In another article, I touched on the idea of how we determine if something is fun. I want to expand on those thoughts here.
Early games were severely limited in what the technology was capable of, so gameplay was shaped by what could and could not be done. Games like Pong, Atari (2600), and text adventures made clever use of what was available, and simple, or non-existent graphics were standard fare. But limitations are famously fuel for inventiveness, and good design. Working within the constraints of the time meant game creators had to rely heavily on longstanding principles of what makes for good gameplay. They worked to craft experiences that combined rules (game mechanics) with a measure of novelty, while mixing in challenge. They distilled ideas about what kinds of activities were fun, and found ways to infuse that essence into what they were creating.
In the early days, it was amazing to be able to play anything on your TV, but much of the time, the tech lagged behind what was available at the arcade. This meant the wow factor had to come from the play, since the raw graphics were already not best-of-the-best. Engagement had to be created via well-crafted game designs. Of course, there were plenty of things that weren’t very good (especially in the Atari cartridge market “gold rush”), but there are many that so captured this essence of good design that they still shine today.
Steve Jobs (of Apple fame) worked on the early arcade game Breakout, and noted that the kinesthetic sense (one’s sense of body movement and position) was key to Breakout’s enjoyable gameplay. Spinning the control wheel back and forth in order to slide one’s paddle into place and knock the ball back up-screen to crash into more bricks has a unique “feel” to it. This feel is a combination of body and onscreen movements. Add in the quickness and coordination required to keep the ball in play, plus the reward of seeing bricks chipped away, and you get a simple game that is surprisingly satisfying today, some 40+ years later.
Fundamentally, game graphics are an interface - the way the game represents what is happening, and the actions we are taking in response. Early interfaces were limited by technological capabilities, and were much more primitive than what can be created today. Perched as we are at a point in history where technology allows us to create stunningly believable simulations of reality and fantasy, it’s easy to be blinded by all the visual spectacle, but to understand real fun, we have to press past that, into what really makes a game enjoyable.
Gameplay design involves the mechanics of how the game is played (like Breakout’s paddle only being movable in a left/right direction), and what the objectives are (bricks are knocked out when hit) as well as the complications that create the challenge (the changing speed and direction of the ball under different conditions). When the game’s interface and gameplay are well matched, they complement each other to create a fun experience. Resolution, rendering speed, and all the trappings of simulation are not necessary for a fun game. Whether you are whipping a Breakout paddle around the screen, to keep that ball knocking out bricks, or you are jumping Mario around between platforms, the fact that the interface isn’t presenting high definition realism does not keep the game from being fun. These types of games don’t need realism, and in fact, would likely be less enjoyable if they had it. Their stylized (artfully simplified) approach provides the optimal match of play and interface.
To be perfectly clear - good gameplay design transcends technology. I’m making the point that it’s not exclusive to any level of technological capability. But since my point here is to demonstrate that retro games shouldn’t be dismissed as mere nostalgia, my focus is on how good gameplay creates engaging experiences in older games.
As you play more retro games, one thing you’ll see is that the more recent headlong run into believable simulation has narrowed the focus of popular console gaming in key ways. You see a lot of a specific type of gameplay which is rooted in three-dimensional representations of realistic spaces where your character runs around in a first-person, or over-the-shoulder third-person perspective, and engages in some kind of combat.
This wildly popular game style, that I will call “realistic combat simulation” had its popular breakthrough moment in 1992, with id Software’s Wolfenstein 3D. This was a 3D reboot on a solid 2D game - Muse Software’s 1981 Castle Wolfenstein. id’s follow ups with Doom (and its sequels) and Quake (and its sequels) cemented the style, and loads of imitators showed up to feed the interest.
One interesting connection to this is that the popularity of 3D rendered combat games (shooters, sword fighting, etc, etc) was a beautiful fit for console and computer hardware makers, who could sell ever-more-powerful hardware to handle the higher polygon counts, resolutions, and frame rates. This created something of a feedback loop in which publishers could sell ever more sophisticated games, hardware makers could sell newer, more powerful platforms, and gamers could throw themselves into ever more sophisticated simulations. Advances have continued in believable image simulation, physics, and sound, along with armies of artists creating them. Impressive as these feats are (and they are!), they have created a kind of hypnosis that has a lot of game makers and players chasing a game style which pushes along in this one direction. Nowadays, when someone says they are a “gamer,” the connotation is often that they are involved in some variant of this kind of gameplay: the immersive, realistic, combat simulation of one sort or another.
In doing my research on this, I found that a number of gamers out there are seeing the same thing. They expressed frustration at how many modern games make simulationism a top priority, and sometimes let other game design aspects go slack. To be sure: within the console realm, there are other types of games being played, but this world of realistic combat simulation represents a large, characteristic segment of the contemporary console experience.
I want to call attention to the fact that the popularity of retro gaming raises important questions about the common experiences many are busy flocking to. The questions say “Hey - we’ve left some important qualities of the gaming experience behind.” They call us to broaden our tastes, and they clarify that retro gaming is not at its core, a nostalgia trip.
They call us to wake up from the cultural hypnosis, and discover that the most forward-thinking move can be backward, to retrieve something you left behind.
Let’s run through 5 major points where retro games shine.
retrogamestart.com
https://retrogamestart.com/answers/why-retro-video-gaming-so-popular-its-much-more-than-nostalgia
