During a response to a Legacy Systems forum for "worst Nintendo console ever" I stated that the Virtual boy takes the prize - not for a mere hand-full of games, or even the headache after 30 minutes - I felt that the Virtual Boy ruined any shot that 3D gaming had of being a serious genre in the industry. Am I wrong? To answer that question you need to ask yourself, "Was the Virtual Boy successful?", followed by, "Does the Virtual Boy still exist in any form on the market?" The answer is no, and that can only mean that the system flopped and the technology along with it.

Upon the final stroke of the keyboard I had an epiphany (a.k.a. a brain fart) and had to wonder if the Virtual Boy would have pushed the medium forward if it had been sucessful. Never having actually played a Virtual Boy (I know, I know, I suck) the closest thing to having an interactive 3D experience was seeing a movie in IMAX 3D, which is hardly interactive but pretty damn cool all the same. With that in mind as a pixilated and monochrome red game it's hard to imagine a Mario Tennis game presented that way back in '95 being even remotely as fun as, say, Chrono Trigger or Yoshi's Island (both released in '95) on the Super Nintendo.

Let's at this point forget that the V.B. tanked and disappeared, and instead assume that the technology was kept on the back burner at Nintendo HQ or outsourced to Sony. In the following years when the cost of LED lights drops and makes 3D simulation a viable new market again that Nintendo makes the Virtual Boy 2, with twice the resolution and basic color palette - something like the Game Boy Color - only 3D, minus the headaches. Sounds good so far, right? Well it gets better. Nintendo then releases Mario(insert moniker here), and it is the first of 5 excellent 1st party Nintendo franchises on the V.B.2.

Assuming that the V.B.1 came and went from '95 to '97 and the V.B.2 took off after it's induction and early success in '98, that we have reached the year 2000 with Nintendo producing about 5-10 AAA titles a year and about another 100 by 3rd party developers with average success. This turn of events promps Nintendo to scrap Pokemon Gold/Silver for the GBC (which at this point is obsolete) and port it over to the V.B.2 with a significant graphical overhaul. This choice turns uot to be a smash hit for system and it is at this point that Sony perfects and releases the PS2 - but with a pair of unique and stylish glasses that allow the player to view their games in a stunning and new "true polygonal depth 3D".

Nintendo, seeing that Sony has the console market pocketed, creates the V.B.3 - a handheld system capable of graphics that rival the N64, and are 3D to boot. This iteration of the V.B makes Nintendo a company that exclusively makes handhelds and makes Sony the dominant (and only) console manufacturer, and thus the 2 have the monopoly in thier respective markets.

For the sake of continuity, Microsoft stays the hell away from the console and handheld markets and makes a Windows operating system that is perfect in every way that is another market for regular "non-true 3D" games entirely. Oh, and they form an aliance with Apple Corp., making it the giant among the PC platform.

Without interferance of a rival company, Sony's PS2 sells millions of units around the globe with top tier entertainment that rivals cinema and music.

Enter 2006 - Sony releases all thier high end triple A games in a simulated extra dimension that adds immersian that no other media form cam replicate, making it possible for the first time for players to actually feel like they are Solid Snake in MGS4.

I'm aware of all the liberties that I've taken in this alternate history but I seriously want to hear from you, the reader what you belive gaming would be today if a fabled "third dimension" was present in video games.