How Games Have ChangedFeb 04 '02 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in PlayStation 2 Games
The Bottom Line This is my editorial showing how the way we look at, and play games has changed, and why games may be too "realistic".
Understanding "The Pav" I don't know if all people do this, but I personally, and periodically just sit down and think about things. Such moments generally occur before bed, right before I go to sleep. I'll wonder why things are, how things are, and how those things can be changed. Usually, I never seem to put these things into action. But, this time, I decided to. I needed to write an editorial, and here it is. This editorial revolves around my view of the video game industry. This review is a little back and forth, a little unorganized, sometimes even pointless, but it gets my point out. Either way, if you have thoughts at all about gaming, I recommend that you read this editorial. While you may not agree with my views, it should at least make you think a little bit about how games have evolved. While I won't call this an official "Write Off" if you have any thoughts on such things, either leave a comment or write your own mini editorial including them. Ponder, and enjoy! While taking time to ponder exactly what all this time I’ve spent playing video games will ever be worth, I came across the idea that maybe video games have just gone too far. Maybe, just maybe, games are too powerful, too fast, too complex, and too realistic for their own good. Is there a possibility that the gaming industry will come to a complete halt because of it’s quickly advancing technology, or is it just me? Either way, I’ve seen video games feature anywhere from 8-bit graphics, to 128-bit graphics, and almost anything between. I’ve seen systems run from speeds of 1.19 MHz to 733 MHz and everything between. If all this “upgrading” can take place in a mere 20 years, what can we expect in the next 20 years? For now, that question is just a toss up, who knows what’ll happen in 20 years? But you can assure yourself that I’ll give my 2 cents on the issue.(even though I won't get paid for it.) I can remember playing video games for the Atari 2600 when I was only 6 years old. We had somewhere around 30 of the around 1000 games ever produced, but we had many of the classics. Those were the good old days of gaming, playing Kaboom!, Pitfall, Stampede and the like. The truth of matter was though, that these games all looked like vomit. But, it didn’t seem to ever really matter. For example, in Stampede we all knew that the horses looked more like asses than the stallions that they were supposed to be, but we knew no better. In the early 80’s, did reality itself look different? Of course not, but the graphics of the Atari 2600 were all that we knew. But, what compensated for the purely poor graphics was the sheer exhilaration that came with controlling something that you could see. Sure, you could go out back and see if your dog would listen to you when you told him to “fetch”, but it was just a lot less work, and a lot more fun to move a football player across the field in games like Real Sports Football. Even before the times of the Atari 2600 were the times of simple arcade games. In 1972, Nolan Bushnell and Al Alcorn teamed up to make Pong, one of the games that will ever be remembered as very influential. Here, you a hit a little ball back and fourth, and as it hit the paddles, it would make a “pong” like noise. What could be more simplistic? Yet, when the Pong arcade game first went mainstream, many of the systems overflowed with coins. Again, the excitement of watching something that you could freely control was the purpose of such a game. I suppose that this was the first ever factor that played a part in “gameplay” logistics. In 1972, if gamers were to rate pong, they would surely give it a 10 out of 10, but if we went back and rated it today, it would receive lower marks than NFL QB Club 2002. What has since happened in the gaming industry that would cause such a change in the way we look at games? Does the word “everything” describe this answer well enough? Then, After Atari 2600, the gaming world slowed down in a sense. After the late 1970’s era, when video game systems were sprouting up year after year, winter came, and video games went into hibernation. In the years that past, Atari stayed on top, a few good arcade games came out, and there were no real influential changes, but in 1985 everything changed. Nintendo released the NES system that year, and then everything began to move again. Sega followed suit and released their Sega Master System the next year, and in the late 1980’s, Nintendo released the game boy. This proved to be the beginning of the “golden age” of gaming. You had the first 2D side scrolling game in Super Mario Bros., you had the first great adventure/RPG in Zelda, and you had other successes like the first sighting of Sonic, sequels to Mario World, Tetris, and the like. But then, In 1990, one of the most, if not the most fun game ever was released. Nintendo pumped out Super Mario Bros. 3, the 3rd cartridge of the Mario Bros. series. This proved to be possibly the best adventure/platformer ever created. You’d navigate through worlds, find shortcuts, and play for hours upon end. In all of my years of gaming, there was never a moment quite as satisfying as beating Bowser in that game. I swear, If I’d surfaced at all during the time that I was playing that game for a drink, I’d have wet myself. In my opinion, the current climax of gameplay success lied at the release of Mario 3, the best selling cartridge ever. From here on out, nothing would really be the same. Since this isn’t an editorial on the history of video games, I won’t explain what happened next in too much detail. In the early 1990’s, Nintendo released SNES, and Sega released Geneses. I would say that at this point, the golden age of gaming was at one of its highest points. Video game developers had all but mastered the use of 2D graphics, RPG’s were becoming more advanced, with more complex story lines, and sports games were inching towards greatness. But, this point also marked a great change in the gaming industry. For the first time ever, no one company owned the gaming industry. Nintendo and Sega were neck and neck when it came to titles, technology, and overall sales. From this point on, the process of improving game technology sped up altogether. With the mastery of the 2D world, and the great competition of the industry, the invention, and success of the 3D video game console was imminent. Say goodbye to Gameplay, say hello to graphics and sound. At the release of the first generation of 3D consoles, the way gamers “rated” games began to take a big change. At this point, it was all about what looked better, and what sounded better, instead of what “played better.” “Realism” was now actually mentioned when people talked about video games. I can remember not only being amazed at the graphics of Super Mario 64, but also very disappointed. You see, Mario was a franchise that was created, and thrived as a 2D side-scolling platformer. To me, it just didn’t seem natural being able to control how close Mario was to the screen, and how far away he was from it. Sure, it was an influential and groundbreaking game, but it just wasn’t the same as used to be. But, at least the Mario style gameplay was here to stay. You still went on an adventure to save the princess from Bowser, and you still did just that in the end. That wasn’t really the thing that bothered me though. In the age of 2D games, the graphics and sound didn’t vary too much from game to game. This meant that in order for a game to be a true success, the gameplay had to be golden. But now, graphics and sound varied greatly from game to game, and they seemed to be the standard now. The more realistic games became more and more successful. Even games that were somewhat realistic, and had no gameplay sold. Take games like NFL QB Club 2000 for N64. Here, you looked at the back of the box and were amazed by the screenshots, but once you played the games, you knew that it sucked. The fact that game sold even one copy off of its superior graphics and realism is an embarrassment to the industry. But, I will admit that there were a few games that came out with very good gameplay. There were still games like Zelda 64, Final Fantasy 7, and Goldeneye 007, but for the most part, realism were in, and gameplay was out. Towards the end of that generation of games and consoles, the lust for graphics did tone down a little. From my observation, it appeared that after a couple of years of hype over the new style graphics, people were once again bored with what they were seeing. So, the generation slowed down a little bit. Developers began to focus less of their time on current games, and more of their time on what would be “next gen.” games. Could this get worse in the future? The thing that was just a problem then could turn into a disaster now. We are yet again all hyped up with the graphics on games, and almost forgetting about gameplay altogether. A great example of this situation lies with games such as Dead or Alive 3. Here we have a game that gets 9.5 ratings on respected game sites, and in respected game magazines, but lacks true gameplay. Yes, it does feature some great realistic graphics, but it has nearly no unlockable secrets, and relatively uninspired gameplay. Also, we seem to see more and more games these days that feature a recycled story line, and gameplay setup, but add new and improved graphics. The sad thing is, they usually succeed. So, basically what I’m trying to say is that true innovation has come to slow down in the gaming industry. Yes, we’re seeing better graphics, sound, and power day after day, but we are rarely seeing any new ideas. You have a couple of newly inspired games like Pikmin, but for the most part, those games are taking the back seat compared to games like Final Fantasy X, and GTA3. So, how exactly has the industry changed when it comes to innovation and improvement? In the early days of gaming, innovation was always about finding a fresh face, starting a new franchise, and finding the beginning of a new genre. Slowly and gradually things have changed. Now, innovation in the industry is all about making those past fresh faces look more realistic, making our eyes enjoy the look a franchise more and more, and redefining the same genres graphically. Gaming innovation has changed from trying to impress the mind, to trying to impress the eye. Developers are spending far less time making the gameplay on each system better, and far more time focusing on the future of the world of gaming. The worst part is, I can’t look in the mirror and tell myself that I’m not to blame. Imagine just for a second that an all-new game idea was coming out. The game features one of the most innovative, different, and developed gameplay ever, but it has a lot of graphical and sound issues. The framerate is slow, the textures the are poor, there’s flickering all around, and the sound skips. You get into the mind of the characters, but you just can’t see them. Would you give this game credit for an all new gameplay and story line, or would you throw it away because it just doesn’t stack up technologically? If the problems were as bad I mentioned, I for one would most likely shove this game in my closet, and never play it again. If the game doesn’t show off realism, it just can’t contend with the games that do, right? Whether you agree with me here or not, games were not made to be “Realistic” if you will. Video games used to be made so that they could take gamers to a place that used to be unimaginable. In a sense, they were almost like books. Some form of imagination was necessary for gamers to get all that they could out of video games. Games just don’t seem to be that way anymore. Now, developers are trying to take me to places that I’ve already been to, seen, or don’t really want to go to. But, what’s compensating for that fact is that games are now showing me a “realistic” representation of those places? Now, it really doesn’t matter who you’re controlling, or why you’re controlling them, but that you’re controlling them through a realistic medium. So what does this all mean for the future? It really could go one of two ways. Developers could see the error of their ways soon, and correct the problem for the future, but I don’t think that they will. My guess is that developers will continue to make the same old things look better and better, until they no longer can. There will come a time when technology will take games as far as they can go. After all, there really is a fine line between virtual reality and reality, and once it’s that line is crossed, video games won’t be video games anymore. I feel that when I’m 40 years old, I’ll be sitting down playing my holographic “Nintendo Holobox”, and feeling as if I’ve already played the all the games. Did I not take Link through this same Hyrule forest, fighting the same goons, and saving the same princess? Did I not already fight the “mast hand” in Super Smash Bros.? Aren’t these the same characters from Final Fantasy X? I’m not sure exactly where the industry is going, but I just hope that it doesn’t go there. The bottom line is that games just aren’t the same anymore. Are they too realistic for their own good? Maybe, maybe not, but I can tell you that they’re moving a little too quickly these days. If I were in charge of anything, I would do my best to slow down technology a little, and speed up innovation a little more. I just hope that when I’m playing video games 40 years from now, that I’ll still get the same feeling that I had when I played Mario Bros. 3 10 years ago. An avid gamer until the fire burns out, Eric Pavona -Better known as "Pav"  |
| Read all comments (2)|Write your own comment |
