Gaming history - do you think it's important?

[Orogun01]

Why does history in general matter?

Because culture, a sense of belonging and a national identity? I'm pretty sure give the trend of globalizing cultures and wiping out any identifiable traits has rendered those things worthless to many but a man must know where he comes from.

[Mark89er]

I like old games!!! and gaming history is a very interesting subject for me. without it you can't compare new games, view the gaming evolution....

[Nonek]

A very worthy thing to ask for in my opinion, Mr Felipepe is really pursuing some very interesting goals, even though looking back at gaming history I am somewhat depressed by how much has been discarded and cast aside. The useless nature of game journalists whom prate of best games ever and innovation on streamlined and clearly inferior products really becomes all the more glaring, especially when they simply have no frame of reference for their assertions or a grasp of what games have done what, when.

[Janmanden]

I am not sure I like history or if there really is any. In general it only seems to be useful in regards to education and entertainment, but is easily forgotten in context with conflicts and blodshed. In regards to gaming it probably serves in the same way. As long as it's a peaceful level-headed discussion everything is good, but once daycare and kindergardens close and the fanboys come home and disappear into their computers and derail it into something completely different. If you are making a thesis about patterns and alignments with other social, mental, spiritual and technological advancements.. Well.. erm..

 

I tend to think of the gaming industry as one big blob that learn and evolve by past victories and failures and thus I find repetition of failures or lacks of successes years later to be even more frustrating. Psychologically my naivety could be probably be explained in concepts from early stages of infantil evolution from symbiosis to autonomy being a bit messed up. Unfortunately it's not. Companies cripple competition and evolution with patents and intellectual properties. I guess that's more anal-retentive, but not on my part. Imagine what would have happend if Phil Collins had put a patent on that special drum sound he made or if other musicians put patents on every stroke and effect.. Shame on you game industry, bad, bad, bad. It kind of ruins the natural progression with roadblocks like that..

 

Lately I've played some remakes, remastered and retro'ed games and I enjoyed it mostly, but I feel a level of contemporary retardism, the pull of the New Dark Ages, that has affected me and made me less tolerant and forgiving to certain things. There are mechanics, that offset the natural flow, distract me and catch me completely unprepared. I have gotten used to a level of hand-holding, that doesn't exist in early history of gaming. Suddenly I die, I forgot to save and the game didn't do it for me. It never used to be a problem, but now it is, because I got too lazy and complacent, because of yada-yoda-and-so-on-mentioned-above.

 

Lots of old games have a remarkable level of freedom in every way that is really missing from this deca.. millenium, which only seems to have improved visually, sexually and orally. Not that much sexually really, still no three-somes in BioWare games. Sucks. Anyway. More polish, more eye-candy and ear-candy too, but more invisible walls, less freedom and much less core gameplay mechanic. The blob is split and confused and I pay to play every mistake.

 

Somehow games gets much bigger and smaller at the same time. They take up more space, but without adding room for it. More gigs (GB's), less gigs (!). Ugh.

[Osvir]

Interesting read, nice find OP.

This comment in the article pretty much sums up all my thoughts.

[Bryy]

Without history, nothing matters. 

[GrinningReaper659]

That's a great article. I would say that it's important for gamers to look back to older games and explore them once they've found a genre they enjoy. This seems to be what happens with films as well, as others have mentioned. The entire professional gaming community is not legitimate so long as they institutionalize games as exclusively casual enterntainment with, as Felipepepe put it, an expiration date. That is simply marketing to increase the profitability of the next game. Can you imagine Martin Scorsese coming out and hyping people for Raging Bull by telling them how outdated and worthless Taxi Driver had become; or film critics stating that Raging Bull has now become worthless because we have Goodfellas, or The Departed? It just doesn't make any sense to suggest these things.

 

Of course, films have been around for longer than video games, and have been regarded as art for a very long time, so the analogy isn't perfect, but the point remains that the field invalidates itself by treating games an inherently disposable. Most games from the 90's aren't too hard for a modern gamer to get into, assuming that they actually like the elements of gaming that have been common throughout gaming history. There has been a huge increase in pushing mindless click-satisfaction dopamine-inducing addictive "gameplay" elements such as filling out achievement bars. These things weren't around as often back in the day, so if it turns out that you're just playing primarily because you're addicted to collecting achievements or something along those lines, you may find yourself floundering in older games. Do you like CRPGs? Sit down and play Fallout 1 for three or more hours and then tell me that it's outdated. There may be a few inconveniences in the interface when compared to modern games (though I can't think of any off the top of my head), and the pacing may be a bit slow, but after a couple of hours you'll be used to any differences and you'll be enjoying one of the great post-apoloclyptic CRPGs.

 

Gaming history is important in the same sense that any history is important: that is to say, it definitely is important in learning from past mistakes and building on past achievements, as well as having a complete picture with which a field can be identified. Roman history isn't complete without Marcus Aurelius, and gaming history isn't complete without Ultima. This is further refined into the history of art, in that film history isn't complete without the works of hitch**** and, apart from being incomplete, because we're talking about pieces of art and entertainment, the works of hitch**** can and should be viewed today. That's not to say that someone who hasn't seen North by Northwest can't enjoy films or even be a fan of thrillers, but it's probably important to distinguish between people who casually enjoy modern thrillers and people who care enough about films and the genre in particular to have seen the best it has to offer. Likewise, those who enjoy exclusively AAA modern RPGs are certainly gamers and RPG gamers in that they play CRPGs, but I wouldn't consider someone to be a serious fan of CRPGs who hadn't taken the time to try out at least some of the best titles that the genre has produced throughout its history.

[Amentep]

To be fair, the film industry DID go and remake a bunch of stuff when they went to sound (say, BEN HUR (1925) and BEN HUR(1959)) or went to color (The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) and The Man Who Knew To Much (1956)) or color to 3D (Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) in 2 Strip Technicolor and HOUSE OF WAX (1953) in Natural Vision 3D).

 

Particularly with early cinema, to remake an older film the studio had to have the rights to the older film (meaning, in some cases, they had to BUY the older film from another studio).  But this has led to the suppresion of some films (MGM famously bought all of the copies of the 1931 Fredrick March version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as part of their remaking the film with Spencer Tracy and the film was considered lost for many years).

 

There is a really good parallel that the article misses which is that this same trajectory is held by pretty much EVERY new media. They've all went through periods where their history has been junked.  Look at big stars like Theda Bara (3 films extant of 40 made) or Clara Bow (30 extant of 57 made).  Why?  Because there wasn't a continuing market for them.  Many early films were recycled to recover the silver in them.  Even the biggest stars weren't immune - there was no reason to keep them. 

 

Now, of course, we realize the importance of keeping these films and people scour the earth trying to find copies (if I hear one more rumour about LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT, I'll scream).  But at the time, no one cared about film history.  It takes time for criticism and history to be valued in new media in a way that outstrips their commercial market.

 

Television has also had this same problem.  Its well known in fan circles about the BBC junking much of their pre-1975 library, often videotaping over old programs or throwing out films of others.  There wasn't a continuing secondary market at the time like there is now.  But another strange, sad case is the DuMont network.  Never heard of them?  Well in the 1940s and 1950s when NBC and CBS were programming the early days of television, the DuMont network was there as well.  After the network folded, their film library landed in the hands of ABC.  Some were recycled (for the silver again) and many were dumped into the East River.  Of their 10 years worth of programing, most is gone.  And most of the surviving episodes are of one show - DuMont's CAVALCADE OF STARS (where Jackie Gleason's The Honeymooners started), followed by various sports broadcasts and handfuls of episodes of others (several with only 1 episode extant).  Some shows - including the first US tv show to star an asian-america lead, Anna May Wong's The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong - are gone forever.

 

Similarly US comic books went through the same period - most of those early, huge print runs being recycled.  Many key creators having passed away before fans became historians and tried to track down the history of the medium.

 

There is a chance here, I think, for people to realize that the history of gaming is important and worth preserving and understanding.  But I don't think understanding the history is important necesarily means that you have to play Arena and Daggerfall (anymore than I think it means you have to sit through BIRTH OF A NATION to understand film history or the impact of Cecil B. Demille on film history, or watch all 635 episodes of GUNSMOKE to understand its place as the early dominant force in US television)

Edited February 23, 2015 by Amentep

[rjshae]

History makes the present day context more understandable--why things are the way they are. To me, dates and names don't matter as much as motivations and innovations.

[Osvir]

^Yes!

[EDIT: Relevant to gaming history /EDIT] I started with a Spectrum ZX in my childhood, youth turned into consoles, and adulthood into PC, and I started digging further and further into the past. Since joining these boards I've explored tons of old-school PC games. Researched into its history and... in many titles I have played, I also feel something has been lost from the old age, even though I wasn't there to experience it first-hand.
 

I've taken the opposite journey through my gaming experience/viewpoint (in comparison to grognards), I started with "the new stuff!" (console, next-gen, popamole etc.) and then gradually explored backwards into time for "the old stuff!". Maybe that's just natural for a game enthuasiast? In our childhood we love the new stuff that comes out, and as we age we get bored with the "same ol' same ol'" that is usually catered to the next generation, and we explore backwards, near philosophically, "Where do we come from?"   

Edited February 23, 2015 by Osvir

[Hurlshort]

History makes the present day context more understandable--why things are the way they are. To me, dates and names don't matter as much as motivations and innovations.

 

That's pretty much the mission statement of my history classes.  Despite that, students are constantly trying to get by with rote memorization.  I suppose it is easier than thinking critically about events.  

[Malcador]

Is also more useful to pass the exam and get on with the education career.

[Nonek]

Personally I think if you're going to speak with authority on a particular game, saying it's outdated, timeless or whatever, then the least you should have done is play it. There is a modern trend as Felipepe states of dismissing older games without ever experiencing them, but still holding an opinion that is not based on any kind of evidence, other than recieved wisdom or perhaps the words of game journalists whom are not really interested in the medium, other than as a means of getting in the industry or of lecturing others on the dogma they learned at university.

 

This seems to lead to past innovations and freatures being forgotten, never built upon and the consumer being led to believe that there are no alternatives to what is currently presented as the apex of the genre. Yet we all know that more than twenty years ago NPC's lives were depicted in a far more detailed fashion, environmental interaction was far more advanced, there were no loading screens for massive living worlds and oftentimes the narrative and plotting of a game dealt with far more complex subject matter, such as moral absolutism, spirituality and self improvement, racism and patriotism and what it meant to be a hero and to live with ones actions.

 

For instance I recently read an article on the new Numenera game which stated that its inspiration Torment had a forgettable and unimportant setting, yet everyone whom has played it can clearly state that this is poppy**** (pardon my French) as the rich, detailed and deadly nature of the planes stands at the very centre of that games narrative. From the chill the Nameless One feels as he hears of the Blood War, to the brilliant depiction of Sigil that serves as the players introduction to the planes across which they will travel, the game is built upon and glories in the setting it embraces. I was left believing that the writer was simply spouting accepted wisdom born of simply no first hand experience.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Nonek

[Janmanden]

With history; games (and pretty much everything else) age, gets old and wrinkly. Without history; there is a world to explore

 

I generally avoid history as much as I can because I rate my personal experience higher than anything else. The only times i ever need history is when I am stuck in a puzzle and the mechanics of the game waste too much of my time finding that missing needle in a haystack or I wonder whether the game is just broken. "Game" could be replaced by anything really and I guess that's the way it works.

[pmp10]

Why does history in general matter?

It doesn't.

Most people know nothing of it and do just fine.

 

Gaming history is only of use to a designer if he plans to milk nostalgia or take risks in their design.

Most developers have absolutely no need for it.

[Tigranes]

With history; games (and pretty much everything else) age, gets old and wrinkly. Without history; there is a world to explore

 

I generally avoid history as much as I can because I rate my personal experience higher than anything else. The only times i ever need history is when I am stuck in a puzzle and the mechanics of the game waste too much of my time finding that missing needle in a haystack or I wonder whether the game is just broken. "Game" could be replaced by anything really and I guess that's the way it works.

 

You... need history when you get stuck in a puzzle? What?

[Leferd]

Hey man, sometimes you need to read how Alexander solved those puzzles involving pesky knots.

[Janmanden]

I would say that if you get stuck in a puzzle then a walkthrough (definitely), guide (probably) or a hint system (maybe) is a useful part of that history. Wouldn't you?

[Amentep]

Personally I think if you're going to speak with authority on a particular game, saying it's outdated, timeless or whatever, then the least you should have done is play it.

I think the problem to my mind is that if we're talking a historical position, words like "outdated" and "timeless" are ultimately useless in understanding the context of the game. Its trying to play the game as if it was a modern game which is always going to be outdated (unless you played the game and have fond memories of it back in the day, in which case it is timeless).

 

In a larger context, though, what is being lost is the...er...larger context. It bugs me to no end to see someone talking about fantasy/sci-fi film history who starts talking about unbelievable rubber masks, blue screen halos etc. Yes we all know that there are actors who couldn't turn the wheel to match the backscreen projection to save their lives - that's why it was mocked in Airplane! But ultimately that has nothing to do with the history. Yes, you could argue that Jack Pierce's makeup effects in FRANKENSTEIN is subpar to what's been done today, or that Kenneth Strickfadden's machines don't make any sense. But it fails to understand the context of the time.

 

If you're going to talk about a game in a historical context it needs to be compared to other games in its historical context. Read an eviscerating review of Sega's ETERNAL CHAMPIONS - a really fun game at the time IMO [Timeless! ] that was a knock off of Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter II in the Genesis era. The review was hung up on how poorly the game looked against the arcade versions of MK and SFII (instead of their Sega ports). The context of the game was lost - so it was understandable why the reviewer was mystified about the game's popularity at the time of its release.

[Valmy]

 

Why does history in general matter?

It doesn't.

Most people know nothing of it and do just fine.

 

Gaming history is only of use to a designer if he plans to milk nostalgia or take risks in their design.

Most developers have absolutely no need for it.

 

 

So...no developers ever study games before designing games?  Well that explains some of the products I see out there.

 

But maybe "gaming history" means something different to you than "knowing about games that have already been made" because I find the idea developers have no need of that being...dubious.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Valmy

[Nonek]

 

Personally I think if you're going to speak with authority on a particular game, saying it's outdated, timeless or whatever, then the least you should have done is play it.

I think the problem to my mind is that if we're talking a historical position, words like "outdated" and "timeless" are ultimately useless in understanding the context of the game. Its trying to play the game as if it was a modern game which is always going to be outdated (unless you played the game and have fond memories of it back in the day, in which case it is timeless).

 

In a larger context, though, what is being lost is the...er...larger context. It bugs me to no end to see someone talking about fantasy/sci-fi film history who starts talking about unbelievable rubber masks, blue screen halos etc. Yes we all know that there are actors who couldn't turn the wheel to match the backscreen projection to save their lives - that's why it was mocked in Airplane! But ultimately that has nothing to do with the history. Yes, you could argue that Jack Pierce's makeup effects in FRANKENSTEIN is subpar to what's been done today, or that Kenneth Strickfadden's machines don't make any sense. But it fails to understand the context of the time.

 

If you're going to talk about a game in a historical context it needs to be compared to other games in its historical context. Read an eviscerating review of Sega's ETERNAL CHAMPIONS - a really fun game at the time IMO [Timeless! ] that was a knock off of Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter II in the Genesis era. The review was hung up on how poorly the game looked against the arcade versions of MK and SFII (instead of their Sega ports). The context of the game was lost - so it was understandable why the reviewer was mystified about the game's popularity at the time of its release.

 

 

Oh yes I agree that detail in reviews should be paramount and thus I reiterate that if someone is going to criticise a game then they should have first hand experience of it, and not simply parrot (as you say) a useless term. Though I'd argue that certain games such as Tetris are timeless, along with a good few fighting games of the period such as the original Streets of Rage.

[Orogun01]

 

 

Personally I think if you're going to speak with authority on a particular game, saying it's outdated, timeless or whatever, then the least you should have done is play it.

I think the problem to my mind is that if we're talking a historical position, words like "outdated" and "timeless" are ultimately useless in understanding the context of the game. Its trying to play the game as if it was a modern game which is always going to be outdated (unless you played the game and have fond memories of it back in the day, in which case it is timeless).

 

In a larger context, though, what is being lost is the...er...larger context. It bugs me to no end to see someone talking about fantasy/sci-fi film history who starts talking about unbelievable rubber masks, blue screen halos etc. Yes we all know that there are actors who couldn't turn the wheel to match the backscreen projection to save their lives - that's why it was mocked in Airplane! But ultimately that has nothing to do with the history. Yes, you could argue that Jack Pierce's makeup effects in FRANKENSTEIN is subpar to what's been done today, or that Kenneth Strickfadden's machines don't make any sense. But it fails to understand the context of the time.

 

If you're going to talk about a game in a historical context it needs to be compared to other games in its historical context. Read an eviscerating review of Sega's ETERNAL CHAMPIONS - a really fun game at the time IMO [Timeless! ] that was a knock off of Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter II in the Genesis era. The review was hung up on how poorly the game looked against the arcade versions of MK and SFII (instead of their Sega ports). The context of the game was lost - so it was understandable why the reviewer was mystified about the game's popularity at the time of its release.

 

 

Oh yes I agree that detail in reviews should be paramount and thus I reiterate that if someone is going to criticise a game then they should have first hand experience of it, and not simply parrot (as you say) a useless term. Though I'd argue that certain games such as Tetris are timeless, along with a good few fighting games of the period such as the original Streets of Rage.

 

There are games so well crafted that they become timeless and there are games which have a generic appeal. I would compare it to film were you can see old movies and are still great because of the cinematography and the story or are entertaining because of the style. I do like all those old Ben Hur and Sinbad movies.

[Nonek]

Stop motion animation still has a certain odd unsettling quality that fits perfectly with some of the subject matter, one of the reasons that I found the modern remake of Clash of the Titans to be deeply uninspiring compared to Harryhausen's epic. His Gorgon still haunts my memories.

 

Edit: Or Kubrick's paranoid, sparse cinematography for the Shining, arguably making one of the most effective psychological horrors without all of the jump scares or gore that modern directors think will terrorise, but in truth only shock.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Nonek

[Orogun01]

Stop motion animation still has a certain odd unsettling quality that fits perfectly with some of the subject matter, one of the reasons that I found the modern remake of Clash of the Titans to be deeply uninspiring compared to Harryhausen's epic. His Gorgon still haunts my memories.

You're making me want to geek out and start talking about all those movies, like Jason and the Argonauts...or Hercules...or Gulliver's travels...heck even the flash Gordon remake.

Great, now I need to make some friends that are up for an evening of watching old movies.

[Nonek]

Now that subject matter, the old Greek plays and myths, they truly are timeless.