Editor's note: Pong, Pac-Man, Nintendo. You have to know and appreciate the classics to understand the gaming industry at large, right? Well, Nick takes a look at this topic and makes a case that not all gamers need that perspective, as much as he might want it. He also points out the conundrum he faces as a younger gamer who didn't grow up when these classics were first released and the difficulties he faces in playing catch-up. This is an interesting read that should lead to some great discussion. -Greg
As I was thinking of some sort of article/editorial piece that could serve as my “entry” into Bitmob, I found that Mike Gingras beat me to the punch in asking the question, "Gaming history…is it necessary?" I feebly attempt to reply while sounding even remotely intelligent.
I enjoy discussing games; I like discussing and learning about things in general. I’m not one to have too many friends, so maybe that’s afforded me time to internalize myself and my thoughts, ponder such things more, and think about just who I want to be as an individual. For me, history is important to this enjoyment; for others, it isn't as important. And that’s completely OK. Let me elaborate.
As a 15-year-old kid, I ask myself questions like the one above every damn day, be it about games or other aspects of life. I desire to write about games, albeit not in the professional/journalistic sense, as well as develop games. As such, my desire to further appreciate the medium I love so much more dearly than anyone of my age increasingly grows.
To help feed this thirst, I read Gamasutra to learn the lingo and terminology of games and gain an appreciation for the business and analytical sides of the history. I read Giant Bomb for coverage of current games and for its (severely limited but ever-growing) database of games. And lastly, I read Bitmob for the culture, the stories, and the boundless appreciation of games and the way that their evolution has been a part of our growing up.
But that latter point — the way their evolution has been a part of our growing up — I have absolutely none of that. Which leads into Mike’s question: Is it necessary?
Let’s take a more global look at history. Is it necessary to watch older films to understand the industry? Is it necessary to read older books? Is it necessary to read older comics to understand that industry? Is it necessary to listen to Mozart to truly appreciate music and where it came from? Simply put, yes and no. And I know that is a cop-out answer.
But the point rings true for any medium. I’ll illustrate my thesis via the following quote from Chronicles of Narnia author C.S. Lewis: "The only people who achieve much are those who want knowledge so badly that they seek it while the conditions are unfavorable. Favorable conditions never come."
If one feels so inclined as to learn, history can be a bit of a burden. But then again, Mr. Lewis (pictured below) is correct when saying that conditions will never be favorable or conducive to this. Oh, time, what a quandary you put some of us in!
History is an interesting thing. It’s impossible to believe that anybody not there from the start could go back and learn about everything there is to know. But if you’re interested, you try to experience the main pillars or parts of that history. At the rate our culture is growing and the rate that our world is expanding, that would be utterly impossible.
Too often in message boards, I find myself making up games I have played and trying to talk eloquently to another human being about the virtues of Mega Man. Dude, I’ve never actually played fucking Mega Man, but my mind would like to think that it has because I love video games and want to appreciate where they came from, despite my limited access to older games, my limited source of income, and my limited age.
It’s exceedingly hard to purchase old media, and for me, the mere sight of a Torrent site or emulator is enough to make me afraid for the stability of my laptop. I love it when games get rereleased. It’s not very conducive to pushing forward our medium from a business perspective, but it’s awesome.
I love that the old Dragon Quest games are getting remade for the DS. It allows me a window into the past. I love services like Good Old Games, the Wii's Virtual Console, and Steam because they provide me quick and easy access to the past in a direct and convenient digital form. But what fucking publisher is going to find it worthwhile to put three unknown and sloppily translated but nonetheless endearing JRPGs from 1992 on the Virtual Console? None. But do I want them? Hell yes.
Therein lies the quandary. I want to play Earthbound, but that is hard for me to do. I recently lost a job — and many gamers of my age haven’t even had a job of any sort — so how I am expected to be able to pay however many dollars it takes to ship a copy of the game from Canada from some guy on eBay. $100? Fuck no. It brings up an interesting discussion, one which I could probably write another entire piece on, and that is the discussion of what we expect these publishers to do with these services. Maybe the digital future holds for us a virtual cataloguing of every game ever made, but that seems illogical. Someone in my situation would hope so, though.
Another point that’s worth making is that nowadays, games are becoming increasingly more “casual” and relevant, and not everybody is going to be the same as I am in regard to their appreciation of games. In school, I’ll be in my computer animation class, and just one look around tells me what I should have already known: Games have completely and totally pervaded our culture.
The asshole freshmen across from me extols the virtues of “…blowing some fuckwad’s head off with the AK in Call of Duty 6…,” and behind me freshmen gossip about turnips or strawberries or whatever-the-hell you plant in Farmville. Next to me is a girl who constantly plays the pinball game that is preinstalled on every computer, and at the front of the class my mopey teacher talks about the relevance of animation to film, television, and, you guessed it, games. They’ve become a baseline of our culture, whether Jack Thompson wants to think they have or not.
But as I listen in on that Call of Duty 6 conversation, I often say to myself, “If only these people appreciated gaming history like me.” What a pretentious thing to say, because you know what? Video games bring enjoyment to them in a different way than they bring enjoyment to me. It’s like my mind is trying to convince myself that somehow because I have more knowledge about the history of games than they do that I am better than they are in some form as a result. I suppose I can somehow be a little bit of a know-it-all in that way, but, moving on….
I enjoy researching video games and listening to Retronauts, while these students enjoy discussing the best perks and sniping points. I should not be one to tell them that they can’t enjoy their Call of Duty and Internet Flash games because they don’t look at games the way I do. For them, gaming history is not at all necessary to their enjoyment of games. That’s completely OK and is becoming evermore the standard as games invade the mainstream.
And yet at the same time, there is another fact of the matter, one that’s the same for anything, and that is that those who are interested (like me) will seek it out. I would like to say that yes, it’s necessary to know the history if you wish to truly enjoy this industry, but looking around at my family and at my peers tells me that this statement is completely and utterly false.
My mom enjoys watching trashy romantic comedies on a Friday night, and I enjoy watching Cool Hand Luke in my room. People are different. It’s not necessary to watch The Godfather to enjoy films and filmmaking at its purest, nor is it necessary to play the original The Legend of Zelda to understand game design on a fundamental level. But I feel that those who do so will gain a better appreciation of it, even when said appreciation is not exactly necessary. The word best used here would be "enrich," as this knowledge adds a little bit of perspective to those who feel so inclined.
One point worth noting, though, is that most of history is fucking shit. I hear about Phantasmagoria on Retronauts, and it interests me greatly. So, what I do is go onto the Internet, learn about Roberta Williams, and seek out a way to play Phantasmagoria. But it’s hard to do so because that particular title, in the grand scheme of things, is not necessarily relevant to games history or to the appreciation of video game heritage. It’s a blip on the timeline of history, one all but lost to many individuals, and people shouldn’t be expected to have that type of obscure knowledge at all if they wish to enjoy something.
When one tries to educate a person on the history of games, they fall back on a much more linear timeline where only the obvious is necessary. They think of Pong, Space Invaders, Pac-Man, the crash of the industry, Mario, Zelda, Miyamoto and Nintendo monopolizing the industry, the rise of the PC, 3D graphics, Sega's fall, PlayStation's rise, and a few other mascots, characters, and events. To the layman, gaming history can be encompassed in a single word: “Nintendo.”
The same linear timeline can be drawn for film: in the late 1800s we shoot a horse, film is in black and white, the rise of film criticism, the Golden Age, Casablanca, color films, the rise of television, James Bond, The Godfather, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Matrix, Avatar (although I’m sure many people will argue me on that last point).
You see where I’m going with this? A basic understanding of history is all most people have, and that is all they need. Unlike me, they don’t need to play Phantasmagoria. They have their basic understanding, and that’s fine.
But for me, it really is necessary. I want to learn that history, as I feel it is fun and important. One thing about history, though, is the fickleness of it all. The likes of Mario and Zelda and Pac-Man are reprinted regularly because they are what is important, just as the most basic facts of American history — namely, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution, slavery, the Civil War, the women’s rights movement, the Great Depression, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the first black president — are continually drilled into me as I get more and more educated.
I don’t need to learn about those somewhat more obscure games to appreciate games in general, just as I don’t necessarily need to know who Harriet Tubman was to fully understand how fucking terrible and horrifying the idea of enslaving another human being is. But doing so enriches history to the one who wants it. So many things are lost to history — facts and people and places and dates — that I’m sure 20 years from now I won’t remember the Japanese porn games being sold in Akihabara. Thing is, I don’t need to because that’s not necessary (obviously).
So, what is that like for me, personally, as a younger gamer? I can’t speak for everybody of my age, but as one overburdened with his love for history and his love for video games, it can be tough. My personality is such that I would probably much more enjoy discussing life and history with a person older than me, but because of my age and my limited perspective (however educated I try to make myself), I don’t feel that I can have those conversations. I admit, if I was one of you older Bitmobbers (is that the correct terminology?), I probably would have some trouble taking a person of my age seriously, as much as people like Lance would say they do take people like me seriously. (Note: I do appreciate Bitmob’s attempts to make us young 'uns feel welcome around these parts).
I’m sure you guys might welcome my perspective, but nothing I can do could compensate for the fact that I haven’t experienced the ups and downs and throes of life as many of you have. So due to my personality, I feel I’m constantly striving for knowledge and legitimacy as much as I can, mostly with video games (though with other things as well) because that is what I happen to most appreciate. But no amount of education on my part could compensate for my limited perspective on life; in other words, I don’t have the history to truly be a part of those podcast conversations that I would like to. I want that knowledge, I want that legitimacy, it’s just such that history and age is, ahem, cock-blocking me at the moment and I can’t do so. Others can accept that, but I suppose I can’t.
For me, my love and appreciation is almost too much. I wish that playing Modern Warfare 2 was enough for me, but it’s not. History and perspective on games are most certainly not necessary, but for me they are because they add perspective in so many unique and fascinating ways. I envy those who are not burdened with that appreciation in the face of clear limitations such as time and money, as I am. We’d all like to learn more, but at some point we just have to accept the limitations of time and live in the present, not the past. I’m hoping I can strike a healthy balance as I live my life.
If you’ve sifted through this rambling incoherence, then god bless you. I do need to learn to be more concise! Maybe I’ll set a word limit next time. I hope I had the chance to provide some perspective on what it’s like coming at it from my age and, more importantly, my views on the matter as a whole and on history. If not, then at least appreciate it as some kid who spent his Sunday morning attempting to write something that made him sound smart. And do pardon my language!
As always, I’m looking for feedback on my writing in general, like technical/grammatical things or idea development (please be harsh!). I look forward to hopefully writing up some stuff in the future.