I, Videogame

[Singapura]

Yesterday I watched part two of the documentary series "I, Videogame" on Discovery. Although it's interesting to see the history of videogaming, I find it hard to agree with their view that videogaming in the 70's and early 80's wasn't mature or held a lot of interest and that's why the industry collapsed. Every video game needs a storyline, according to them. I.m.h.o. that's the same as saying that soccer or tennis can't be interesting because there's no storyline. Donkey Kong isn't interesting because of the storyline as the documentary claims but because it offers the "just one more time to beat my high score" challenge. I see Pacman, Galaga, heck even Pong, as challenges to make a high score, not to be emerged in a story.

What do you guys think on this?

[DaveMMR]

I find it hard to agree with their view that videogaming in the 70's and early 80's wasn't mature or held a lot of interest and that's why the industry collapsed.

I didn't see the documentary (wish I had).

The documentary wasn't wrong, exactly (as you described it).   Truth is, people did get bored of the same game repackaged 19 or 20 different ways and bad idea after bad idea flooding the store shelves with $50 nonsense.   Home consoles were simply a novelty that wore out it's welcome.  Yeah the classics were endearing (in the Arcade and at home), but the bulk of the VCS' later day releases (mostly 3rd party) were absolute crap.

And, yeah, it wasn't mature as an industry either because Atari was making calls, which in foresight, can be described as boneheaded.   Manufacturing 12 million copies of a sloppy, rushed port of Pac-Man for 10 million consoles?   Spending millions on the E.T. license and allotting only 6 weeks to create the game (it was done in 5).  Atari literally thought they can put ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- in a cartridge and sell a million. 

Every video game needs a storyline, according to them.

Most games do.   Sure, it might not play out in cinematics or anything, but there's usually some backstory  For example: Arkanoid concocted some space drama as an excuse to play breakout.  I think people always need to know why they're doing something.  Just blindly shooting little sprites without any motive just isn't as fun and feels more like work. 

[Xiaou2]

 Dave, he was referring to the ARCADE game crash.   NOT the consoles.


 Singapura,

   In many ways, there never really was a crashed.   Over here, there were
several monstrous arcades which were always busy through the supposed
crash period.

  The more accurate concept may have been that the games were too good.
In that people preferred to play them to something new.   That Op's didnt feel the
need to replace them with more expensive new equipment.

  The Video game revolution started out with a massive uproar because it was
something completely new.   However, after a time, people more than likely spent
less money in the arcades than the initial first few years.    Since the industry
kept producing games at numbers that they thought would stay ridiculously high...
they almost went bankrupt when the ops didnt order as much when business
leveled from 'new fad addict'  to  'average playtime'.

 It had nothing to do with storyline.    That was one of the stupidest comments
made.   Heck, the whole premise of that so called documentary was a mess.
Lies, half truths, misunderstandings....etc.

 I can tell you this for sure...   Robotron has very little of a storyline... yet,
it still kicks the pants off of the modern games with 10+ hrs  storylines/playtimes.

 Marble Madness has No storyline, and yet has been released several times
on multiple console systems, various pc's, and even has inspired remakes.

 Truly, the people behind the doc know very little about games.

 Just about the only good thing about that doc was seeing the old B/W military
hardware playing the  pong game.

 
 Btw - They barely touched (did they mention them at all?)   Pinball crazy,  and the  Electromechanical games:  such as EM Rifle games.  Peep shows.  Games of skill...etc.    These were around in masses for some time before the CRT games... and were really the beginning history that served as the foundation for the video game industry to come.
 

[DaveMMR]

 Dave, he was referring to the ARCADE game crash.   NOT the consoles.

My bad if that's the case.  But I responded to:

I find it hard to agree with their view that videogaming in the 70's and early 80's wasn't mature or held a lot of interest and that's why the industry collapsed.

which could have been referencing the catalysts of the Crash of 83 (in North America) as well as the sharp decline arcades felt shortly thereafter and the early 90's (though it never really crashed - that is, a sudden and immediate disinterest).

[Jdurg]

The arcades themselves crashed when home consoles kept getting better and better.  I remember in the 80's and early 90's how the graphics, sound, and overall experience in an arcade was leaps and bounds above what you could get on your home consoles.  If you wanted to see the big sprites, great sounds and incredible graphics, you had to go to an arcade.  Once the Playstation came out, however, there was no longer much (if any) difference.  Now, you could get the intense storylines and play in ADDITION to the graphics and sounds right there in your own home.  There was no "need" to go to an arcade.

So if you want to get down to it, the Playstation is the reason why arcades died.

[DaveMMR]

So if you want to get down to it, the Playstation is the reason why arcades died.

It actually goes back a little earlier.   The difference between arcade and home were "light years" apart in the early 80's (we're not just talking graphically, but game play too - even the NES version of Donkey Kong is missing the factory).  However, what the home consoles lacked in graphics during the late 80's it made up for in quantity.   The expansive adventures in Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros., Metroid, etc. in the comfort of the family room didn't make trekking out to a shady arcade to play quick games seem appealing by comparison.

Luckily for arcades, SFII (and shortly thereafter, Mortal Kombat), gave a quick jolt to the struggling arcades.   But the 16-bit systems came pretty damn close to replicating them at home (graphics and gameplay).   

By the time the Playstation and N64 rolled around, the home systems were actually looking better than the arcade counterpoints.  That's when the arcades changed directions to wacky, complex contraptions instead of games.

[Singapura]

The way I see it you can't really compare arcade games and computer/console games. Most arcade games are designed to make money by giving people a quick challenge. PC games don't need a fast return on investment so they are better suited for long term "story telling" type games. It's like comparing apples and pears. The way the documentary portrayed it was that arcade games are all over now and only games like Oblivion, WoW and the like have a right to exist.  The kids I see in the arcade today aren't interested in stories (they get that from WoW in the internet cafe next door) but want a fast round of Tekken or Guitar Hero. Schmups are very much alive here to with every arcade having a row of candy cabs with Raiden or Neo Geo multi boards. All the classics have disappeared though, not one Pacman, Galaga or Tempest left in the whole country. One funny thing I saw in epsode 4 was a feature on selling gear from MMORPG's on eBay. The example pages they showed only had (classic) cabs on them. Never seen those in WoW!