One of my guilty pleasures is in retro gaming and retro computing. My basement storage room is filled with arcane devices and hundreds of games: a venerable Commodore 64, an Apple ][e rescued from a garage sale, a local family's Apple ][gs that was donated to me, a MAME arcade cabinet, a Mattel Intellivision II - the list goes on indefinitely. I just can't bear to see these things tossed out. Lately I've found myself playing Ultima VII: Serpent Isle on my 486 DX2/66 (now with a Roland MT-32!), and my 360 has sat untended for months.
But does playing these old games matter? Does writing about them matter? What value is there in sweatin' to the oldies? Is it only for reminiscence or nostalgia? In this article I make a few arguments about retro gaming/computing that outline the meaningfulness of tying together the past and the future in the present..
| Above: The intro to Tass Times in Tonetown. |
Earlier this week I was listening to the 1 Mhz Apple ][ podcast (which I highly recommend!) and its host, Carrington Vanston, mentioned that his interest in retro computing isn't just for the sake of reminiscing about old stuff or waxing nostalgic about the good ol' days. Rather, Carrington's interest lies in showing how the Apple ][ is a fun, exciting, system that has found new uses in the present. His inaugural episode includes a review of Tass Times in Tonetown - a classic graphical text adventure set in a wacky re-imagining of the 1980s new wave culture. In the review Carrington focuses upon his current-day experience of the game and the ways in which it stands out as something different from the usual fare, such as the inclusion of a feelie newspaper included in the box called “The Tonetown Times” which the player must read to discover the names of characters s/he can talk with in-game.
But why should this matter? Isn’t this just like digging through your old box of hockey cards and marveling at your memory of opening the first pack? Here’s where we get into the nitty-gritty of understanding history.
Understanding what History Means
First, let’s correct a false assumption that often undermines this kind of historical exploration: it does not involve living in the past, in involves living through the past. In history we look at ourselves in the present through the past, and come to understand ourselves as standing in a long genealogy of meaning that pre-exists us. Now that’s a lot to swallow for the modernist who sees him/herself as largely being self-made and sees the past as a sequence of barbaric events that are thankfully left far behind her/him. That kind of modernist philosophy still persists today: we see it in people who cannot understand why Yar’s Revenge, Chrono Trigger or The Faery Tale Adventure are still compelling games. They simply stare blankly at the screen and think to themselves, ‘these graphics sure suck!’.
A corollary of this is that every game we’ve ever played, whether it be Wonder Boy in Monster Land or Mass Effect, all bear some kind of relation to the games, films, novels, poems, myths, paintings and other art media that came before it. Not only do they stand in artistic relation (in terms of the genres, styles, inspirations) but they stand in phenomenal relations. That is, when I say that I “enjoyed” Mass Effect yet “found the gameplay repetitive”, I try to tug at the entire web of language implicit in the meaning of enjoyment or repetition. Put differently: we experience enjoyment and repetitiveness in different ways, depending upon the way we are able to use those words to describe different games. If we’ve only played 10 console games in our lifetime we are going to have a very empty idea of what repetitiveness means, because we’ve only experienced the kind of repetition associated with level-based japanese RPGs. However, the gamer who has played hundreds of games understands that calling Windows Solitaire repetitive is a fundamentally different meaning than calling the battles in every Square-Enix RPG repetitive.
History for Gamers and Game Writers
The current bemoaning of the state of video game reviewing can almost be completely attributed to a problem of language. Reviews are superficial and empty typically because the people who review games typically do not engage themselves with games as standing in a history of meaning. Saying that, “I found the gameplay repetitive” is for all intents and purposes a meaningless statement. If the reviewer says that “the battle scenarios are not unlike the random battles found in all Final Fantasy games prior to XII” we have a fundamentally different meaning, one that breathes life into the doldrums of using the word “repetitive” to describe gameplay.
| Above: Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards. |
Now, here’s the big leap that I’d like you to take with me: changing our understanding of words changes our very experience of them. This stands in long relation to the certain forms of philosophy (if you’d like, look up folks like Herder, Goethe, and Charles Taylor). But the point here is that when I make comparisons of repetitiveness between Solitaire and Final Fantasy I actually come to experience the gameplay differently because I can see how each game I play comes to re-shape just what I mean by repetitive. History is about breathing new life into the present and future through the past.
But that’s not possible without actually playing, and writing and talking about, the thousands of games that came before us. Without making the miniscule distinctions between the qualities of the text parser in Tass Times in Tonetown and later Infocom text adventures that on the surface seem petty and redundant, we lose the chance to enrich the language of video/computer games, and in doing so, our experience of modern day gaming!
History Matters for Developers: Any Good Writer is a good reader
I should make one thing clear: understanding history won’t stop anyone from making an unsuccessful game. You can spend your life reading all the works of Shakespeare and still write poetry that nobody reads. But, like a good game, your poetry can be rediscovered decades or even centuries later because it managed to tap into the eternal - the long history of poems, stories and myths that preceded it. Although digital gaming is a medium in its infancy, we can still draw from the deep well of history to fill our games with meaning.
Whether plumbing the depths of The Hobbit on a Sinclair ZX Spectrum or reading Dumas’s The Count of Monte Cristo a good developer hones her/his craft through immersing her/himself in history. The very idea of playing a game through the eyes of a protagonist, themes of friendship and betrayal, or the story of the journey home, have been around for over a thousand years. The way that these themes were became typified in the great (and not so great!) works of art of human history all bear upon the way that people experience computer and video games now.
The developer, as artist and creator, can only make their creation compelling for an audience by steeping it in a vast ocean of meaning. Without a historical engagement the developer both re-invents the wheel and turns what could have been a deep, compelling work, into a hackneyed consumer product that lasts a week in a gamer’s stomach. The great works, the games that we come back to after 20 years and wonder to ourselves how the game still feels current, are the ones that withstood the test of time because they managed to capture the infinite wisdom of a thousand years of storytelling and poetry on humor, sadness, or friendship - and to a lesser degree at least 30 years of gameplay.
Conclusion
What I tried to suggest here is an alternative to the disappointment that we face when we pick up our dusty copy of The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and find out that the game just isn’t as compelling now as it used to be when we were 12 years old. Nothing can be more traumatic for the gamer than finding out that their favorite game just didn’t grow with them - and if that’s the case it’s even more important to understand why it didn’t grow. If we try to live in the past through our “rose tinted memories” of games we surely can learn nothing new about them, or ourselves.
This post is included as part of a Blogs of the Round Table discussion on our ‘favorites’ and ‘least-favorites’ in video games. Follow the below drop-down list for other April ‘08 Round Table entries. The list below links to other blogs who participated in this month’s Round Table - I strongly suggesting visiting them.. these articles are all particularly good reads.

14 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://www.artfulgamer.com/2008/04/22/revitalizing-dead-culture-why-game-history-matters/trackback/
April 22, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Pingback from “Revitalizing Dead Culture” : clusterflock
April 25, 2008 at 2:19 am
Pingback from April ‘08 Round Table - UPDATED 04/25 : Man Bytes Blog
June 12, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Pingback from The Artful Gamer · Some Canadian Bacon: Carrington Vanston
April 22, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Michael Abbott
What a great essay, Chris. On a purely selfish level, your thesis and arguments provide a certain amount of useful ammunition for those of us trying to make a case for the value of video game history to students, teachers, and administrators. The fact that you go farther to suggest the real value can be found in *words” - well, all I can say is BINGO! Not exactly the cleverest of words, but it says what I mean.
The only point I take small issue with is the one you make about the current poor state of video game reviews, which you attribute to a problem of language. I see what you’re saying, but I see another factor at work, and it’s one I discussed with Chris Dahlen in my most recent podcast. I think many reviewers continue to approach video games as essentially software, or as Chris noted, gizmos. The aesthetic dimension of games is nearly invisible for many reviewers. Instead, games are reduced to a feature list, and their value rests in how well they make good on each bullet-point. In this regard, there’s little difference between the latest version of Metal Gear and the latest version of Photoshop.
To me, this is a problem less about language and more about a certain dominant sensibility and resistance to accepting games as artistic creations. Even among writers who claim video games as art, few really address this aspect of the medium beyond cursory notes on design and visuals.
I’m curious to know what the “Artful Gamer” thinks about this.
Thanks, again, for your thoughtful (as always) post.
April 22, 2008 at 9:20 pm
chris
Michael,
Thanks for the feedback - I’m glad that something resonated … it’s been so long since I wrote something that I thought I might have forgotten how
Apologies for the long reply here - it’s more of a correction or addendum to my original post, but I hope it answers your question… which turns out is *extremely* important to my whole thesis (now that’s selfish!
)
Re: Video game reviews. Yes, I took a fair amount of creative liberty in that statement. You/Chris are absolutely dead-on with the observation that reviewers turn video games into a software product. What strikes me about the problem is that it is inextricable from the language that they talk about the games in. This was the fundamental “pitch” I was trying to make in the article that I desperately failed at conveying: our evaluations and experiences of things - whether we like them, hate them, see them as software, see them as identical to Microsoft Word - these are all completely dependent upon the language we use to talk about them in. This is what is meant broadly by a “discourse” if I may drag in the term - that when I use the discourse of software to describe a game, I fundamentally change both my experience of the game and the player’s experience of it. When developers use language like “dev cycles”, “revs” (revisions), feature lists, and quarterly results we get the sense that games are more about the economics of production than enjoyment or creativity. Throughout the interview you and Chris seem to be revolving around the whole problem of discourse - for instance that movie directors seem to talk about their films in terms of creativity more than mechanical productions - and that would seem (to me at least!) to underlie the whole problem. If we change the discourse, we change the nature of a game.
(And to change the discourse, we need to play games and write about them!)
Thanks again for the reply. Over to your blog for a moment….
April 23, 2008 at 8:30 am
Corvus
Okay, this is an excellent post and somewhat eclipses the actual topic of this month’s Round Table, which is, most humbly, about the themes that run through the video games we enjoy (or don’t). Interestingly, however, it seems to me as if you’re arguing that in order to fully understand and implement meaningful themes, we need to have a a sense of history and a lexicon to support in depth analysis.
I’m also completely on track with the thought that a deeper understanding of a word changes your relationship to the word and how that corresponds to replaying older titles. My deconstruction of video game mechanics as narrative components gave me an even deeper appreciation of Ultima Underworld when I recently replayed it. My examination of punitive vs. forgiving game mechanics made replaying Full Throttle a surprisingly delightful jaunt down memory lane.
I think many of us, in our efforts to further the industry and impact of video games forget to look back at these old games and really examine why they were compelling then and what about them is still compelling now.
Excellent post. Simply excellent.
April 23, 2008 at 8:39 am
chris
Corvus - Yes! I’m glad you picked up the implicit argument here - that the themes (archetypes even) that run through art can only by understood through a genealogy of games. I was worried that it got buried in the philosophy stuff!
I’m looking forward to more of your reviews like the one you did of Underworld - the narrative components of games are one element that we can appreciate as players. There are many of course, but by developing the language of narrative we come to a much fuller sense of what it means to play games. I’d love to write something as involved as your analysis some time with other games.
Thanks for dropping by!
April 26, 2008 at 9:48 am
Jared
I didn’t realize disappointment was the prevailing emotion with retro games such as The Legend of Zelda. Playing classic games, to me, is quite enjoyable but I sometimes wonder if it’s only nostalgia. Often what made these games compelling in my youth was the pure wonder of playing them for the first time.
That said, I agree that it is rewarding to return to classic games with a critical eye. You can look at a game like Metroid and see what the developers were trying to do, and within the rudimentary structure you can see some of the gestures and nuances that become lost as technology moves forward.
I’d only caution against becoming too referential in game criticism, as you say, “the battle scenarios are not unlike the random battles found in all Final Fantasy games prior to XII.” Read any music review where the critic constantly drops band names you’ve never heard of and see how frustrating it gets as an outsider. Sometimes it’s better to keep that information in your mind as background. It’s possible to describe a game without using empty words like “repetitive” and without relying on the game’s ancestors to do the description work for you.
April 26, 2008 at 10:11 am
chris
Jared -
I played Zelda (NES) recently, and my response was not disappointment - in fact, I found the game downright frustratingly difficult! I forgot that the game mechanics of yesteryear are far more challenging than the current generation of games. Novelty is of course an element of many kinds of games, but novelty alone isn’t sustainable as an art.
I like your comment on “gestures and nuances” - that’s what this blog is all about …. finding the frustrating attempts at something beautiful in games that most people found irritating or terrible when they were first released. Art history is much like that, serving to contextualize an art piece by showing how it follows (and does not follow) artistic convention developed over time.
As for the comment on game criticism - you’re absolutely right about not making it a system of obscure referencing and lazy intellectualism. That is also a form of poor game review writing that serves only to connote prestige among music enthusiasts. I only gave that rather hackneyed example to show that even the most superficial historical integration is infinitely better than uttering ‘repetitive’ (jeez, I’m become repetitive here). But I do think that game ancestry - genealogy - is of vital importance. Without that background (which *should* stay in the background, I certainly agree!) there is no basis for understanding a game by itself. One of these days I want to spend some time looking through various forms of game journalism and showing how they demonstrate different, better and worse, forms of writing.
Thanks for contributing your thoughts - I enjoy reading your blog.
April 28, 2008 at 8:28 am
Andrew Armstrong
A look at game journalism would be interesting. See if there is any true criticism out there
Anyway, I finally got around to reading this, and yeah, very interesting and insightfully written article. I put it up at the IGDA’s Preservation mailing list, since we’re starting a whitepaper on, you guessed it, “Why Game History Matters” (more or less). If you were interested in helping, well, it seems you have a good way of writing about the subject
I’m most impressed, although I agree, the point on reviews is problematic - the quality of reviews has more flaws then the journalists ignoring game history.
Not enough people think video game history is important, anything to persuade someone is good in my book
Also; yeah, this is certainly encompassing the “Theme” of this months roundtable. I was a lot more boring choosing my topic, hehe. I should write my own short essay on this topic sometime though.
April 28, 2008 at 10:31 am
chris
Andrew,
Many thanks for your response. Thank you for raising the question/clarification regarding game review quality. When I said that “The current bemoaning of the state of video game reviewing can almost be completely attributed to a problem of language”, I’m making the problem slightly more broad than history alone. When reviews are missing historical language, they are missing one vital component. But there are many other kinds of language that we need in game reviews: experiential language, emotional language, ludic language, social language, to name a few. I’m hoping that by covering the ‘historical language’ component I can shed a bit of light on the issue.
And - thank you for the invitation to the IGDA Preservation SIG! I’d love to help out in whatever way I can with the white paper - I suppose the first thing will be for me to join the mailing list.
April 28, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Andrew Armstrong
You’re right of course, although I think it’s not just a matter of language. Simply having the right words doesn’t make the message any more valid if it was rubbish in the first place!
The problems might not just be the journalist is rubbish; it might be publisher pressure, reviewing a buggy copy and assuming things will be fixed, having editors put words in their mouths, and advertiser pressure too. The system is kinda borked but getting slightly better over time, but I still rarely read reviews anyway.
Anyway, if you do join the mailing list, the current paper starter Devin had high praise of you after reading this
thanks if you can help! Join up and post, since it’s in the starting stages there isn’t much down on paper, and there needs to be an initial meeting sometime (there’s some others who are not on the list who want to help too). This goes for anyone else reading this who wants to give history some help, we could always use any help at the Preservation SIG
(/advertisement for volunteers)
April 30, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Keira
Another excellent post - glad to see you back
Being someone who stays (mostly) away from new games anyway, preferring to browse bargain bins, I have to say that one of the marks of a great game is one that, even if you’re new to it, still seems like an awesome game. All ‘great’ games went through a stage of being lauded for their graphics, but what’s left when that’s gone?
I’ve discovered some gems, but I’ve also discovered plenty of games that didn’t live up to the hype of the time.
And yes, they truly were a lot more difficult back-in-the-day.
April 30, 2008 at 2:32 pm
chris
@Andrew -
Well put! The institutional problems with game reviews are certainly not to be ignored - I’d like to see more expository writing on just how game reviews ‘work’.
@Keira -
Many thanks. I’ve been keeping up with your blog since I’ve found it - you are one of the few writers that recognizes the importance of video game history. One of the things I *may* consider doing is writing something on reviewing games. I’m experimenting with the idea that every game has potentially some kind of aesthetic value in it even if the game is ‘bad’ or mediocre… and that game reviews should somehow attempt to find the aesthetic value in everything. In that sense these would be game reviews for folks who have already played the game - like Jason Rohrer’s great review of Paradroid for the C64.