In a recent interview, Nolan Bushnell (founder of Atari and creator of Pong) made some comments that set the gaming world aflame, calling current games "pure, unadulterated trash." As per the usual, the internet exploded into a bucket of flamewars about the legendary gaming icon, with opinions spanning approval to wishes for his public demise.
Gametap decided to follow up with Bushnell with an interview that addressed his sensational comments and also produced some more food for thought. The following paragraph made a specific impact on me:
What I have consistently been concerned about is sort of the repetition and the lack of innovation. Innovation is one of those things that I value very highly, and I just find that as much as I applaud the beautiful, fantastic production guys of Halo 3, it’s really Doom 1 in different clothing. Clothing or not, the clothing is nicer, but the game is the same. And so is it an economic success to do Halo 3? Absolutely. Is the network connecting architecture fantastic? Yes, it’s wonderful. Is there real innovation? Not a lot.
It begs a question abstractly considered by many before it, but rarely expressed with such cut-to-the-quick directness: Does the overwheming success of franchises such as Halo 3 affect the possibility of more innovative games that "break the mold", so to speak?
Hit the jump, where I will likely offend someone.
Many an early Nintendo fan will tell you that they played a lot of different types of games for their NES consoles back in the day. I remember everything from erotic puzzlers to gambling sims, and I would play anything I could get my grubby hands on. The sheer selection available was exciting for a kid to behold. Of course, back in 1985 games did not come out that made 300 million in one week, so it was a very different type of business at the time.
While games have evolved past the wildest dreams of kids who grew up playing 16 bit systems, some of those gamers are disheartened by the direction gaming has moved in. While graphics are more exquisite than ever, the average time spent playing a new game has dropped significantly in the last 20 years. Attention spans have gone down, and gamers will blame a variety of different reasons for it. A frequently voiced complaint is that games are not as good as they used to be. But how can that be true?
Indie developers have always struggled to get their projects to see the light of day, but in the era of Halo, it seems it may be more of a challenge than ever. The bottom line is plain and simple: If you can make a game that makes an enormous amount of money, the need for innovation, breaking the mold and new ideas simply isn't as valued anymore. If a formula works, follow the formula. While it isn't the fault of Halo or any other successful franchise, it seems the monetary success of these franchises pushes a lot of less formulaic titles by the wayside.
I champion Halo because it has vaulted the gaming industry to new heights. At the same time, I fear its impact on games that have the capacity to break the mold by being different. Being different from these blockbuster franchises could mean bad in the eyes of an industry that is attracting more and more "Hollywood types." Nintendo is fortunate in that they were able to use their clout to premiere a console that dared to do something different by changing the control scheme. Despite being a less evolved system, its still outsold its more advanced competitors. Nintendo cured people's boredom for a while, and that is a great accomplishment.
There is a gamer out there who wants to be challenged, to learn new things, and to step outside of the norm. They can never rival the sheer masses of gamers that love franchises for the comfort of familarity and fun of following a solid series. There's nothing wrong with either of these types. However, the latter don't have to worry that the game they want will see the light of day. The former, however, may have something to fight for. Support indie gamers and organizations that promote them all you can if you care about seeing the unusual side of gaming. Or you could move to Japan, where Subway FaceRape Yodel Festival 3 is likely coming out for the DS this week.
[Thanks Jared!]
Contest:
10:09 AM on 10.25.2007 | 
Great game, or GREATEST GAME?
In other words you're not going to get Halo players to play your game that plays just like Halo when they could just keep playing Halo.
It's been like this since the beginning though so I don't know why he thinks this is something new. How many Pong knockoffs are there? How many Final Fight clones were there in arcades? How many platformers from the 80's actually play any different from one another? The only difference nowadays is that AAA games cost millions to make, but when you factor in the indie scene (which is prevelant on all of the consoles) it makes it a mute point.
8 player pong.
How innovative
I think that this is the last console gen of the FPS era. I don't see where else they could go with it.
In fact, take the Mario series as a good example of this. Console launch Mario games are designed around fundamentally new play styles designed to showcase the console. The most notable "flop" was Mario Sunshine, which didn't add anything that couldn't have been done on 64.
The most successful franchises are the mechanisms that push the gaming world forward, because they introduce large audiences to new ideas. Do franchises get stale? Yes, they do if they don't innovate. But developers tend to stop copying them by that point.
I think games have higher production value than ever, but they miss the point of games (rules + skill = win!) by simulating realism.
Gaming as a medium is all about repetition though, the very structure of intercative entertainment is all about doing the same things in a game from start to finish, trying to change that inherint design problem for every single game is a big ask.
Game presentation has taken over from game design, and this has kind of distracted gamers from the fact that they are essentially using the same game mechanics from a decade ago. It makes me laugh when people talk about the amount of mini games on Wii. ALL games are mini games, gameplay in all games is a tiny mechanic which is repeated from start to finish, if this tiny mechanic is wrapped up in slick presentation and compelling narrative then this is enough to make people turn a blind eye and continue enjoying their franchises. But be under no illusions, the interactive side of gaming is no longer the primary focus.
I'm guessing that eventually game design will break out of it's current "expensive mini games" mode, and develop into something where the actual game mechanic is the star of the show with more flexible mechanics, rather than the franchise which is based on a culture of repetition and presentation. Probably.
The critics and hardcore crave innovation because they spend much more time experiencing the medium, and therefore much more time being bludgeoned with the traditional. Innovation, or the lack of it, is driven by what the masses want, not the critics.
I'd also disagree with the notion that popular games crowd out unpopular games. I think it's true to a certain extent -- but on another level less people would be playing video games if there were no Halo. And then it's the Star Wars conundrum -- is a pop, campy space fantasy good for sci fi? On one hand it's going to see "purist" sci-fi crushed by "camp" sci-fi, but on the other hand it's going to greatly expand the numbers of purists, with Star Wars as their gateway drug.
Likewise, Halo is the gateway drug that gets XBLA into millions of living rooms. Halo is going to get more people playing indie games. And with XBLA and PSN, I don't know that indie gaming has ever been more profitable than it is right now.
And Nolan Bushnell ... well, he hasn't really done anything notable for gaming since the early 1980's. The people who pushed those first Atari systems, and made those first video games -- in general they were smart, and they were innovators. But few actually got the medium, and ten years later few were important (or even employed) in the industry, let alone today. The surface every other year to talk about how much games suck, but if they no longer understood the gaming world in 1987 it's hard to imagine why they would in 2007.
Refinement is great in concept, but in practice it is more like shoveling the game to as many platforms as possible, maximizing corporate profits.
Publishers are the biggest part of the problem though, because they refuse to greenlight things that aren't mass-market tripe. Gamecock and other creative publishers are doing some great things, for sure, but there aren't enough of them contributing to the evolution of the medium.
Personally I could care less about what <insert random game here> does better or differently. I just want a game that provides me with enjoyment. Which is one of the reasons why I don't understand the hatred towards Halo. I found it to be rather entertaining game to play, and apparently so did alot of other people. I don't agree with the statement that Halo killed FPS's since a games like Bioshock (story) and Gears of War (cover use) have come out in the last year.
The innovations will come as they always do. Just look at the evolution of the joystick since Atari 2600. We have come from a joystick with 1 button to the Wiimote in the last 25 years. So while we are waiting for the next big "innovation" I say we just kick back and play some fucking games.
I do have to agree with him that it is the games that you look at and can't say what other game it is like that are really innovative. I also have to agree that those games are necessary to expanding the gaming universe. But I have to disagree that that are constantly needed to be expanding the world.
Yes, every now and then somebody like Will Wright will come out with an idea like Spore and blow everybody away. It really is a whole new video game that isn't like any other single video game before it. But when you look at specific segments of the game, there are definite influences from previous titles like Civilization and Populous. That isn't to say that is a bad thing, Wright has taken part of a different game, and transformed it into something brilliantly new.
On the topic of Halo, it is not Doom with different clothing. I would have to ask Bushnell if he has even played Halo 3. Firstly, Doom isn't even 3D. More over, the game plays significantly differently, and it is extremely obvious. Just because the two games are in the first person point of view, doesn't make them the same game. Would you also say that Metroid Prime is the same game as Doom with new clothing? Absolutely not.
Honestly, out of all the FPSs for Bushnell to call out, I think Halo is the last one that deserves it, except for maybe Half-life. What Halo has done for console FPSs, it has truly innovated the genre and the experience the player has.
He also references to his new uWink thing as something that is innovative. He is starting up these new restaurants where you can order your food and play games at your table. I think the table is some sort of thing like that Microsoft Table they showed off. This is a very cool idea, but it isn't like nothing before it. A little something called Pizza Time Theaters aka Chuck E. Cheese's is the same fundamental idea. Instead of getting up to play arcade games, now you can play games while staying at the table.
Bushnell has a great idea here, and it really is innovative. I think it could have a similar effect on the societal view of video games today as Chuck E. Cheese's did back in the 80's, but it isn't the first time this idea has ever been thought of.
My point is, i think, that Bushnell needs to be a little more at ease. Not every game needs to be innovative, and not every game needs to be completely innovative. Just because a game share a similar trait with a previous game while drastically changing other mechanics in the game doesn't make it any less innovative.
I think this goes beyond gaming. Look at your average Hollywood summer blockbuster - it's the same damn thing every year pretty much. Americans aren't big buyers of innovation. They want the same thing year after year, but just bigger, brighter, faster, etc.
Yeah, we get Katamari Damacy and Okami from Japan, but then again Seeds was shut down after Okami.
I think we see just as much innovation in games from western dev studios as we do japanese. Look at what Bioware has done, KOTOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect soon. Bethesda with TES series, and now working on Fallout.
I dunno, I just don't think the japanese or western dev teams are any more responsible for lack of innovation than the other.
Care to elaborate on that?
I tend to look at this like the movie industry. Hollywood loves pumping out blockbuster sequels that will bring in big bucks. And, needless to say, the smaller flicks have a harder time getting any attention because of it. Still, they are out there. You just have to look a little harder. Games are a little different, of course, but I think the best of the content will still find a way out there.
Besides, I see no problem with the direction of gaming. While Halo is relatively generic and not innovative, we still have titles like Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, BioShock, Mario Galaxy, even Heavenly Sword - innovation and fun are still out there, even in the big-name titles. It may not be ideal, but I think some of us blow the situation way out of proportion.
The average (U.S.) person couldn't tell you the difference between they're/their/there, point out Vietnam on a map, recite the boiling point of water, or tell you when WW2 ended. I, for one, refuse to let the same people persuade me into thinking a game is good. Fuck that.
Subway FaceRape Yodel Festival 3 > sex