Coping with change in the Nintendo age

[ManekiNeko]

We've heard all the complaints about Sony's restrictive licensing policies, and about how they've turned their backs on fans of older game genres, like 2D fighters and shoot 'em ups.

However, Nintendo changed the video game landscape just as drastically in the 1980's with their more open-ended approach to game design. The emphasis on exploration must have been a bitter a pill to swallow for fans of classic video games like Robotron and Defender, which were much more straightforward and intense.

My question is for anyone out there over the age of thirty. Did you feel the same kind of anger and resentment toward Nintendo that some players (myself included) feel toward Sony now? Did it bother you that gaming was heading in a new, unfamiliar direction? If so, how long did it take for you to adapt to the changes Nintendo made to the industry?

JR

[Flack]

...how long did it take for you to adapt to the changes Nintendo made to the industry?

That's an easy one -- I never did.

A lot of people here act like Sony (or Nintendo) made them turn in their old consoles when they bought new ones. If you like old games, why aren't you playing them? If you hate new games, why are you buying them?

I don't like 3d platformers and I don't like first person shooters. Guess what? I don't play them! Isn't there a point where after 10, 50, or 100 posts of people complaining about new games you just go back to playing what you like? Isn't that what this is all about?

[christianscott27]

geeesh its not as life changing as you make it out to be, theres never been a situation in my video gaming experience that would invoke the words "how did i cope"...that being said, on with the subject.

i grew up with the VCS and colecovision, and later the 7800. these were good times, good games, things i could master easily and still get a challenge out of. basically games went away in the mid 80s and stayed out of sight until the late 80s, at least in my world. sometimes you might play an apple or comm. game over at a buddies house but that was about it.

when the NES came out i was at a point in life where the last thing i wanted to do was sit on the couch playing games. i played it a few times and just didnt get too excited about it. it wasnt until i was bored, broke and playing with my dorm-mates master system that i started gaming again. maybe the SMS was a better bridge between atari and the 16 bit era.

i dont ever recall pausing to think that games had changed, although i did notice that they were much harder to beat and that wasnt too much fun for the casual gamer. basically i dont think i wasnt fanboy enough to care what nintendo did, there were games, they were fun, whats not to like?

[§ Gideon §]

I'm not over 30, but I have a passable grasp on the history. I just wanted to say that you have an interesting perspective; I never thought of things that way.

[Needle]

I'm not over 30 either, but I do think that what Nintendo did back in the 80's is different from what's happening now. Where Nintendo was making a marked improvement in games (while I guess that's an opinion, one can also say that reviving an industry from a crash must have shown SOME improvement), it seems Sony's stance on the issue is to limit releases to indirectly cause certain genres to become obsolete.

I don't know, I see a big difference between bringing an industry back from death, and killing the 2D genre with inane license restrictions. I'd wonder if the two are even comparable.

[ManekiNeko]

I'm not over 30 either, but I do think that what Nintendo did back in the 80's is different from what's happening now. Where Nintendo was making a marked improvement in games (while I guess that's an opinion, one can also say that reviving an industry from a crash must have shown SOME improvement), it seems Sony's stance on the issue is to limit releases to indirectly cause certain genres to become obsolete.

I don't know, I see a big difference between bringing an industry back from death, and killing the 2D genre with inane license restrictions. I'd wonder if the two are even comparable.

That's a good question. Is it fair to compare Nintendo's emphasis on depth to Sony's emphasis on immersive virtual worlds? I'd like some of the older gamers' opinions on this. Of course, everyone else can offer their opinions, too... from what I've read so far, the younger members of the forum have just as much to offer to this thread.

As a thirty year old, I'm on awkward middle ground, teetering between the Nintendo and Atari generations. I most identify with the Nintendo fans who spent much of their childhood in front of that familiar grey box, but before I could afford a Nintendo, I spent a considerable amount of time playing the Atari 2600 and Odyssey2. I wasn't adversely affected by the industry's paradigm shift from fast, simple arcade games to more complex action adventure titles, because I grew to appreciate both styles of gameplay.

Now, I've gotten too old and too set in my ways to adapt to the industry's latest paradigm shift. In my view, the simulations that make up the majority of the Playstation 2 software library just aren't games as I would define them. I guess the question I'm asking is if the gamers from twenty years ago felt the same way when Nintendo completely reinvented the industry.

JR

[Kid Ice]

My question is for anyone out there over the age of thirty. Did you feel the same kind of anger and resentment toward Nintendo that some players (myself included) feel toward Sony now? Did it bother you that gaming was heading in a new, unfamiliar direction? If so, how long did it take for you to adapt to the changes Nintendo made to the industry?

JR

The only time I ever felt "anger and resentment" toward a video game company was when Atari released that horrible Pac Man for the 2600. And I was 12 at the time.

I don't have a problem with that Nintendo did during the 80s (well the price gouging was a little much) and I don't have a problem with that Sony or anyone else is doing today.

They are in a business to make money and they give the people what they want. It's that simple. Sega tried to buck this trend with a "games first" mentality during the Dreamcast era; they failed. So don't look for Sony or Nintendo to do the same thing a few years later.

I think being angry at companies that make games and/or consoles is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. If you are collector you probably have enough good games to last you the rest of your life, so play them instead of worrying about how terrible the games coming out now are. And in five years when you start purchasing the games that are coming out now for 3-5 dollars each, they won't seem so bad.

Vote with your dollar. If you like games like Ikaruga, Blowout, and Gungrave, buy them. Don't buy the junk you don't like. Simple.

[Push Upstairs]

Well, I'm not 30 (getting there) but i dont see Sony's "No 2D games" rule nearly as bad as Nintendo's 1980's market stranglehold.

I know people like to say that Nintendo was making the market better by not allowing crap games to be released, but there were still stinking piles of fecal matter sold as games.

[lendelin]

Did you feel the same kind of anger and resentment toward Nintendo that some players (myself included) feel toward Sony now? JR

I never felt resentment towards Nintendo or Sony. Why should I? Nintendo revived a perceived dead industry with a very restrictive license policy and kept third party developers on a short leash, and licended great games for the NES. Sony broadened the cutomer base with a clever marketing strategy resulting in an increased acceptance of videogames as a form of entertainment, and gave us great games as well (e.g. see the incredible line-up of great RPGs for the PS1).


Is it fair to compare Nintendo's emphasis on depth to Sony's emphasis on immersive virtual worlds?

There is the reason for your resentment towards Sony. You idealize the past and skew the present. N was much more restrictive in their licensing policies than Sony could ever afford it, and the reason wasn't so much game quality than rather profit interests. To allow only 5 games per year for each publisher (not to mention the prohibition to publish a game on another competitive system) was a reaction to the overflow of bad games for the Atari systems which led to the crash (players weren't dumb back then and they aren't now).

A hardware manufacturer is concerned about the image of it's system and rightfully so. This goes for Nintendo in '86 and subsequent years, and it goes for Sony today. If a game sells well, and if a certain kind of game sells well, neither Nintendo back then nor the present Nintendo, neither Sony 5 years ago nor Sony today will reject the game. 2D games are a niche, let's face it. We get them once in a while, in good quality, but neither a developer nor a hardware manufacturer can make big profits with them. Sony should have given it's ok for the Growlanser compilation disk, but it wouldn't have certainly a big seller. Sony should have licensed the game becasue it would have improved their overall image, not damaged it.

Nintendo's recent PR-attempts to bash the high-technology emphasized, graphic-oriented top selling games of today and emhasize gameplay is pittiful for two reasons. 1) good looking games don't necessarily deliver bad gameplay, 2) it assumes that the vast majority of gamers are shallow (the same majority of gamers who bought NES games).

These PR-attempts might be a part of the problem of your resentment. Sony is the big dog today, and the big dog always gets exaggerated criticism from the the so-called hardcore gamers which like their image as niche gamers anyway. Back then it was Nintendo, now it's Sony. The roles are reversed purely based on their economic success. Associating both with deep gameplay or shallow visual emphasis is nonsense; it was non-sense back then, and it is now.

I'm 46 years old, and I have to say...I played some of the best games on the new generation systems, and I find new directions of gaming very exciting. There are some silent revolutions going on right now when it comes to gameplay, but hardly anyone notices them.

[PapaStu]

Not being 30, but having played through the years, i'd have to say that What both Nintendo did in the mid 80's and what Sony did in the mid-to-late 90's is not bad on any front.
Its Business.
One wants stability and control in their markets. Nintendo did that by limiting the number of games, and demanding a style of game that made compaines think before they published. Sony has begun restricting looks and play styles, but at the same time has reopened the market for a newer generation, and has encompased people of all ages into games, Just like Nintendo did. So in response to that more games have been made with more styles of play and types of games in mind. Yes there were bad games for the NES (and other Nintendo systems, especially the GB), yes there were bad games for the PSOne (and 2). But that doesnt take away from them, its not like Nintendo made all those bad games, or that Sony did. They see the liscensing money that can come from them, and they decide what to let come out, in that environment, at that period of time. So like Kid Ice said, vote with your dollar. Be an informed shopper. Do people just randomly go out and buy a car or a washing machine? No they research it, and decide on the style that they like. gamers should do, and do the same thing. If you like a particular style of game then work that. If that involves getting an older game, for an older system, so be it.

Not everyone who games is like many of us are here at DP. There are people here who can knock your socks off based on the info they have about a game or a system. There are collectors who get a style of game, or games from specific sytems. The old stuff has its places, and so does the new stuff. Did anyone think in recent years that the openness and ability to do most whatever you want in the game of GTA3 would be revolutionary? Does anyone see the new Online stuff that is comming out all the time? Go play some SOCOM2, Crimson Skies, PSO, Hell even Midway Arcade Treasures (online score rankings for the games), this new form of interaction is amazing. This type of gaming is the future people, or at least part of the future.
Live it, Love it, because its not going anywhere, and neither are we.

[petewhitley]

There is the reason for your resentment towards Sony. You idealize the past and skew the present...The roles are reversed purely based on their economic success. Associating both with deep gameplay or shallow visual emphasis is nonsense; it was non-sense back then, and it is now.

Great post lendelin. As a 28 year old, I was fully aware and gaming for several years by the time Nintendo rolled into town, so 30 years old is most definitely not the cutoff for those who "were around." The day I unplugged my 2600 so my NES could attach to the RF-switch was a joyous day, because I was damn excited that games were evolving. As was the day some 15 years later when I hooked the 2600 back up and re-realized how much fun some of those old school games still were. And when I hook up my PS3 in 200X, I'll be just as excited as I was hooking up that NES, because I for one welcome the evolution of video games, regardless of whether or not my favorite genre is well represented or not. I'll get over it, and I'll get used to it, because I love "video games" more than I love "(insert favorite genre here)". Anyways, I see this all the time on these boards. Idealizing the past and skewing the present. The oldies were great, but so are alot of the newer games. (like Manhunt, heh heh... that was for you J.R.)

[Push Upstairs]

The old stuff has its places, and so does the new stuff.

This is what alot of gamers i have met seem to forget.

I've met people who will bash anything thats *NOT* 2D and thats just as bad as people bashing games that are only 2D.

And none of this is aimed at anyone here (more towards the previous gamers i've met)

3D games arent 2D games and some gamers need to realize that a 3D game offers a different challege than a 2D game would. You can either step up to this new challege or stick with the 20+ years worth of 2D games that are out there on the market.

[Captain Wrong]

Wow, there's some great responses in this thread. Espically you, lendelin. I really feel like I have nothing to add to that, because you said everything I wanted to.

Push Upstairs makes a great point too. If you don't like the new stuff, there's still oodles of old stuff you probably haven't touched yet. Though I'm not a huge fan of 3d games in general, I like having the option to play some GTA3 in addition to my Robotron and what have you. The industry as a whole may have moved away from what I think of as fun, but every now and then something comes along and it's cool to be able to check that out and have more 2d games than I could ever hope to play.

[ubersaurus]

I've met a ton of shallow gamers who won't play something if it doesn't have the prettiest graphics out there. But that's another story.

When I was younger, I had an atari, and I played the hell out of that thing. I didn't get my NES until about 1988, and to be honest, I didn't see much difference. Those NES games didn't seem much more complex then some of the stuff on my 2600 and 7800, even if the goals were different (high score vs finishing the game).

Sony not releasing 2d games on the basis of them being 2d is pretty damn stupid, though...they won't make much money, to be sure, but to think that it would destroy their image is fallicious(sp?) thinking. If anything, it'd make them more appealing to casual fans of those genres. I know people who don't go out of their way to import shooters, but if a new one comes out here, they'll check it out. Denying them these shooters makes their console just seem less appealing. Although Nintendo put the influence on newer type games, you could still find titles like pac-man, 1942, Galaga, etc. on the NES.

[lendelin]

I just wanna add:

1) I never understood the generalizations of game quality about "Nintendo", "Sega," "Sony" or "Microsoft" systems and associate it with feelings about brand names. As game developers they provide only a small portion of the games for their respective systems. Third-party developers are the ones who truly carry a system, now more so than ever; and third party developers don't care basically for which system they produce as long as it's profitable. If the GC were the most established system, Capcom would release Devil may Cry, the Onimushas, and Maximos for the GC; and Nintendo would take these games with a kneefall. They would also love to have Star Wars KOTOR or Panzer Dragoon Orta. Would this make the GC or Nintendo more shallow or merely more successful?

For this reason, I don't see why licensing policies have something to do with the broad direction of gameplay, let it be 'deep gameplay' of Nintendo in the past or present, or the emphasis on splendid graphics by Sony.

2) In the end, as gamers we get the games we deserve, independently of specific systems and licensing policies. Hardware manufacturers, publishers, and developers react much more to market trends than they act. Developers and publishers have to survive, and how well a game or genre might do determines if they are produced. As long as there is a broad and great selection, I don't care about games I don't like. I can't stand the endless stream of FPS, but there is no sense to complain about it if I'm overfed with games I like. My must-have-list of action-adventures, RPGs, shooters, Racers and traditional games is longer than it ever was compared to the best SNES and Genesis times.

3) Graphics are very important, but they are mere tools of good gameplay, like special effects are mere tools to tell a good story in a movie. Good or bad graphics shouldn't be associated with good gameplay at all when it comes to individual games, and neither should commercial success. Star wars KOTOR is a great success becasue it's a good game, not becasue it has all the bells and whistles of high-tech graphics. A game with mediocre graphics isn't necessarily a good game either.

4) About uncomfortable feelings with new directions of gameplay (which was Manenikos original intent and topic before I critisized the side-comments:) :

There is a psychological aspect to it. Comfortable feelings are often created by early childhood memories and new experiences which cannot be replicated. The first experience of gaming you have IS the golden age of gaming as long as you live because you simply accept the experience and you cannot compare it to earlier experiences. These feelings are evn stronger if the first gaming is associated with social interaction which has nothing to do with gaming (with friends, brothers, parents, secure and unburdened feelings we only experience as children or teenagers) No game today can give me the experience I had when I played for the first time SMB and Zelda (and I was already 30!) As we get older we don't simply just accept a situation, but rather we are able to compare with other experiences, and change becomes easily uncomfortable becasue we cling to these nice experiences.

Personally, I like change. I love it. Innovation of the present, prospects of the future are much more exciting than the past, historical knowledge of the past is nevertheless very important to solve problems of the present.
The old platformers are dead, heading in a new direction (Jak 2), stories get more and more incorporated into games. In a couple of years we'll have a full fledged profession of professional scriptwriters for games, the equivalent of scriptwriters for movies. Game developers didn't come to grips with good stories for games yet, but a lot of game developers try hard for a lot of games which are planned or recently published. Good stories are still relegated into CGI sequences which is a hindrance of gameplay and is contradictory to interactivity. It's incredibly interesting to watch a slow process to incorporate stories into gameplay so that the story cannot be merely watched but played.
Game content and it's presentation changes also dramatically, and in ten or twenty years we'll have surprising topics and their artistic presentation in games.

Merely to look back and hail old gameplay is deadly for innovation. It's necessary to learn about older games becasue they give you hints and maybe even fresh ideas to head in new directions.

There is also a paradox in the psychological set-up of the ones who feverishly hail old gameplay on the one hand and complain about the lack of innovation of current games on the other. It's the extreme opposite of innovative gameplay when a Galaga or Startropics, decade old games we all know and love, are plugged in and played.

Today the try-and-true old gems are great to play today becasue they deliver a refreshing variation of the current games and bring back first gaming experiences. They are appealing in their linear simplicity as a backdrop of the new games which cannot give the same play experience, and therefore are more enjoyable today than they ever were.

Am I afraid of new directions of gameplay? Nope, I crave new game experiences, they are absolutely necessary otherwise I'd be bored to death with games, and so would everyone on this board. Noone would play games anymore because you can play a Zelda or Arkista's Ring only for a certain period of time, and a newly released Zelda clone after years of playing similar games would just catch dust on game shelves.

PS: I can't believe I wrote "I just wanna add" at the beginning of this post. :)

[IntvGene]

There is also a paradox in the psychological set-up of the ones who feverishly hail old gameplay on the one hand and complain about the lack of innovation of current games on the other. It's the extreme opposite of innovative gameplay when a Galaga or Startropics, decade old games we all know and love, are plugged in and played.

Today the try-and-true old gems are great to play today becasue they deliver a refreshing variation of the current games and bring back first gaming experiences. They are appealing in their linear simplicity as a backdrop of the new games which cannot give the same play experience, and therefore are more enjoyable today than they ever were.

Am I afraid of new directions of gameplay? Nope, I crave new game experiences, they are absolutely necessary otherwise I'd be bored to death with games, and so would everyone on this board. Noone would play games anymore because you can play a Zelda or Arkista's Ring only for a certain period of time, and a newly released Zelda clone after years of playing similar games would just catch dust on game shelves.

First of all, great posts here Lendelin, but I think that you are tying together two things that I want to separate. Old, 2-d games are fun because I can play them in a single sitting, and don't have to listen to twenty hours of dialogue to enjoy the game. And those games are fun now, even if I have never played them before. I don't think that it necessarily has to do with nostalgia. The new direction in gaming is taking things to a different level, something that I am not looking forward to, as more money gets involved, and they turn into interactive experiences, it will be nothing like the games that I love. And, some of that's what's in danger of disappearing on the PS2.. games that I can pick up without reading the manual, without someone explaining to me what has happened before the last save point. These games could be classified as arcade games, but they can still have new gameplay elements to them, and stunning new visuals. Personally, I enjoy 2-d games because of their simplicity and their fun. I don't have to worry about holding in the R3 button while rotating the analog stick to move my view. It's just the way that I enjoy playing games. I prefer a game that I can teach someone how to play in 10 seconds... not a half-hour tutorial... that's not fun.

Sony, (and we really should be saying Sony of America here) is sadly limiting the choices of gamers. If you so much for innovation, why not let us have the games that are a little less graphically splendid? Let the market decide which games succeed and which games fail. Maybe there's something to offer in the gameplay or other departments. If you crave new and interesting experiences, they won't be on the PS2, when games like Killer 7, which does look to expand the genre in an interesting direction, most likely will not be coming the the US PS2. Sure, there are other choices here, like releasing it in other markets or other platforms, but that doesn't make SOA's actions right. Nintendo did it in the past too, but I just don't think that they simply judged a game so hastily because of its lack of graphics or because of its genre.

I think that the lack of innovation is simply because companies in America still see the market as homogeneous with sports and a few successful games being copied repeatedly. SOA isn't expanding gamer's experiences, they're forcing contracting them. They're not leading anymore, they're following. I cut your post out a little, but you said that the developers react to trends today, more than act, and I disagree, the good companies still act, the bad ones react.

[Ed Oscuro]

Since I've started collecting I've increased my share of time spent with action games instead of the Nintendo brand of games, and I would probably have to say I like a game with a simple play mechanic better.

As for FPS versus 2D...well...I don't really differentiate. There's a lot of good in both styles, and I definitely appreciate the advances being made in the technology these days. I haven't tried out the newer PS2-style action games (Onimusha, Dynasty Warriors, the new Shinobi games and Ninja Gaiden) and the closest I've come is the original Tenchu. I'm not sure if those will grab me or not, but I have a feeling they might.

There's no doubt that there's only so many ways you can do a 3D action platformer, though. A game like Unreal Tournament 2K4 appeals to me because it takes stuff we're familiar with and introduces new gameplay styles -- you have no idea what a rollercoaster of highs and lows Double Domination is with three bots on your team until you've tried it :)

[Packerfan66]

I hate sony blah blah. SOny is destroying the video game industry. Blah blah blah.

What is the point of companies making video games? Is it supposed to be about seeing how many fanboys they can create? No, it's about making money! They don't make many 2d games anymore because they don't make money! The mainstream crowd is where all the money is at. They are the ones who will go out and spend $50 on a brand new game that looks cool. The hardcore crowd who want 2D games is very small and are a bunch of cheap bastards. Oh wow that 2D game looks awesome. I think I'll wait a few months until the price drops because no one is buying it to pick it up.

[Ed Oscuro]

They don't make many 2d games anymore because they don't make money!
How about "They don't make many 2D view games because the industry is locked in a downward spiral of sequel after sequel and endless cycles of imitation."

It's always been that way, truth be told, but the playing field is much bigger than it used to be, not smaller, since we have so many more ideas and styles of gameplay to choose from. Yet it seems that even less serves to differentiate today's Need For Speed from the original Gran Turiso or Unreal Tournament 2K4 from the Q*Berts and Pac-Mans of old. There's no reason companies can't mess around with more styles of gameplay than the FPS, third person platformers, RPGs and sports/racing games. What you release as a budget title will perform like a budget title, and as nobody seems to try building up a franchise around different kinds of gameplay there's little to keep the hardcore gamer (or otherwise) very interested.

I also don't agree that 2D gamers are a cheap bunch...and I certainly don't feel that way when I shell out $270 for a single Neo Geo AES game.

[Packerfan66]

Too many sequels are a problem but you can't blame the developers because sequels are selling so damn well. I was playing Ikaruga the other day and you know what a friend of mine said when he saw it? He said, "that game looks like shit." I'm sure 90% of the video game population would probably agree with him.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't see what sequels have to do with Ikaruga looking like shit (if that's indeed what most folks think), though.

I believe that Nintendo has a plan to bring back oldschool gaming with the DS and its upcoming systems, and we'll have to see how that works out.

I am sorry to hear that happened, though.

For the record, I think Knights of the Old Republic on xBox looks and plays like shit ;D

[lendelin]

... but I think that you are tying together two things that I want to separate. Old, 2-d games are fun because I can play them in a single sitting, and don't have to listen to twenty hours of dialogue to enjoy the game. And those games are fun now, even if I have never played them before. I don't think that it necessarily has to do with nostalgia.

You're right, when I wrote older games in their linear simplicity are very attractive as a backdrop(!) of the current games, I exaggerated unintentionally. (I was already tired :) Older games are games in their own right, and they represent an era of videogaming with a unique gaming experience...and they can be played independently of all ages, and with or without former gaming experience.

Because something is "old" doesn't mean it's outdated, and that's especially true for the older game gems. A Rembrandt painting isn't outdated compared to a Kandinsky, that would be foolish to say. I wanted to make a point about uncomfortable feelings of new gaming directions, though.

Games have to DEVELOP, have to be reinvented, have to go in new directions. 300 years of the same Rembrandt-style paintings can't possibly survive (and the man was copied a LOT, and for some time, like all big success stories); game developers have to look for innovations, they do it automatically, they want something new, a 25 year old game developer at Capcom today has very different life experiences, values, expectations, game experiences than the young and older Al Alcorn.

We can look back, we can analyse the past games and market situations, we can play and enjoy the older games, but they should never be idealized in a way so they become obstacles for innovation. Things on pedestals should be admired, consumed, and then forcefully forgotten when it comes to innovate videogames. Their great game elements which are sometimes very fresh will be incorporated in the new games this way.

...and nostalgia isn't necessarily part of the gaming experience, but it certainly comes in for older gamers with former gaming experience.


The new direction in gaming is taking things to a different level, something that I am not looking forward to, as more money gets involved, and they turn into interactive experiences, it will be nothing like the games that I love. And, some of that's what's in danger of disappearing on the PS2.. games that I can pick up without reading the manual, without someone explaining to me what has happened before the last save point.

I don't agree that more money spoils game quality (some guys at Atari in the 80s became pretty rich); but I agree that the current games are in general too complex and too long. Virtua Tennis and Gran Turismo 3 are great games because they deliver with simple controls incredibly rich gameplay; I never understood why RPGs today, even the fanatastic Final Fantasy X, need some additional card games, water polo games, and so many mini-games to get essential and great items. Sports games suffer from the same complex button combo mishmash. Game developers should think about how to keep controls as simple as possible and work rich gameplay into the programming of the software.

Still, with all this flaws for some games today (and the 8bit era had heavy flaws too), I enjoyed a devil may Cry or Onimusha as much as I enjoyed Zelda or Metriod.


If you so much for innovation, why not let us have the games that are a little less graphically splendid?

I'm all for good graphics, if the gameplay is excellent as well. Graphics are great tools, it only gets dangerous if graphics alone are emphasized; but Sony's licensing policies are not so restrictive. I agaree that a game with great graphics and sub-par gameplay is inferior to a game with mediocre graphics and excellent gameplay.


Let the market decide which games succeed and which games fail. Maybe there's something to offer in the gameplay or other departments.

Every publisher, developer, hardware manufacturer let the market decide already, and you critisized it! Ikaruga wasn't a top-seller, but EAs yearly sports games are. (and they produce also great games, like SSX3, besides hardly improved traditional sports games every year) If 2D games would sell incredibly well, we'd be flooded with them. I'm a sucker for Ikaruga, R-type Final, or the upcoming Gradius V, or the 2D shooters on the Dreamcast. I won't complain that they no longer dominate as long as I get them, and we all get them.


Sure, there are other choices here, like releasing it in other markets or other platforms, but that doesn't make SOA's actions right.

I agree, and I hope that the Growlanser compilation disk will go to the GC or XBox.


Nintendo did it in the past too, but I just don't think that they simply judged a game so hastily because of its lack of graphics or because of its genre.


Oh yes they did, and so did Atari in it's heyday. It can be read in some interviews with Atari developers on this site, or Kent's book, there is a stack of examples.


SOA isn't expanding gamer's experiences, they're forcing contracting them. They're not leading anymore, they're following. I cut your post out a little, but you said that the developers react to trends today, more than act, and I disagree, the good companies still act, the bad ones react.

I think the PS2 library is great, well balanced, with modern classics already.

On the one hand you demand that the market should decide, but then you demand the leading role of developers over the market? The leading role is already occupied, and the occupants are gamers who spend money for games. Games are entertainment products which have to be sold. That's the first rule. No matter how innovative or revolutionary individual games are, they have to appeal to lots of gamers and have to earn a profit; game developers and publishers have to compromise between fresh ideas and appeal. The innovation comes in becausee gamers want something new, and becasue of the competition between hardware manufacturers, developers and publishers. Game quality is money today, and it always was. Some hyped and bad games can get big profits today, but that was the case from the beginning of Year 1 of videogames.

[lendelin]

Yet it seems that even less serves to differentiate today's Need For Speed from the original Gran Turiso or Unreal Tournament 2K4 from the Q*Berts and Pac-Mans of old. There's no reason companies can't mess around with more styles of gameplay than the FPS, third person platformers, RPGs and sports/racing games.

I disagree. Games didn't look awfully similar in the past? All the Pong clones? All the Galaga and Space Invaders clones? all the same space shooters a la Gradius during the 8bit times?

Hardware specs and technology of the current different systems certainly converged, and the hardware of older systems was more different and therefore resulted in different "looks" of games (maybe even different gameplay??? big Q, how do medium differences in technology influence gameplay, I'm not sure about that)

I'm sure that the similarity of games was always there for one simple reason; namely the financially successful game gets copied (with minor variations, becasue you have to set yourself apart from all the clones) GTA 3 clones copy the gameplay of a huge success becasue it had great appeal (=money), almost all action adventures games now copy (or more neutral "are heavily influenced by") the gameplay of Devil May Cry, even the terriffic Ninja Gaiden. The once fresh idea looks very soon old, but it's not only MONEY who drives the production of similar games. Good game ideas don't grow on trees, they develop slowly, creativity runs against hardware limitations. Nevertheless, fresh ideas are slowly transformed into new directions and influence freshly other genres so that the traditional 3D platformer gets a new gameplay like in Jak 2.

It's not only profit interest (=market considerations) alone or licensing policies that converge gameplay, it's also hardware limitations and the creativity of game developers. In a comprised hindsight look a lot of innovation happened, but don't forget that these innovations happened as slowly as they do today.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yet it seems that even less serves to differentiate today's Need For Speed from the original Gran Turiso or Unreal Tournament 2K4 from the Q*Berts and Pac-Mans of old. There's no reason companies can't mess around with more styles of gameplay than the FPS, third person platformers, RPGs and sports/racing games.

I disagree. Games didn't look awfully similar in the past? All the Pong clones? All the Galaga and Space Invaders clones? all the same space shooters a la Gradius during the 8bit times?
Looks like I messed up the structure there, doh; UT2K4 is quite similar to Quake 3 and I intended to write that.

That's a point YoshiM brought up recently (and I copied verbatim for a forum elsewhere):


Last week I received a shipment of old Video Game & Computer Entertainment magazines. This was my by far most favorite game magazine. Ever. I perused a couple- one from October of 1990 and another from 1991 and was floored at what I read. A lot of the stuff we see today happened back then. Smaller publishers/developers getting hammered by poor sales and succumbing to larger publishers. Lawsuits being flung back and forth. Games causing controversy (before Mortal Kombat: Dr. Mario got raked across the coals for portraying the idea that playing with pills was "fun").

A reponse to a letter in February of 1991 touched on "why not all of these [new 16 Bit games] are cracked up to what they claim to be." VG&CE reponds with explaining how games are taking longer to make and are sometimes released before they are really finished (sound familiar and recent?) They also say "One of the biggest complaints that concerns the release of game after game with similar formats. Most players believe that the software market is getting boring. Some new titles are simply alterations of the characters and theme from previous efforts. New game concepts like 'Tetris' (boy if they only knew what the future held-lots o' Tetris clones) and 'Quarth', are, sadly, not released frequently enough for our liking." Andy Eddy said in the Letter From the Editor in the September 1990 issue that "video game companies have to be careful not to let quality slip, lest they alienate their value customers. And we wouldn't want to see a repeat of 1983, would we?"

This hit me like a ton of ET carts. I didn't remember a lot of that stuff nor did I really *think* about it back then either. After years of year seeing the industry evolve it's not too hard to think that the issues we complain about today are unique to today. Yep, the past really is cyclical like our parents or grandparents told us.
I know that there's a lot of fringe titles that go under the radar, but the scene is still quite different from the 16 bit days. It seems that there were only a few styles of gameplay during the 8/16 bit days, but for the hardware available developers tried out a whole lot of different ideas. What's true during the current generation is that we're moving towards a point where the pressure is so high on devs that there have been many games that could've been as big as GTA but never entered production. During the older days that pressure wasn't there, and I think the wide variety of ideas shows it, especially as far as the 8-bit action games/puzzlers/maze games are concerned. You told a bunch of young guys to go make games, and if they were good they got released. I don't think I even want to go over what it's like now -- but more beaurocracy is a sure way to kill off designs that are too daring.

[maxlords]

I'm 26 and I grew up solidly in the Nintendo generation. I'd have to say that on the whole, I don't like where the industry is going. It's not out of some misguided sense of golden age 8/16 bit loyalty either. For me, it's teh fact that I get bored with the new games. In general, modern games are slower paced, more complex, and have a MUCH higher learning curve than anything I've played in previous generations. Case in point, the wildly popular Splinter Cell. I bought it not long after it came out, used. I played it for a grand total of about 3 days off and on. Every time I played it, I got bored. That game is SLOW. Sitting in a corner waiting for people to walk buy for 4-5 minutes is NOT my idea of a good time. Frankly, it's boring. And a lot of modern games have this problem. All of the modern RPGs are tedious, with much focus on either VERY long stretches of dialogue (a la Xenosaga, which I tend to fall asleep playing, though I do love the story itself), or complex, reduntant, and generally unpleasantly/needlessly obscure battle systems. When I have to go through 6 menus to do an attack....we're getting ridiculous.

Look at Steel Batallion. 40+ buttons. 3 foot pedals. Selling out at $200 a copy. But have you played it? The viewable screen area on the game is ridiculously small! If I'm gonna play a mech game, I'll play one where my HUD isn't bigger than my friggin windshield! Come on! it's like 1/4 of the screen is game and the rest is stats you have to try to ignore! I wanted to buy one....until I saw it in action. Now I could care less. It's indicative of the way the market is going though. Gamers are looking for complex flashy things. It's like a generation of crows is the new consumer demographic.

Basically, what I'm saying is that whether they sell or not, the newer games aren't good from a DESIGN standpoint in general. Graphics is supplanting gameplay, and length is becoming a standard to judge games by. I don't blame Sony for this. I dont' blame anyone except stupid consumers. And WE as hardcore gamers are NOT going to be able to change this. We buy a lot of games....sure. But we're not the market. Your cousin's friend Joe-Bob who lives in the trailer park across town and buys every Madden game, and wants to play the new Deer Hunter and drink beer...HE'S the market. Because gaming is going mainstream and that's the sort of thing that a large percentage of people will do.

Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a little. But still, we're not the demographic. We don't buy MOST of the games. In fact, quite frankly, we're lucky to have as many niche games as we do. The market cares about the dollar, not us, and gameplay doesn't enter into the equation anymore, at least, it doesn't seem to when I look. I don't like many of the new games, and therefore, I don't buy em. Pure and simple. Whine all you want, but if you buy ANY of the new stuff that you don't love....that's where the most damage is being done (assuming you buy it new).

Anyway...that's my two cents. I don't buy many new games. I buy mostly older titles. And I buy them because they're more fun to play, and the older I get, the less I want to sit and play for 4 or 5 hours at a time.

[YoshiM]

Wow, someone remembered that post I made. And quoted me too. Cool.

Anyhoo, my 2 zenny...

My feelings are mixed about the direction of the industry. On one hand I hate the way many games are turning into glorified comic books. Metal Gear Solid 2 is a good example of this with one of its huge cut scenes (out of many). I paid money to play a game and not have to wait 10 minutes to move on. Sure I could skip the movie (if the game allows) but they intertwine important information you'll need to use later on. Just let me play. Another con of modern gaming is the fact you can't really get a "feel" for the game unless you put the time into it. If the target age of the industry is like the mid 20's, don't these companies know we have things to do like work? I don't have time to plop down in front of a game and play through to get to the "good part". If a movie stank one would usually turn it off or leave a theater (except maybe if you paid non-matinee prices) without a thought. Your time is valuable. If a music CD was horrid except for two songs, you'd skip to those songs or just turn it off. Your time is valuable. Why in the hell would I sit down at a game and play it for hours if I'm either bored to tears or frustrated (due to control, camera, etc.) from the get go? Call it impatience or whatever, but that's something that's hard to shake from the past: if you don't get the gamer hooked within the first minute (or so) they won't play.

However I am liking some of the things that are going on these days. The third dimension, when utilized right, opens up whole new ideas on how to interact with puzzles and enemies. Prince of Persia is an awesome example. The environmental puzzles are top notch and pretty logical while combat is simplistic yet challenging (while allowing for some acrobatic hot dogging). Or games like D&D Heroes or Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance where you take the Gauntlet Legends idea but give the ability taylor your character for whatever situation or way you want to play. Sports games are *finally* becoming non-sports-people friendly (an interesting) with examples like Links and Top Spin.

Change is going to happen or the market will totally stagnate. True we are seeing release after release of the same stuff, but the cream will rise to the top and we will see change. Maybe we as old school gamers may not like the change but someone will, just like those someones are liking things now. All we can do is either find what we like and treasure it and/or look back to the past for the titles that appeal to us most.

[Ed Oscuro]

Wow, someone remembered that post I made. And quoted me too. Cool.

Anyhoo, my 2 zenny...

My feelings are mixed about the direction of the industry. On one hand I hate the way many games are turning into glorified comic books. Metal Gear Solid 2 is a good example of this with one of its huge cut scenes (out of many).
That's a very good point. A couple weeks back there was a topic about some guy's article which said the movie industry has stayed alive for the last century because people like the story, and that games are all about finger-twitch (which seems to blithely ignore the reality that in a game you help create the story, and the reality of control is another great factor whether you're playing an NES game or something newer).

Some games are definitely going the route of movies, and while I don't mind it I won't make it my priority to buy them. I'm still just an action guy.

[Nature Boy]

Did you feel the same kind of anger and resentment toward Nintendo that some players (myself included) feel toward Sony now? Did it bother you that gaming was heading in a new, unfamiliar direction? If so, how long did it take for you to adapt to the changes Nintendo made to the industry?

Absolutely not. I try to appreciate what is being done and live in the moment while at the same time know where it came from and appreciate what once was. Much like, with music, I appreciate newer artists and what they bring to the table as well as those who came before them and what they did.

[lendelin]

Basically, what I'm saying is that whether they sell or not, the newer games aren't good from a DESIGN standpoint in general. Graphics is supplanting gameplay, and length is becoming a standard to judge games by.

I don't think the current games see worse design than the classics, I think they see a different and overall better one!

Where we agree is that current games provide not enough control-simplicity where they could, and that they are sometimes too lenghty. But this gets slowly, very slowly corrected. Game developers realized already that 'more' isn't always better, in particular if 'more' means more of the same for a sequel. Instaed of simply increasing lenght, game developers started to focus on where it really counts, variety, control issues, graphics, and some new ideas especially for sequels. For about a year now I'm really glad that I read in interviews with game developers that the problem is acknowledged. It takes time to correct it; but this will be corrected.

The second big issue nowadays are CGI sequences, and like you I think that Xenosaga was the highpoint of CGI-mania which is counterproductive in every aspect of storytelling in games, interactivity, and gaming experience.

I started a thread (poll) about 'CGI sequences in games' which is now in the Classic poll section, I believe. I didn't follow up on it, but I will. The basic problem is how to incorporate stories into gameplay, and look who did it moderately right and who did it terribly wrong.

The basic problem is that game developers since Ninja Gaiden think in simple movie terms to tell a story in a game. NOTHING could be more wrong. Games aren't interactive movies, the story shouldn't be merely watched in a game, it can be PLAYED. Game developers miss an incredible opportunity of stories in games when they relegate the most important aspects of a story into CGI sequences. Unlike movies, the psychological identification with the story takes place by PLAYING, and is substantially different from watching or reading. CGI sequences should be kept to a minimum, and everything that can be played shouldn't be merely watched.

However, game developers are working on this problem, too. Star wars KOTOR, the upcoming Fable and Jade Empire, the developing profession of scriptwriters in movies are all signs of exciting and new directions games will go. Complex(!) stories simply played is the next big task of game development; to bring it back to the original topic, I'm excited about it, I find it very interesting to see how this process works out very slowly (!) I think comprised hindsight-looks underestimate how slow in the past game development was, and therefore use a distorted view as a measuremnt tab of the present. This way, the present has no chance, and prospects look dim. A realistic look of the past will reveal a much brighter future for videogames.


I don't blame Sony for this. I dont' blame anyone except stupid consumers. And WE as hardcore gamers are NOT going to be able to change this. We buy a lot of games....sure. But we're not the market. Your cousin's friend Joe-Bob who lives in the trailer park across town and buys every Madden game, and wants to play the new Deer Hunter and drink beer...HE'S the market. Because gaming is going mainstream and that's the sort of thing that a large percentage of people will do.

We so-called hardcore gamers aren't the elite of the game consumers, we ARE the core of the mainstream. Just check which games you're playing, older ones or newer ones, and you'll see that you were right there with the 'mainstreamers' to spend money for the same games they bought in at least 50% of game purchases. I'm glad that I was mainstream back then when I bought a Zelda, Metriod, Super Mario 3, Super Metriod or Contra 3.

[lendelin]

YoshiM, I missed your earlier post, probably because I was in Germany when you posted it. Thanks, EdOscuro for quoting it, because YoshiM and I had lenghty discussions about this topic.

I think now we completely agree on the subject, YoshiM. Yep, basically every current phenomena was there in the past, complaints about less innovation, the money-rules-over-game quality argument, the mainstream argument, copycat clones of the successful games, the hysterical endless warnings about a new videogame crash at the most inadequate situations, prematurely released games which nevertheless made big profit, etc.

When it comes to the market situation, I think only one thing truly changed. The game industry and game development became more structured which is the result of it's growth and professionalization. More people are involved from game design to marketing, more money is at stake, the companies became overall bigger, and everything in the game industry professionalized. As I said before, that's overall a good thing, and I don't think it reduces game quality or the creativity of game designers, they just have to work in a very different environment now compared to the early 80s; but as long as competition breeds innovation, I won't complain as a game player.

Nostalgia plays a big role when it comes to evaluating the present. The ideal, I suspect, is for a lot of board members and lovers of older games (I'm one of them) the early Atari situation. Guys sitting around having the idea founding a company, programmers which explore new terrain, walking around in shorts not caring about conventional rules of work places, working until the wee hours of the night 20 hours in a row, then disappearing for the next two days; the unconventional work atmosphere, small development sections, the leeway they were given, less coordination was necessary, one or two guys working on ONE game...it seems like creative paradise. :)

The creative paradise wasn't a paradise, it came at a lot of costs, and the times two guys could produce a game in 5 months are over.

Nolan Bushnell didn't leave the industry without good reason, he was a dinosaur in a structured environment, a creative visionary and savy entrepreneur, the right man at the right place to help establishing an industry; Ray Kassar isn't the beginning of the end when he took over Atari, he was a necessity! He is the personalized symbol of an industry which became professionalized, and that means for a game developer administartive managing and coordination which increases with the size of the company, no matter which product is sold, games or pencils.

We love what Baer and Bushnell represents, and we feel uncomfortable what Kassar represents. I say, in the end professionalization doesn't influence game creativity, we just get more quality games we can choose from.


My feelings are mixed about the direction of the industry. On one hand I hate the way many games are turning into glorified comic books. Metal Gear Solid 2 is a good example of this with one of its huge cut scenes (out of many). I paid money to play a game and not have to wait 10 minutes to move on. Sure I could skip the movie (if the game allows) but they intertwine important information you'll need to use later on. Just let me play.

I completely agree, see my response to maxlords above. I had the same experience when I played Metal Gear Solid and Xenosaga; however, I think Panzer Dragoon Orta did a much better job integrating CGI sequences, although the basic problem of integrating stories into gameplay isn't solved.


Another con of modern gaming is the fact you can't really get a "feel" for the game unless you put the time into it. If the target age of the industry is like the mid 20's, don't these companies know we have things to do like work? I don't have time to plop down in front of a game and play through to get to the "good part".

My feeling is the same. However, i don't think it's merely a time issue and one of game length. It took a long time to finish a Ninja Gaiden, Castlevania 3, or Zelda, but these games gave you a lot to do, you repeatedly tried and died, and the feeling that you spend a lot of time with them wasn't just there compared to sitting through a lenghty CGI sequence, introduction, or exploring another vast area ahead of you.


However I am liking some of the things that are going on these days. The third dimension, when utilized right, opens up whole new ideas on how to interact with puzzles and enemies. Prince of Persia is an awesome example. The environmental puzzles are top notch and pretty logical while combat is simplistic yet challenging (while allowing for some acrobatic hot dogging). Or games like D&D Heroes or Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance where you take the Gauntlet Legends idea but give the ability taylor your character for whatever situation or way you want to play. Sports games are *finally* becoming non-sports-people friendly (an interesting) with examples like Links and Top Spin.


Completely agree. I haven't played Ninja gaiden or Dungeons&Dragons Heroes yet, but there are so many more examples of great games who avoid flaws of the present gaming. The classics are already out there, and there are more to come. There is no doubt in my mind that a Kingdom Hearts, Devil May Cry, Gran Turismo 3, Zelda Wind waker and many others will be played in ten years from now without having the feeling that there is something missing. Right now is a great time for gaming becasue what game developers want to achieve and what the hardware allows them to do matches perfectly like to the 16 bit times. (GT2 = never impressed me; GT3= a masterpiece)

New directions of gaming and the evolvement of games are exciting, not frightening. As long as we don't get enslaved by a nostalgic and distorted look back, the future of games look very bright, and the earlier game eras take the great spot in game history they deserve.