Blog post 6: The Nostalgia in Retro Video Games

Remember the days of blowing the dust off the cartridge so the game would work? It gives me that wistful feeling.

I played a lot of video games as a child. The earliest gaming memories I had were playing Sonic the Hedgehog on The Sega Master System. I remember how I'd spend many hours trying to complete every game my dad gave me with my sister. We played games like Alex the Kidd, Ecco the Dolphin and Wonder Boy to name a few.

I received a Game Boy from my parents. My sister got Pokémon Blue and I had Pokémon Red. We spent countless hours playing and trading each other Pokémon. As we grew older we would get  all the other gen Pokémon games — she got Silver, I got Gold and so on. After we both got Pokémon X and Y, I realized that I didn't feel the same sense of joy I did when I was playing Pokémon Gold back in the day. Why do I feel like I enjoy the games of my childhood more so than current games of today? Don't get me wrong, I still love gaming and it will always be a part of me, but there was something special about the old days.

FemHype’s June talks about nostalgia in her childhood gaming experiences:

"I’d be lying if I said nostalgia wasn’t a huge part of the allure for me. However, I think the retro gaming resurgence is due to much more than a collective yearning for the sanctuary of our simple childhoods. When I look at the unabashed joy of retro gamers, I think it’s due to stressing gaming as gaming first and foremost with no strings attached, and very little gimmicks."

I agree with June and I still play my childhood games from time to time, the repetitiveness of it still has its novelty. Maybe it's an attempt to revisit my childhood and the happiness that comes with it.

June talks about the expansive retro gaming market and how the internet is exploding with new content every day. She says how "Her time was spent browsing through countless cartridges, discs, and forgotten trinkets off Amazon and Ebay."

But why do retro games have great replay value? June believes that the single player games in early years have better replayability than games of today, although multiplayer online play is the modern day equivalent. The storylines in older games relied more on atmosphere and worldbulidng. They didn't have the best quality graphics of today to be able to tell stories. They relied on exploration and explication of their worlds, which helped enrich the solitary experience and  furthered immersion for us. 

June concludes that she would like to see a renaissance of retro gaming:

" I would like the resurgence of retro gaming to something like the boom in vinyl and cassettes in music. It’s a community driven by a love of certain formats, styles, and aesthetics. It’s not meant to replace contemporary gaming culture, but rather, exists as a subculture within gaming that is surprisingly thriving right now—a subculture which I’ve decided that for myself, personally, has more substance to it than its contemporary counterparts."

The retro gaming subculture seems to be a larger and growing interest by gamers old and new. Game developers have released titles that are repackaged older games such as Atari Classics, Activision Hits, The Sonic Mega Collection, Metal Slug Anthology and Sega Genesis Collection. I personally own the Sega Mega Drive Ultimate Collection on PlayStation 3 to play some of my childhood games and I even discovered some retro games that I hadn't even played before! I'm all for the expansion of the retro gaming subculture and for retro games to become more than just a collective memory of video game history.

This Week in Videogame Blogging:

http://www.critical-distance.com/category/this-week-in-videogame-blogging/

June's article Retro Resurgence: Why I Stick to the Nostalgia Subculture:

http://femhype.com/2015/10/14/retro-resurgence-why-i-stick-to-the-nostalgia-subculture/#more-95053

In Response to Nick's Blog: Games as a Two Way Conversation

In Nick's blog he discusses how would single player games make the gameplay more immersive for the player.

He addresses that with single player games, we don't really have any real way to express ourselves with the gameplay or storyline other than playing with the game's tools provided by the game developers.

Nick gives an example of what games could do to make it more of a two way conversation: 
"What if the game tracked how you played and changed certain elements to make it harder for the user to progress through the storyline. Could you imagine if Dark Souls, for example, tracked what enemies you struggled against the hardest and started increasing the amount of those enemies throughout the gameplay? Dark souls is already hard enough. But the gameplay would just be that one step more immersive."

I agree with Nick and would like to see new ways in bringing the player closer to the game. Allowing the player to be able to express themselves and having the game respond differently to each individual, which would make their gameplay experience unique.

Nick's Blog:

http://snickienickie.tumblr.com/

Blog post 5: Super Mario Maker

30 years after the original Mario NES game, Nintendo has released Super Mario Maker, a game where players can create their own Mario levels and other people can play their creations. Nintendo has created a game that allows players to freely create whatever they want. Thousands of Super Mario Bros players have spent millions of hours making Mario levels. But are they of quality? 

Grayson Davis expresses his opinion about the level creations from players:

"I’ve played levels that were clearly the first attempt of a 10-year-old who didn’t appear to have much enthusiasm to begin with. I’ve played levels designed to be as hard as possible without being remotely fair—slogs of unpredictable traps and random deaths. I’ve played levels built around obvious, tiresome gimmicks. Many levels are simply broken, with obstacles much harder or easier than they should be, shortcuts that shouldn’t work, and elaborate contraptions that don’t function as intended."

Grayson Davis doesn’t think that bad designs in videogames are all that bad:

"Bad design isn’t always always without value. On the contrary, Mario Maker is an amazing tool. Much like listening to someone describe their dreams, the Mario Maker experience is a fragmented mess, […]

So video game producers and art directors put them in their creations to draw on that shorthand."

It is interesting to see what players create. Mario maker allows us to take a peek into the inner workings of the creator's mind. It enables us to witness and experience processes of creativity. Grayson Davis has played many creations from Mario Maker and found that:

"Many creators work within the framework of other Mario games, either emulating or subverting those conventions. [...] Other creators try to simulate other genres entirely, making levels that resemble Metroid-style exploration games or bullet-hell schmups.

[...]

We share our thoughts and feelings as they tumble out, and Mario Maker would be a poor creative tool if it tried to corral player expression into a prescriptive formula. It is exciting to consider that, at any point, I can explore levels that are, yes, sometimes mean and ugly, but also far more singular and personal than anything Nintendo will ever make."

After reading about Grayson Davis's experiences with Mario Maker, I think that the game was intended for letting out your imagination, whether the level designs are good or not. Players don't have to follow rules or any fundamentals of level design. They are free to create whatever they want, even if their levels are extremely absurd.

This Week in Videogame Blogging:

http://www.critical-distance.com/category/this-week-in-videogame-blogging/

Grayson Davis article Super Mario Maker:

http://www.videogameheart.com/daily/super-mario-maker/

Blog post 4: The Beginner's Guide Review

The following content contains spoilers.

This week in video game blogging, Critical Distance has posted a discussion on The Beginner's Guide. 

The Beginner's Guide is a narrative video game from David Wreden. From the start of the game we are introduced to Wreden, who is guiding you and giving his interpretation over a collection of games, which were made by his game developer friend who is identified as "Coda". Wreden tells us certain aspects of the game and the process in which they are made and what Coda might have thought or felt whilst making the games. 

Laura Hudson reaction to playing the game for the first time.

"The first time I played the game, I felt ill, even angry after this revelation. It seemed like the game had made me unknowingly complicit in a huge violation of someone's privacy, one that I had no way of undoing. At the time, I was assuming—wrongly, I think—that the game told a true story, rather than a "true" one, that it depicted people and events in the real world rather than inventing characters real enough to make us suspend our disbelief."

About halfway through the game I also felt the same way. When Wreden starts questioning if the games that Coda is creating are a reflection of his emotional and mental status. Coda's games gradually turn darker and more disturbing. This is when Wreden decides to try and help his friend who is in need but ends up breaking his trust instead.  From what I understood, it seems that "Coda" was developing these games as a hobby and didn't want to show these games to the public. Wreden, however,  shows Coda's games to the public without Coda's approval, which ends up destroying their friendship. We learn that this game is about Wreden trying to reach out to Coda and ask for forgiveness even though he knows he is betraying Coda's wishes even by doing so.

Laura Hudson  explains that she replayed the game and has a different perspective of the game.

"The second time through, however, it felt a little different. Rather than a story about the relationship between two game developers, The Beginner's Guide started to read more plausibly as a relationship between a game developer and their audience, and the dangers of projecting too much onto art and the people that create it.

I'm still haunted by that initial feeling of complicity the game made me feel when I learned what was "really" going on, the sickening sense that I had harmed someone very deeply by participating in someone's misinterpretation of a game. This is the moment that left the most indelible mark on me, the one that seemed to say that projecting your own ideas onto an artist and a creative work—or seeking answers from them—is a selfish act, a stifling act, even a destructive one.

...

But as wrongheaded as it might be to assume that every story an artist tells is secretly the story of themselves, it's equally wrongheaded to assume that the best or only way for art to be understood is inside an echo chamber of its own voice. So much of the pleasure and insight I derived the game came not just from the moments when I played it, but the moments where I sought to interpret it, where I spoke about it with others, where I ultimately projected my own ideas about what it meant to me."

After playing the game myself, it left me pondering "what does it all mean?"  I feel that the game can be interpreted in many different ways. Wreden uses The Beginner's Guide to present questions to the player concerning game theory and design. When playing any game, should you consider the creator's based on design choices or should you let the game speak for itself, as you create your own interpretation about a game? 

Wreden seems to think that games can be a window into the mind of their creator. By playing their games, you can find meaning and develop insight into their personality, which can form a connection with the creator.

This Week in Videogame Blogging:

http://www.critical-distance.com/category/this-week-in-videogame-blogging/

Laura Hudson's article The Beginner's Guide is a game that doesn't want to be written about:

https://boingboing.net/2015/10/02/the-beginners-guide-is-a-gam.html

Blog post 3: Games As A Two-Way Conversation

Critical Distance has posted an article written by Laralyn McWillams who discusses player expression. She talks about how multiplayer games are accustomed to allow players a range of emotional expressions such as how people can type in chat window, choose their outfits and customise their appearance, use play emotes and voice chat which are all methods where players can express themselves.

When creating a multiplayer game system that lets players express themselves, it allows them to choose positive or negative expressions.

Laralyn McWillams uses an example for when creating a multiplayer game system that lets players express themselves:

"During the development of Free Realms, we considered a system that would let players rate outfits or even rate each other. We had serious debates around whether that would involve only positive ratings--a thumbs up--or whether you could choose between both positive and negative ratings. We even debated the role of gossip in the lives of kids, and whether our systems should simulate the world that actually existed or the world we wished existed."

Choices like those examples above naturally create and cultivate a culture within and around your game. 

Single player games are also about player expression. Laralyn McWillams explains that a game relies on player input:

"Press the space bar to jump, or click on the Twine option you want to see next. These aren’t just interactions, though. They’re genuine expressions. Players have a motivation for doing the things they do in games: there’s a reason she jumped at that moment instead of firing her weapon or sprinting, and there’s a reason he choose to explore the backyard before the garage."

The "core loop" is a foundation of a game interaction:

Game events open a loop that starts a conversation with the player. When an enemy appears, the player can respond by attacking, fleeing or hiding. The player is given ways to express themselves in reaction to situations that the game presents.

Developers online often talk about player retention or a game's "stickiness"  How likely a player will maintain to continue to play a game for? It is known that social interactions make online games "stickier" whenever those interactions are encouraged and supported by game system,. in addition of social aspects like clans and PvP increase retention. Laralyn McWillams believes:

"One of the reasons social play drives retention is because it better supports player emotional expression. It creates a two-way conversation. We can see other attempts to enable two-way conversation in games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect, where players can choose how they respond to NPCs.

What would it mean in a game like Skyrim if the player could do something as simple as choose a facial expression, and NPC characters reacted to it? How would that change NPC barks as you walk around a city? How would your companion respond?

What if games that don’t have dialogue systems or avatar customization could still feel as personal, responsive, and emotionally connected as a multiplayer game? Would it drive the same virality and stickiness?"

Single player games are also about player expression that we support, understand and choose to respond to in game. We are still creating a culture even when there's only a single player experiencing it. We are cultivating a culture in which players make right or wrong choices with no meaningful way to express how those choices feel. Laralyn McWillams explains:

"Most single-player games start a conversation with players and then leave them emotionally stranded. We handle pivotal character moments in cutscenes, or when they’re in live gameplay we leave players only able to run, jump, or crouch. We’re creating a culture where the expected — and only — response to emotional moments is mute acceptance.

[…]

To that extent, single-player games have a culture of emotional isolation that goes beyond the fact that you’re playing them by yourself. I believe that’s a large part of the popularity of live Let’s Play video feeds: the person playing can finally express the emotions provoked by a game in a setting where someone’s listening — because the game clearly isn’t. Isn’t that a mistake in an interactive medium?"

Laralyn McWilliams is saying that many games could benefit from understanding their players better. We could use information about the players' emotional state to create a better experience. Consider the effect of including that emotional expression in a single player game, How could it be meaningful? How could the game respond to it?

This week in video game blogging:

http://www.critical-distance.com/category/this-week-in-videogame-blogging/

Laralyn McWillams article on player expression:

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/LaralynMcWillams/20150928/254679/Games_As_A_TwoWay_Conversation.php 

Blog post 2: This Week in Videogame Blogging

This week, Critical Distance has posted an article written by Chris Bateman about the forty hour benchmark of a game's 'replayability'. In the past, the majority of video games were often created on the assumption that they would be played for roughly forty hours. Nowadays, games are being made to be played for longer and we are seeing a decline in the forty hour model for making games.

During the early time of consoles with polygonal 3D rendering such as Sony PlayStation and Sega Saturn in the mid-1990s, the context of video games were designed to be played for 8- 12 hours or a total of 40 hours. The forty hour play window became the norm so developers aimed for forty hour content, possibly fearing  negative reviews if the game fell short of the mark. Players that weren't employed full time could easily play forty hours in one week and with the greater number of games being produced, the arrangement of the market for games meant that gamers who played as a hobby could play different games every week if they wanted to.

With the arrival of World of Warcraft, the forty hour model was being challenged in major ways by its increasing popularity. Forty hours meant nothing to World of Warcraft players, which is a game that is played as a hobby on its own.

Nowadays, the forty  hour model seems to decline. Every major commercial game now attempts to capture audiences for at least 200 hours, with the addition of multiplayer modes being the core method of maintaining players to constantly play the same game. Chris Bateman states that...

"The forty hour model was a consequence of selling games-as-products, as boxed content that would be played then thrown onto a pile of completed games (although it turns out that the minority of players finish games). The 200 hour model is a consequence of selling games-as-services, with monetization now an on-going process throughout the time the players are engaged with the title in question."

Chris Bateman suggests that the consequence of longer play windows for games makes it difficult for large game studios to break even than ever before, even though more money than ever before is coming into the game industry. World of Warcraft has forced competitors to give their games away for free due to not being able to compete directly with its critical mass of players and content. Call of Duty requires three large developers working on it to deliver content at a rate that would mean it is not vulnerable for competitors to threaten its dominance. Chris Bateman points out that...

"The big money is no longer out to hold a player’s attention for forty hours, but to hold a player’s attention long enough to get the next game out, or to hold on to groups of players in the hope to pull in a few big spenders, or to hold the player’s attention throughout the year with events crafted to maintain appeal and bring back those who are slipping away into other games. Hobby players – those who commit to a game service over the long term – often play other games on the side, which is a tiny crumb of good news for indies making smaller games. Indeed, at the bottom of the market, there are perhaps greater opportunities for those who make games than ever before, but the lower market is competing for the scraps left over from the gorging behemoths above them, like crabs scuttling about for the tiny morsels that fall to the seabed after the giant sharks have fed."

Chris Bateman concluded that the video games market is ceasing to be a one packaged experience similar to movies and novels. Game studio Bungie has shifted from developing boxed products of Halo to the endless service of the massive multiplayer game Destiny.  The forty hours model is no longer the norm and what matters now is keeping the players playing for as long as possible.

This week in video game blogging:

http://www.critical-distance.com/category/this-week-in-videogame-blogging/

Chris Bateman's article Forty Hours:

http://blog.ihobo.com/2015/09/forty-hours.html