Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. Groundhog Day used to mean something in this town. They used to pull the hog out and they used to EAT IT! You're hypocrites, all of ya'! Don't say we didn't warn you.

Not much on the gaming news horizon today, which seems somewhat odd in and of itself these days. Unfortunately that leaves me with a topic I really wasn't ever eager to contemplate: the death of Sega.

Ok, maybe "death" is too severe a word here, but it makes good copy. On the other hand, if you're a believer in the concept of souls, it's also a pretty good description of what's happened - Sega's given up their earthly form to live in peace and happiness in the third party afterlife. No longer shall things like "market share" and "target demographic awareness" trouble them - no, now they'll simply concentrate on doing what they do best. Making games.

I like the Dreamcast - right from the beginning it struck me as a more polished, more innovative, and more fun system than the PS2... but all things must pass. I'll enjoy whatever life the system has left in it, and suspect I'll keep playing it afterwards for much longer than I did my SNES or PSX. Cold comfort, maybe, but I'll take what I can get.

Onward.

I've already said my piece on Sega, but as ever, there are other opinions on the matter.

This is one of them.

Sorry, just drew a complete blank there...

There's no question in my mind that even as is, the DCs been a successful console in terms of quality, and well worth the money I put down for it. Although we don't tend to remember them, there are other dead consoles who would have killed for that kind of track record, which ain't bad.

And you're absolutely right about the X-Box possibly picking up where the DC left off. Much as I'd like to see this as some sort of master plan by Sega to keep producing their hardware by proxy, I don't think it is... but still, again, it's more than most other consoles ever managed.

Come on, at the very least, think of this in terms of Watchmen if you're going to throw around the character names. Dr. Manhattan was, no two ways about it, a god. And he wasn't able to stop Veidt, despite the fact that there was nothing in the world more powerful than he was. (Of course, arguably nobody could have stopped Veidt because they weren't fated to, but that's a whole 'nother can of metaphysical worms.) And while we're on the subject, I defy anyone to read "Watchmaker" (Chapter 4) and not relate to Manhattan, despite the fact that he's omnipotent and largely unknowable.

Look, I'm not saying that I want some sort of Game Genie built in to the system, so that my character's just a normal character who happens to be invincible and can destroy anything in one hit, but still operating in a normal environment. That would break the game, no question. And I'm not saying I want a normal character with better graphical effects either - we're getting those all the time, and nothing changes. What I'm arguing for is a character who's head and shoulders above a normal human being - and makes the player feel that way too. Everybody keeps pointing out that Cloud wielded a sword much bigger than anyone should have been able to, but did he honestly strike anyone as being any stronger or tougher than the RPG knights who have been swinging swords for the past decade? Someone else pointed out in an email that in a game, you'll commonly have level 60 black mages backtracking through a dungeon to find a key. Why? Wouldn't they just be able to blow the door off its hinges with a Nuke spell?

How would you have any kind of challenge then, if you were able to do such miraculous feats? Ok, let's say you've got some sort of power bolt that can destroy pretty much anything in one blast... but how easy are your enemies to hit? You've got a mage who can destroy the entire demon castle with a single spell... but what if there are hostages inside? You know you can defeat the final boss without breaking a sweat... but what if he's disguised as one of the hundreds of townspeople you've talked to on your quest? How do you find him? Lastly, what if your enemy can do everything you can, but wasn't significantly more powerful? Wouldn't such a game come down to finesse, rather than "fight, fight, fight, heal"?

There are all kinds of ways to make this work - you don't have to be omnipotent from the very beginning (or really omnipotent at all) , and there are times when you might not be able to use your powers at full strength. Artificial constraints, true, but they should serve. I'm just saying I want a game that's more exciting than running around hitting people with a sword, or standing in a line and taking turns trading blows with monsters. I don't know all the answers, but I'm not a game developer - I'm not paid to spend my every working hour designing games. And you'll have to work hard to convince me that they can't find some way to really make this stuff rock.

Ok, I've said more than enough. End of rant, and end of topic.

I'll take a look, but unless it differs significantly from the past 4 installments (yeah, right!) it's a rental at best. So keep the hell away from my thumbs.

You're largely alone here, I think, but it's not your fault - we're not all excited about Fire Emblem because we have nil experience with it here in the US, thanks to Nintendo, which is exactly your point.

And I think this is the key thing to remember when talking about Yamauchi's past decisions - the question is not "How good is Nintendo because of him?" but "How much better could Nintendo have been if not for his mistakes?"

In Sega's defense, this may have been the only way they could ever have successfully operated... and it worked in the past. The Genesis was leaps and bounds ahead of the NES in technical quality, and years ahead of the SNES in release time. At least in the US, Sega was able to parlay that into a substantial market share. (And in Japan, if memory serves, the PC Engine was able to do a similar trick.) What's more, I don't think Sega ever had the strength to go head to head against Sony or Nintendo in a direct release - as much as I like the company, even I'd have second thoughts about picking Sega out of an evenly matched lineup. Sega took their best chance gamble with the Dreamcast... and it didn't work. But it was still worth trying.

Here at the GIA, we all get very annoyed when someone questions our verbal abilities. I'm not saying this column is always perfectly written and free of grammatical errors, but when you invoke the holy book of Elements of Style, you better be damn sure of yourself.

This message was brought to you in the hopes of avoiding further pointless bloodshed.

Sounds good, despite the resemblance to FFT and Lufia 2. My main concern, however, is this - if there are moral qualms with Pokemon, a game in which animals are required to battle in non-lethal combat, what the heck are we supposed to make of a game where the main point is to attack and dismember wild creatures?

I think largely developers just need to exercise a bit of common sense. The reason we have monsters dropping gold all the time is because it's required to buy the newest, shiniest armor in the next town. If we made armor much more rare (and more important) then the occasional windfall of gold in a dungeon chest would be plenty to supply the heroes' financial needs, and it would make logical sense, too.

Redwolfe, pal, buddy... come on! Jeez, a used but perfectly workable PSX runs all of $50 now, if not much less, and will give you access to games like Chrono Cross that you'll never get on the PC. Suck it up and buy one already. It's true the PC ports of the last 2 FFs have sold well, and Square does need the money, but the FF PC ports have also been buggy as hell and not nearly as smooth a play experience as on the console. I hate to be such a snob about this, but as great a games machine as a PC can be, the only real way to enjoy FF is via the console. Get with the program already.

Everything you say is largely true, as this article at videogames.com confirms. I just don't care. I was never a huge fan of Final Fight, or most of the Double Dragon sequels, but some of my fondest memories of games in the '80's were the original DD arcade game, and the little-played DD4 on the SNES. Beneath my placid nerd exterior lies a berserker warrior driven insane by testosterone poisoning, and the only way to appease him is to smash the crap out of some hapless guard in a straight-on street rumble game. (Those of you who are trying to relate that statement with my earlier omnipotence rant, don't bother. These ineffable contradictions of mine transcend your understanding. Really. I swear.) Besides, everybody else seems to have gone ahead and bought their "not a great game, but shiny and fun" PS2 title... this one's mine.

Closing Comments:

Drew's likely gonna have plenty on his plate dealing with all the carnage of this past week, but he deserves a topic of his own. So here it is: Think of what things'll look like 20 or 30 years down the road, when someone of our generation is in charge of companies like Square and Nintendo? Not in specifics, so much as what insights and goals someone raised on the NES might have that someone born long before video games were invented might not. Tell the man what you think, and I'll be back next week.

-Chris Jones, tired of games, gonna go eat some nachos