Wasting Time on Gaming Chronology

Abstract Gaming Chronology.

Time moves forward and so does the game industry. New titles get developed just as older ones slowly lose their audience as players move to something different. The history of video games is often viewed through "console generations" since it's just easy to look at it this way... Well, at least I think it is. Kind of. Despite this, you can see how a lot of people on Internet reflect on how old they're because certain game or platform reached a certain anniversary and, in this outburst of nostalgia, they talk about how it's now "retro".

While this is far from being a confusing mess in style of re-releases & remasters, such narratives occasionally bothered me and I found myself thinking about it. It is really a good idea to just keep throwing every game and console into "old" category simply because of their age? What's the right or clear definition of a "retro game"? Where do you put the line between old and new? You know, these abstruse questions that (if anything) just waste your time. I just wanted to write something similar to "The Achievement Parable".

Primordial.

First of all, it's worth acknowledging something rather unfortunate. Many people (including myself) are guilty of not really considering the early era of video games. Some people might at least acknowledge the existence of Pong and first consoles, but for the most part we just don't care what that time period. Moments like this really can make you think about just how story was (or will be) lost forever not as much because of effort that was put into it at the time, but moreso due to this continued lack of engagement from the community.

Obviously, things aren't that bad. Thanks to YouTube, you can follow the search for the first video game ever created and how cartridges came to be. Clearly, you just have to make it interesting. I know that it doesn't have to be a video format. Let's be real though: that's pretty much the only thing most people would pay attention now. You can't expect people to read a book or even check additional documentation from some game compilation in today's day and age. We're dealing with short attention span here. Speaking of which...

Video Game Crash of 1983 is an important point in video game history. While it would've made a lot of sense to use this event as a point when gaming shifted towards more familiar era, for the sake of simplicity and consistency I will stick to the beginning of aforementioned console generations and their time frame. That's just easier to keep track of. Starting from before the creation of Magnavox Odyssey and up to the launch of Nintendo Entertainment System and Sega's SG-1000 console in July 1983. It's important to remember how it all started, evolved and almost ended. Not as an "oh yeah, there was stuff before NES", but its own chapter in video game history.

Much like other "eras" of gaming industry, most of the titles from before the Crash feel very different in comparison to old and new games alike. Even though there were arcade ports of Space Invaders, Pac-Man and Donkey Kong, all the variations of Pong and other releases are generally more abstract and basic. Not that it's a bad thing, obviously. Those were simpler times, and I'm sure player's imagination made up for any potential flaw... Until general audience had enough to low quality products, which sounds like of familiar. You know, maybe we need another Video Game Crash? It's been 30 years, and I'm sure some people would argue that it will only benefit the industry.

Classic.

This is your "good old days". When people talk about old games, that's exactly what they mean. Obviously, it all started with Nintendo taking the lead in gaming industry with the release of Nintendo Entertainment System, and we all know what happened next: Super Mario Bros., Duck Hunt, The Legend of Zelda... You know, some popular and neat games. I'm not going to teach you a history lesson. Countless classics have descended into various homes, mind and hearts all around the world and not all of them were for home console.

Computers were obviously a thing before Nintendo fully entered gaming industry. Games were made for early Atari system and Apple II's. As I've mentioned before, that's mysterious and uncharted territory that I won't even try to comprehend... However, Amiga and Atari ST should be more accessible to my fragile human mind. Can't forget about Microsoft Disk Operating System (MS-DOS), IBM and (again) Apple. That's when we got stuff like Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, Another World, Marathon, The Secret of the Monkey Island, DOOM... This list is limited only by people's memories and preferences.

Handhelds were also gaining more prominence, which is pretty damn nice. Even if you can really talk about Game Boy with its version of Tetris, Super Mario Land and other releases. No offense to Atari Lynx and Sega Game Gear fans. Industry was growing rapidly together with technological progress. More bits, more competition, 3D... All that stuff. While the fifth console generation was definitely an important point in video game history, I think it's only near the end of this period that was marked by the release of... Sega Dreamcast?

Midpoint.

Honestly, sixth generation is kind of weird and that's not just because I was born in 2001. While previously I considered it to be "old/retro", lately my opinion shifted into somewhere in between just as I kept revisiting this topic during my episodes of random reflections. Personal nostalgia definitely has an effect on how you view certain thing and that's no exception. However, you also have to keep in mind that time of original Xbox and PlayStation 2 is when the industry started to take its current form.

Taking first-person shooters as an example, you don't go from Ken's Labyrinth and Quake straight to Halo: Combat Evolved with Call of Duty. There was original Half-Life, which I would still consider a "classic"... probably. There's it is! How would you classify Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell games before Conviction? Double Agent is not really a great example since there're two versions of it for each console generation. Latter titles are definitely modern, but what about that great original trilogy? I'm not so sure, I'm kind of leaning towards modern. They definitely are in comparison to Thief series. There's also the rise of online platforms like original Xbox Live and MMORPG's like World of Warcraft.

In contrast to that, Game Boy Advance is definitely old school. No doubt about that... Yes, I spend a major part of my childhood playing Donkey Kong Country port and Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 on my Game Boy Advance SP. I might be biased, but that's just the fact. Yup. Not simply because a lot of the best titles on that handheld are ports of Nintendo Entertainment System & Super Nintendo classics. Even something new like Mario vs. Donkey Kong or stuff like The Lord of Rings: The Two Towers, aforementioned Splinter Cell and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance (all of which are different than what games for home consoles had to offer) seem charmingly old school. So it was a gradual transition from old to new. That's why I think six generation is like this intermission of sorts.

Modern.

Naturally, the rise of Xbox 360 and other consoles of seven generation marked the beginning of current modern gaming industry. With online services and downloadable content (DLC) becoming more common across the board (not just consoles, but also PC and portables), the landscape took familiar shape. That's when all currently popular tropes and types of releases started to emerge. And all of that got more profound as time went on with subsequent console generations. That's also when mobile gaming took its current form as Android & iOS entered the market and replaced your typical phones.

However, not everyone liked this new directions from developers and publishers. In fact, many still aren't. As the amount of newer releases grew, so did the demand for good old days. Xbox Live Arcade and WiiWare housed a lot of re-releases of classics (maybe PlayStation Network did do, I have no idea). I think it's fair to say that this was the first step towards all the retro titles that came afterwards... You can do a proper research and I'm that both process and results would be very entertaining, but I'm currently not serious enough to go for something like that here and now.

You might be wondering "what about indies, Ilko?" Well, here's the thing.... Independent games and companies were a thing since pretty much the early days of video games. Even before well-known indie companies entered the stage. After all, big gaming studios haven't appeared out of thin air: many of them started small and grew as time went on. Indie gaming had a major resurgence during seven console generation. You can't deny that. However, there were many independent hits before Bastion, Rogue Legacy, Minecraft, etc. And there will be more in the future, alongside AA & AAA releases.

Conclusion.

With that, I wasted not just my time, but also yours... Actually you did this to yourself by opening and reading this silly "articles", so I'm probably going overboard with the self-blame. You usually expect some kind of "final thought" at the end of such texts, but my head is empty. Totally nothing... It all started with me thinking that "hey, using the word 'retro' to describe both older and stylized games alike is actually pretty dumb" and "some main criteria for a 'retro title' are kind of silly". Instead of elaborating on that, I went of this chronology nonsense. I would lie if I say this wasn't intentional, but I digress.

There's pretty logical explanation for it though. At the end of a day, all of this can really boil down to your own perspective. This is lame as hell, but that's the truth. It's also just hard for me personally to really describe this type of thing. Like, you can "feel" when the game is retro. It's not defined solely by an engine, visual style, gameplay and so forth. It's a result of multiple components, including game's overall presentation to the public, that makes it a certain way. Not it being made on GZDoom or making use of pixel art, for example. At least that seems reasonable to me (even though I define remasters pretty much solely by updated visuals; what a hypocrite).

I think it definitely won't hurt to have a clearer terminology on that front instead of going the same direction as re-releases, remasters and remakes. That part of industry is probably going to be forever shrouded in thick mist of intentionally unclear points because that's profitable to gaming companies... Let's be real though, at the end it's just me taking a role of an angry old man who wastes his time shaking his fist at dumb video game thing.