Millions of reporters and gamers have a singular tear falling down thier cheak today perhaps not one so dramatic as super princess peach might but it will be there none the less. E3 has traditionally been the battlefield where the "Big Three" have taken up arms and duked it out, where gamers have eagerly awaited news which they have been denied all year and where developers had a voice and a stage to perform for the public.

Now E3 has been put down, by means of the Electronic Software Association (ESA) whom have decided that too much money and time of developers is put into the annual show which simply do not pay off.

E3 is not dead however just downsized. The Show will take place in one form or another only on a much smaller scale, with attendees numbering only in the hundreds, not thousands. These focus groups will provide the same information as E3 only it will be to selected members of the media. It begs the question why should any developer show their work to a journalist who is not gunning for them to succeed anyway. Look no further than any official magazine; Official Nintendo Magazine or The Official UK Playstation Magazine to see the biased views which can be produced if only select members of the press are privy to the new developments in the industry.

There are of course very good reasons for the loss of E3 which, once you are over the initial shock and dissapointment begin to emerge. At first I could not see the reasons for the cancellation as of paramount importance to the games industry. Surely other than the square footage, the main cost is to the developers and on their heads be it if it got to expensive. However the competition which naturally arises to impress the audiance more and more is inevitable and due to the way our economy works, is in fact essential. It will reduce not only the time developers have to spend creating demos but also the cost that goes into them when they will be thrown away afterwards only to go back to the orignal programming.

As much as this may or may not help the industry, I think we will all look back on that special time of the year with fond memories remembering when developers showed us that the possibilities were endless.

The Functionallity of the wii has almost been released but questions still linger in my mind, what about this other controller, how will the DS be compatible, what will nintendo reveal as new extentions/templates for the 'wii-mote' to be put in? However we do know the answer to many questions in the aftermath of E3. The controller will include a speaker for emersion of sound and a classic rumble pack presumably to aid in simulation of in-game resistance. We also know that the position of the nunchuka will also be detected seperatly from the remote which should allow wario-ware to go to new depths of depravity in what they make you do. The graphics of the Wii are comparable to high end gamecube, this is of course only in the demos and at the beggining of the consoles life so there should be a big boost in the quality as time goes on.

So what have we learned about the Wii so far? We know at least that it is designed not to be next generation but a new generation, but what does this mean? Not that this will be a new console which happens to sport the Nintendo name but is totally different in other ways as the pc is to the xbox, we have upcoming games such as Mario, Zelda, and all the other regulars. Nor do we seem to be talking about a totally new style of gameplay, illistrated nicely by the rush of games which play in a classic method, even if that is with the use of the remote (Wild Fire, Metroid 3, even Mario). There are of course exceptions such as Wii Orchestra, Wario Ware and Trauma Centre but these types of games are not unusual on a nintendo console just look at Mario Paint.

In the end the Wii can more be aproximated to the DS, still hoping to cope with traditional games but with the capacity to do more provide thats how they treat the Wii I'll be happy (with more games please!)

After a brief stint on Animal Crossing: Wild World, still desperatly trying to apease that god of all that is unholy, Tom Nook ,I felt some nostalga building up for the 'old' Gamecube Version so I cracked it out and looked on in devistation at what had once been my safehaven of purity where the worst problem to befall its local citizens would be a lent item which had not been returned. It was at this point that I realised why I wanted to go back to this older version. Times were simpler, holidays were when they were suppost to be, not a la-de-day on the second saturday of January or whatever, there is a happyness to it actually being Christmas or Easter and Christmas or Easter actually happening.

Once I had mostly cleared the forest which had overrun my friends (poor camofrog) I went visiting only to be reminded that all I could do was to fetch items for them which although being existant rarely is asked of you in Wild World. Admitedly, this started to get on my nerves.

My point is that the escapism a game provides is only as good as the world it provides for you to escape into. The Animal Crossing series provides a relaxing life where little is complicated just as Harvest Moon provided the farming lifestyle that many wish for. These games however do have their stresses and eventually they become more of a chore which you feel you have a duty to maintain. The more linear style of a typical game which provides a storyline is a challenge which you come back to in order to get further, Animal Crossing requires work just to be maintained. So why do many of us like games like this Gamespot giving it 8.4/10 or Edge 8/10. I can't help that think that we believe that there is some extra happyness to be found in these fantasy worlds, or maybe we just long for the warm caresse of Tom Nook's approval.