I really hate that I'm not going to be able to submit an entry in the Developer for a Day 3 contest GameSpot is hosting. As much as it hurts to admit it, I'm just too busy. Work alone demands too much of my time, so the few hours that I have left in a day I cannot afford (as a husband and father of two -- soon to be deployed for at least 4 months) to commit to pouring myself into this competition. Reading the announcement of the contest all but broke my heart because I knew instantly that I simply don't the hours left in each day to match the level of competition sure to be felt when the entries start rolling in.

It's one thing to be competetive and have a "never say die" attitude, and it's a completely different thing to be deluded. GameSpot is frequented by some seriously talented writers who happen to love playing video games. Anyone who's kept up with the forums at all has almost certainly read posts from the Mods Oilers99 and ChronoSquall. Likewise, I'd wager many GS forumites have read at least a thing or two written by the very, very talented writers SSFreitas and Grammaton_Cleric. These are but four people who have won my respect (for whatever it's worth...) in the forums for their consistently thoughtful contributions which they present with elevated skill time and time again. The question of who's game idea is better aside, I believe that only a half-hearted effort by these guys on the part of presentation would virtually decimate whatever I could compile. I work upwards of 55 hours weekly -- sometimes more when I have to work weekends. The simple fact is, when the level of competition is so high it takes a lot of time to be able to keep stride. If I'm going to be a part of this, I really want to be able to devote 100% of the time I need to it. I'd hate to really sink my teeth into a project only to have to put in on the back burner for a matter of weeks and come back to it, rinse, repeat.

Looking on the bright side, this is the third DfaD contest -- or at least I'm assuming that's what the "3" in the title means. With that in mind, I suppose I can hold on to the hope that there'll eventually be a DafD4 and I can have a role as an active participant rather than a spectator. I can't lie either. Even though I can't wait to read the great entries, I'm also looking forward to reading some of the more pitiful ones -- just like the "singers" I loved to loathe on American Idol. Is that rotten or what? Ah, who cares? One way or the other this is going to be fun to watch.

Facing this question in the GS General Games Discussion forum, I responded with:

I don't play games to "become" another character for a short period of time. I've never understood that mindset, but I don't think it's a bad one. For me there's something about playing games, especially really great games, that is hypnotic. There comes a point when you are so involved in what you're seeing and doing that your mind lets go of your troubles, however briefly, and your hands become an extension of your subcounscious mind. All of your goals are set out in front of you, there is no stress, and this new world is in the palm of your hand. You're not thinking about playing a game (or much of anything else) - you're just playing. That's the escape. That's what I play for.

It was the same when I used to skate. There would come a moment where all I had to do was think about doing my next trick, and my conscious mind stepped back to let my body be controlled as though I was dreaming. It was like falling asleep -- I only knew I'd been in "the zone" as I snapped back to reality and realized it was over. Everybody needs that "something" at least once in life, and for me right now, it's games.

I think I play games because... that's what I do (hobby-wise). Some people play poker, or trick out their cars or homes. Other people collect sports cards or collect CDs. I play and collect games. They say it's a waste of time. I say they're wasting time [that could be better spent playing games]. Go figure.

I never write in this thing. I always tell myself I will, but I usually spend so much time perusing the rest of this site that I never actually dig in and write some of the things that come to mind. That's sad too, because some of the topics I read in the forums really stir me to write, but, as I said, I usually fade out before I get down to it. Not tonight though. I'm going to add another entry before I go downstairs and either study or play Tales of Symphonia some more. Ten to one I start to study then resign to the comfort of my new couch, tucked under my down comforter with Wavebird in hand. Scratch that. Studying suddenly seems as though it can wait until tomorrow.

Nintendo is very near and dear to me. My level of devotion to the company is almost frightening, but at the same time I think I'm one of their toughest (not to mention fairest) critics. Until recently, I've never given any credit to the notion that Nintendo needs to stop slaving Mario and Luigi into its releases, regarding it as simple-minded haterism from those gamers out there who are determined not to like Nintendo. An article at IGN.com really gave me some clearer perspective on the issue and now I couldn't agree more.

Anytime I'd heard somebody bring up the issue before it was always, at least outwardly, shallow bashing of Nintendo. It always came across as another hater prodding to find yet another menial point about which to complain. So, naturally, when I came upon the URL to the site where Nintendo had been "pwned" I was all geared up and ready to dismiss what I was sure would be more mindless anti-N drivel. As I read on, however, I realized that the things being said in the beginning, however unfortunate, were quite accurate and, at worst, undeniably true. The first impression I got from the first page afforded the author enough credibility for me to read on and I'm very glad i did, because he succeeded in making a concise, intelligent point that: A) no other person had been successful in making for me and B) turned out to be some very constructive criticism that actually praised Nintendo and showed unbiased hope for its future.

To make it short, the article made me realize that I'd never really questioned the appearance of Mario and Luigi (especially their names) in so many of Nintendo's first-party contributions. Mario and Luigi Superstar Saga comes to mind. I'm actually playing through this game again and after reading the notorious article from IGN, I must admit that it really doesn't feel anything like a Mario game to me. The characters are there, and of course there's the occasional reference to Mario themes and games of yore, but it altogether seems like a different universe. To be honest, there is no reason why Nintendo could not have introduced two completely new characters for this particular game and gone from there. I'll go so far as to say i wish they would have done just that because now, despite how entertaining and worthwhile the game is as a whole, I can't help but see that it's just simply not a Mario game. Ambitious, original, entertaining? Definately. Mario or Luigi? I think not.

So now that my eyes have been opened, I too sincerely wish that Nintendo would show a little more faith in itself as a developer and not tack on the familiar faces we all know and love in order to guarantee sales. I can't deny that when I see "Mario" in the title of a game, I predict greatness from it from the start. But the truth is that, now that I think of it, I wish I could play some of the best first-party games on the market outside ever-shrinking spectrum of the Mushroom Kingdom.

The people developing games down at Nintendo are game developing geniuses, and they have no reason to fear that the games they make will be anything short of great even if our beloved mascots' names are not in the title. They accomplished a big thing when they gave us "Pikmin" because it let the world know that they've still got it. If only they'd decided to rename M&L SS to just Superstar Saga and introduce some brand-new characters. I almost cringe when I think of all the ways Nintendo has sold itself short by relying on the familiarity of its mascots, and the more I think about it, the more patronizing it all starts to feel to me.

One day, I want to work for Nintendo. I don't know if there's a specific title for the job I want to do, but I know it involves swaying Nintendo into not making some decisions that I think the gaming community, to include myself, sees as poor, dumbfounding, or as I already mentioned, patronizing.

If I had it my way, the three big consoles would have greater longevity as opposed to getting new systems within the next couple of years.

Back when I was young, just having a regular old Nintendo Entertainment System was enough to get every kid on the block squealing with delight. I was born as the Atari craze was ending, but the NES had everything we could have ever hoped for in video gaming, and we never would have believed things would advance from there. And then it happened: The near-simultaneous introduction of the Super NES and the Sega Genesis. The thought was unfathomable; like the Land of Milk and Honey for any kid who'd ever spent a Friday after school playing Contra with his buddies. Even Contra (not to mention countless others) had evolved with the NES, so to many of us this was certainly the pinnacle of gaming; nothing could ever top what had been accomplished in video games, in our minds. Often, my friends and I would excitedly foresee times when "you can just put a game in and it will work every time without having to blow in it" or "one day our games at home will look better than games at the arcade." We even dared to suggest we would one day play games with people from across the world, although I'm not sure if we ever really believed what we were saying was true. But those prophecies most certainly have come to pass in the forms of GCN, PS2 and XBOX, haven't they? Okay, maybe we get the occasional disc read error... but you get the point.

It's disheartening that the fate of these three amazing systems is, by-and-large, to get kicked to the wayside for their successors. Everything many of us dreamed about is right here before us, so why be in such a rush to move on?

First, these systems will be pushed aside in the marketplace before they are even close to being tapped for all they are worth. How many more Metroid Primes, Halos, or FFXs will we miss for these systems? What about the phenomenal sleepers that could rise up at any moment for these consoles? There is still so much to be achieved (in terms of software, mostly) for the consoles that already exist, and I think gamers deserve to let developers really stretch the bounds of these systems, as well as their own imaginations, before plodding forward...

...which brings me to the second reason for my lament. Now, unlike when I was younger, the industry seems to be thrust forward primarily by competition instead of necessity, and a "demand" from the gamers to move forward. I suppose staying competitive is a type of necessity, but I really intend to imply necessity as meaning moving on because new ideas cannot reasonably be achieved on current systems. I am thankful for all the benefits of said competition, but I fear this could be an exponential series of events -- to the point that home consoles don't last more than just a year or two before obsolescence claims their worth.

As I gaze into the future via websites, speculation from these forums, or even just my own imagination, I can't help but feel somewhat torn about the next wave of consoles. I am excited about gaming's evolution, don't get me wrong, it's just that it seems to be so rushed, you know? I don't think that our consoles are evolving in the same exciting fashion as when gaming was young, but rather in more of an exhibitionist fashion. Sooner or later I think the industry should press on, but not with such haste.

As some gamers of today longingly daydream about newer and better systems, I look at my GameCube and wish I could enjoy it for a little longer before the community deems it "old" and retires it. Given the trend, new consoles may be built to last, but they're certainly not intended to last and, to me, that's just a little bit sad.