The Nostalgia Factor

[Kahani]

I think Kickstarter is one of the troublemakers. It's a system wherein people are asked to pay for something based solely on a description, and in that environment, nostalgia is king.

I don't think this is actually accurate. In fact, the reason I backed games like Project Eternity and Torment is the exact opposite of nostalgia - I enjoy the genre but want new things rather than just playing the old ones over and over. I still have the old games if that was all I wanted. But what is there new in the genre actually available? Dragon Age was nearly five years ago now, and no-one else is making anything similar at all. When someone comes up with a new genre that turns out to be fun that will be great, but until then what I want is new games in genres I know I enjoy.

Projects that pledge to recreate old games you used to like are virtually guaranteed to make the money back.

Again, this doesn't appear to be at all accurate. Just look at the constant stories about Kickstarted games being late and over budget. Even the few that hit the news for raising huge amounts of money aren't exactly big successes when compared to normally published games. The biggest is Torment, with a bit of $4 million raised from under 75,000 backers. In contrast, a piece of shit like Dungeon Keeper Mobile has been played by millions. Hell, the original Baldur's Gate sold over two million copies. Getting two orders of magnitude fewer people interested than shitty mobile scams might be enough to make a game, but it can hardly be considered a nostalgia-fuelled license to print money.

 

[Branindain]

"Bad nostalgia sometimes goes by other names, such as "conservatism". The desire for things to stay the same, unmixed with people and concepts from outside our comfort zone. Nostalgia is a string to the bow of everyone with an anti-progressive agenda. They can use phrases like "Traditional values" to add a facade of quaint, down-homey charm to their knee-jerk hatred of the outsider."

Yeah, progressives are always right! Like when they advocated for eugenics, so that we could purge society of undesirables! Too bad those pesky conservatives had to complain about things like "human rights" and "crimes against nature."

Honestly, I'm NOT a conservative, but to make blanket terms like that are somewhat ignorant. Progressives are just as bad as Conservatives, maybe even worse. They're just bad in different ways. It's easy to pretend the progressives are better because all the bad ideas get weeded out. This is the mindset that leads to blind party loyalties... think for yourself Yahtzee.

By your definition, a progressive is someone who says "Change is always good!", and a conservative is someone who says "Change is always bad!" Everyone SHOULD be able to tell that both of these people are wrongheaded because when an issue comes to their attention, they don't assess it on its individual merit, but rather process it through their ideology.

Fortunately, the majority of people are not this stupid, although it's easy to be misled on this point because the people who ARE this stupid are very strident and seem to control the news media for some unfathomable reason. Amongst the sane majority, being a progressive (like me) just means being receptive to new things and not letting good ideas slip by because you fear the unknown. It's just a leaning, and I certainly have the fullest respect for people who lean the other way but are also not insane. And in fairness, I do agree that Yahtzee went a bit overboard with the generalisations.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

You know what game does justice to old school FPS while also accepting modern game design standards? One that you haven't reviewed yet. Shadow Warrior. A mix of the best of old school and the best of modern day FPS. And lots of demon gore and dismemberment. Slice slice, kill kill. Do a goddamn review of Shadow Warrior already.

 

[SiskoBlue]

I've never understood quite understood nostalgia? Not with games. I can fondly remember games I played 25 years ago, and I loved them. But in a lot of ways they were horrificly poor.

I think the nostalgia we see for games at the moment is more akin to the evolution of cartoons.

The original cartoons from Merrie Melodies and Disney were small, artisan created master-pieces. Very small teams, singular visions, and without a wealth of marketing feedback about what customers THINK they want. Instead they were art created by artists because they loved it.

Then they went mass market. By dividing into teams they could make longer cartoons, faster, and cheaper. Nothing particularly wrong with that but you start to get artists doing animation they don't care about. Script writers making a pay cheque, committee agreed storylines, risk-adverse producers sticking to formulas that work. What you get is likeable stuff but pretty meh? I know lots of people love Scooby-do and other Hanna-Barbera stuff but it's pretty low-grade stuff compared to what came before. It wasn't until people like John Krifalusik (?) with Ren & Stimpy, and other "independent" artists starting making their own stuff again that cartoons blossomed creatively again.

So people are craving those games that were made by small teams of artists, without marketing knowledge, for the love of gaming rather than dollars. The problem is trying to cash in on that nostalgia is fairly fruitless as you're replicating, not creating.

But I have hope. Just like cartoons, we're starting to see a lot more "independent" artists making games, that are capturing that well-crafted, care driven work. Thomas Was Alone is a great example. It's not a nostalgic game but captures the same feeling. It's a reiteration, and it's progress from a better starting point, rather than slavishly following the formula for creating of CoD7 or AssCreed 9, or Zelda 8. These games will be likeable but they'll never break past their original. So nostalgia is a case of ever diminishing returns.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

i dont agree, i refuse to believe that just because something new exists, the old stuff is bad, or should be forgotten, thats how publishers thing, and thats why kickstarter has been successful in bringing back old gameplay experiences that have been neglected by large publishers over the years

for instance XCOM, now i LOVE the new XCOM, is my favorite game in the past god forsaken generation, and after playing i decided to give the old one a spin for the first time, i was baffled, the old XCOM, a game that is roughly 20 years old is still incredibly fun, this wasnt nostalgia talking, i hadnt played that game before, while the new XCOM is in my opinion still better, i recognize the old one did many things better than the new one, naturally some things of the old game have not aged that well, specially the interface, regardless i wanted to experience something like the old XCOM, with some of the improvements modern gaming can provide, so in comes xenonauts and its kickstarter campaign, the game promises just that, old XCOM magic with some updates to make it easier to play and add some variety



also from what i understand the problem with MN9's community manager is more complicated than that, aparently the community forums right now are a ghost town because she has banned pretty much anybody saying anything unfavorable about anything


also while the game dev must have a clear vision of what the final product should be, he/she shouldnt be afraid to take criticism and make appropiate changes to make a game more enjoyable, hell isnt yahtzee a criticism machine fueled by coffee and vegemite?

 

[Pogilrup]

Personally, good business-customer practices are timeless principles. So to deviate from that by producing shoddy works, like Dungeon Keeper Mobile, and using consumer unfriendly practices, like always online DRM, would only prove detrimental to the health of the industry and consumers alike.

However, topics, genres, and techniques should be in a constant state of flux. No doubt there will be a high failure rate in terms of financial success and initial audience acceptance, but there will be a few who can attain cult status and some might even imprint themselves into pop culture in the long run.

 

[Karavision]

During a time of movie games and hardware gimmicks, I welcome developers selling people on what they enjoyed in the past. At least they are selling a concept instead of trying to tell people what to like.

 

[Pogilrup]

During a time of movie games and hardware gimmicks, I welcome developers selling people on what they enjoyed in the past. At least they are selling a concept instead of trying to tell people what to like.

Well would we have gotten the Wii remote and Kinect, had Nintendo not taken that risky decision to focus on something new instead of more hardware power?

 

[MaddKossack115]

There's a famous saying from Henry Ford: "If I'd asked the public what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse." The only difference between the latest Call of Duty being a carbon copy of its predecessor and the latest Legend of Zelda being a carbon copy of a game made 20-some-odd years ago is time.

See the problem is we've seen what's outside the comfort zone. We've been seeing what's outside the comfort zone for years.

With absolute garbage like Dungeon Keeper Mobile showing us what happens when "progress" is made, maybe the notion that things used to be better isn't so far fetched after all.

I hope you're attempting to explain the obsession with nostalgia rather than excuse it. Yahtzee could probably write a whole column on this stupid false dichotomy alone, and I'd quite appreciate if he did. Just because the mainstream gaming industry refuses to come up with new ideas that don't suck doesn't mean everyone else has to.

But games are entertainment. A product that companies produce to sell to consumers. Why is it a bad thing to give the people what they want? If people are entertained by the same thing with a slightly different twist or a new story slapped onto the same gameplay mechanics, I fail to see the sin in making something that is the same level of quality without completely changing everything and selling it to them.

McDonald's has been doing it for decades.

What does "progress" even mean in the realm of video games, and why does one HAVE to have it?

"But what about COD?! People like you bash on it all the time for doing that!" you might exclaim.

I don't hate something like COD because it doesn't change, I hate it because having played better shooters a decade ago on the PC I know that it's bad to begin with. I would happily buy sequel after sequel to Baldur's Gate if they were made with the same level of quality even if the gameplay systems barely changed. But we get so few games like Baldur's Gate now, not because the game doesn't work, but because of "progress." And yet the new RPGs that come out (like Dragon Age 2 *vomit*) still aren't better than Baldur's Gate is *today.* They might have better graphics. They might have a better framerate. They might have better voice acting, and motion capture, and branching dialogue trees, and might work on consoles, and have worlds 5x as big, and have non-linear stories, and might have some nonsense social network integration. And yet, even today, most are not better games. That's not nostalgia talking - Bioware has gone on record saying they could never make something as good as Baldur's Gate again, and it's just sad.

That's why when someone comes along and says "We're going to make a sequel to Planescape Torment" or "We're going to make a new Megaman game" people hurl money by the millions - they want the same QUALITY of experience that the market has refused to give them. They know a game like Planescape Torment is worth their time. They know a game like Megaman X is worth their time. Bioware or Capcom sure as hell isn't giving it to them. Progress did not produce better games, and in many cases we're seeing "progress" ruin games.

Amen, man. Out of all the nostalgic games that outrun and outgun the most bloated AAA games of our generation, Yahtzee is only whining about the cash-grabbers that always crop up in any booming industry, even though there are less copycats/ripoffs of "nostalgic" games than "AAA" games. Even though I agree "early access" should be replaced by paid/for-free beta testing, or at least only happen for small but completed chunks of a larger game, I don't want Yahtzee condemning all "nostalgia" as doing the same thing - it's just giving a basis to swing a larger concept in further directions than just starting from scratch. At the very least, it's still more "progressive" than highlighting better skyboxes while keeping the environment colorless, which is what every "pushing-the-envelope" AAA game is currently doing.

I especially find it hilarious (not the way he intended it either) when, in his video reviewing Broken Age, Yahtzee talked about Driver: San Francisco like it was a completely new game, when in fact it was out of the ashes of an open world game that repeatedly got mocked in GTA games for lousy controls when the protagonist was on foot. The only real change (the vehicle-hopping mechanic based on it being an "all-a-dream-coma" - admittedly a pretty surreal sounding change, but still a simple one) was simply to circumcise this one problem of walking in Driver: the badass driving and 70s cop show schtick was there since the first game! It's what Yahtzee would call a perfect sequel ("-something that isn't afraid to change what didn't work last time"), except he forgot to do his research, and didn't realize it was a sequel at all! (Although I frankly wouldn't blame him - the Driver franchise up until San Francisco really WAS that shitty and irrelevant, Rockstar's Easter Egg potshots at them until GTA: San Andreas notwithstanding)

But yeah, I still say it's better to be entertained by familiar things than be bored by new things, and as long as they don't price-gouge the fun stuff (although more and more of it is going on in mobile gaming - we're looking at you, Trexels!), I say we have fun with it.

Oh, and Yahtzee, word of political advice: don't compare nostalgic gamers with Tea Partiers. That just makes you seem just as crazy as the Tea Partiers, if not more so for confusing "nostalgia for simple games" with "nostalgia for racial segregation and ultranationalist xenophobia".

 

[Thanatos2k]

During a time of movie games and hardware gimmicks, I welcome developers selling people on what they enjoyed in the past. At least they are selling a concept instead of trying to tell people what to like.

Well would we have gotten the Wii remote and Kinect, had Nintendo not taken that risky decision to focus on something new instead of more hardware power?

I'd say we'd be better off without them. Both motion controls and Kinect have ruined more games than they've helped.

 

[Pogilrup]

During a time of movie games and hardware gimmicks, I welcome developers selling people on what they enjoyed in the past. At least they are selling a concept instead of trying to tell people what to like.

Well would we have gotten the Wii remote and Kinect, had Nintendo not taken that risky decision to focus on something new instead of more hardware power?

I'd say we'd be better off without them. Both motion controls and Kinect have ruined more games than they've helped.

Chalk it up to some bad design decisions in those cases.

Whereas games like Wii Sports are built around motion controls.

While they might not be comparable to other high-profile games in terms of story and gameplay complexity, it does its job; so long as that game contains no critical bugs in its code.

 

[Thanatos2k]

During a time of movie games and hardware gimmicks, I welcome developers selling people on what they enjoyed in the past. At least they are selling a concept instead of trying to tell people what to like.

Well would we have gotten the Wii remote and Kinect, had Nintendo not taken that risky decision to focus on something new instead of more hardware power?

I'd say we'd be better off without them. Both motion controls and Kinect have ruined more games than they've helped.

Chalk it up to some bad design decisions in those cases.

Whereas games like Wii Sports are built around motion controls.

While they might not be comparable to other high-profile games in terms of story and gameplay complexity, it does its job; so long as that game contains no critical bugs in its code.

Those games weren't necessarily BETTER just because they were built around motion controls. For example, Wii Sports had tennis, and yet either previous Mario Tennis were far better games despite not using any motion controls. So even the "best" example of motion controls isn't even better than button driven games. As it will ALWAYS be.

 

[Pogilrup]

During a time of movie games and hardware gimmicks, I welcome developers selling people on what they enjoyed in the past. At least they are selling a concept instead of trying to tell people what to like.

Well would we have gotten the Wii remote and Kinect, had Nintendo not taken that risky decision to focus on something new instead of more hardware power?

I'd say we'd be better off without them. Both motion controls and Kinect have ruined more games than they've helped.

Chalk it up to some bad design decisions in those cases.

Whereas games like Wii Sports are built around motion controls.

While they might not be comparable to other high-profile games in terms of story and gameplay complexity, it does its job; so long as that game contains no critical bugs in its code.

Those games weren't necessarily BETTER just because they were built around motion controls. For example, Wii Sports had tennis, and yet either previous Mario Tennis were far better games despite not using any motion controls. So even the "best" example of motion controls isn't even better than button driven games. As it will ALWAYS be.

Ah, but which one is more accessible to a newcomer unfamiliar with game controllers in general?

Remember all those Wii commercials with shots of some elderly individuals having fun?

Now before anyone accuses me of supporting Farmville and similar skinner boxes, I'm for accessibility of controls but against exploitation of the customer (and to a lesser extent "auto-pilot" mode (I'm looking you Nintendo)).

 

[Thanatos2k]

During a time of movie games and hardware gimmicks, I welcome developers selling people on what they enjoyed in the past. At least they are selling a concept instead of trying to tell people what to like.

Well would we have gotten the Wii remote and Kinect, had Nintendo not taken that risky decision to focus on something new instead of more hardware power?

I'd say we'd be better off without them. Both motion controls and Kinect have ruined more games than they've helped.

Chalk it up to some bad design decisions in those cases.

Whereas games like Wii Sports are built around motion controls.

While they might not be comparable to other high-profile games in terms of story and gameplay complexity, it does its job; so long as that game contains no critical bugs in its code.

Those games weren't necessarily BETTER just because they were built around motion controls. For example, Wii Sports had tennis, and yet either previous Mario Tennis were far better games despite not using any motion controls. So even the "best" example of motion controls isn't even better than button driven games. As it will ALWAYS be.

Ah, but which one is more accessible to a newcomer unfamiliar with game controllers in general?

Remember all those Wii commercials with shots of some elderly individuals having fun?

Now before anyone accuses me of supporting Farmville and similar skinner boxes, I'm for accessibility of controls but against exploitation of the customer (and to a lesser extent "auto-pilot" mode (I'm looking you Nintendo)).

They aren't really more accessible though. Mario Tennis isn't HARD to learn. There's an analog stick and two buttons, either of which hit the ball. The thing is, non-gamers put up mental shields that make them think gaming is too complicated for them to learn.

Nintendo successfully tricked people into thinking the Wii made gaming easy, so they tried it, and lo and behold, they could do it too!