The turn from the opening paragraph to these lines is deeply striking, and shows the difficulty in separating one's personal experience from game criticism. Though the author fiercely criticizes the way that 'Watch Dogs' and its systems presents its world and the society in that world, he still enjoyed the feeling of revenge, the power fantasy of being able to hurt, even in a virtual world. It's hard to read this deeply personal experience that Walker has with the game and not come away with questions about what kinds of worlds we want portrayed in the games we play.

What does the world presented in 'Watch Dogs' say about the people who made the game? The people who play? How can we juggle realism and painful reality? How can we draw on real experiences without dredging up hurtful memories? Should we? Is such an experience cathartic or exploitative?

A humorous reference to the recent Billy Mitchell (featured later in the article) cheating allegations. It is interesting that in an article almost entirely about the feeling of playing games rather than the achievement that can be found in playing, that Mitchell, who abused the system of games as a competitive environment to gain fame, is reduced to a side mention. The author, thankfully, puts emphasis on what makes games fun to play, not what makes them an opportunity to become a celebrity.

The developing area of video game preservation is important for exactly this reason. Hardware fails, but the preservation of old games through the archiving of their code can last forever, and allows for the analysis of games that never had the privilege of being loved enough to be remade.