Hi Malstrom,
I’m long time reading and a first time emailer. I have a comment about your thoughts on self expression. You wrote:
“Video games, in general, are in decline because developers keep trying to use them as a vehicle of self-expression. What does the development of games have anything to do with self-expression? Sports, which are games, has nothing to do with ‘self expression’. People do not play baseball to ‘express themselves’. People do not go to baseball games to see ‘baseball creativity’. This could explain why that the more a game developer tries to “express himself”, the faster gaming slides into decline.”
I agree with the general sentiment behind this but I think it’s incorrectly stated. People do play sports and video games to express themselves, but this is distinct to and sometimes opposed to the developer expressing himself. For me, the appeal of gaming is in the freedom and variation that becomes possible because of interaction. My actions and the way I act is important. As Warren Spector says: “Play style matters”. The problem is when developers use their games mainly to express their own creativity and do not allow the player to express theirs. Games that are more cinematic tend to be less interactive and therefore allow less player expression. However, this is not an argument for user-generated content, just user-generated events.
Back in 2004 and 2005, when Nintendo was openly talking about the decline in gaming and working on solutions to ‘reverse it’, Nintendo came back with several antidotes. The first was removing the controller barrier between the game and the user by innovating on the interface (touch screen, motion controls). The second was making games that were unorthodox as if they could even be defined as a game (Nintendogs, Brain Age). Hollywood, when they suffered decline, said they must re-capture the element of ‘surprise’ in order to ‘surprise’ the audience. (Despite this, Hollywood is still in decline.)
It is about Fundamentals versus Tricks.
Take a look at this story. For the first time, ever, cable television is in decline. Of course, the business interests are not saying it is in ‘decline’, they are saying the decline is due to people watching streaming over the Internet. This is the same exact excuse business interests are saying about the decline in video games and the decline in newspapers. None of it is true. The Internet is just an alternative that people are voting for. Netflix disrupted Blockbuster, now Netflix’s streaming is disrupting cable television. But in order for disruption to occur, there must be unhappy customers to exist in the first place.
In each of these three cases of cable TV, video games, and newspapers, the problem is the content. American newspapers are in a far steeper decline than the rest of the world precisely because of their content. When someone looks at an American newspaper today, they do not think ‘news’. They think ‘garbage’. And they go to an alternative source to get their ‘news’.
In the case of cable TV, again the problem is content. It is a constant refrain that there are 100 channels on and there is nothing to watch. So what many consumers are doing is canceling their cable subscription and replacing it with the much cheaper Netflix subscription. But what are they watching on Netflix? Well, they are watching older movies, older TV shows. Netflix is not only cheaper and simpler, it provides content the people want to watch.
This pattern also fits the old school gamers. Distressed at how video games were changing, many gamers just stuck with their Atari 2600s, their Super Nintendos, their NES systems, their Sega Genesis, and kept playing those games while ignoring the N64, the PlayStations, and even the Xboxes. Today, you can walk into a game store and see all these new games coming out and say, with a straight face, “There are no games coming out,” and the games clerk will agree with you. Where once there used to be huge excitement, there is now nothing. Gamers began looking for alternatives and began gravitating toward older game systems, flash based games, or just gravitate toward one or two games and keep playing them (such as Modern Warfare 2 or World of Warcraft).
Old school gamers constantly complain how modern games wish to be like a movie. They are not complaining about ‘modern production techniques’ or about ‘cutscenes’ in general, the essence of the old school gamer complaint is that gaming is moving further and further away from the fundamentals that made the classic games.
The fundamentals are things in entertainment that make it work that the audience never “sees”. For example, a reason why 2d Mario was so incredibly successful was because of good play control. Playing Super Mario Brothers 3 on a real NES system is incredibly amazing control. Another example would be the rock music that would be stimulating in the background which is a big reason why a game like Mega Man II was successful (Mega Man is known as ‘Rock Man’ in Japan). But when you first played Mega Man II, you did not sit there and say, “Wow, this music is so great.” You just kept playing and playing the game. In the same way, when playing Super Mario Brothers, you never sat there and declared, “The control is so well done.”
Let’s look at movies. Solid fundamentals in a movie would be good actors, good directing, good script, interesting content. When you watched your favorite movies, you never stood up in the middle of it and said, “That is some damn good acting there!” or “That is some very nice directing there!”. You just watched intensely as you were riveted of what was going on the screen. A good movie draws someone in. When the audience begins thinking about the acting or directing or the script, it is almost always because it is bad and the audience is wondering why they are so bored.
The solution to these entertainment industries is to focus on their fundamentals. If cable channels actually put up shows people wish to see, people would not be quitting their channel subscriptions. If newspapers actually focused on being a respectable and competent news provider, they would not have people quitting newspapers in mass. If movies actually focused on the fundamentals of a movie people want to see, they will swim in profits. If video game companies focus on their fundamentals instead of looking for a ‘trick’ to “surprise” people, they will be performing very well.
The reason why gamers are upset with game companies trying to make ‘movie like games’ is because it shows they are not interested in the fundamentals of making a good game. Instead, they are interested in a ‘trick’.
When it comes to ‘tricks’, they can mostly be divided into three kinds. There is the Technology Trick where the game’s appeal relies heavily on some new technological component such as ’16-bit graphics’, ‘blast processing’, ‘motion controls’ or ‘HD visuals’. There is the Revolution Trick where the game’s appeal is about how it will ‘revolutionize’ gameplay… forever! The game will transform RPGs, will transform FPS, will transform puzzle games, and so on. Something like User Generated Content was a ‘revolution trick’ as the focus was not on fundamentals but on ‘changing the definition of video games’. The ‘Revolution Trick’ also applies to altering the business model to make the same exact games. Proclamations that Cloud Gaming will save gaming are just like the proclamations that HD gaming will save gaming. Note how the focus is on ‘tricks’ and is not on the fundamentals of gaming. Last, but certainly not least, is the Story Trick where the game is more interested in pretending to be a movie than being a game. The ‘story trick’ is a game that focuses on characterization and the ‘plot’ where the gameplay receives very little passion. A good example of this is the Final Fantasy series which is more interested in ‘story tricks’ than in going back to the fundamentals that made the series great in the first place.
Gamers constantly saying “Gameplay over graphics” are really saying, “Fundamentals over tricks.” Gamers respond well to games, not to software trying to trick them. This also goes to hype. Hype will try to trick people, but we all know a game is good or not when we actually play it.
The big picture as to why Mario, Zelda, and Metroid are in decline is because of the reliance on tricks and not focusing on the fundamentals. 3d Mario has been nothing but a decline from 2d Mario. 3d Mario has relied entirely on ‘tricks’. Mario 64, which didn’t sell anywhere near previous Mario games, was said it was great because it was in ’3d’. But many Mario fans, including this one, refused to transition over as they saw a decline in the fundamentals from 2d Mario to Mario 64. With Mario Sunshine, the ‘trick’ was the water jetpack and the pressure buttons of the gamecube controller. With Mario Galaxy, the ‘trick’ was spherical gravity. A cynic could say, “That is fine and well, Malstrom, but what about 2d Mario? You could say Super Mario Brothers was a ‘trick’ with power-ups and Mushroom Land, that Mario 3 had more ‘tricks’ with the map screen and more power-ups, that Super Mario World was a trick with Yoshi and 16-bit graphics, and that Mario 5 was a trick with four player simultaneous multiplayer.” Then how do you explain the sales of NSMB DS? The point is that why these 2d Mario games succeeded in the first place was because of solid fundamentals. Solid platforming fundamentals are also why games like Mega Man or Ducktales or Bonk or Sonic succeeded. The reason why a game series like Sonic is in decline is because the developers do not see the fundamentals of solid platforming that made Sonic successful. What they see instead is the ‘trick’ of “fast speed”. So every Sonic game made now has ‘fast speed’ and is why Sonic has seen only decline and mockery.
Instead of focusing on the fundamentals of what made Zelda great, Nintendo has been focusing entirely on ‘tricks’ so people will be “surprised”. So a Zelda game could be about sailing, could be about trains, and there is always a ‘trick’ in it and no focus on the fundamentals. The reason why people became Zelda fans in the first place is because of the fundamental gameplay the series had. No one gives a damn if Link turns into a dog or if Link travels between clouds and the ground.
Metroid is an interesting case in itself. The reason why Metroid Prime was so well received was because of its strong focus on the fundamentals of Metroid. The reason why people were annoyed at Metroid Prime 2 and 3 was due to the ‘tricks’ that were put in. In Prime 2, it is about the ‘dark world’. In Prime 3, it is the unnecessary motion controls (Revolution Trick) and the stupid chatter between characters (Story Trick). Metroid Fusion was howled at because there was a sense that the game was straying away from the fundamentals (e.g. the linear handholding which did not feel Metroid-like) so it could engage in a ‘story’ (e.g. the Story Trick). The complaints coming about Metroid: Other M are mirroring the reaction to Fusion in that the fundamentals of what are Metroid is being slighted for tricks (the Story Trick and the Revolution Trick [Sakamoto thinking he is going to redefine the concept of gaming by blurring 2d/3d gameplay]).
The reason why Blizzard games are consistently well received by gamers because there is such a strong focus on the fundamentals. However, not all is well in Blizzard land. Note that the complaints can all be tied to the three ‘tricks’. When people complain about Bnet 2.0, it is because Blizzard committed the ‘Revolution Trick’ in trying to redefine online gaming with it. When people complain about the pacification of the Orcs in Warcraft 3 or Zerg in Starcraft 2, they are complaining about the ‘Story Trick’ that was committed to create ‘surprise’. When they complain about the heroes in Warcraft 3, they are complaining about the ‘Revolution Trick’ as if Blizzard was going to ‘revolutionize’ the RTS genre.
The problem with focusing on ‘surprise’ is that it is legitimizing game companies to commit these ‘tricks’. And gaming continues to decline.
Where does the surprise really come from? Nintendo put up a graph that showed gaming’s popularity compared to other mediums such as movies and sports. For a long time, video games keeps getting compared to movies. Let us compare it to sports this time.
The reason why I am not interested in looking at the business behind sports is because, in the cases of American football, it is impossible to lose money. Sports companies never, ever lose money. Like gamers, sports fans are extremely passionate. What is interesting is how the business of sports stays strong no matter the economic climate.
One thing you see sports companies do is they are extremely protective of the fundamentals of the game. They do not alter the game. And there is very little reliance on ‘tricks’. No one goes out to the middle of the field to “tell a story” or to watch a “soap opera between players”. If you want to see a ‘sport’ that is heavily reliant on tricks, watch the WWF.
If entertainment is dependent on surprise, where is it coming from with sports? Why, it is coming from the unpredictability of the game itself. No one knows how a game will end. A sudden move or a sudden score will ‘surprise’ the audience.
This is the same exact source of surprise that exists in video games. The reason why Super Mario Brothers was so much fun was because you would have a different experience when you played it. A game like Smash Brothers is riddled with spontaneous events that adds to the surprise value. Games like Starcraft 2 have surprise occur all through it, but it exists within the gameplay. A player is “surprised” when ultralisks drop into his mineral line. FPS games keeps selling because people get “surprised” when someone shoots them from behind and players love to “surprise” other players by sniping them from the rooftops. The surprise doesn’t come from the ‘game’, it exists spontaneously within the gameplay. This is why the market loves playing, what appears to be, the same exact games. People love FPS and 2d Mario because the gameplay generates surprises on its own.
“Foolish Malstrom!” shouts a reader. “To compare sports and video games… this is madness!” This is a White Space between markets that is being unfilled. What were the big hits for the Wii again? One of them is ‘Wii Fit’ which is a game that is all about athleticism. Another is ‘Wii Sports’ which is everything to do with sports. Keep in mind that sports games have always been strong sellers on every game console ever made. Even the Atari 2600. When sports games left Nintendo systems for other consoles such as the Sega Genesis, a major decline occurred for Nintendo. Nintendo was absolutely right to focus on getting back the sports games when the Wii launched.
Detractors of the Wii eruption declared the Wii (and the DS) to be ‘gimmicks’. Motion controls were a ‘gimmick’. But, then again, so were HD visuals. So why did the Wii sell so well?
The Wii (and the DS) got back to the fundamentals of gaming. Wii Sports wasn’t great because of motion controls. Wii Sports was great because it nailed solid fundamentals. Many companies that Wii Sports succeeded because of a ‘trick’ such as the Technology Trick or Revolution Trick. This is why third party games kept failing is because they kept focusing on the tricks and not on the fundamentals. When Mario 5 came out, it sold so well because of solid fundamentals. There was no ‘trick’ behind the game. There was no ‘Story Trick’, no ‘Revolution Trick’, no ‘Technology Trick’. One could say that the 4 player simultaneous was a ‘revolution trick’ but that is a hard sell considering 4 playing simultaneous games have been around since the Atari 2600. Mario Kart Wii, also a big seller, kept true to the fundamentals. There is no real ‘trick’ behind the game.
Or the story behind the creation of Pac-Man, there was no ‘trick’ behind it. Pac-Man was designed to get women to play it. The game wasn’t about ‘technology’, wasn’t about ‘story’, and wasn’t about ‘revolution’. It succeeded because of solid fundamentals. Some authors mistake the success of Donkey Kong to be about it having a ‘story’. But the truth is the game had solid fundamentals.
When gamers like myself complain about developers polluting games with their ‘self-expression’, what we are complaining about is that the fundamentals are not their priority. Their priority is a ‘trick’. And that is the consistent reason why the game fails.
Perhaps the reason for the cycle in gaming for a hit game to come out and for copycats to emulate it until the genre collapses is because the copycats believe the success is a ‘trick’ (and emulate that) while not seeing the strong fundamentals that were in place. When GTA 3 became a hit, game companies saw only a ‘trick’ which was the “Revolution Trick” of the ‘sandbox genre’. They did not see the strong fundamentals that were in place (thanks partly due to GTA 1 and 2). When Wii Sports became a hit, absolutely no one saw the strong fundamentals behind the game. All they saw was a ‘trick’ (e.g. motion controls. mini-games, Mii aesthetics, etc).
With each new generation of game consoles, they were well received not because anyone was ‘surprised’ but because they were carrying out the torch of the fundamentals. Super Mario Kart was a good game because of its fundamentals, not because of Mode 7 effects. Starfox and Donkey Kong Country were good not because of the chips in them but because of the fundamentals the games had.
The HD Twins were not well received, at first, because they seemed to be going to La La Land and were drifting away from the fundamentals of gaming. The Wii, however, became hot stuff instantly to gamers, non-gamers, and former gamers because it appeared as if it was embracing those fundamentals. This is the source of the advocacy of the Wii. When the Wii began to move away from the fundamentals and moved more toward ‘tricks’, such as third party “casual games” or Nintendo’s “User Generated Content”, the advocacy vanished and people began to move away from the Wii.
By focusing on something other than the fundamentals, video games are going to become like modern comedians: not funny and people will think back that once upon a time they used to be fun.
