Made a new Gamasutra article: The danger of letting the gaming industry curate its own history

[felipepepe]

Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2vnb1r/the_ministry_of_hype_the_danger_of_letting_the/

Oh god, some people can't even tell the difference between a remaster and a re-filming... not sure if I want to pop there and answer them.

 

[TheGreatOne]

Why would you want to watch a blurry, heavily worn VHS copy of Citizen Cane if you've got a 1080p BluRay restoration from the original film prints? Why would you settle for an out-of-focus Polaroid snapshot of the Mona Lisa when you can have a 10-megapixel image, perfectly lit?

Moran fagets dont even realize that there are features missing from modern video game reboots because they can only see the shiny graphics

More idiocracy

I've played Daggerfall and I wouldn't wish my worst enemy to be forced to sit through it and complete the plot - it may be an interesting story but the game itself is too ugly and too raw to be enjoyable. Giant open worlds and procedurally generated dungeons have been done better and made more interesting since then, the game mechanics have been refined and improved in newer games and there's really nothing to be gained from playing it except for an appreciation of how far we've come since the early dawn of cRPGs.

Dumbing down the mechanics is now "refining"

So tutorials mean they're modern? You can see like 4 items in your inventory at a time. They haven't aged well, and that's fine. They're classics, and I love them. But lets not pretend they've aged particularly well, because they haven't.

The only reason I like them is because I used to like them, and I love their sequels. If I gave fallout 2 to my semi-gamer older brother, he'd stop playing after his spear missed the ant in the temple for the fourth time in a row.

Its an old game, and it hasn't aged well for the majority of gamers, and thats all right. People get so defensive when the games they used to love get put under the microscope, and its ridiculous. Love them for what they are, which is old, classic games. Being outdated is almost written into their description.

Games do become dated and harder to play because they are often based on convention, be it related to gameplay, UI, controls or other aspects of the game. You can't expect new players to pick up effectively dead genres they've never seen and appreciate them with no effort. They are simply not as accessible as they could be.

But I don't wanna put any effort into it!

I feel like Elder Scrolls is somewhat of a bad example. As someone that has played every Elder Scrolls title except Arena, I would not go back to play the older titles. The series, to me, is about the epic scope, the exploration. While Morrowind remains my favorite of the entire series, I see no reason to go back and play it when I have Skyrim.

I wonder if you'd asked the same room if they'd played the original Zelda or Donkey Kong or Space Invaders if they'd have had a different response.

Elder Scrolls just isn't really a series you need to or have much incentive to go back for.

"Except it was in a room of game designers. A similar question in a room of play writers and none of them knowing that Hamlet existed or had watched a production on stage. It would be unforgivable."

Old Elder Scrolls games aren't Hamlet, though. Not at all. You're naming a "classic" that everyone has heard of. How many people do you think really know Arena and Daggerfall even exist? I wouldn't be surprised if people are starting to forget Morrowind too.
The post you're replying to made a good point. Zelda, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders, etc. Those are games people would recognize, just like Hamlet. Those are the classics everyone remembers. This whole thing just seems like it's old PC fans getting angry that people remember console games more.

I've been a gamer my entire life, but I still have a hard time going back to games that were made 10-20 years ago, and it has nothing to do with the perception that they're unworthy of my time due to their age. A lot of older games just haven't aged well, and as a result are less fun to play than their modern counterparts. The author of this article is ignoring the fact that game design has developed at an extremely rapid pace over the last two decades, especially compared to other forms of media. When you're used to smooth, polished, and balanced experiences from modern games, playing something that's 20 years old is a really jarring experience. Some games still work, but a lot of them just feel low quality - because they are. Game quality has improved tremendously over the last decade, and if you take your nostalgia glasses off for a minute, you'd be forced to acknowledge that nearly all games made 20 years ago would be of an unacceptable quality to release today.

 

[:Flash:]

Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2vnb1r/the_ministry_of_hype_the_danger_of_letting_the/

Read it and weep.

Playing an old game pretty much forces you back in time to the days when mouse input was a pretty neat thing and 320x240 was as big a screen as you would ever need.

 

[Farage]

That was not a casual audience. Those were students of a game design school, people who decided to bet their future on gaming.

please explain how are you any different

 

[Damned Registrations]

Pretty sure 90% of those posts are just quotes of Krugmen in general discussion or whatever anyways.

 

[Lhynn]

Arena is a pretty fun game.

 

[tuluse]

Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2vnb1r/the_ministry_of_hype_the_danger_of_letting_the/

Oh god, some people can't even tell the difference between a remaster and a re-filming... not sure if I want to pop there and answer them.

I browsed through a bit of comments, but it looks like most of them missed the point with the accessibility argument. I won't post on reddit, but if you want to crush that bring up James Joyce, who writes in a near indecipherable style and is considered one of the great authors of the 20th century.

I would also clarify you are talking about professionals or people who plan to be professionals, not casual fans. No one expects the average movie goer to have watched the original King Kong, but a someone wanting to be a critic or director had better have.

 

[pippin]

Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2vnb1r/the_ministry_of_hype_the_danger_of_letting_the/

Oh god, some people can't even tell the difference between a remaster and a re-filming... not sure if I want to pop there and answer them.

Fight the good fight brother.
Their comments about controls and interfaces triggered me, especially when they talk about old and new XCOM games. Both of them play just the same, it only happens that Firaxis' version has more graphical text.

 

[TheGreatOne]

That's what making me rage. These plebeians don't bother even to read the article, or worse yet read it and can't comprehend the point of it.

Their comments about controls and interfaces triggered me, especially when they talk about old and new XCOM games. Both of them play just the same, it only happens that Firaxis' version has more graphical text.

Except that nu-xcom hasn't got inventory management, crouching, a proper AP system etc. But it is objectively more intuitive and accessible thanks to technological advancements. Seeing how far you can run with X amount of APs and tooltips on icons are genuine improvements that would benefit even a non dumbed down/streamlined sequel. While most of original xcom's UI is pretty easy to grasp, not every one one of those symbols is self explanatory (tiny picture of a guy standing=inventory etc).

 

[Tigranes]

If you want to talk to them directly, pick your fights. There's no point getting into an argument about how Daggerfall is a wonderful game, for example, because all they have to do is keep replying "but I tried it and it sucks".

I don't even have a reddit account, but if people want to get in there, the real points are:
(1) Why is 'newer = better'? From art to novels to films to glassware to cars to even fashion, we all know that there's both great stuff and terrible stuff in both new and old times. Especially since sometimes, old games have more options than newer games, and vice versa. Nobody said old games are always better than new games, so why are you pretending it's black and white? Wouldn't it make sense to play good games, no matter how old or young they are?
(2) Why do you assume everyone who loves older games are mistaken and they must be blinded by nostalgia? Using the exact same logic, I could say to you, everyone who loves newer games are mistaken and they are blinded by marketing (which, by the way, is not what the article is saying). Isn't it illogical to begin with the assumption? That argument boils down to "old games are bad, so everyone who likes old games are wrong". Again, wouldn't it make sense to try games both new and old, and then decide what you like or what you think is good? If you played a lot of old games and think they all suck, alright! You're part of an informed discussion. Many people just never know to try, because they keep being told "old games suck".

Apart from that, specific examples about how some older games offered a lot of cool options - without then going on to say new games are worse - is also helpful. No arguments will be won calling them stupid or calling new games shit.

 

[felipepepe]

But it is objectively more intuitive and accessible thanks to technological advancements. Seeing how far you can run with X amount of APs and tooltips on icons are genuine improvements that would benefit even a non dumbed down/streamlined sequel. While most of original xcom's UI is pretty easy to grasp, not every one one of those symbols is self explanatory (tiny picture of a guy standing=inventory etc).

Open X-COM adds that, tooltips,mod support and other cool stuff (all optional), making it perfect - 12/10. :3

Apart from that, specific examples about how some older games offered a lot of cool options - without then going on to say new games are worse - is also helpful. No arguments will be won calling them stupid or calling new games shit.

A guy on Gamasutra just posted an epic rant in that vein:

It's just the turning of generations.

The reality is kids who have no gaming experience or do not have the "gameplay gene" will never appreciate those old games. There will always be a minority of kids from every generation that can go back and appreciate them. If the industry is hiring game designers that don't have the gameplay gene then they are hiring mediocrity... aka the wrong person entirely.

The reality is the people who value gameplay and good design and have the intelligence and the skills to push gaming forward often don't work or don't want to work in the game industry.

Many games who have value get lost because only a minority of the population has the reflexes and intelligence to understand it. Consider Descent. Only the VIP's of the first gaming generation will ever truly grasp the greatness of multiplayer descent 2 over LAN.

Most new kids are technology ignorant, only a minority of intelligent gamers during the time when "gaming was for nerds" can really grasp gameplay. You have to understand most people are stupid, when gaming was born it was born to relatively well off people with above average IQ's. The average IQ of the average gamer has been slipping due to games going mainstream. So you get mediocrity because in order to sustain those high budgets you have to cater to people who aren't really gamers to begin with.

That's why story and pseudo-action movie bullshit is everywhere in AAA games. In order for publishers to survive and keep those game budgets they knew they had to make movies and not games. So the game industry because of the cost of AAA development actually created a bizarre situation where in order to continue to exist it had to create a new kind of gamer that doesn't like videogames and only the movie portions.

So the videogame industry has created PSEUDO-GAMERS. People who like the last of us, call of duty set-piece spam, Mass effect 2 set piece spam, are pseudo- gamers. They can't have a game that isn't a hollywood movie in some sense or else they will call it crap.

I admit these games are entertaining but their stimulation does not come from the gameplay parts, it comes from the movie and hollywood parts. It's just much easier to stimulate our emotions with passive audio visual knowhow taken from the movie industry then it is to create a game that can naturally appeal with its gameplay alone and still hit selling millions.

Only a minority of modern gaming populations can play pure games like Civilization and alpha centauri, most people are too stupid / don't have the gaming gene to appreciate these games. That's just the reality. The genetics behind how the brain works prevents pure videogames from ever truly going mainstream and selling super millions like publishers and developers want.

This is why the 90's and early gaming generations were a golden age of gameplay, they were on average played by smart technological literate people. Think about early local area network gameplay, dos video drivers, etc, you were making games for an audience with above average intelligence and the games reflect that. When the game industry went mainstream it had to lower the bar to sell units for profits and that's why AAA game quality has declined.

Making mediocre games for stupid people with poor reflexes using hollywood techniques works. It's a formula EA and activision have perfected.

Quick, send the Codex recruitment drones!

 

[pippin]

xcom

I agree, but I was talking in the general sense. While nuXCOM is indeed more streamlined, it's not that different from the original game, which is a virtue. The planning is still there, but with a focus on combat rather than base management, for instance. I must say original XCOM's interface was rough at the beginning, but going from nuXCOM to original XCOM was easier for me than going from Morrowind to Arena and Daggerfall.

 

[TheGreatOne]

While I agree with his post, this part is inaccurate:

This is why the 90's and early gaming generations were a golden age of gameplay, they were on average played by smart technological literate people. Think about early local area network gameplay, dos video drivers, etc, you were making games for an audience with above average intelligence and the games reflect that.

He should've specified that he's talking strictly about PC gaming (and even then Amiga gaming was different than DOS/C64 gaming), since console gaming was more popular back then. It was only in the mid 80s and during recent years that PC gaming surpassed console gaming in profits. Arcades were also a big part of the gaming landscape back then, and they were accessible by their nature. Arcade games had a major influence on PC gaming as well, though it affected Amiga more than PC. Most of unforgiving trial and error/cheap death design could be traced back to the arcades, cargo cult design of the early days. Though the point about hard and gameplay centric games dominating the market still stands.


You could blame adventure games and every developer who was more intrested in storytelling/narrative than abstractions and mechanics for starting the decline, as those eventually led to FMV games and then to the mainstream popularity of PS1 and its movie games. Once you start developing games with interesting storylines and writing rather than purely mechanical and/or very abstracted games, that attracts the Heplers of the world and the decline from Gabriel Knight to Heavy Rain is inevitable when more and more people who want to be entertained rather than challenged start gaming. If only graphics had never evolved past rogue-likes and Atari 2600, the decline wouldn't have happened!

 

[tuluse]

I agree, but I was talking in the general sense. While nuXCOM is indeed more streamlined, it's not that different from the original game, which is a virtue. The planning is still there, but with a focus on combat rather than base management, for instance. I must say original XCOM's interface was rough at the beginning, but going from nuXCOM to original XCOM was easier for me than going from Morrowind to Arena and Daggerfall.

I think you have to have extremely limited experience with turn-based squad tactics games to believe the games are not significantly different.

 

[muds_animal_friend]

So the videogame industry has created PSEUDO-GAMERS. People who like the last of us, call of duty set-piece spam, Mass effect 2 set piece spam, are pseudo- gamers. They can't have a game that isn't a hollywood movie in some sense or else they will call it crap.

Swap "[H]ollywood movie" for "e-book" and he's just defined a stroyfag.

You could blame ... every developer who was more intrested in storytelling/narrative than abstractions and mechanics for starting the decline

I do.

 

[Dayyālu]

I agree, but I was talking in the general sense. While nuXCOM is indeed more streamlined, it's not that different from the original game, which is a virtue.

Ungh. Unghhhh.

Can we please stop saying that NeuXcom it's "similar" to proper Xcom? Ufo: Aftermath is, despite being RTWP, more similar to old Xcom. I'm still baffled on how someone can enjoy NeuXcom: a game built on what you can't do, on what you can't plan, on terrible and cramped maps, with unclear rules, retarded AI, criminal "pod" enemy placement, garish graphics, where you are punished to play the game like you want and not like the developer wanted (grenades are effective? Quick! let's limit them at one per squad member AND punish the player destroying alien weapons!).

Plus don't get me started on the "perk" system, that is literally OPPOSITE to the Xcom advancement (where in proper Xcom it is the equipment and the player skill to make the difference, in neuXcom it's all about the unlockable perks. Again, a game built on what you can't do, on what you can't plan, on what you can't choose).

I respect the poor modders that tried to salvage it in Long War, yet it's beyond my understanding how someone can enjoy such a thing. You have Xenonauts, and despite being bland, it's a far better game. Goshdammit, UFO: Alien Invasion despite being a broken mess is far better than NeuXcom. Ufo: Aftershock, a truly broken and unfun mess, is better than NeuXcom.


As regarding the article, it's a losing battle. Proper study of "videogame history" would require standards, and we fail to have them even in "video game journalism". Furthermore, games are the product of a technically minded industry: to be a good engineer, you don't need to know the history of engineering, you merely need to know what supposedly works and what does not from a strictly "technical" side. "Context", "history" and the like are a waste of time and money, if not for the marketing drones. This causes several problems, that Felipepepe has rightfully pointed out.

 

[Outlander]

The mechanics of that guillotine are bugged.

 

[TheGreatOne]

We need one for Sawyer as well, surrounded by a cheering crowd of grognards (wearing Cleveland jugend armbands) and a pile of burning copies of PoE.

 

[felipepepe]

I like to argue because sometimes it forces me to come up with good arguments. Like this:

If you NEED an example, look at IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. Both list movies since the very beginning of cinema and have excellent "Top movies of all times lists", based on a mix of pro & user reviews, both old and new.

Metacritic is the only similar thing we have. It lists only games from 1995 onwards and only considers ratings from the gaming press. Metacritic ignores more than half of our history, by default only shows games from the last 90 days and only takes into account mainstream professional reviews made at each games' release - at the height of their hype.

A perfect analogy for the gaming industry.

Wish I had thought of that comparisson before, would have included it int he article.

 

[Gregz]

The mechanics of that guillotine are bugged.

Spoiler

Indeed, the blade should be visible after the cut, not the neck.

 

[mindx2]

I like to argue because sometimes it forces me to come up with good arguments. Like this:

If you NEED an example, look at IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. Both list movies since the very beginning of cinema and have excellent "Top movies of all times lists", based on a mix of pro & user reviews, both old and new.

Metacritic is the only similar thing we have. It lists only games from 1995 onwards and only considers ratings from the gaming press. Metacritic ignores more than half of our history, by default only shows games from the last 90 days and only takes into account mainstream professional reviews made at each games' release - at the height of their hype.

A perfect analogy for the gaming industry.

Wish I had thought of that comparisson before, would have included it int he article.

Just coming back from reading that response of yours and was going to compliment you on it.

 

[muds_animal_friend]

The mechanics of that guillotine are bugged.

Indeed, the blade should be visible after the cut, not the neck.

<philfish>If there wasn't a bloody neck visible it wouldn't be visceral-immersive-awesome you autistic fucktards. You don't deserve next-gen animated gifs.</philfish>

 

[sser]

Good article. Made me think, and certainly made others think.

 

[Ninjerk]

The real achievement here is to be twitted by @cucNotes, the guy that a lot of game researches follow. His tweet got 55 retweets. O.o

Retweeted by Cuck Notes

 

[almondblight]

Good article.

However, while perhaps not all book critics will read Hamlet, or not all movie critics will watch City Lights, they know that they should try it sometime, that it could be interesting. There's an unspoken pressure to know the classics.That is healthy, pursue of knowledge should definitely be promoted.

I actually think this is a good reason why we shouldn’t have a list of must play classics.

Most people you run into who hold up Shakespeare as brilliant or one of the greatest writers of all time don't show any interest in Elizabethan drama beyond him. Most would probably be hard pressed to name any of his contemporaries; the few who could would probably be limited to 1-2 of the most famous ones, struggling even then to name more than 1 or 2 works for each (and good luck finding someone that's actually read them). This isn't just the equivalent of proclaiming you're a massive fan of the Elder Scrolls and only playing the newer titles. It's more akin to claiming that Skyrim is brilliant and the best game of all time, and then admitting that it's the only RPG you played and you've only played a few video games at all.

How many people who talk about the importance or brilliance of Hamlet are even aware of The Spanish Tragedy? At least gamers are somewhat aware that Fallout 3 comes from an earlier series, and aren’t taught that Fallout originated from Todd Howard’s brilliant mind.

So while I agree with your thrust about the need to be curious, to explore, and to engage in the past, I tend to believe that concept of a canon tends to be antithetical to this goal. We don’t need a list of games people are supposed to accept as great, we need a willingness to engage the unfamiliar - be it old, obscure, different, etc. I doubt Prelude to Darkness will ever be a game that’s considered a must play, but VD brings it up as a big inspiration for AoD. Likewise, I doubt The Odyssey - Legend of Nemesis will ever end up on a list of must play games, but it seems to have been a pretty big inspiration for the role-playing in Geneforge (based on what Vogel has said). Niche sites like the Codex that spread the word about lesser known games like the Dark Heart of Uukral or Escape from Hell are more important than having people mimicking film snobs, hyper-focusing on a handful of classic titles while ignoring the rest.