far beyond anything Nintendo was doing and I began throwing all sorts of ideas around in my head about this being the beginning of sentience of computers and artificial constructs.

Unfortunately, this game was subsequently revealed to be only a tech demo and was never released as a full game. Since the release of Kinect proper, I have seen little more than motion control games in the vein of the Wii such as Kinect Sports and Star Wars Kinect. I have yet to see the system achieve the kind of potential seen in Milo and Kate. Many have said that Kinect is generally disliked among Xbox gamers but if Microsoft would only focus more on bringing games like this to the front of the queue, I suspect it would be held in far greater regard as a pioneering piece of technology. I only hope the Xbox One realises this.

A life changing reward for a lucky player, that's what's been promised. Out of thousands, the person that chips away the last cubelet of the layered Cube on their Android or iPhone, wins something "life-changingly amazing by any definition". Tapping the screen endlessly wasn't the only option either - in addition to winning digital coins (spent on tools for chipping more efficiently), it was possible to pay real money (1, 7 or 10 dollars) to remove huge blocks of cubelets at once. But get this: it was also possible to pay real money to *add cubelets back*.

This has been going on for almost 7 months. Curiosity is a part of the 22 Experiments project by game designer Peter Molyneux (Dungeon Keeper, Populous, Black & White, Fable series) and his recently founded 22Cans studio. Many critics and fans repeatedly accuse Molyneux for overhypeing his own work in a grandiose manner. True or not, with every new project the promises are getting bigger while the style continually serves to mystify, trying almost too hard to sweep us off our feet. This time it was a cat in a bag: we were promised something spectacular, and the only way to uncover this uncannily undefined mystery was to be a part of the experiment. The experiment (which is the word Molyneux himself uses to describe Curiosity) ended on May 26th, with one lucky Scottish player chipping away the last cubelet.

 

The announcement of the winner was a Matrix-like scene. Molyneux being Morpheus, he finally gave a red pill to One persistent player. Surrounded with white, dressed in black, his voice echoing like an undismissable but calming conscience after a sought-out catharsis. All of us who wondered "What is the Cube?" got our answer. The red pill though, is only one. In addition to getting a cut of every sale of Molyneux's upcoming game Godus, the winner gets to be a digital god. The rest of us, well... We get to look forward to the next experiment, while enjoying the 'privilege' of partaking in a 'historical', first of its kind, 'world-altering' event. What really happened here?

Stay with me while I go off on a tangent. The announcement video instantly reminded me of two science fiction movies I recently saw: a) an animated short called Lucky Day Forever, and b) an episode of the excellent mini series Black Mirror, called 15 Million Merits.

 

            a) In Lucky Day Forever, the main character is living in a highly polarized futuristic city. He lives in the ghetto, a dangerous, dirty and decaying part of the city. He workes as a janitor among the glass babylonian towers of wealth in the rich, impeccably white district. What keeps all the poor and destitute citizens in check is the promise of winning a place among the perfect elite. By playing the ubiqutous lottery, everyone has a chance to win a body replacement and a place among the tall, strong, white-teethed superstars they are bombarded with on TV. If you care to watch it yourself (which you should, it's short and well worth it), *SPOILERS* ahead: protagonist manages to get a winning ticket and rushes to join the cream of the society, expecting love, fame, fortune and happiness. Needless to say, his new life turns out to be a big lie - superficial, meaningless and completely void of love. *END of SPOILERS*. What does this carrot-chasing, this lure of grand prizes, remind me of?

            b) In 15 Million Merits (you can watch the full version on Youtube), we see a guy sleeping in a high-tech cubicle, eating in a high-tech cafeteria, riding a bike in a high-tech gym, surrounded with people who are doing the same thing. Details aside, they are there to get into a competition à la American Idol/Britain's Got Talent. To get in, they have to pay 15 million Merits. They earn Merits by biking, playing first person shooters, watching vulgar shows and enduring ad after ad, commercial after commercial, blasting from the huge screens. Each refusal to do so detracts a certain sum from their Merits total. This is without a doubt a very dystopian iteration of Britain's Got Talent - the goal of reaching fame and glory through ruthless competition is worth sacrificing anything. Furthermore, *SPOILERS* people who actually get to perform have to drink a certain beverage beforehand, which makes them very susceptible to persuasion. A female singer (who would otherwise never do so) is talked into accepting a role in their pornographic ads. Near the end of the movie, the protagonist flips out and holds a powerful speech in front of the judges (uses strong language). He shows the charade for what it is. The judges play along, and transform this subversive element into another cog in the machine: he gets his own show filled with ads, where his once passionate, now watered-down threats of suicide are just another way to make the rats stay in the labyrinth. *END of SPOILERS* Again, what does all this carrot-chasing, this lure of grand prizes, remind me of?

 

            Let' get back on track. How does all of this relate to Molyneux and his Cube experiment? All three examples (two fictional, one real) are about making people involved. They are all about getting people on the hype train, getting them excited, and making a selected few the symbols of what the consumer should yearn for. The real one, the Cube example, even gives a way to prolong the road to success, to undone what other players have managed to undertake to uncover the secret of the Cube. Having this on mind, how can we not ask ourselves: was Molyneux's Curiosity ever an experiment? Are experiments not about finding the answer, acquiring new knowledge, testing a hypothesis with a scientific mindset? Maybe Curiosity is all of those, maybe not. Perhaps the result of this 'experiment' was known all along. A friend asked me yesterday: "how is this whole thing different from a pyramid scam?" That aside, the most useful byproduct was probably the hype. It was a perfect way to get the word out, to transform the Cube, 22Cans, Peter Molyneux himself and ultimately Godus into something that is talked about. Self-sustaining publicity. Did it work? Don't ask me, I'm the one talking about it.

Here is a quote from Molyneux which sheds some light on what he sees as a game design issue, and what he offers as a conceptual solution: "I am fed up to the back teeth of consuming other people's visions - of directors' and screenwriters' ideas of what a hero should be; of novelists writing stories that they think are good, but I think are rubbish. Why can't we have stories about me? I want to have my own unique experiences."

But what is the definiton of a unique experience? To express ourselves, to influence the world we dived into, in a unique manner? Is this really how we want to express ourselves then - buying lottery tickets? All for the promise of that one Willy Wonka golden ticket, that appeal of entering the Sphere, that mystery of uncovering what is inside the Cube. Which element here is the ground-breaking, world-altering fulfillment of the promise? The part where one of 'us' gets to be become one of 'them'? Do we really want, and need to be manipulated like this in order to be entertained and excited?

Personally, I'd rather call things for what they really are.

EDIT (2013/05/30): I rest my case.

In this dream, MS succeeded with their Xbox One, at least initially.  They sold close to a million units at launch, and sold roughly a million more shortly afterward, but something went wrong.  There were so many problems with the machine itself and with the services they had.  The Red Ring of Death came back to haunt them.  That was the last straw for gamers who put up with it with the 360.  Azure servers went down. GameStop and other major retailers had enough of their used game income being gouged.  They stopped carrying the Xbox One.  Xbox One started dying.

The PS4 was off to a great start, about as great as the Xbox One had, but their momentum quickly gained once people grew tired of broken MS machines.  It gained faster when retailers stopped carrying Xbox One.  MS tried to repair things with retailers, ending the Azure software agreements and even offered free basic XBL, but to no avail.  Xbox massacred itself.  

MS's stock plummeted.  They now had internal hemorrhaging they could not stem.  The millions of dollars spent with partnerships such as the NFL and CBS started to show lackluster returns.  Investors left.  The 300,000 plus servers powering the Cloud grew too taxing to upkeep.  Shortcuts were taken and service suffered.  Xbox Ones world wide wouldn't connect and millions of units were instantly bricked.  Anonymous, self-proclaimed freedom fighters of justice, swept in and hacked MS's network, ensuring the Cloud stayed down for an extended period of time, an attack on MS for violating consumer rights.  

Third-parties began withdrawing, unable to make profits as a result of low sales  of used games, and an inability to make money from used games, a feature MS worked so hard to entice them with.  They flocked to Sony, and some even returned to Nintendo.  EA and Nintendo came to an agreement and as such, the Wii U received the Frostbite 3 engine.  Nintendo wisened up and realized that their newfound support needed to be nutured and cultured, so Nintendo worked with developers so that they could take full advantage of the hardware.  They were still behind in graphical prowess, but it didn't matter.  Third parties became more profitable as Wii U units started selling through the roof.  The Xbox One became a distant third. 

Now, here's where the dream became really interesting.  Nintendo and Sony relished in the decline of MS.  Two industry giants benefiting from the fall of a third, and the heads had a meeting.  Hirai and Iwata talked and talked.  What they talked about, I don't remember.  That part of the dream was hazy.  But what came as a result of the talk was a partnership.  They forgave one another for the bad blood created during the SNES era where the two of them were supposed to create a CD add-on for the Super Nintendo.  

Somewhere around 2019 or 2020, they would join forces and develop a new console.  Sony brought with them their immense console marketing while Nintendo brought their innovation and world reknown first party franchises.  The two benefitted immensley from the partnership and grew to be more profitable together than they ever had as competitors.  Hardcore and casual united; gaming found its new golden era.  

There was also a side effect of this juncture.  They joined forces on the handheld front as well.  While Sony had the muscle in the console market, Nintendo had the muscle on the handheld front.  Sony built an extremely powerful handheld while Nintendo marketed it and took the world by storm.  Sony opened the door to indie developers like they did with the PS4, and this new handheld's library saw variety more vast than the Vita and the 3DS put together.  Under Nintendo's close watch, Sony began repairing the financial damage they incurred from the failure of the Vita.  

Meanwhile, MS kills the Xbox One.  They try things fresh and release yet another Xbox, this time a machine that is game-centric.  This time, they let Kinect go.  This time, they no longer go after multimedia partnerships.  They tried to go against Apple and SmartTVs, but it didn't pay off.  Windows 9 is released, and succeeds where 8 should have, so it becomes their bread and butter and they run with it.  They learned costly mistakes with the Xbox One and now it's too late for them reclaim their market.  The new Sony and Nintendo console has it all.  MS tries a gaming phone, but they can't get anywhere near the same support that the Nintendo and Sony handheld has.

Two companies join to capitalize on the mistakes of a third.  What an epic and glorious dream... Shame I had to wake up from it. 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124353-Peter-Molyneuxs-Curiosity-Finally-Chipped-Away
So earlier today the final piece of Peter Molyneuxs cube was chipped away. For month many gamers have wondered what was hidden away in that thing and have eagerly chipped away at the cube in hopes that they would be the one to discover the treasures that lay within. As it turns out the reward was to be bestowed godhood. No seriously the winner, Bryan Henderson from Scotland, was made a god in Godus, another of Molynuexs new titles. He also gets a share of the cash from all the sales made by Godus and other benefits of being a God in a video game (Discounting the ones in God of War). Not sure about you guys but I think that is one hell of a reward just for repeatedly tapping at your phone screen.
And with that Moluneuxs social experiment comes to an end. Many will be disappointed, some angry (I imagine this how the top contributors feel after their efforts have gone to waste), and some will be happy knowing that theyve finally found out what lay within that cube. Myself; Im still wondering why Molyneux started this experiment and what he wanted to find out from it. Also is it fair that all those who contributed to Bryans victory have been left out in the cold while he reaps the reward? Will we be seeing another cube popping up anytime soon, or something absurdly similar, and will we be as curious the second time round? Please share your thoughts below.

After a couple of really average games I desperately needed to play something good and then along game Dishonored and Bioshock Infinite so I knew I was in for a pretty good time! I've not intentionall spoilered Bioshock but if you don't want to know then I'd suggest not reading. 

First up was Dishonored which I wanted to play to get away from FPS games which is all I ever seem to play. Dishonored has a nice blend of play styles depending on how you want to play it. I started the game with the intention of stealth and working a clever way through the different situations but in the end I just went all out for kills and deaths. There aren't many games where you can kill almost everyone without getting a game over. Making decisions about life and death is great and actually makes the kills feel more meaningful. I went for the high chaos path as it seemed like less hassle and made combat easier as trying not to kill anyone sounds boring to me. I'm glad they put that option in though as it'll prove a tough challenge for even the most dedicated of gamers.

Considering I went all out for carnage I never really used the weapons. Although the sword combat isn't exactly anything to shout about I preferred to get up close and personal rather than picking enemies off from afar. I don't feel I got the most out of the game in this respect as there were a few weapons by the end that I hadn't even used.

After the first few hours of the game I thought I'd be writing a very different review to what I have. I really wasn't getting on well with the game as it just seemed really disjointed and the story was average at best and the gameplay seemed overly frustrating. The setting could've been amazing but the graphic style and scale of the areas let it down for me as I wasn't in awe of anything. Compared to other triple A games I thought it was a bit of a disappointment. At some point around halfway through, everything just seemed to click into place and the game turned around completely for me. The powers came together and I get my head around how to use them and the story improved as it was progressing pretty quickly. By the end of the game I was annoyed there wasn't more of it!

I'm not a big fan of collecting stuff and this game really makes you collect things. They aren't even interesting things like collectables towards an achievement but small things like coins and books/letters which just slow the game down too much for my liking. I don't like to have to scavenge and search for items as that's my least favourite part of RPGs so to do it in this type of game didn't appeal to me (the same applies for Bioshock as well).

Dishonored should be applauded for the various ways it can be completed. Having the choice to go back through the game and play it completely different to the last time is excellent. Even when I died and had to redo something I'd just done I often ended up doing it a totally different way to what I'd done just moments before. I'd like to see a sequel as its original enough to warrant a second go at it. I gave it a 9.0 based on the second half of the game. The first half would've only got a 7.0 but I think that was more my fault for not getting to grips with it sooner.

Following on from one great game to another, I played Bioshock Infinite. I didn't think I'd get to borrow this off my friend quite so soon so was pleasantly surprised when I get hold of it. The original Bioshock is still one of my favourite games and the sequel was more of the same which was great. Infinite has a completely different look which was a good move as I don't think I'd have enjoyed another game set in Rapture as much as I did a new location in Infinite.

I stayed away from most of the pre-release material and anything written about it after the game came out. It wasn't particularly intentional but I'm pleased I did. Having not really seem many screenshots everything in the game was a new experience and boy was it a good one.

The first two hours of the game are some of the most enjoyable I've ever spent in a game world. The superb attention to detail was amazing and the way they managed to create such a vibrant and lived in game world was incredible. I really took my time wandering around and taking in everything, searching every nook and cranny and reading all the posters etc. If it was real life I'm sure I'd have been arrested as I was walking up to everyone and just standing next to them whilst they talked and exhausted every conversation before progressing.

Apart from the visuals, the most outstanding thing about the game was the music and what they chose for the various locations in the game. At no point did I think the music didn't fit what was going on. The single best part of the game for me was just listening to the barbershop quartet. No idea why but it was just excellent and that was the moment I knew a lot of love and attention has been poured into this game. Also when Booker is playing the guitar with Elizabeth singing was a nice touch. It just amazes me what the developers can come up with to make a game world that extra bit special.

There aren't many games where I was actually annoyed when combat began. Whilst the game was happy and bright I was just praying for a battle to end so I could get back to exploring. As the game went on and it got darker and more combat orientated this wore off for me and the action took over. I don't think I enjoyed the action anywhere near as much as the splicers and big daddies from the original but it's not like it was bad. Standard enemies were a bit plain which was the only downside but they were satisfying enough to take down. The only annoying enemies in the game were the weird minions in Comstock House. They were damn annoying but if I'd have had the patience I could've slipped through unnoticed so it's more my own fault than the game's.

The weapons whilst mostly generic were actually pretty fun to use. The carbine became my go to weapon when I wasn't attempting to get a weapon specific achievement. I didn't really use any of the Vox weapons as I didn't really feel the need to. I managed to get all the weapon achievements which I don't usually do. They were all good in their own way so it was nice to use them all. The vigors were in no way a good replacement for the plasmids of the original as they were all really dull. None of them really had enough damage for my liking. I got to a point where I wasn't even using them but then realised I needed to start so I could get the achievement. When you combine them together things got a bit more interesting but I never went back to them once the achievement was done.

The story was pretty interesting all the way through and the ending was a bit of a mind bender but I loved it. The throwback to Rapture and getting to wander through it again was a nice touch and it did make me want to go back and play Bioshock again. I'm still not sure I fully understand the full meaning of the ending but that's the fun of it. I now get to read through articles online that discuss it and it's something I want to do. Most games I finish and move on and forget about it so this is the sign of a good game.

I game Infinite a 9.0 as I felt the action wasn't as strong as it could've been. The first two hours were easily a 10.0 but it didn't quite manage to pull that off for the whole game. I could quite happily now play through Infinite 2 now in the same world as I still feel it has a lot to give and might mean we get the next game a bit quicker. I suppose the next game will be next gen so might be a bit further away than I'd like. It'll be interesting to see if they stick with Columbia or move onto another location as they're pretty inventive with what they can create.

I'm trying to keep on a run of big budget games so I'm going to play Dead Space 3 next. It may not be the best game in the series but I love Dead Space so I'm trying not to let reviews and other opinions affect what I think of it.

When Nintendo unveiled the Wii U, it came as little surprise it would continue the departure from traditional console gaming considering the steps taken with motion technology and a family friendly presentation that led to the original Wii's success. With the unveiling of the Xbox One and Microsoft's own apparent departure from a gaming focused system, it seems the console market is now undergoing a kind of de-evolution. It would be fair to say Microsoft and Nintendo believe themselves to represent the pinnacle of innovation and originality if their advertising campaigns and grandiose press conferences are any evidence. But does the Xbox One actually represent a step backwards as far as gamers are concerned?

Although Sony's original Playstation brought gaming into widespread public recognition by appealing to clubbing culture with trance like visuals and pumping soundtracks, it was the Xbox that pioneered online console gaming. With the introduction of Xbox Live spearheaded by the phenomenally successful Halo, Microsoft quickly and aggressively seized early control of the online market something both Sony and Nintendo have yet to match. The genius of Microsoft's approach was not simply to create a way for gamers to play online but to turn that interaction into an entire community. With the ability to compare statistics, achievements while forming and nurturing online friendships, the widespread popularity started by Sony ended up consolidated back into a culture especially for gamers - rather than club socialites seeking a way to impress their real life friends by showing interest in what they believed to be 'the next big thing'. Essentially, Microsoft gave gaming back to the gamers.

With this in mind, it came as something of a disappointment to learn that the Xbox One would apparently be undoing some of this by catering to a more general community beyond those who play games. The console was revealed to include a Blu-Ray player, Skype support and an evolved online marketplace for movies and music, not to mention integrated Kinect a feature that has never been truly accepted by gamers as a practical method of playing games. So the name Xbox One is something of a misnomer - 'One' meaning all forms of entertainment delivered by a sole system while simultaneously splintering off from a culture of gamers that had been so expertly set up with the previous two consoles. All of this combined with the lack of backwards compatibility and we have system that appears hell bent on erasing the established gaming history of so many who had finally found a devoted community to call home.

The decision to cater for a wider demographic could very well prove fatal for Microsoft considering it already faces competition from the Wii U and is set to face the Playstation 4 on release. It can be assumed the Playstation 3 was the least popular of the current generation systems. A rocky beginning and a severe loss of credibility for Sony after the Playstation Network was hacked in mid 2011 resulting in the compromise of millions of credit card numbers means its been a difficult road for Sony of late. However, it now has a chance at redemption and reclamation of its status as the most popular console developer as proven by the Playstation 2's record of the highest selling console of all time. If you consider the departures from traditional gaming being made by Nintendo and the now risky fracturing of gamer culture by Microsoft, it leaves Sony in an interesting position to take advantage of the Playstation 4 now being the only console to still offer a traditional and dedicated gaming experience.