Once upon a time, there was a game called Diamond Mine. It had you swap jewels in a grid and create chain reactions for big scores. It was much fun and so Microsoft hosted it on Microsoft Zone and the game was renamed Bejeweled.

The game became insanely popular—the web’s Tetris—and spawned sequels and versions for many platforms. Clones appeared, including the excellent Zoo Keeper for Nintendo DS, which hugely ramped up the concept’s speed and excitement levels.

Eventually, PopCap retaliated with the stunning Bejeweled Blitz, a Facebook app that was also welded to the iPhone version of Bejeweled 2. The hook: one minute and no waiting for the grid to settle before swapping more jewels. It took the polish and addictive qualities of Bejeweled and smashed them into the exciting speed of Zoo Keeper. Power-ups created frantic, thrilling games, and online scoreboards enabled you to battle friends.

All was good in the land, and they all lived happily ever after… Except they didn’t, because PopCap then ruined its game. If there’s one thing the company should have learned from Tetris, it’s that adding complexity to a simple game screws with the format. And if there’s something PopCap should have learned from online gaming, it’s that level playing fields are important, unless you want to turn your creation into forced grinding depression, MMO-style.

Bejeweled Blitz now has ‘coins’. These enable you to buy ‘boosts’, to attain higher scores. PopCap presumably argues that this rewards long-time players. I’d argue that long-time play is rewarded by added skill and higher scores. All the revision does is provide people who play the game enough to cherry pick cheats to leapfrog others on the high-score table. So rather than being Tetris, Bejeweled Blitz is now Bejeweled MMO, just about the biggest, saddest drop it could have suffered.

When I was a kid, there were lots of gaming platforms, but several failed due to existing IP. A prime example is the Commodore 128. Commodore touted the computer’s C64 compatibility as a major plus, but it meant no-one created C128 games, because loads of C64 ones already existed. The same, to some extent, went for the Amstrad CPC, which got loads of duff ports from the ZX Spectrum, due to some shared architecture. I wonder how iPad will fare. Apple’s device not only resembles a giant iPod touch—it also runs almost all existing App Store content. You get apps sitting centrally in the screen or ‘pixel doubled’.

With nearly 30 million iPhones and millions of iPod touches in the wild, and many thousands of games available, I wonder how many devs will target iPad, and how many will just continue developing for Apple’s already popular handhelds. If the former happens—and developers take a punt, hoping Apple’s new device will become as successful as iPhone and iPod touch—you end up with another top-quality gaming platform from out of nowhere. If not—which could so easily be the case—iPad will be a pretty device playing games that look OK, but were ultimately designed for another system. Here’s hoping the former’s the case.

Pocket Gamer reports analyst Michael Pachter has been at the scaremongering juice, topping it off with a stupid olive. He says: “I think the iPod touch is the most dangerous thing that ever happened to the publishers, ever,” and this is because when the price of Apple’s device drops, kids will want one instead of a DS or PSP. “Why would you pay $20 for Tetris when you can get it for $6.99 or $3.99 on iPod touch?” he says.

Indeed. But I can’t for the life of me see how this is the “most dangerous thing that ever happened to the publishers, ever”. Lower price-points generally mean people just buy games instead of ripping them off (*cough*R4 on DS*cough*), and with the App Store being digital-only, overheads are much lower for publishers. Therefore, decent publishers that aren’t complete idiots should rapidly be able to find a way to make decent money from iPod gaming, more so as the device’s market share increases.

What the App Store and Apple handhelds could finally put paid to, though, is stupid publishers selling games for way more than they’re worth—across the board. To that end, the only thing that has reason to be scared of iPod gaming is greed—and by extension greedy and clueless publishers.

Ever since videogames crawled, bleary-eyed, from a pond full of pixellated scum soup, mainstream media has had it in for them. Perhaps it’s the threat—when people become hooked on doing something interactive, they seldom return to passive entertainment so regularly. So while many dedicated gamers might consider the sedate life-in-a-PC ‘game’ The Sims to be roughly equivalent to terminal boredom, it’s still a major step up, in terms of keeping your brain alive, from watching the dreary inhabitants of Albert Square go about their mundane and depressing existence. Play something more exciting and evening soaps will be about as appealing as being sanded down.

Non-gamers assume videogaming is just an outlet for teenage boys, whereas the mainstream media considers it a genuinely corrupting influence, with millions of games ‘out there’ that somehow ‘train’ youngsters to mutilate, maim, kill, shoot, KILL, SHOOT, KIL KILL KILLLLLL!!11!!11! But, as Charlie Brooker’s rather wonderful one-off special Gameswipe ably showed last night, that’s just bollocks.

Videogames are like any other genre: mostly full of crud, but with utter gems sprinkled about, and with a suitably diverse array of products to choose from. The resurgence of classic gaming (usually described as ‘retro’ or ‘casual’ gaming) has also reintroduced a range of relatively safe games for wee kiddies that are also simple enough for them to enjoy, leaving the more brutal and violent titles for older gamers. And, as Brooker noted more than once in his show, gaming is all about suitability, just like movies. You wouldn’t let your five-year-old watch Saw, so don’t let them play Kill Death Maim IV; but kids can happily watch cartoons, so let them play Super Mario. (And, like Pixar movies, quality fare suitable for kids can also be enjoyed by adults.)

On Twitter, Brooker says another Gameswipe one-off might happen at some point, and I sincerely hope so. Videogaming has been vilified for too long on the TV, and it’s about time the genre had some intelligent programming dedicated to it. For now, go and watch Gameswipe on iPlayer and then tell the BBC you enjoyed it.

Before this mini-rant, I should point out that I like Slide To Play. It’s one of the few iPod gaming websites that’s got things largely right, and it offers reviews that don’t make me want to claw out my own eyes with a spoon—something of a rarity online these days.

Sometimes, though, a whopper of a clanger slips through the net, and such that it is with the site’s review of Snood. “Who can resist a game filled with disembodied cartoon heads? Certainly not us,” it begins, which we rather liked and had a little chuckle about. And then it all goes horribly wrong at the start of the next paragraph: “Snood has been around for over ten years, and has been available on PC, Mac and Game Boy Advance. A game this good is always in danger of being copied, and Snood has definitely had its share of knockoffs made, including South Park Snood for Mac.” (My emphasis.)

Yes, you did read that right. In a review of Snood, a reviewer said: “A game this good is always in danger of being copied.” I’m sure the Pazuru Boburu (Puzzle Bobble/Bust-a-Move) guys think much the same, what with Snood being a blatant and massive rip-off of Taito’s game. I can only hope the writer was being ironic, but I somehow doubt it.

What this likely shows is how short people’s memories are when it comes to videogames, and also how a younger generation of writers is seemingly unaware of anything that happened before 1995. If I had 2p for every time I’ve read about some iPod shooter being a rip-off of Chillingo’s iDracula, despite iDracula being a straight update to Eugene Jarvis’s Robotron (from 1982), I’d… well, I wouldn’t be rich, but I’d be able to nip over to the garage and buy myself a couple of Double Deckers, and let the chocolately goodness take away the pain.