[Faile]

Finally, I am able to reply!

It's a strange thing when you think about it; the mass takeover of gaming as an 'acceptable' (many definitions of what this can actually mean, but for now read this as accepted by mainstream society) social pursuit. I remember a time when gaming was only there at the outskirts of social spending. Everyone was surprised when the PSX managed to open up a larger market (clever marketing from Sony). I think perhaps that the Wii has merely gone the same way. However, if you were there for the PSX you can rightfully say that you've seen it all before - mass market gaming is nothing new for you, and you're quite right. However, you'll still remember the time when the art of game making was exactly that - an art. Sure, Crash Bandicoot isn't that groundbreaking, but man, that first time you played it, it seemed amazing didn't it? Thing is, by the end of the generation, the templates had been set. Playstation2 didn't really change anything there, either. Games made to templates, with a few stand out titles. But there was a time when the majority of available titles on the playstation felt like standout titles.

See, I think Nintendo learnt from this. During the PSX years, they tried to ensure that the N64 had only the very best of games - the result, the console was considered a failure. The mainstream can't handle this idea - they want to choose which games to play. They don't want critics to do it for them.

Playstation development meant that studios could produce games on the cheap, thus getting the units out there more quickly and with less risk. I think that Nintendo learnt from their mistakes here; hence the wii is cheap to develop for. Titles that lack the merit of 'greater' games are bought in better quantities. Mainstream gamers are appeased; they play for fun, not so much the experience. Weirdly, Sony (to me) has manufactured, marketed and priced the Playstation3 as an elite console. Perhaps Sony's hubris can be blamed here following years of Nintendo in the eighties/early nineties dominance. Hence, they have now made similar mistakes to Nintendo. Amusingly, Microsoft now adopts the original PSX stance and in my opinion, has done a good job of it. I play for fun, but with a good series of titles I can draw on if I dig them out (sure, they may also be available on PS3, but wouldn't it have been great if the best N64 games had been available on PSX?).

However, where is the art in this? Well, like Meryl alludes to, as cinema grew critical success became less important than financial success. Likewise, we've moved that way with gaming. Sadly there is no way back I fear. There are still amazing titles being released but they are lost in a sea of other games, fighting for attention. If you think that's bad, then think of the incredible shrinking PC market. This still upsets me, as I love PC gaming and find it more flexible than console gaming. However, it's in my mind a case of the FPS genre eating all others, and then Halo3 eating the PC-FPS genre. I sometimes wonder if I'll ever get a chance to play Half Life 2 Episode 3 on my PC. I think it's destined for Xbox now, and this is where Microsoft have won; PC gamers (like me) have simply jumped ship to Xbox. I bought my Xbox for £99 last year, it wasn't a great outlay, and my favourite franchises were all there (barring MGS). Low risk, but a great investment...