Video game industry has gone through interesting rollercoaster throughout its history. From interesting early home consoles (such as Odyssey) to Atari 2600 and its competitors to the video game crash of 1983 to the rise of NES and early home computers to the modern day buggery of visuals, visuals, visuals and... even more visuals. And maybe new few features, such as realistic water dynamics on clothes so you can drool over the female sidekicks' figure once she gets wet.

But before I start going any further, I stress out that this is not a rant or being like 80 year old gramps how the old times were so much beter, instead I like to stir the pot. It's quite obvious that times do change, and the more we go onwards the more demanding and costly games are going to be while gamers tend to often have double standards. Occasionally when I try some older (or quite old) game I have never tried or heard before and play it, I don't compare how the visuals don't look like Crysis or how it lacks some features of modern games or anything like that. After all, if we use modern games as standard everything that wasn't made in the last two years are to be regarded as smelly pieces of shit. Original Super Mario? BS. The first Halo game? BS. Half-Life 2 during the original release? More BS. Hidden and Dangerous? There's shit spilled all over the place.

But on the other hand, when it comes to new modern games and their hype gamers are often sucked in as it's the first and only game to ever do so. I could actually use Operation Flashpoint 2 as an example: A dutch person I know who keeps up his own tactical gaming community ranted to me few times about how people often said OFP2 is beter than ArmA or so because it has some minor realism features, such as speed of sound modelled for explosions (newsflash: original OFP did this ALREADY in 2001), realistic gun animation taking account gunweight among other things. Too bad they apparently used toyguns, as the animations are both poor and inaccurate for their claims. Even Red Orchestra mod back in 2005 had more realistic weapon animations than many games today advertised with the realism stamp. Should Mass Effect 3 feature "new dialog system to make the game feel more cinematic!" in its hype when it has already been in Mass Effect since the first game?

There's plenty of shitty games, poor games, mediocre games, decent games, good games and quality games. They all have their place in this world for diffrent reasons, but what exactly is quality game then? I know this falls into category of philosophical game design buggery and ear sodomy, but that is quite good question. Everyone who is mildly sane should be able to understand that it's highly subjective matter, and in cases if it goes against the general consensus it shouldn't get to you. There's plenty of games that my unreasonable standards considers decent, but the quality game- category is mostly (emphasis on the word 'mostly') filled with older games, some of them which people might not know about or just isn't their cup of tea.

Now, what's problem with subjective, personal preference over something else? People are simply said quite stupid when it comes to some things - especially gamers. Yes, I know there are plenty of sane ones (The Dark Side, snarf snarf) but unfortunately I could consider them to be very limited category. I could use this as quite recent example: not too long ago I wrote review of Castlevania on N64. It's not the question if someone likes or dislikes the game, but how everyone suddenly seems to hate the game without any real basis. When I did some background check there's plenty of people just riddling in circles that it sucks, and even more so because it appeared in AVGN's Castlevania part 3 video. AVGN does most often excellent job with his humour and satire, but since when people decided to take everything he says as some sort of gospel? Even I laughed my arse off during that video, and I did so with Yahtzee's Borderlands review (I like Borderlands more or less, just ask Furyan if you doubt about that).

Another example: let's talk bit about Modern Warfare 2. While I can understand it being good game on the consoles, on PC it's Modern Warfail 2 and comparable to Royal Navy recomissioning new super heavy battleship under the name HMS Vanguard just because someone got nostalgic, or global decision to shut down every grocery store so people can hunt their own food instead. Yet people seem to love it like the Pope and mostly console gamers seems to be confused that why PC gamers bear a grudge to IW. I guess they might understand it if Bungie would announce a new Halo game as PC exclusive with full support for online and offline gaming with modding tools, dedicated servers and the basic standards on PC, and then port it as single player only game on the consoles a year later.

If that were to happen, I could make enough fun out of that to write a book about lack of any rational thought found in generic gamer and expect shitload of lawsuits how I offend their pride or honour. Unfortunately, considering the double standards I can say they have no pride or honour to begin with.