Older people tend to note how kids, today, have no sense of how much harder things were in the early days. But it can also happen in the opposite direction: if all you’ve ever known was something “bad”, you will probably consider it “normal”, and be satisfied with it.
For instance, if you were born under a dictactorship, it’s very likely that you won’t see your lack of freedom as a problem, especially if you don’t have any contact with people in more free societies. So kids will be satisfied, while their parents or grandparents may remember a time when you could say what you thought without being arrested, for instance.
But… what does all this have to do with games? (you were probably wondering if you’d arrived at another blog by mistake…) Simple: the lack of originality in today’s games.
Most young gamers (say, under 20) probably don’t see a problem with games, these days. To them, it’s perfectly normal to be able to say “it’s like C&C” or “it’s like Counter-Strike, only with…”. To them, there are probably fewer than 10 game genres, and that’s OK. You like some, you dislike the rest.
If you’re 30 or so, however, and a gamer (not simply someone who plays a game from time to time), you’ll be bored with most of today’s games, and for a reason. You remember the early 80s.
I’ve had difficulty in explaining those times to younger people, because they seem inconceivable (much like having only 2 TV channels, I guess), imposssible. A time when there weren’t just a few defined genres, but in which almost every game was completely original? A time when games were written by a single person, at home, instead of huge teams of programmers, artists, musicians and designers? An era when games were not designed by committees, but came from the imagination of the author - and, thus, weren’t watered down, but could, instead, take risks? An age when games didn’t cost millions of dollars to make, and, so, didn’t need to be similar to other games that had already sold well? When people weren’t obsessed with 3D?
You mean, there was a time when games weren’t simply first person shooters, real time strategy, driving, sports or Tetris/Bejeweled clones? When every game could be - and usually was - completely new?
Nah. Many people, today, can’t even imagine such a thing.
And so, kids are happy buying sequels after sequels, buying the same game over and over, just with better graphics than the previous version. They’re happy, and they don’t see anything wrong with it.
But I remember. I remember the Videopac / Odyssey2, the ZX Spectrum, the C64, the Amiga, and even the NES/SNES.
But try explaining that to kids, these days. 
RSS feed
Hmmmm, yeah, I agree that we just all take the sequels with better graphics, polygons whatever and gobble it up these days. However, nothing wrong with a healthy dose of CZ
But luckily there’s always the abandonware and retro games (especially made by independent developers) which can get you the needed fix…
Yes, there isn’t as much room for innovation now as there once seems to have been.
The popular genres nowadays may be far-apart from each other, though there is the occasional droplet of blue in the ocean of red, green and yellow (I am quite aware yellow is the mix of red and green [when speaking of electromagnetic radiation, in the form of light], thank you, take it as things apart), for which many are thankful.
Among all the MMOs, GTAs, hack’n’slashers, Street Fighter clones, football games (though some of which are good value, don’t get me wrong), along comes a Katamari Damacy (never played this one, though the concept looks new), a retro-gem like Viewtiful Joe, an easy-on-the-brain Crimsonland or even the altogether bizarre Hover Bovver (hope I got the name right).
Now, why are sequels popular? There are many reasons, though the main eventers might be the following:
- the game’s story was left unwrapped;
- the concept is entertaining;
- when talking about racers, sporters and the like, one often looks for either the most realistic or most entertaining (there are reported occurences of a game being both) experiences. Pro Evolution Soccer and Sensible Soccer are an example of this dicotomy, like Mario Kart and Gran Turismo are.
This is why they didn’t stop at Mario Party 1, it’s on 7 now, if I’m not wrong, and the concept hasn’t changed one bit. Why? It sells, that’s why. Of course one can always “reinvent the genre” and all that crap, but how far can you go? Go too far, and it’s another type of game altogether. This must not be an excuse for “change the cover, the colours, add one or two things, change some crap, and start burning DVDs” behaviour, though.
If certain genres are proven to sell, and seeing as the gaming producers are an industry, this is the most important part of the game-making equation.
Risks are taken every now and then, but the “all-powerful, blockbusting, plaguelike-spread” genres are hard to go around.
To provide an example, even Nintendo, viewed as one of the world’s few remaining creative parties (in the gaming market), has stuck with their initial concepts of some of their characteristic games. Mario Kart, Mario Party, The Legend of Zelda have undergone several face-lifts, but they’re still (slightly) different approaches at the same idea.
Nowadays, you have to spend money to make games that better make money, back then I don’t think you had to spend as much (I can be wrong) as one has to today. This is the main reason why it’s so hard to innovate, unless you’re too good not to go unnoticed, ex: Molyneux.
Great post Pedro!
Exactly my point of view, we (the ones around 30) lived in what I call the Golden Age of Videogames, back then new ideas were born every day and games made history because of the gameplay not because of polygons or gore scenarios, now originality lacks from the majority of the games. Anyway, being a golden age gamer has it advantages: we experienced excelent games and we know exactly what to buy ;).
I agree, but hey, I think most people go through fazes where there is only one type of game they look for.
For a short while in my youth there was only Bungie for me!
Anything they made turned to gold in my hands!
I’m still playing Myth I and Myth II to this day!
Good post, Sweet site!
Hi Pedro, I completely agree with your article, unfortunately the industry is saturated with sequels and me-too similar games.
I encourage you to try out and let us know what you think of our new game ThreadSpace:Hyperbol, we love it and so do our testers… we think it is something entirely different to what is currently out there although it does take from many genres. Here is our website: http://www.hyperbol.com
-Stuart
Hi Pedro, I completely agree with your article,
unfortunately the industry is encouraging games of violent types.
The games should be funny enough for the kids at same time puzzles and brainteasers are really good.
developers should think in this way to produce creative and entertaining stuff for kids.