Thanks for the poem! I've found that reading poetry can be one of the best ways to stimulate creativity, and your poem did that for me. However, I find it difficult to critique another person's poetry because, well, it's poetry :p

I read some philosophy once which claims that when a person publishes something, it no longer belongs to them; being published, it's public, and therefore belongs to everyone who reads it because everyone can privately interpret it despite what the author originally intended. I think this is most true of poetry.

The only suggestion I have is to italicize the "click click clicks," which would help emphasize the word "click" as a sound to be heard, and not just read. This is entirely subjective, though, since we're talking about poetry.

Lastly, I just wanted to say my favourite line was: "The woman in the corner drags the cancer willingly into her lungs."

Brilliant line. Good job :D 

This is a difficult question because it also involves personal preference of Sci-Fi vs. Fantasy :p

In no particular order...

N64 Recommendations: Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Super Smash Bros., Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire, Quest 64, Ogre Battle 64, Bomberman 64, Rogue Squadron, Mario Party, StarFox 64, Mario Kart, Zelda: Majora's Mask...

PS2 Recommendations: Way of the Samurai, Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, Fatal Frame 2, Shadow of the Colossus, GTA 3 and San Andreas, God of War, Devil May Cry(s), Prince of Persia(s), Final Fantasy X, Silent Hill 2...

Man that era of gaming was incredible -- so many new and evolutionary titles! 

A little reality check... publishers and developers only want money. Gamers pay the money because the publishers and developers promise fun, freedom, change, security, etc. And, because of the system (the way things are set up), the rich get richer. Big developers and publishers now have a monopoly. Microsoft, for example, is so big that the little guy (independent developers) can barely squeeze into the business. But being big isn't enough. What do all people with power and money want?

More.

Specifically, more control. Every gaming company would like to be the ONLY gaming company, because to them, competition is a threat. Rationality and common sense tell us that competition is healthy; it keeps the big companies in check, because if gamers don't like what they do, they have the choice to buy somewhere else. Unfortunately, much of our choice today is an illusion. Almost every aspect of industry in the West has been swallowed up and absorbed into the all-powerful megacorporations. The gaming industry is no different. Do you think the CEO's of Microsoft and Sony hate each other? Probably not. Just like Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, they have lunch together. And while media is supposed to remain objective and promote transparency between the gamers and publishers/developers, the objectivity of the media (Gamespot and IGN) is questionable.

So, the big companies get top heavy, let the money go to their heads, and start throwing their weight around like Microsoft did at E3 with their new Xbox One policies. Fortunately, gamers made a loud enough clamour to remind Microsoft where their money was coming from, and now Microsoft is trying to repair the damage they caused to themselves. But do you think that's the end? You think they won't try it again? And not just Microsoft, but all the big gaming companies. It's coming ... dun dun duuuh!!

The only insight I feel inclined to emphasize is the importance of making sure introductions match the rest of the composition. If there's a striking contrast between a flashy introduction and then a lull into monotony for the remainder of the article, the reader will feel cheated--like they were tricked into reading. As c_rake points out: "your choice of opening should relate to the subject and form for the article you're writing. It should be a natural fit because it flows." Ideally, freshness and creativity will be apparent throughout the entirety of the article!

Nice post btw, and it's always good to be reminded to keep things fresh and creative. Additionally, I loved your intro for Metro: Last Light, c_rake. I had to read your entire review afterwards :D

This forum is pointless--I mean, who complains about free??? Sure, Good luck finding an original gameboy and playing older than dirt games. You should be thankful for emulators. If you think they ruin your experience, don't play them. In the meantime, have fun hunting down all that ancient hardware :p

Thanks for your blog post and the review on Bioshock Infinite! I'll definitely have to pick it up in the near future :) As for a critique, I wanted to point out your use of commas. Here's one sentence I wanted to look at:

It has many wonderful plot points that never go anywhere, disappointing, underutilized characters, horrible non-plot related NPCs, muddy textures, and a disjointed narrative, but what is done well, is done very well, as the narrative is still pretty good, and epic, despite its flaws, and there are a few good characters, including Booker, who is one of my favorite video game protagonists in a good while; and some pretty good, fun, strategic, if slightly weightless, gameplay, and an amazing, diverse gamespace that, sadly, never reaches its full potential. 

First of all, that's a HUGE sentence. I noticed you wrote this sentence as if you were speaking it, and you use commas as if you were pausing to take a breath, rather than using them to distinguish between people, places, ideas, and things. If I were to rewrite this sentence, it might look something like this:

Along with many wonderful plot points that, unfortunately, never go anywhere, there are disappointing and underutilized characters, horrible NPCs unrelated to the plot, muddy textures, and (sometimes) a disjointed narrative. But what is done well is done very well, and the narrative remains relatively good--even epic at times despite obvious flaws. Also, there are a handful of memorable characters, including Booker who has become one of my more recent favourite video game protagonistst. In addition, the gameplay is fun and strategic, though slightly weightless at times, and includes an amazing diverse gamespace that, sadly, never seems to reach its full potenial.

I've broken your sentence into a paragraph of four sentences. Now there's lots of ways to rewrite this, but the important thing is clarity. And usually, clarity is best achieved through short, concise sentences. An excess of commas can lead to the creation of rambling sentences, which risk losing their point and threaten to leave the reader wondering what was the point in the first place? My advice is to work on separating your speaking voice from your writing voice. Punctuation is the way, the truth, and the light.

All in all, it was a really good review; I enjoyed it, and found it very informative. Also, the balance you struck between reviewing and sharing personal insight was excellent.

I enjoyed your editorial and appreciated the very few grammatical errors. However, there were a few awkward sentences that need punctuation adjustment, or rewording. For example:

Trevor, the crazy backwoods psychopath. Because if you were creating one of those killing, no remorse kind of characters, he couldn't live in the city, right?

"Trevor, the crazy backwoods psychopath" is an incomplete thought/sentence and can't stand on its own. Further, I don't know why it's significant to mention that Trevor lives in the backwoods and not the city, as psychopaths live everywhere. I couldn't relate to the irony here.

Now you have a lot of good points, and your editorial certainly confronts an interesting topic. I agree that video games have, and still tend to favour hyper-masculine protagonists. However, you undermine your argument at certain points. For instance, at the beginning you say: "I just don't get it" and "can't quite figure out" why Rockstar did not include a female as one of the three protagonists. Yet, without much evidence to back your claim, you determine that Rockstar's exclusion was deliberate, driven by monetary greed, or even out of sexist bias. The contradiction is strongest when you conclude: "Rockstar, shame on you," without proving they did anything wrong other than disappoint you.

By relying solely on speculation and assumption, your editorial morphs into an opinion/rant. For me this was distracting. I think your editorial is weak only in that it is divided in direction. I believe it could be a really successful article if you rewrote it as either 1. a rant, or 2. a purely speculatory editorial, avoiding the jump to unfounded conclusions.

All in all, thanks for the read! If it seems like I'm being a hard-ass, it's because I am, but only because I see lots of potential in your writing :D 

It may be on the way up, but that doesn't mean the damage will be 100% repaired. MS's poor PR and whacko policies have left a bad aftertaste in many a-gamer's mouth :s