Tryzon's Nostalgic Gaming Trips
Rant #2
How gaming will die, & why it is our fault
*Disclaimer* Much of the talk in the feature below could be misconstrued as fanboy talk, in particular the description of the 360?s launch. Rest assured that it is merely my most remembered example of the phenomenon being described, and that Sony?s big black machine is as much a culprit as its main rival. Just pay attention and hear me out until the end before judging, if you would. *End disclaimer*
No matter how many times people ?both customers and developers- say that ?graphics don?t make a game?, what is the first thing that gets boasted upon announcing a new high-budget game, or in particular a console? Having only been involved in since the late PS1 vs. N64 era, I speak from experience of the last two generations only.
Even just a few years ago, it seemed that ideas where in as plentiful supply as ever, with the incomparable Shadow of the Colossus and God of War showing the world that intriguing concepts can prove massively fulfilling experiences if seen through to the end.
But then late 2005 came, and with the release of the Xbox 360 history would repeat itself once again. You see, upon the release of the PS2 way back when, a number of games were released for both the new system and the old PS1. The logic was obviously to flesh out the newcomer?s library without suddenly cutting off supply to the original?s and risking alienating folk unable to just splash out on a shiny piece of kit unless they spent some months saving the pennies. But then again, in the vast majority of the cases both versions of a game would be identical except for graphical differences, and even then the visuals on the PS2 edition were likely not the best the console could do because the game was developed on two systems at once. In contrast, early PS2 exclusives such as Devil May Cry and Timesplitters were far more representative of how much more power was available. The point in having games on both systems was further reduced by the fact that only a small cache of mostly obscure PS1 titles were not compatible with the fifth generation machine.
The Xbox?s successor took much the same approach a half-decade later: games like Hitman: Blood Money & King Kong came out on both the older and younger system, and once again the only main difference was visuals. While the 360 found its comfortable little spot and started giving birth to ?proper? next-gen titles (Dead Rising springs to mind) a tad more swiftly than the PS2 did, neither the new Xbox or the approaching PS3 would prove to be as big improvements on their predecessors as said predecessors were to the fifth generation.
What I?m trying to say in the most long-winded way possible is that while the fifth generation was a true evolution in gaming, the only significant positive aspects that our current consoles have brought the community is far superior online multiplayer and download services, especially considering how the PS2 was never a very capable internet box. Nowadays an almost impenetrable cloud of blandness covers the once fertile gaming plains, with only the odd bushel of cleverness (Mirror?s Edge, Little Big Planet, to a lesser extend Left4Dead) sprouting up, usually to just become trampled by the great roaming herds of Halos, various Nintendo brands and even the once deservedly popular Grand Theft Autos. Originality is fast going the way of the dodo and platform shoes, and we?re the ones pressing the pillow over its face.
Now while many would argue ?not unfairly- that innovation has been in decline for at least since 3D gaming had become common place, it is undeniable, regardless of what all sides of the console war say, that it is quickly becoming an endangered species. A natural question would be ?why?? The obvious answer would be ?people are stupid?.
Much like how the current economic slump was mainly caused by bankers who failed to plan ahead, the slow demise of unprobed ideas is mostly the fault of us, the consumers. Consider for example movie-licensed games: any experienced gamer can tell you that for every King Kong, Escape From Butcher Bay or Star Wars: Battlefront there are thirty rushed, ill-conceived lumps of excrement designed purely to milk foolish cinema-goers while they are still reeling from whatever half-decent film they watched before driving past their local Gamestation. I can honestly claim to have been wise to this scheme since roughly my hitting twelve years of age, and so consider that point the line upto which no person without inferior intelligence and little knowledge of the games industry should be fooled into buying a game based purely off the license. But then again, look at the charts after any major cinematic release with an age rating less than 18 and what do you see? Why, a top five spot for the videogame tie in of the same name! Whoever would have thought...?
An early example is the now legendarily fowl E.T. on the Atari, which more or less began the trend that has only intensified in the following years.
And the problem goes still deeper. One of gaming?s saddest cases is that of Sonic the Hedgehog, who is notorious for his (seemingly increasingly) poor quality work since his 16-bit debut and success story. By the time his most recent multi-platform release (Sonic Unleashed) was announced, everyone knew not to get their hopes up, although a few nostalgic fools (don?t make that face, I can relate) did anyway, not least since the infinitely inept Sonic Team had claimed to be returning to the series? 2D roots. Needless to say, one critical panning later, Sonic had yet another nail driven into his now decomposing coffin, but his next adventure was all but confirmed nevertheless, due to maddeningly high sales figures. It?s always curious and infuriating in equal measures to see that no matter how bad Sonic?s adventures get, some faceless group of people who must live in a bunker somewhere since the only evidence that they exist being the number of games they buy will go and purchase the latest instalment, apparently at full price.
EA has always been criticised for nearly monopolising the industry by grabbing whatever licenses it can before just sitting on the teetering pile of games and just barely creating something that can be qualified as a game. EA Sports is a truly sickening perpetrator, releasing marginally altered titles annually with no price drop. Then again, these identikit efforts always sell by the truckload, so the company is unlikely to change, right?
Well actually they did in fact have a go at seeking forgiveness for their repeated and numerous sins late last year, with the release of Dead Space (a violent horror game), and Mirror?s Edge (as original as you can get without being sent from the heavens. While neither did earth-shakingly well, they held their own and stood out from last year?s Christmas lineup, which found itself beleaguered by sequels.
If nothing else, the fact that such a radically different title as Mirror?s Edge performed at all admirably -particular with so many well-established brands fighting for control- is a good step in the right direction, even if there are several miles of treacherous swamp still to traverse.
A near-miss for progress was the initially below-expectations sales for the most recent Tomb Raider, which at first appeared to have done surprisingly (and encouragingly) worse than was predicted, suggesting that all the pre-pubescent lads who apparently had no access to internet porn finally either got girlfriends or (much more likely) encouraged their parents to remove the blocking program on Windows Explorer. Of course, within two months it we learned that Underworld had actually out-sold the last two chapters in ?Bad Controls, But Boobs!? by a good margin. Depressing isn?t the half of it.
The problem with the industry as a whole is not developers but rather the folk they need to appease in order to profit. EA was only able to experiment the way they did due to massive stockpiles of eternally good sellers. Small players would have stood no chance. Hell, companies like Sega and Atari only still exist because their Best Of compilations and bad 3D adaptations keep them afloat. If only even half the gamers of the world could just stop and consider how much better things could be if they would stop buying based purely on ?well I loved *insert nostalgic game series here* back on the *insert long-dead console here*, so this new game must be even better!?
But another issue is present: the sheer amount of time, manpower and capital needed to create anything more than a 2D Breakout! clone that costs £3.45 on Xbox Live. This means that experimenting is not logical: why risk money when copying a well-established formula will be far more lucrative?
And so I come to my controversial conclusion: there was nothing wrong with the graphics of the last generation, so why keep making them better? Use time and money on gameplay first, story second (although plot does not always suit a game), visuals last. It saves resources for the important stuff. It seems to obvious to me, and yet the masses demand stunning visuals but no substance behind the veneer. It enrages me so...
Remember how the Atari ended up with innumerable games of wildly varying quality, and people rejected it in the end because the crap-to-gold ratio was so bad? Maybe that?s how everything will go down again. When is impossible to say, but how long can it really last?
Rant #2
How gaming will die, & why it is our fault
*Disclaimer* Much of the talk in the feature below could be misconstrued as fanboy talk, in particular the description of the 360?s launch. Rest assured that it is merely my most remembered example of the phenomenon being described, and that Sony?s big black machine is as much a culprit as its main rival. Just pay attention and hear me out until the end before judging, if you would. *End disclaimer*
No matter how many times people ?both customers and developers- say that ?graphics don?t make a game?, what is the first thing that gets boasted upon announcing a new high-budget game, or in particular a console? Having only been involved in since the late PS1 vs. N64 era, I speak from experience of the last two generations only.
Even just a few years ago, it seemed that ideas where in as plentiful supply as ever, with the incomparable Shadow of the Colossus and God of War showing the world that intriguing concepts can prove massively fulfilling experiences if seen through to the end.
But then late 2005 came, and with the release of the Xbox 360 history would repeat itself once again. You see, upon the release of the PS2 way back when, a number of games were released for both the new system and the old PS1. The logic was obviously to flesh out the newcomer?s library without suddenly cutting off supply to the original?s and risking alienating folk unable to just splash out on a shiny piece of kit unless they spent some months saving the pennies. But then again, in the vast majority of the cases both versions of a game would be identical except for graphical differences, and even then the visuals on the PS2 edition were likely not the best the console could do because the game was developed on two systems at once. In contrast, early PS2 exclusives such as Devil May Cry and Timesplitters were far more representative of how much more power was available. The point in having games on both systems was further reduced by the fact that only a small cache of mostly obscure PS1 titles were not compatible with the fifth generation machine.
The Xbox?s successor took much the same approach a half-decade later: games like Hitman: Blood Money & King Kong came out on both the older and younger system, and once again the only main difference was visuals. While the 360 found its comfortable little spot and started giving birth to ?proper? next-gen titles (Dead Rising springs to mind) a tad more swiftly than the PS2 did, neither the new Xbox or the approaching PS3 would prove to be as big improvements on their predecessors as said predecessors were to the fifth generation.
What I?m trying to say in the most long-winded way possible is that while the fifth generation was a true evolution in gaming, the only significant positive aspects that our current consoles have brought the community is far superior online multiplayer and download services, especially considering how the PS2 was never a very capable internet box. Nowadays an almost impenetrable cloud of blandness covers the once fertile gaming plains, with only the odd bushel of cleverness (Mirror?s Edge, Little Big Planet, to a lesser extend Left4Dead) sprouting up, usually to just become trampled by the great roaming herds of Halos, various Nintendo brands and even the once deservedly popular Grand Theft Autos. Originality is fast going the way of the dodo and platform shoes, and we?re the ones pressing the pillow over its face.
Now while many would argue ?not unfairly- that innovation has been in decline for at least since 3D gaming had become common place, it is undeniable, regardless of what all sides of the console war say, that it is quickly becoming an endangered species. A natural question would be ?why?? The obvious answer would be ?people are stupid?.
Much like how the current economic slump was mainly caused by bankers who failed to plan ahead, the slow demise of unprobed ideas is mostly the fault of us, the consumers. Consider for example movie-licensed games: any experienced gamer can tell you that for every King Kong, Escape From Butcher Bay or Star Wars: Battlefront there are thirty rushed, ill-conceived lumps of excrement designed purely to milk foolish cinema-goers while they are still reeling from whatever half-decent film they watched before driving past their local Gamestation. I can honestly claim to have been wise to this scheme since roughly my hitting twelve years of age, and so consider that point the line upto which no person without inferior intelligence and little knowledge of the games industry should be fooled into buying a game based purely off the license. But then again, look at the charts after any major cinematic release with an age rating less than 18 and what do you see? Why, a top five spot for the videogame tie in of the same name! Whoever would have thought...?
An early example is the now legendarily fowl E.T. on the Atari, which more or less began the trend that has only intensified in the following years.
And the problem goes still deeper. One of gaming?s saddest cases is that of Sonic the Hedgehog, who is notorious for his (seemingly increasingly) poor quality work since his 16-bit debut and success story. By the time his most recent multi-platform release (Sonic Unleashed) was announced, everyone knew not to get their hopes up, although a few nostalgic fools (don?t make that face, I can relate) did anyway, not least since the infinitely inept Sonic Team had claimed to be returning to the series? 2D roots. Needless to say, one critical panning later, Sonic had yet another nail driven into his now decomposing coffin, but his next adventure was all but confirmed nevertheless, due to maddeningly high sales figures. It?s always curious and infuriating in equal measures to see that no matter how bad Sonic?s adventures get, some faceless group of people who must live in a bunker somewhere since the only evidence that they exist being the number of games they buy will go and purchase the latest instalment, apparently at full price.
EA has always been criticised for nearly monopolising the industry by grabbing whatever licenses it can before just sitting on the teetering pile of games and just barely creating something that can be qualified as a game. EA Sports is a truly sickening perpetrator, releasing marginally altered titles annually with no price drop. Then again, these identikit efforts always sell by the truckload, so the company is unlikely to change, right?
Well actually they did in fact have a go at seeking forgiveness for their repeated and numerous sins late last year, with the release of Dead Space (a violent horror game), and Mirror?s Edge (as original as you can get without being sent from the heavens. While neither did earth-shakingly well, they held their own and stood out from last year?s Christmas lineup, which found itself beleaguered by sequels.
If nothing else, the fact that such a radically different title as Mirror?s Edge performed at all admirably -particular with so many well-established brands fighting for control- is a good step in the right direction, even if there are several miles of treacherous swamp still to traverse.
A near-miss for progress was the initially below-expectations sales for the most recent Tomb Raider, which at first appeared to have done surprisingly (and encouragingly) worse than was predicted, suggesting that all the pre-pubescent lads who apparently had no access to internet porn finally either got girlfriends or (much more likely) encouraged their parents to remove the blocking program on Windows Explorer. Of course, within two months it we learned that Underworld had actually out-sold the last two chapters in ?Bad Controls, But Boobs!? by a good margin. Depressing isn?t the half of it.
The problem with the industry as a whole is not developers but rather the folk they need to appease in order to profit. EA was only able to experiment the way they did due to massive stockpiles of eternally good sellers. Small players would have stood no chance. Hell, companies like Sega and Atari only still exist because their Best Of compilations and bad 3D adaptations keep them afloat. If only even half the gamers of the world could just stop and consider how much better things could be if they would stop buying based purely on ?well I loved *insert nostalgic game series here* back on the *insert long-dead console here*, so this new game must be even better!?
But another issue is present: the sheer amount of time, manpower and capital needed to create anything more than a 2D Breakout! clone that costs £3.45 on Xbox Live. This means that experimenting is not logical: why risk money when copying a well-established formula will be far more lucrative?
And so I come to my controversial conclusion: there was nothing wrong with the graphics of the last generation, so why keep making them better? Use time and money on gameplay first, story second (although plot does not always suit a game), visuals last. It saves resources for the important stuff. It seems to obvious to me, and yet the masses demand stunning visuals but no substance behind the veneer. It enrages me so...
Remember how the Atari ended up with innumerable games of wildly varying quality, and people rejected it in the end because the crap-to-gold ratio was so bad? Maybe that?s how everything will go down again. When is impossible to say, but how long can it really last?
