In the closing generation of videogames, there were four main consoles competing for your attention (if you count PC). Since not many of us have a lot of time or money on our hands, chances are you only wound up playing games with one or maybe two. What influenced your choice? It could have been how much money was in your back pocket, or it could be the games the system was showcasing. Let's not forget, though, that if you weren't just getting into videogames, there's a good chance you chose your console by what you already had. Assuming that you take an active role in gaming with the console(s) that you have, you have probably developed some degree of loyalty. This, however, causes more conflicts than it does connections, and it's something I've always had a problem with.

I was recently invited to a union called "PS3 - THE REAL NEXT GEN" - and just for kicks, I joined, even though I own an Xbox and Xbox 360. (I'm going to see how many unions I can collect by the end of the year and then quit all of the ones I don't participate in.) This is not the first time I've been invited to unions like these, and I joined only out of sheer morbid curiosity. I looked around for a few minutes, and I decided that these are not the kind of people I want to associate with.

I consider myself a passive and nice guy, since I've always supported the ideal of the Golden Rule. I think that open hatred or bias is not worthy of attention, and it's unfortunate that that union is a level 7 while the IGU or GGU are only 3 and 1, respectively - and we're all friends here. Gaming is not political or personal - it isn't based on moral beliefs or important decisions, so taking sides about a silicon "war" is arbitrary and stupid.

The only reasons I stuck with the Xbox are 1) it looked at the time to be the most technically capable, especially since I didn't start looking at "next-gen" until November '01, 2) it had Halo, and 3) my parents wouldn't let me buy the other consoles. The only reasons I got the 360 were 1) I liked the Xbox, and 2) I was eager to get into the next generation and the Xbox 360 seemed like a good choice. I'm not a missionary of Microsoft - if someone asks me what I think, I'll tell them I like the machine, but I won't necessarily encourage them to buy one. What you get should be based on your preferences.

The thing is, the "PS3 NEXT GEN" union is basing its entire foundation on a fundamental assumption that 1) is entirely subject to opinion and therefore unprovable, and 2) that the PS3 will be good, even though no one has even played it yet. Isn't the point of all the consoles to entertain? Why fight about it? If you locked Bill Gates in a room until the end of time and gave him nothing but a TV and a PS3, I would bet my big toe that he would play it.

Few people literally invest in a console, and even those that do don't usually claim to care about the games. But to gamers - not the cutthroat businessmen that have a reason to be competitive - it's about the games. If you see a set of games you like on a console, you're going to play that console if you can. Every machine has a desirable set of titles or way of playing them. There is no denying that each platform has its undeniable merits - picking yours should be up to you. In the grand scheme of things, though, it doesn't matter, or shouldn't matter, so long as you play the "good" games or games that best suit you.

So I encourage you not to throw stones at your neighbors - it's a fight you have nothing to gain from. If you enjoy games, play them. Don't ever tell me that I'm an idiot for buying an Xbox, because I'm going to fight back and you're going to look like an dick. I play games, and from the time I have spent with every console, they're just as enjoyable no matter where you play them. Silicon wars should be between businessmen and not the gamers who, in the end, have entertainment in common.

I'm willing to bet that, sometimes, if you aren't preoccupied, coming onto this site to check your messages or look for updates makes you feel guilty. I'm betting that some of you feel like geeks, spending hours of your time staring over a gaming website. It's only one example of an unspoken "mindset" that has simply become universal in our society, and that is that videogames are something considered "taboo." Videogames, like druidism, are by no means wrong, but similarly something you don't openly profess.

While some of the criticism on videogames is undoubtedly true, there are a few fundamental assumptions people make that really aren't fair. Gaming is just a relatively new hobby, and as a whole there's nothing wrong with it.

LIke everything else in life, it's perfectly OK if used in moderation. It's also paramount to value friends, family, education, and personal health first, no matter what the situation is. I think that part of the reason gaming has become "taboo" is because the image of the "extreme" gamer stands in unpleasant contrast to the "extreme" participant of any other practice. For instance, a star football player doesn't always strike you as being obsessed with football; while an athletic physique and occasional testosterone flares may stand out, a "normal" lifestyle is still entirely plausible. On the other hand, the CS-obsessed hacker-fanboy who talks about computer hardware and the last batch of "n00bs he pwned" is not getting a good date for a long, long time.

People see gaming in a bad light partially because of people like these. When gaming becomes a lifestyle rather than a recreational hobby, then you really do have problems. That said, why not see gaming as "legitimate?" What's really wrong with it, so long as you don't overdo it?

I watched the Halo 2 making-of documentary recently (I have the collector's edition), and the resounding image I always see is not how hard Bungie worked or how talented they are; instead, it was the white-haired fan in Connecticut who hosted a semi-annual LAN party. This man, who was easily a decade older than my own dad, said that gaming was no longer the domain of the geeks. Himself a player, he said, "Are we too old? Naw." Similarly, one of the nicest people I could ever hope to meet playing online was in his late 30's, and he held a very good position in a business firm. His motto? "Never too old." He said that he planned to work like a businessman and then go home and relax like a kid. Is there anything wrong with that?

I love to play games. I consider it my hobby of choice. But I'm a A student, I spend time with my cousins and grandparents, I do things with friends every week, and I'm perfectly healthy (6'0", 130 lb). Games, like anything else, have the power to corrupt and change people - but it's still new. Gaming is growing, and it's becoming more and more mainstream every year. Even prehistoric peoples were skeptical of basket weavers until they realized how important a hobby basket-weaving was. As you can see in my other articles, gaming has its own perks and merits.

So don't feel guilty, if you "have a life." If someone asks you what your hobbies are, don't be afraid to say videogames, provided it isn't the only one you give. Gaming in moderation is completely legitimate, and it's wrong of people to hold a prejudice against it. It's just a hobby - I hope.

Why do gamers game?

That sounds like a dumb question, but really there's several answers for it. Videogames being a constantly expanding source of entertainment, gamers game to have something to do, to have a way to unwind. Maybe you could even consider gaming a hobby or a fascination. But I think that beneath all of that - for those of us who are experienced with games - there's something actually more important.

I think that we're all constantly searching for something to captivate us, to take our breath away. It doesn't happen often - between the low-caliber games that come out too often and the specific preferences between people, it really is hard to find something that grabs you.

There's a fine line between entertainment and captivation. A good game will keep your attention and give you some incentive to finish, or otherwise give you something to do. But this alone is not enough to warrant gaming, it's not enough to motivate trying something else. When you find something you love or come to love, something that grabs your attention and doesn't let you go the whole way through - you've found something you can remember for a long time.

The games that captivate are the ones that you add to your library. They are the games that you tell your friends about, and they are the games that bring back memories after being played again after a long time. This is why gaming can be so enjoyable - because the games you want to play are the games that take you somewhere. When you first play one of these games, or at least sometime before you finish, it will send a big grin across your face or make you hold your breath in anticipation.

These games are great in themselves, but they can be the common medium, the canvas over which memories are created. If videogames are emotional stimuli, then the games are simply the ones that stir up your thoughts and actually make you feel something. These feelings are unique and viscerally addictive - and so trying to find these kinds of feelings again are part of what make gaming somewhat profound.

So why do gamers game? Beyond the simple, obvious necessity for entertainment, gamers game because they're looking for that old familiar feeling. Gamers game because they know that there's a game out there somewhere, waiting to be discovered. Gamers game because they need that profound sense of enjoyment that only a great game can bring.

We all know that American society as a whole is some of the most prissy, stuck-up, and over-protective in the world. This is a county with 4% of the world's population and 75% of the lawyers, where liberals scream bloody murder and conservatives complain about a liberal press. We really don't have any boundaries for what's acceptable anymore, as this is really the only country that believes in political correctness to this degree of insanity.

Violent videogames have recently become a hot-button issue, as some lawmakers are calling for a 100% tax on violent videogames and crying that they are the new Satan. While I do believe that parents need to be conscious of what their children are playing, I think that too many people take the issue way too far. Several reasons why violent videogames, under specific conditions, are not all bad:

1) Parents are too protective. Not to say that we should raise kids to be guerrilla warfare experts or drug dealers, but I think that children need to have some outlet to the real world. Why not bring it to a domain that's accessible to kids, through videogames?

2) Frankly, some of the best games out there have violent content. Many of the classics - Doom, Half-Life, Halo, Resident Evil, even Bond - bring different degrees of violence to the homefront. Zelda, Mario, and Madden can get you only so far.

3) What legislators want to accomplish would be so much more effective if parents would take an active role in what their kids play. While this is somewhat unreasonable to expect, it's unfair to gamers as a whole to make games $120 a pop - the average gamer is in his/her twenties. Parents, not politicians, should be parenting. (Would you believe me if I said that my dad suggested Zelda: Ocarina of Time because they said it was kid-friendly? It's true. And that is my favorite game ever even today.)

4) Videogames, violent included, are a common medium with which to make new friends and socialize with the current ones. Since they've become so huge over the last few years, and since all of my friends game, we discuss them and play over Xbox Live. Don't misunderstand me - it's still just a hobby, and I still only play an hour or two a day. So do my friends. Yet I've met a lot of great people and had a lot of interesting conversations with gaming as the common medium, and obviously I've had a lot of fun in the process.

5) Most importantly - the violence lying behind 95% of violent videogames is not entirely morally wrong. Even the most gruesome games (RE4) out there have the protagonist fighting for a noble or otherwise not evil cause. It's not the violent content that makes games "bad" - it's what drives the game's violence, and how explicit developers choose to make it. Games like Halo and RE4 will not inspire students to kill their classmates with Dad's gun. Hypothetically, if I were a parent, I would be more concerned about games like GTA, which are obviously fraught with bad moral direction. Even so, from the real perspective of a teenager, I know that GTA alone will not give kids these ideas anyway - it's all about the guidance that parents offer. That's all.

On a side note, I think that part of the reason I have a profound enjoyment of videogames is that they are a portal to a different world. This is the kind of thing that lets me unwind best, and it gives me a chance to "exercise my inner demon" on something that isn't even real. I've been playing violent videogames since I was real little (6?) and I've never so much as hit anyone in my life. I've never done drugs or alcohol, I have a great set of friends, and I make honor roll every year. I have great parents, and that's all the explanation I need.

Mass media in America has grown to an insurmountable size, and it's something that simply can't be avoided anymore. From radio to TV to the internet, we've started becoming more and more connected to the globe, and we've become utterly dependent on digital entertainment. While maybe at first these were stimulating or intriguing, it's taking more and more to satisfy a consumer.

Necessity is the mother of invention, so we've heard. When the masses want something, someone will find a way to provide it - and they will profit from it. But on the flip side, you have to wonder if there will ever be enough. You hear more about the ratings war than you do about insurgent wars in Africa. Our cravings for entertainment are spiraling out of control - but whose fault is it?

The most recent (and for our intents, pertinent) type of digital entertainment, aside from the Internet, is videogames. Videogames as an industry has been growing exponentially within the last decade, and so they've become so subject to the same problems as the other forms of digital entertainment. However, it's worth pointing out that while videogames as an industry are still growing fast, it's getting more and more expensive to make a "good game," and the standards for a game are so much harder to meet than standards for TV. After all, no matter how broken a TV show is, you can be entertained by it (you've found yourself watching Bachelorette re-reuns at 2 in the morning - admit it). On the other hand, a broken game will be discarded in a matter of seconds, and money will have been wasted in the process.

We are the ones at fault for the cravings of entertainment. We are the cynical bunch, the ones who don't give something a second chance. If you really think about it, deep down, you expect every game on the shelf to be good because you have to pay money for it. Obviously this is not possible - but it means that good games are so valuable, and knowing what the good games are and where they come from has given us a loose set of standards by which to draw expectations. We single out these kind of games and developers and so on, and we have put even more pressure on them to deliver worthwhile products.

In all reality, we are at fault for the craze. This un-ending hype on many of the better "types" of titles has inevitably caused some developers to jump the gun and release quickly before crossing their t's or dotting their i's. But there is hope, and some people still understand the value of patience. Some of the greatest games of recent times managed not to screw up simply because they took their time and did it right.

Resident Evil 4 was over 3 years in development... and look at it! I know I'm coming off like a fanboy, but this is a game that continues to astound me. It's obvious from the get-go that a mountain of effort went into the creation of this one. Let's not forget Halo 2 as well; while there are some who really don't like it, most people do, and empirically speaking, Halo 2 is a groundbreaking success. They didn't screw up because they stopped and restarted to fix it, and no matter how disappointed we might have been to hear about the delays, we would have been disheartened so much more had it come out sour. These are but two examples of why developers and gamers alike need to think long-term, and keep quality in mind ahead of quantity.

I'm almost expecting to hear that Halo 3 will be delayed, no matter how much the Microsoft Press Conference at E3 made the release date sound like an ultimatum. Halo is a trilogy - so unlike Final Fantasy, they won't have another shot in a month or two. Halo 3 is the perfect opportunity to capitalize on the monumental energy built by the first two, and go out with a fantastic boom of grandeur. We all would be so happy to know that Halo 3 will have been the amazing conclusion to a great trio of titles, rather than just the last game that fell flat.

So I urge you to bear in mind that delays and other setbacks are never unjustified - sometimes they're simply necessary for anything worthwhile to come about. In the end, you will have been glad you waited. 

Like mind games? Look no further than The Game.

These are the rules of the game:
1) Once informed of the rules, you can never stop playing the game.
2) If you think about the game, you have lost the game.
3) A loss of the game must be announced (i.e. "I lost the game").
4) If someone asks what you mean, you must explain.

That is all. See http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/The_game for more information. (It's funny, and yet so infectious...)

Here's where you can agree or disagree with a review of mine. I like to hear what others think regarding gaming, so you can voice agreements or complaints here. Just make it fair and constructive, and I'll listen.