I remember the first time I loaded Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. I was like, "Too complex!". A couple of years later I got Rome Total War and had to work hard again to get into the gameplay. I remember the first time I loaded the level up screen for Neverwinter Nights. Each of these games gave me new territory. It gave a sense of exploration. It was like entering a whole new world with different rules.

When Dragon Age came out, reality began to set in. I got nothing but a repeat of what I knew about gaming. I got Dawn of War II and it seemed too familiar. I got Starcraft II which started out good but quickly wore out its welcome. I got Darksiders and it never transcended beyond a "quickie".

It's all about money and playing safe. There was innovation in the early days of gaming. You'll come across unique ideas like the "radial menu" in Neverwinter Nights. There were exploratory games like "Perimeter". There are overly complex "risky" games like "Alpha Centauri".

All these innovations whether they're successful or not indicates a potential to go beyond. Today, most game developers ask the question "What do most players like?" or "What system is everyone comfortable with?". In the early days, we had a term for this. Games which follow these mentalities are called clones. As you may have guessed, it is not an endearing term.

Ten years ago, game reviewers had the most enviable jobs. They brace themselves for each "new" experience. A 3D strategy game? Let's see what Homeworld has to offer. A flight sim with a dynamic campaign? Ok, let's test its replayability. A strategy game with 3 different races? How did they balance it? A real racing simulation? Nascar? Viper Racing? Let's see.

Now, a game reviewer's job is to make sure all the basics are right. Developers these days opt to go the safe route. When was the last time a game offered a radical change? When was the last time a game took the risk to discover new things? Today, new games are hiding behind the industry term "getting the basics right". In the old days, the term is "clone".

This is the future Blizzard has laid out for the gaming industry. Their fame and money came from "polishing" existing concepts. Everyone however is too scared to go a different route. Spore, the last "risky concept" I can remember, has gone into the action RPG bandwagon. The only game holding a light at the end of the tunnel is the Civilization series. It is the only game that displayed major changes like the new tileset and unit stacking.

Ten years ago, game developers are looking for new ways to have fun with the system. Today, they're looking for "old"/"safe" ways. In the future, like Darksiders, people will not praise how innovative a game is. In the future, the following manner of discussion will be prevalent, "It's like Prototype.", "No! It's Devil May Cry!", "No! God of War!!!". To be blunt, in the future the common talk will be, "It's a clone of what?"

Either there is an unspoken rule within the reviewers or we have a consistent freak accident occuring with every expansion.

What am I talking about? It is the usual decline in score from the initial release of a certain game to its expansions. When you've read a lot of reviews in gamespot you get this automatic feeling once every expansion is released, "There's nowhere to go but down."

Is it a warranted rule? The recurring point being given by every gamespot reviewer is that there is nothing "new" being added. It felt the same, it felt bland, it felt unimaginative, your pick of the adjective.

Now, this could be true in a sense but where do we draw the line? Monkey Island second editions? Nothing new there but graphics? How about Street Fighter IV? Still, I loved Street Fighter IV and gave it a 9.0 review.

Do the same rules apply to Blizzard? First, let's go back to Warcraft III. It brought forth changes in the gameplay that set it apart from Warcraft II or even Starcraft. The consistent Hero was first introduced in the Warlords: Battlecry series with their last installment being Warlords Battlecry III. Warcraft III took this concept and introduced a simplified Hero level up that goes with the player all throughout the campaign. In a sense, Warcraft III is a totally different game albeit an amalgam of innovations already present in the market.

Do we need a hero system in Starcrat II? It's sci-fi not fantasy you could say, but how about Mass Effect? The reviews of games that didn't get the honorary 9.0 actually shift from, "repetitive" to "buggy mess". So, what prevented Medieval II from getting the 9.0 score? Where did that 2.0 go? Well, the cons include "beefy system requirements".

Looking at the whole industry, by what standards should Blizzard be judged? The Total War series has been shifting and re-shifting to include new innovations. Last time I checked they tried to incorporate the naval battles in detail. The game seems to be moving forward, though there's a chance it will just go back to its roots in Shogun Total War II and polish them.

Where does Gamespot and the review industry draw the line? When does Starcraft become a classic that endless "similar" remakes are accepted as staples of the industry like Street Fighter IV? When do we say that Blizzard gets the editors choice for "re-making" a classic with new units and new graphics engine? Doesn't it sound like an expansion? Even Warcraft III isn't immune to the deteriorating grade... There's a 1.0 difference between the original game and the expansion.

The myth of Blizzard having a streak of perfection is an illusion and it might be a history Gamespot wants to forget. The classic ever-present standard that is Diablo II got a score of 8.5, and its expansion got 8.2. How many games in the RPG department of Gamespot got a score of 8.2 and above? How many of these games ended up being forgettable? I'm willing to bet that if Gamespot can turn back the clock they will change the review for Diablo II to 9.0+.

Will the reviewer assigned to Starcraft II be willing to deny Blizzard the "editor's choice" if he found the game to be unimaginative and resembling a repackaged old classic? Or will a repackaged classic be the standard to which Starcraft II is going to be judged, like Street Fighter IV and Monkey Island? Do we throw in the towel of expecting innovative games from Blizzard despite the fact that they changed the gameplay of Warcraft to accommodate an entirely new experience?

Unfortunately, it seems that an "editor's choice" is mandatory for Starcraft II and the survival of Blizzard. With Boby Kotick at the helm what will happen if Startcraft II fails to clinch the craved "editor's choice"? For years, Activision has put up with Blizzard and all its perks, why? It is because Blizzard has an untarnished record. How many projects has Activision ruthlessly killed? How many decisions did Boby Kotick make that emphasizes on the "inflow of cash"? These decisions involved not only scrapping titles that fail to gain the revenue they were supposed to be getting but also the management of how these games are developed.

Blizzard's employees have enjoyed what few game developers enjoy in their lifetime. The audacity to say "done when it's done". It is not undeserved mind you but at this point, with Bobby Kotick at the helm, how fickle could that privilege be?

If Starcraft II fails to get this craved for 9.0+, how much wrath will Bobby Kotick inflict upon its employees? A game that went into development for ten years and this is what you have to show for? Blizzard's management style seems to contradict what Bobby Kotick has in mind. If that fails, how much ammunition will Bobby Kotick unleash on Blizzard. This will definitely include the undeniable proof that their work habits are "obsolete". It was pointed out somewhere by Bobby Kotick that they're tolerating a "spoiled" Blizzard because of their track record. What happens when that track record fades into oblivion?

Even when I strayed far from simming, I always bought each new title released. Black Shark was released months ago and I haven't "considered" buying it until now. Is this the end of simming for me as a consumer?

Well I hope not. Logitech has released a new HOTAS system and I wouldn't want to miss that. To me, this is a very good sign for simulations. Logitech is a leading "popular" brand when it comes to game controllers and this is something many simmers have been waiting for. (Even people with no interest in flight sims know the brand of Logitech)

Years ago, the brands for HOTAS seemed to be well within the rings of Saitek, CH, Thrustmaster, and Suncom (defunct). These were the major suppliers that provided a package of separate throttle, stick and pedals systems (I'm not counting all-in-one packages usually released by Microsoft and Logitech, i.e. Sidewinder series, Logitech Freedom etc.).

Diverting away from Flight Simulations, the only premiere driving control system I could remember were the products produced by ACT labs. Yes we had the MOMO steering wheel and Formula Force series from Logitech but none of them broke the barrier which IMO is the clutch pedal.

Now we jump to the present, "the now". Logitech has released the G25 and the G940. To me, this is breaking grounds in many ways. Years ago, you have to laborously search the internet just to get wind of the ACT labs controllers and the budget Suncom HOTAS. Now, for the first time, you have a well known company (Logitech) making these stuff which is accessible to their worldwide dealers.

Years ago, I would buy a simulation first, then worry about the HOTAS. Now, things have changed. I'm busier, and have less time for the demands of military simulations. My mentality has changed in that I want a proper HOTAS to play these games. With Logitech releasing the G940, Black Shark is within my sights now.

It has become clear what drove me to post reviews and start a blog on this site (in which I remained inactive for almost 4 years).

I've recently reviewed F-15 by Janes. Most likely no one will read it. I've also reviewed Longbow 2 with the same prospects.

Do I post reviews to garner attention? To be recognized as a gamer with respectable insight?

Probably not, my next review would most likely be Flanker 2.0. Guess the chances of me being recognized by reviewing games with 100 or so users.

Most of my review also involve games that I like. So, in retrospect what am I trying to acccomplish here? I'm not even expecting people to follow my blog on a regular basis.

Maybe it's gratitude :) . A thanks for these games that I enjoyed playing. And as I stated in my recent review of Jane's F-15, it's the prospect of the game being archived with my good review. That it be remembered in a favorable light. Maybe it is just my mentality of being a gamer on the road to sunset, reminiscing the time I used to have fun with these games, these classics.

Now this is something useful from gamespot. I never thought of cataloguing my game collection but with the inherent system here, it makes it a lot easier.

Games Lists is a really nice way to reminisce and see the actual timeline with the date sorting option.

I'm not the addicted gamer I used to be. Not the simmer I used to be. Gaming is slowly becoming a thing of my past. Now, filling up my time of not playing games, I'm reviewing them instead. When the reviews are all done then that's the time when I should probably stop calling myself a gamer. Unless something revolutionary happens in the gaming world that will draw me back like iron filings to a magnet