Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2019 21:13:31 GMT -5
My mom would play stuff like Mario, Sonic and puzzle games. She lost interest in new stuff when polygons became the norm. My friend's dad was a huge gamer which meant he had pretty much every system that came out. I remember him showing us how to do stuff in the original Zelda and watching him was the first time I saw the ending of Super Mario Bros.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jul 13, 2019 22:22:36 GMT -5
I think games were the way they were because of conditions outside of the designers' control, not because they were better at their jobs than current day game designers. So I feel like games being the way they were is sort of a happy accident. I don't agree with that. But first, let's go back to what I originally said: "I honestly think that the '90s were the peak video game design period. A wild west in the best ways. Games were being made for gamers by gamers. The sixth gen began a funneling design shift towards lowest common denominator targeting; the seventh generation took that concept and exploded it into the stratosphere."In that statement, I never said that '90s video game designers were better than modern game designers. Not in the sense that modern game designers would be incapable of designing games from the '90s. No, it's the classic designs themselves of the '90s that were so laudable. This is because in the '80s and '90s, video games were still an enthusiast media. Back then enthusiasts got into this medium as developers, and they designed games for other enthusiasts. There were once many smaller publishers who got into the business out of passion rather than profit. The rule of thumb saw game designs that were first and foremost targeting fun and experimentation. This was not a happy accident, nor was this condition outside the designer's controls. It was simply a different world for this medium at that time. Technology had improved to the point that old limitations were shattered, and the imagination of designers was allowed to soar. Their ambitions were not fettered by profit sharing suits expecting multi-million dollar returns. Like I said before, this was a wild west scenario but conditions were very much in designers' control. Much more so then they are now. Back in the '90s legendary studios were put together by enthusiasts, and they produced labors of love as a result. Rather than labors of lucre. Budgets were not yet so astronomically high that conglomerate publishers throttled studios to adhere to the safest bets. "Safest bets" being the million+ unit selling templates and formulas we've seen repeated so doggedly since the sixth gen. Popular console releases of the '90s weren't being designed as Skinner boxes looking to leech every last cent from their players via anti-consumer monetization methods. Today's modern game designers, who work for big name studios, are quite talented indeed. But they are talented at producing largely soulless games meant to rake in cash, via adhering to very narrowly defined genre formats. They are the ones who are truly subject to conditions outside their control. Thankfully some of the spirit of '90s game design lives on in the indie scene today. But back in the '90s, that spirit was an outright zeitgeist, not a menial exception.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jul 14, 2019 1:10:11 GMT -5
Ex While some of what you wrote is true, a lot of great '90s games were made by people who just applied to a game company because they needed a job, and weren't particularly into gaming themselves. There's a ton of interviews on shmuplations that attest to that. Profit was very much the motive then too, and while some games started out because somebody had an idea and brought it up to management, many came about because management wanted it. Take a game like Street Fighter 2; the lead designer wasn't particularly interested in doing a game like that initially, and was assigned to the project despite his preferences. Higher-ups rejected a lot of his ideas along the way because they thought they were too weird. But he did his best regardless, as did the rest of his team, and they produced a great and extremely influential game. The biggest difference, as you hinted at, was that games didn't need to sell nearly as much as now because development costs were much lower, so it was possible to take chances or target a product at a particular group without worrying too much. Hell, Phantasy Star, which I know you love, started out as just Sega deciding they needed a RPG because the genre was becoming popular! It turned out that they had employees who were enthusiastic about fantasy and sci-fi, and it became, to an extent, a labor of love, but it started out as a business decision.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jul 14, 2019 1:45:52 GMT -5
a lot of great '90s games were made by people who just applied to a game company because they needed a job Sure. And conversely a lot of people applied to game companies, or formed game companies, because they were in love with the medium, and wanted to create within it. Yes this is true; undoubtedly more so on the Japanese side of the '90s gaming equation. But as you pointed out two games to illustrate your point (SF2 and PS), I could point out twenty popular '90s games that were not born of such origin. I'm not going to be pedantic enough to do that though. My greater point is that overall the '90s had a stronger spirit of innovation and risk taking, allowing a creative cauldron that isn't seen today. I don't mean in the realm of indies. I'm talking about major publishers being far less risk-averse back then, willing to let studios have much more leeway in their capability to evolve a game's production into uncharted territories. In the '90s the cost of business was much cheaper, while the capabilities of innovation grew every year, due to technological advancement coming in leaps and bounds.
Think about it; the '90s started with 2D ruling, then came the massively increased storage due to CD-ROM. This brought the ability to incorporate FMV and recorded music. Then came the initial wave of 3D graphics, with PS1 and N64 changing the realm of gaming dramatically. Towards the end of the '90s, 3D graphics improved considerably, with PCs getting powerful graphics cards, and even the Dreamcast releasing. All that ever changing technology throughout that decade made gaming a continuously exciting field, both for developers and consumers. It was a year after year roller coaster ride of uniqe game design concepts coupled with exhilarating technological developments. A wild west of "We'll try anything and see if it sells." and "Wouldn't this be fun?" and "I wonder if we can even get away with this!" This is why I said the '90s was the peak game design era IMO. There are other reasons I said that too, but I would have to type twenty paragraphs to explain it all. I honestly think anyone who was cognizant in the '90s, and played games throughout all those years, knows the majesty I'm talking about. We started off the '90s with Super Mario World and ended the decade with Shenmue. What a time to have been alive.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Jul 14, 2019 7:37:24 GMT -5
The Japanese history and side of things in particular can be very fascinating and strange. Like toei said, I think from the beginning there's always been some upper blue coats in management pulling the strings over there, but their staff were auteurs and passionate about the projects they got to work on. A lot of the biggest Japanese gaming franchises to this day almost sound like pure accidents when you read some interviews or hear stories from some of the creators. I also don't think this field has ever been the safest and best place to work... unless someone just really needed that paycheck or loved what they were doing. It's crazy how back then a dozen people would rent out an apartment or something then literately sleep, breath, and live WORK for months on end straight. Sounds like a lot of people would get a few months off after a project finished back then, but having lived the corporate life myself for a decade and change now I just think that sounds brutal. Makes me respect the games even more though and the creators.
After beating Dark Forces this week which launched in early 1995, it's been blowing my mind when I think about some of the big FPS's that followed it even just a year or a few more later. From Duke 3D, to Quake, to Jedi Knight, Half-Life, Unreal, Thief, System Shock 2, etc... I almost can't even fathom how close together these releases are when I look back. The Super Mario World to Shenmue arc is a crazy way to put it too.
I'm not as pessimistic about modern gaming but I could still come up with a laundry list of issues I have for sure. I always think Square is one of the best examples of how the bigger companies have evolved and maybe what some others were getting at. Square Soft in the 90's were releasing tons of experimental games and have such a bizarre library when you back on it. Ever since the Square Enix merger to me they've just never been the same, not even close. You get a random Nier once in awhile or them publishing some cool stuff, but internally they just slap Final Fantasy on everything or play it safer than ever. It's a shame most of these biggest publishers are in a position that could help innovate and push the medium further as leaders but it's more evident than ever before how it's just all about profit first, now.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jul 14, 2019 10:19:16 GMT -5
Xeogred Some of those Japanese game companies even had actual dorms. This recent Data East interview is especially wild. Did you know they did a lot of their games planning drunk at 3am? No wonder game companies had such strong identities, though, since their employees were basically always together. I've heard references to Japanese factories having employee dorms as well, so I guess that was / maybe still is a thing in Japan. Personally even 5 days a week feel like a lot, so I can't imagine giving that much time to a job. Though I've never done anything I was passionate about, so maybe it'd be different.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 14, 2019 15:00:51 GMT -5
I actually do think that the limitations of the medium helped guide a lot of decisions. Yes, sometimes it held them back, but sometimes that actually ended up being for the better. I think the PSX era saw what happens when you give a developer a little too much room to breathe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 19:37:11 GMT -5
After beating Dark Forces this week which launched in early 1995, it's been blowing my mind when I think about some of the big FPS's that followed it even just a year or a few more later. From Duke 3D, to Quake, to Jedi Knight, Half-Life, Unreal, Thief, System Shock 2, etc... I almost can't even fathom how close together these releases are when I look back. The Super Mario World to Shenmue arc is a crazy way to put it too. Yeah, at the time it felt like a long time between these evolutionary jumps but in retrospect it was an insanely short period where technology was was advancing at a lightning pace. One thing I do like about modern gaming is they've reached a point with graphics that not everyone has to keep trying to push the boundaries anymore. 2D games were often discouraged or derided in the 5th gen and almost disappeared in the 6th. Now it's fine to have both and no one cares. They're just generally accepted as style and genre choices.
|
|
|
Post by bonesnapdeez on Jul 17, 2019 9:14:12 GMT -5
Big facts.
5th and 6th gen remain my least favorite generations (okay, not counting Odyssey/1st gen) primarily because of the tech/graphics arms race.
|
|
|
Post by anayo on Jul 17, 2019 17:32:35 GMT -5
I was letting some 90's commercials play in the background while I cooked dinner. The reel included ads for Turtles in Time and Mario Kart on SNES as well as Sonic 2. It was clear these were aimed at school age boys and not grown ups. This raises the question: how were grown-up games advertised during this time? I mean I certainly never saw any TV ads for Duke Nukem 3D...
|
|