Here's the bottom line, though, and something Costikyan's petulant little bitch-fest fails to take into account:
The ratio of crap and/or generic games to good and/or innovative games not only hasn't changed in recent years, it's probably gotten better! Like plenty of other people, Greggy has a very selective and rose colored opinion of how video games and the industry used to be. And he's wrong. The "bottom line" was just as much of a concern to publishers in 1982 and 1992 as it was in 2002. If he actually had as good a grasp on the history of video games as he implies, he'd realize most of the games we look at as high points usually were struggles to get published because the higher ups didn't think they were a good idea at the time. Damn near every great and/or innovative game seems to have a story like that behind it, doesn't it? It's still the same way!
Seriously, go play through all 600+ NES games, or the 600+ Atari 2600 games, or through the Genesis and SNES libraries. There is a ton of generic, derivative crap in every generation. People almost always look back on their formative years of gaming with adoration. "The NES was so great! It had Super Mario and Zelda and Bomberman and River City Ransom and Excitebike and blah blah." It did have great stuff. But do you know how much utter garbage was on that console (or any!) as well? Some people do, but a lot of people don't seem to have a clue. Just thinking about the amount of generic, uninspiring side-scrolling platformers (the FPS of the late 80's) on the NES... ugh. I'm getting the chills.
Now, in this generation I've played great, innovative games like Ico, The Mark of Kri, Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath, Grand Theft Auto (love it or hate it, GTA3 was extremely new and innovative), Pikmin, Wario Ware, Katamari Damacy, Rez, Frequency, Jet Set/Grind Radio, etc. etc. I mean, should we figure this out on paper? "OMG, last generation was 9% more innovative than this one!" The point being, there are new and different/innovative games now surrounded by a lot of generic crud, just like there has been in every generation.
Something else to consider, and to expand on the point I made earlier, I honestly believe your average, middle of the road games today are a hell of a lot more polished and playable than your middle of the road games of any other generation. Again, take an extensive tour through the libraries of older consoles to really understand this point. Quality testing has never been higher. The previous 10 or so years of CD-based gaming had a LOT of glitches in it. Severely flawed and glitched games on the PS1, 3DO, Saturn, Sega CD... remember? Those are pretty much gone now. And while "the average is better than it ever was" isn't exactly the stuff dreams are made of, it is a good thing, certainly. You have a better chance now of picking up some unknown, underhyped title and getting some kicks out of it than you did 10 or 20 years ago, I think.
One last point. Compare video games "mass market" titles with that of movies. I recently played NFS: Underground because I found a cheap copy. I've had NO interest in this title whatsoever. Not into the whole Fast and the Furious, street ricers thing at all. In spite of that, I had fun with the game. Played for about 5 hours total, and while it became very repetitive after a while, like I said, I did have a pretty good time with it at first. Compare this to your average Hollywood mass market offering like Van Helsing or Scooby Doo 2 or Starsky & Hutch or etc. Those are pure drivel and things I would not or have not gotten any enjoyment out of! Our mass market video games are just lovely compared to that level of mindless, generic crap. Just something to keep in mind when all the sky is falling talk comes around again.
It's such a prevalent attitude Costyikan has - when there's something bugging you, instead of spending the time to take a thorough, even-handed look at it, just burn everything down around you with a loudmouthed rant instead. Same mentality of an 8-year old crying for a toy. "Everything is not exactly to my liking, so YOU must be the problem!"
The ratio of crap and/or generic games to good and/or innovative games not only hasn't changed in recent years, it's probably gotten better! Like plenty of other people, Greggy has a very selective and rose colored opinion of how video games and the industry used to be. And he's wrong. The "bottom line" was just as much of a concern to publishers in 1982 and 1992 as it was in 2002. If he actually had as good a grasp on the history of video games as he implies, he'd realize most of the games we look at as high points usually were struggles to get published because the higher ups didn't think they were a good idea at the time. Damn near every great and/or innovative game seems to have a story like that behind it, doesn't it? It's still the same way!
Seriously, go play through all 600+ NES games, or the 600+ Atari 2600 games, or through the Genesis and SNES libraries. There is a ton of generic, derivative crap in every generation. People almost always look back on their formative years of gaming with adoration. "The NES was so great! It had Super Mario and Zelda and Bomberman and River City Ransom and Excitebike and blah blah." It did have great stuff. But do you know how much utter garbage was on that console (or any!) as well? Some people do, but a lot of people don't seem to have a clue. Just thinking about the amount of generic, uninspiring side-scrolling platformers (the FPS of the late 80's) on the NES... ugh. I'm getting the chills.
Now, in this generation I've played great, innovative games like Ico, The Mark of Kri, Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath, Grand Theft Auto (love it or hate it, GTA3 was extremely new and innovative), Pikmin, Wario Ware, Katamari Damacy, Rez, Frequency, Jet Set/Grind Radio, etc. etc. I mean, should we figure this out on paper? "OMG, last generation was 9% more innovative than this one!" The point being, there are new and different/innovative games now surrounded by a lot of generic crud, just like there has been in every generation.
Something else to consider, and to expand on the point I made earlier, I honestly believe your average, middle of the road games today are a hell of a lot more polished and playable than your middle of the road games of any other generation. Again, take an extensive tour through the libraries of older consoles to really understand this point. Quality testing has never been higher. The previous 10 or so years of CD-based gaming had a LOT of glitches in it. Severely flawed and glitched games on the PS1, 3DO, Saturn, Sega CD... remember? Those are pretty much gone now. And while "the average is better than it ever was" isn't exactly the stuff dreams are made of, it is a good thing, certainly. You have a better chance now of picking up some unknown, underhyped title and getting some kicks out of it than you did 10 or 20 years ago, I think.
One last point. Compare video games "mass market" titles with that of movies. I recently played NFS: Underground because I found a cheap copy. I've had NO interest in this title whatsoever. Not into the whole Fast and the Furious, street ricers thing at all. In spite of that, I had fun with the game. Played for about 5 hours total, and while it became very repetitive after a while, like I said, I did have a pretty good time with it at first. Compare this to your average Hollywood mass market offering like Van Helsing or Scooby Doo 2 or Starsky & Hutch or etc. Those are pure drivel and things I would not or have not gotten any enjoyment out of! Our mass market video games are just lovely compared to that level of mindless, generic crap. Just something to keep in mind when all the sky is falling talk comes around again.
It's such a prevalent attitude Costyikan has - when there's something bugging you, instead of spending the time to take a thorough, even-handed look at it, just burn everything down around you with a loudmouthed rant instead. Same mentality of an 8-year old crying for a toy. "Everything is not exactly to my liking, so YOU must be the problem!"
