The Cycle Part 2: Industry, genre beating, sequelitis

[YoshiM]

February I posted a topic about how things were cyclical in the game industry. I quoted some things from Video Games and Computer Entertainment magazine about the lack of quality and lack of originality in games back then.

Well VG&CE has come through again: I was recently archiving some scans of the February 1990 issue of VG&CE and I ran into a few blurbs that describe what's going on now with the beating to death of genres and the mad dash for the "safe and sure" money makers.

From the section "Best Games of 1989":
"The increased dominance of product marketing over product development at many large publishers contributed to [trends of new heights of excellence but the "high spots were less plentiful"]. This wasn't the easiest year, financially speaking, for many software companies. Video games systems competed strongly for the gaming dollar; over-ambitious shipments caused a product glut during the second quarter."

"Quite a few publishers have adopted the strategy of going for "sure things". That means slickly professional games in established niches with proven consumer appeal. Such titles seldom become platinum sellers, but they are also far less likely to fall absolutely flat. Worried publishers will do just about anything to avoid outright flops, and that definitely includes holding those trailblazing new concepts until the pressure is off the bottom line. Call 1989 the year of the B-plus game, and you won't be far wrong."

(BTW: game of the year was Legendary Axe)

In the same issue from their arcade game section Destination Arcadia:

"It's been said that there's 'nothing new under the sun' today. Imitations and repetition seem to be the order of the day in almost all forms of entertainment. Look at the movie section of your local newspaper if you need further proof. Sequels, "pre-quels" and redux items are all the rage and the line between who's who and what's what gets fuzzier everyday."

Man, does that sound familiar? Fourteen years ago people were having the same issues with the state of the game like we are now. It's just rather amazing to see that, even though technology and trends change, a lot of things just stay the same. Just figured I'd share this other nugget of info from the past.

For those who think a crash is imminent-if the sequelitis and retread deals have been going on for over 14 years (and a lot of us know it's been going on for longer) and the market keeps growing, I don't think there's going to be a major crash for a long time.

[lendelin]

Great quotes! They should be printed, framed, and put over the bed of the many who complain about the present state of affairs for videogames. They could be line for line from a recent videogame magazine.

These quotes are great because they give you a more realistic perspective of the past and the present.

1989 gave us a lot of great and classic videogames, and well...gamers and journalists still complained.

A lot has changed for videogames, thank God. From game content, new genres, changes in style and content as reflections of value changes in society, the separation lines for genres got blurry, more variety in gameplay than ever before, to a more structured business environment for game development and publishing because the industry became incredibly successful.

However, one aspect is a constant, and that is the impatience of gamers with 'their' games based on a distorted view of the past, accustomization to a better game quality, and a selective look backwards were supposedly everything was more innocent.

Things got better, but we not only (rightfully!) complain about the present like every adult generation is supposed to do, but we make the present look awful becasue we use a distorted and idealized past as a measurement tab of todays game quality and business aspects of the industry.

NES and SMS games looked awfully similar, from gameplay, control, and backgrounds. You had to wait much longer for titles worthhile to play than nowadays. The sheer number of released games increased, and therefore we have more choices than ever for more genres than ever; sports games and racers offered very little gameplay in stark contrast to action adventure games and RPGs. 3D made it possible for the current generation of consoles (not in the 32/64 bit era) to offer sports titles and racers which have almost as much depth of gameplay as the best RPGs (that goes certainly for GT3). Rad Racer and tennis games were awfully boring with little gameplay value, today GT3 and Virtua Tennis are among the best videogames ever produced.

The controls got better, the graphics and sound got better, marketing research got better and therefore game developers learned to listen what gamers want (and pay for!); prices for games drop faster than ever and became more affordable because of new technologies and a fierce competition; Sony and MS fight a hard battle over the living rooms which is great for us gamers although we necessarily feel uncomfortable with the 'big' business aspects of the game industry today. Everything comes at a price, but as an avid gamer I'd rather tackle the problems of success than failure.

I never understood the supposedly stark contrast between the past and the present anyway. There are only level of degrees differences of basic problems like the business and creative side for games, and a successful game industry today reenforces the interest in videogame history; however, we have to be careful not to idealize the past.

There is something very remarkable going on right now under our noses. There is a process of mythologization and symbolization of the past. Ralph Baer, Nolan Bushnell and early Atari programmers are put on a pedestal, and items became symbols for much more than mere games. Ralp Baers Brown Box became THE symbol for the cradle of videogames, admired like ancient Greece as a symbol for civilization of the Western World, mythologized like the American founding fathers, the French Revolution, or the British Monarchy. Every "community" needs a broad agreement of symbols and mythology as a social glue.

The buld-up of myths and symbols is a deeply necessary process and a result of a very successful present. However, it IS an idealization which should not be used to measure the present realistically, and furthermore, the selection of our idols speaks volumes what we WISH to see for the industry today. The idealization of the past says very little about the past itself, but is an indicator of our criticism about todays game industry! like Tarzan and the noble savage of the 19th century, and like todays "harmony with nature" notion of past American Indians, we use idealizations to stress uncomfortable aspects of modern times.

We put Bushnell on a pedestal and forget that he was a very savy business entrepreneur who understood how to make money; we like him because he was much less formal and stiff than the so called 'suits,' the right man at the right place to establish an industry in its early childhood. We love Ralp Baer becasue he personifies the creative side of the game industry, less involved in sometimes troublesome business aspects. We don't put Ray Kassar on a pedestal despite his success becasue he symbolizes 'business,' a necessary structured environment for games and every form of successful entertainment .

Idealizations are not only unavoidable, but necessary and and have good aspects to them. However, serious historians and researchers (who haven't evolved yet for the past of videogames) will have to correct from time to time the distorted view of the past, and gamers, old and young, should certainly keep in mind that the supposedly better old times are not a good starting point to criticize games today.

[omnedon]

BuBump!

REQUIRED reading here folks. This WILL be on the final.

[lendelin]

BuBump!

REQUIRED reading here folks. This WILL be on the final.

I wish! I'd grill you like there is no tomorrow!

I realize that the post is way too long, for me it's almost too long to read, and I wrote the thing.

I just hammered away on the keyboard last night, the quotes are just too provocative. The quotes address a lot what we discussed so many times and burns on our nails.

Too many games? Sure, but it's not 1984, on the extreme contrary!!

'Safe' games? Sure, but publishers always balanced 'risky' innovative games with sure sellers.

Business pressures as a hindrance of creativity? Bah humbug!

More marketing and less content of games? Bah humbug!

Repetitive, shallow mainstream appeal of not so "true" games on "soulless" consoles like the PS2 (Steve Kent in GI) vs. "true" games for "true" gamers in the past? Nostalgia at it's finest!

Just write BAH HUMBUG as an answer to every Q in the final exam, and you'll get an A. (but don't tell the other students, ok?)

[YoshiM]

Lendelin, all I gotta say is "wow". I never quite thought about the idealization situation, but yeah I can see it. A funny thing about that is it seems to be generational-those who were old enough to play the old Pong systems or the Atari VCS will probably looked back to Baer, Bushnell, Crane and such and hold them and their creations on high (and that ain't a bad thing, give props to whom props are due). Those who cut their teeth on the NES will mentally bronze the NES and/or speak the names of Miyamoto or Howard Phillips with high regard.

[lendelin]

A funny thing about that is it seems to be generational-those who were old enough to play the old Pong systems or the Atari VCS will probably looked back to Baer, Bushnell, Crane and such and hold them and their creations on high (and that ain't a bad thing, give props to whom props are due). Those who cut their teeth on the NES will mentally bronze the NES and/or speak the names of Miyamoto or Howard Phillips with high regard.

I think it's the extreme opposite. The true saints are all dead, and they are extremely admired by those who 1) did not meet them in real life, and/or 2) did not experience the times when they lived. The gamer generation who did not experience the Atari times will regard Ralph Baer a saint, and the next generation of gamers (PS3) will look at Baer AND Miyamoto as a saint. True myths can better evolve the more their origins are in the past. They are reproduced from generation to generation; otherwise the memory about Ralph Baer would fade from generation to generation.

When I looked at the pics of the Classic gaming section of the recent E3 and the success it was, it's remarkable how established videogame history becomes and how much we put persons and games on a pedestal. (I do too)

If we play a Pong or Pitfall or a Galaga today, we're not merely playing a game, we stare with glowing eyes at the monitor and see the symbolized past of videogames which goes way beyond fond and secure childhood memories (personal relationships, presumably simpler times) and beyond unique gameplay experiences modern games can't deliver (linear simplicity, higher level of challenge, more intense and unforgiving action). If we regard games as the origins of videogames, we play with one game in ONE session ALL the games we've ever played; we play past and present, the entire evolution of games, we play GT3, all the Zeldas, Halo, and everything we ever did relating to games from the excitement buying new systems to getting games. The awareness and admiration of "that's it? that's how it ALL started?" is necessary and justified, and playing symbols instead of pixels makes us human beings.

To a much lesser extent this idealization is always there when we play second line or average older games or try to evaluate market mechanisms of the past.

The big Q is: how can we get a realistic perspective of older games and past game eras when there is necessarily nostalgia and selective memory in place? How can we get over a necessary shizophrenia when we look back? How can we possibly evaluate older games today according to the gameplay value back then (GIs retro rating) and how they play today (GIs present rating)?

Is it even relevant to ask these Qs? Yep, because almost every discussion on this board about older and newer games and the game industry is fueled by these Qs. The better these Qs are answered, the more realistic are the discussions. The better these Qs are answered, the better are reviews of past and present games and the better the comparisons between older and newer games of the same franchise.

In order to get good evaluations of past and present, we need REALISM. In order to sustain love and admiration for game eras past, we need MYTHS.