How DVD killed the video game

It's true. Playstation, and the subsequent marketing of large cinemactic experiences in video games have killed the genre. I will explain this as best I can later.

I'm a 26 year old man, who still enjoys playing video games. However, much like my music habits, I don't like repeating the same thing over and over. I like to experience new stuff and ideas. Most importantly, I like to be challenged.

I don't' play video games excessively, I don't think. I don't' have a huge collection either. I just happen to enjoy a good video game like I enjoy good wine: when I can get it.

I enjoy a good story. Whether it be by book, film, storytelling, conceptual music, art, plays you name it, if it tells a good story, I could probably enjoy it. I think most people are the same way. Not everyone may like a very in depth intellectual piece, but most people do enjoy, say, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or The Catcher in the Rye which are at their just good stories, with good (and bad) characters, told in a unique way. All have more in depth stuff going on, but anyone can appreciate them.

What this means is I can go to the theatre, and even if it's not such a good movie, I can still at least enjoy my self. But, if the movie is merely an excuse for someone to show off his or her awesome CGI skills, I probably could care less and more then likely be bored through out it. Like American Pie was funny and was enjoying to watch, the sequel was also funny but it was horrible and boring.

I also enjoy an intellectual challenge coupled with some kind of other problem independent of my own thought. This might mean it's a physical, natural, other person / opponent, or something like that. I like my brain to feel stimulated. I enjoy the process of thinking and rationalizing out what seems to be a very complex problem. Games like chess, downhill skiing, hunting, sailing, and other such things have always been appealing to me.

This means I don't like games of chance much. I also don't' like games where physicalness is overpowering (weightlifting for example) and on the same notion I tend to not like games that are purely mental (crosswords, word jumble etc).

Some time around 1995 Sony came out with its Playstation. This was formatted on what is a normal CD but this gave the game developers a lot more memory to deal with. They began to add long, and in depth cinemactic sequences. However, this is vey costly. In fact, I would say it is probably more costly to produce a few 30 second cinemactic scenes then the entire game itself.

Also around this time they learned that if they fill a game with these scenes they can shorten the real life game time you are actually playing the game. When Atari began, most of their games were unbeatable. Pac man, space invaders, and a few others were simply lines of code that got X faster / harder / more of it every level. Your character did not gain, the game around you gained. This meant that people played one or two games for a very long time. Sometimes months or even years, but casually.

Nintendo and Sega came on the scene and changed this with games like Final Fantasy where your character level upped and you saw tangible results with real (virtual) goals. This meant when the game was beat, it was done. Much like watching a movie. How many times can you watch the same movie? However, these games took several days at best, if not weeks, and in most peoples case months to beat.

The problem comes down to one of capitalism VS intelectualism of course. As more memory, faster game play, more graphics became more important the story line diminished. However, there were still games coming out for the Playstation which were ok games. FF VII isn't that bad, and neither is XX VIII though some people really dislike them for gameplay reasons.

Along comes PS2 on the scene around the year 2000. This gave video game marketers to use DVD technology and already existing programs to program cinemactic sequences cheaper. Games became more limited in their scope and most are now beatable in a single afternoon with a few notable excepions like FF X-2. Games which cost 50 - 70 dollars a pop are now effectively dead in one afternoon. The utility of one dollar of video games has been greatly diminished.

More importantly then the above, games are increasingly less complex, sometimes with in game tutorials that seem to last an entire game. Games are more linear with set paths for you to follow in genre's which were never linear prior. And most importantly, games are more becoming an interactive cinemactic experience rather then an intellectual challenge.

I have long ago given up on console games. I do have a PS2 and I think two games. I like FF X-2 because of it's challenge but most of the others aren't so good. I now mostly play computer based video games on my PC. But, even in this genre where dorkdom should reign supreme it too is beginning to feel the mighty maw of corporate power.

I recently played a game, which I think is out on X-box also, called Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. Easily the single best RPG I've played. The game was simply amazing and the story it managed to tell was extremely in depth. In other words, I didn't feel like I was being force fed brain fodder, but rather enjoying the experience. This is the same company which made Baldur's Gate 2 which is another good game that I have always enjoyed.

Another saving grace for the computer game industry is the Total War line. The programmers actually sat down and read Sun Tzu's Art of War and coded it using such. Medieval Total War is an extremely difficult game that I really enjoyed. The History Channel uses the Total War engine for battle reenactment now. That is how accurate it is. No being force fed here baby. You suck? You lose.

But, those are the only two good games so far in all of 2004 (and both are in fact not 2004 titles). I doubt I will see another good title until sometime 2005.