For all this talk of videogames infiltrating the mainstream, it appears there’s still work to be done.

After waking up this morning, I decided to take a look at the local newspaper (like I always do). I noticed in the Life section of this morning’s Daily Press (Newport News, Va.) an article detailing the next generation of videogame consoles, detailing the Xbox 360 and previewing both the PlayStation3 and the Nintendo Wii.

Which was all well and good, until I read the article and saw the dreaded “t” word:

Toy.

The newspaper called these machines toys. Not next-generation consoles, not high-powered interactive entertainment machines…toys.

A lot has been made over the past decade about the impact Sony has had on the videogame industry with the PlayStation brand. With the PSOne and the PS2, Sony has made the videogame a mainstream attraction, an entertainment medium accessible to both the hardcore crowd and the casual, everyday person. People who had never before considered videogames became gamers because of the PlayStation brand.

And one would think if Sony and Microsoft were investing time, energy, resources, and tons of cash into the industry that it would garner a little more respect than this. Not that mainstream media bias against the videogame industry is anything new—seems like we’ve been having the violent videogame debate forever now—but how can you dismiss an industry that makes more money annually than Hollywood by merely calling it a toy?

Boggles the mind.

Microsoft and Sony do not invest in toys; they invest in computer technologies and consumer electronics. Their inclusion in an industry once dominated by the likes of Nintendo, Sega, and Atari has given videogames a sense of credibility. In the 1980s, videogames were indeed considered toys, and the numbers seemed to back up that claim; the vast majority of gamers back then were under the age of 18.

But the minute Sony entered the industry and found some success, perception of the industry changed. Videogames were no longer the hobby of the young and the lazy. They were now a legitimate entertainment medium…to everyone outside the mainstream media.

Every time mainstream media outlets run a videogame-related story—be it an overview of E3, the launch of a new console, or the latest Mortal Kombat controversy—I am amazed at the level of ignorance the media displays. And I think some of that ignorance comes from the long-held belief that videogames are still nothing more than toys, something nobody older than the age of 16 needs to bother with.

Then again, the average age of gamers today is 28 years, so, as usual, the pundits are wrong.

But back to this issue of toys. Do toys offer BluRay technology? Do toys bring us an HD-DVD drive, complete with Ethernet connectivity and an online service allowing for community gaming and chats? If videogames are toys, then so are DVDs and any other device that can be plugged into a television for the purpose of entertainment.

There’s a reason the videogame industry has its own specific types of media—magazines, web sites, G4TV, etc.—because if we were to rely on the mainstream media for information about the videogame industry, said industry would be in sad, sad shape. Until the sheen of ignorance is removed, the videogame industry will be viewed from afar as nothing more than a children’s hobby.

Which, ironically, is an awful childish point of view.

Ah, Lara. How we’ve missed you.

Actually, I haven’t really missed Lara over the past couple years as I’ve wished she’d just up and leave. A once-proud franchise reduced to copycat sequels and horrible movies that discredited the wonderful actress sucked into them…there for a while, it seemed as if Tomb Raider was destined for the deepest of tombs in the most barren of desserts.

And after the dismal Angel of Darkness, I was fine with that.

But what’s this? Eidos gave the development over to Crystal Dynamics, which promptly promised to start from scratch and rework everything in an effort to bring Lara back to what made her so appealing in the first place? Are you people serious?

No…you can’t be. These promises have been made before; game makers always tell us they fixed what was wrong with the games before, that everything we hated was gone, replaced by new and exciting features that were bound to wow and amaze us.

Only it never happened; we were force-fed the same crap we grew tired of years ago. So you’ll understand my skepticism.

Yes, I realize the screenshots and the media buzz in the previews are nice. Anyone can show me pretty screenshots with today’s technology; the PlayStation2 and Xbox might be five or so years old, but they’re no slouches when it comes to technology. If pretty pictures made good games, The Bouncer wouldn’t have sucked as bad as it did.

But wait a second…positive review after positive review. Game Informer, EGM, GameSpot, IGN, Edge over in England…okay, maybe you guys are onto something after all. I guess I can invest a bit of cash and give the virtual archaeologist one more try.

…

Well, I’ll be damned. Crystal Dynamics did it. They actually pulled off what I thought couldn’t be done. Not only is Tomb Raider relevant again, Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend is a wonderful game. A near masterpiece that reminds me of why I fell in love with the series all those years ago, when the original hit PlayStation.

Gone is the horrid grid system, the awkward controls that positively screamed 1996. Gone are the jagged graphics, the kind that made Lara look less like a human being and more like a pointy-breasted alien. In their place is a magnificent world full of a wonder and magic, a world I can’t help but get lost in for hours, just running around exploring.

Puzzles are no longer pointless and demeaning; now, they’re stimulating and specific to the level objectives. Combat is still hit-or-miss—God of War this ain’t—but that’s okay. Tomb Raider was never about combat anyway.

Legend knows what it is, and it sticks to what works. Core Design lost sight of this years ago, churning out sequel after carbon-copy sequel annually to pull in the almighty dollar. The franchise, which hit bottom after two bad movies, a haphazard comic book, and the putrid Angel of Darkness, has risen from the ashes, back from the dead to bring us all that videogame adventure we feared (or hoped) dead.

But Crystal Dynamics…you get it. You know what makes a game great. It’s not digital breasts or flashy casuals; it’s smooth controls, intuitive missions, a solid plot to tie everything together, and an experience that overall enthralling and ultimately satisfying.

It wasn’t too long ago I was begging for Tomb Raider to never return. Now, as I make my way through the fantastic adventure known as Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend, I can’t help but beg for a sequel.

Welcome back, Lara. How we’ve missed you.

Is it just me, or does it seem like Sony feels it can do just about anything it wants now?

There's no doubt Sony's first two consoles have been massive successes--both the PlayStation and the PlayStation2 have dominated the gaming landscape for the past decade, selling hundreds of millions of units worldwide and influencing an entire generation of game players and game makers.

Whereas Nintendo was synonymous with videogaming in the 1980s, PlayStation is synonymous with videogaming today.

But does that give the company license to do whatever it wants? A cursory glance at the revelations made at this year's E3 might lead some to believe that's the case.

Take, most notably, the price tag. Sony announced two bundles at launch, one including a 20-gig hard drive for $499, and a 60-gig hard drive model going for $599.

The last console to even come close to that price point was the 3DO in the mid-90s. That console launched for around $700 and instantly failed. Granted, a weak software library didn't help, but any game company is going to have a hard time convincing a consumer outside the hardcore gaming community to plop down that kind of cash on a console.

Obviously, the $499 model will not have the same features as the $599 model, which means the cheaper option will likely be chastized and ignored. Microsoft experienced this very thing with the launch of Xbox 360; the Core unit, at $299, was left for dead on store shelves, gamers instead favoring the beefier $399 model. So, with the $599 PS3 being the only likely option for gamers, the question remains: who's going to be willing to pony up the dough?

Especially if the trend continues where in order to get the most out of your new console, you need a sophisticated (and highly expensive) high-definition TV. Without an HDTV, the Xbox 360 isn't that different from the original Xbox, and I suspect the same would be true for the PS3.

Now, don't get me wrong; I understand why the PS3 is going to cost this much; the technology is expensive to manufacture, and the console's reliance on BluRay technology was likely the straw that broke the camel's financial back. I knew the minute Sony announced its BluRay plans that keeping the PS3's launch price manageable was going to be an uphill battle, and it appears I was right.

But I can't help but wonder if the success of both the PSOne and the PS2 has Sony thinking it can slap a $600 price tag on the PS3 and the gamers would come in droves regardless. Sony has made quite a name for itself in the industry over the past decade, and the games will likely be of the same high quality they have been for years. But does Sony simply feel it can get away with this, for no reason other than the knowledge that, at the end of the day, this is still Sony and this is still PlayStation we're talking about?

If that's the case, then that's complacency, and that's dangerous territory for Sony. Nintendo seems as focused as ever, and Microsoft's spent the better part of the past five years trying to dethrone the electronics giant. If Sony starts getting too full of itself, then one of the other two console manufacturers might just inherit the industry.

I won't sit here and call the PS3 a failure before it even hits store shelves (November 11 in Japan, November 17 here in the States). If some of the games I've seen so far--Metal Gear Solid 4 and Warhawk, specifically--are any indication, the PS3 could be just as strong as its predecessors where it matters most: the games. But I can't ignore the price tag...and I'm willing to bet a lot of other gamers won't be able to ignore it, either.

People griped about the 360's $400 price point, and if the PS3 is going to go for $100 more, Sony could be in trouble. The first thing that led to the ultimate doom of the Sega Saturn in the 32-bit era was the fact that it was $100 more expensive than the PlayStation; Sony managed to get its machine to market for $300, while Sega rushed an inferior product to stores for $400.

Sometimes, the cheaper console is the one the general public goes for. Advantage: likely Nintendo.

I just hope the $600 price tag on the PlayStation3 is legitimate, and not a case of Sony's head getting too big for its own cap. Even more, I hope that price comes down between now and November 17; we know there's going to be a shortage at launch, but to add that public relations nightmare to the ongoing question of why the machine's so expensive? Sony might find itself staring up the side of a really tough mountain.

Nintendo's next-generation console has already provided months of intrigue and speculation, with the company's mindset that it isn't in direct competition with Sony and Microsoft and the admittedly off-kilter controller the company unveiled in Japan several months back. While the former can be argued nearly ad nauseam, time--and the success of the DS handheld--has softened the blow caused by the one-handed wonder (insert masturbation joke here; you know you want to).

But Nintendo once again has this intrepid blogger scratching his head, announcing recently that the console's name has changed from Revolution to Wii.

Pronounced "We," but spelled "Wii."

I can just hear it now: kids running home from school, screaming, "Let's all go play Wii!"

I realize the company is known for marketing to a younger demographic when compared to its corporate rivals, but Nintendo's decision to change the Revolution's name smacks of demographical exclusion (pretty sure I just made up a phrase there). The Revolution brand had an edge to it, and it was kind of fitting, giving what Nintendo was hoping to accomplish with the console. The controller would almost certainly change the way you and I played games, and if Nintendo could pull off its strategy of staying as far away from Xbox 360 and PlayStation3 as possible, the console would've likely been a revolution, if not an evolution.

But the name change disregards all of that. I liked the Revolution name; it was different, not some sequel-like crap similar to what Sony and Microsoft were doing (c'mon, PlayStation3? I understand brand recognition and all, but try to be a little more original). But Wii could potentially undercut the console's possible imapct on the industry, as well as the way we play games. In fact, it could alienate some of the audience Nintendo's hoping to cultivate.

The very sound of the console's new moniker--"We"--makes the machine sound like a child's toy. It almost exclusively markets the machine for the under-12 crowd, a crowd Nintendo has never had trouble getting on its side. The problem with this is that most gamers today are older than that--the average age of gamers today is 28 years. Also, many of today's older gamers grew up on Nintendo's 8- and 16-bit offerings. I remember the year I got an NES for Christmas, and when I first cracked open the box to my Super Nintendo.

Those were great consoles, with great games, but Nintendo needs to realize the gamers--and the industry as a whole--has grown up. The videogame industry doesn't pull in more money annually than Hollywood by catering to the tee-ball and training wheels crowd; it does so by growing up, expanding its horizons. And while the console itself might very well do that, the name could just as easily give gamers the opposite impression.

It's not just about the games; it's about appearances too.

The games themselves might be great; if the DS' success is any indication, Nintendo could very well revolutionize the way we play games. Also, Red Steel looks like it's going to be the game that will make you go out and pick up a Wii when it launches, much the way Halo was Xbox's killer app and Madden NFL 2001 moved PS2s off store shelves. Wii will also likely be cheaper than both the 360 and the PS3; Nintendo's M.O. the past two generations was to be cheaper than its competitors at launch.

But the name could damage some of the momentum the company's trying to build as we plow through this year's E3 and await the holiday rush. I sincerely hope people are intelligent enough to look past the stupid name and give the games a try, because Nintendo could very well have the next big thing in gaming on its hands. I'm just trying to figure out why the company would forgo such a classic and appropriate name like Revolution in favor of the strange and extremely befuddling Wii.

In the meantime, I think I should go pay Lara Croft a visit. It's been years, and I hear she's gotten herself back together...

Happy gaming, everyone.