The next generation

I was born in the twilight of the golden era of videogames. Unlike older "Generation-X-ers" who witnessed the dawn of videogames, I came along just in time for the second generation of home consoles to fade into obsolescence. I really consider myself lucky in this aspect because, seriously, man, text-based and monochrome games are only fun if you are emotionally attached to them. My memories of the Atari 2600 are really blurred as I was just a baby (it was probably my cousins or maybe even uncles playing). I first owned one of these when I found it left behind in my grandfather's house after his death (which supports my uncles/cousins theory). I find its beeps and bloops as soothing as the metallic ping of a wind-up mobile over a baby's crib.

Awareness gained, the different stages of my life can be practically defined in bits. I was an 8-bit (third generation) kid, a 16-bit (4th) preteen, and a 32/64-bit (5th) angsty teen. I reached adulthood right on time for the sixth generation (where bits no longer mattered). Now, if we're currently living on the era known as the seventh generation (of video game consoles), what comes after adulthood? I guess its old-age.

If you take a look at recent posts in this blog you may have noticed a trend towards classic or retro games and a shy approach to this next generation of games. Doesn't that sound like the kind of thing an old man would do? And while, sure, I'm dying to try out all those new games that are coming out, on a limited budget (and schedule) I opt for the classics. Probably because in my sub-conscious I think it's a safer bet even though logic dictates more advanced games are bound to be better.

Depending on how you define the next generation, the self-denominated Generation Y known as the Millennials, I might also fit in that category. So chronologically the shared experience is the same. Again, the only difference being the involvement in the first couple of generations of videogame consoles.

By the end of this year the youngest of Generation X will reach the age of thirty (the oldest being at the ripe old age of 50), but considering how fast things moved and how much change we have seen in terms of culture, it makes sense we start developing a crotchety attitude towards culture in general earlier than our parents. And when it comes to videogames, we're a collective bunch of old farts.

Generation Z (also known as "those darned kids", "kids nowadays", and "get off my lawn") was born into a world of 3D gaming. Unlike X and Y, these are the offspring of gamers. Their parents want them to get involved in gaming; their vision on games in entirely different. I don't know many kids that age except my own and those of close friends and relatives.

When I was a kid the constant marketing of new technologies made us believe that once a new console came out our old games were outdated and looked crappy. While I refused to throw away my old consoles I also refused to use them once I acquired a new machine, even if I was bored of the software on it. It was all about the pretty graphics. Later on, with age, came the realization that old games are art, and if anything they should be more respected considering it took more talent to make them look fairly decent.

My kids had figured this out since the beginning. They were used to seeing me play nice-looking games on the PS2 and then switch to emulated SNES games and they never asked me why these other games looked ugly. To this day they don't know the meaning of the word "graphics". They enjoy games for as long as they're fun. I'm really proud of my kids. While other kids may not be as awesome as mine, and might have grown a bit spoiled by parents who don't really appreciate retro games (namely younger GEN Y) I suspect they would be a minority. Whenever I see a child playing with a handheld system, 90% of the time it will be a Nintendo DS, 50% of which are actually using the GBA port.

So, why do guys my age hate classic remakes?

Take your dad (or grandpa) to one of those "tribute" shows for their favorite band/artist. Chances are he'll sing along and tap his feet (even dance) all the way through, with a big smile on his face. Ask him if he liked it on the way home and he'll complain about everything they did wrong (worse or better than the original). If you take your son (or younger brother) along, there's a 50% chance he'll enjoy the show, depending entirely on how close the music is to what he normally likes.

Whenever a remake or a sequel for an old franchise comes up, along comes the horde of elderly gamers, swinging their canes and pointing their power-gloved fingers. When you read the reviews on the Internet or in magazines (written, of course, by old gamers) they will bash these games, complaining about how they got it all wrong and how they're repeatedly raping their favorite characters. Then you read the whole thing and eventually they say something along the "well, the game was fun BUT it wasn't what I wanted" line. The game gets a pathetic score; doomed forever. In the end, it is only judged by how much it's like the classic. Even if the game is more fun, or looks better than the classic. If it's different, they hate it. For example I'm having a blast playing Sonic The Hedgehog 4: Episode 1. Sure, they got some things different, but it really does capture the essence of the classic, and I love that. My kids have never played a Sonic game. They loved it. My wife only played it a couple of times (she's more of a Mario fangirl) and still loved it. She was actually exited when she first played it because of how it felt so much like the original.

I remember hearing a film critic say that Speed 2: Cruise Control would be a better movie if it had just been titled "Cruise Control". I'm not even kidding, guys. The success of a sequel is entirely linked to how close it stays to the original formula. Any changes, for better or worse, will ruin it for those who expected the original to continue right where it left off.

The only way to make it the same is to make it the same. Game developers and publishers must be aware of this (check out Mega Man 9, 10 and Final Fantasy IV: The After Years) but why do they stick to the old Hollywood sequel mentality? Sure, sequels are profitable since people expect more of something they already like, but in this day and age that kind of thinking is obsolete.

Are classic games doomed forever? No. Not for a few more generations, but the developers of these games have to really start re-thinking the entire process; because no matter how close you stay to an original when making a remake or a sequel, it will never be the same. Developers should consider their games as a form of sub-genre. Whenever they want to make another one, they can re-use the aspects that made it successful, but develop a whole new presentation, especially new characters and story.

I think the best example for this mentality is the Final Fantasy Series. Instead of recycling the same story and characters to capitalize on the success of the original, they decided to make an entirely new game that was a lot like it, but at the same time was entirely new. Every iteration of the franchise turned out to be an entirely different game, the good features stuck, the not so good were left behind, but in no way could a player feel disappointed by the latest version. Whether they liked it or not depended solely on the content of the game, but they had a clear idea what it would be like when they got it.

What if Sega had done all those weird Sonic games with another character? I can guarantee you they would be hits, and the characters starring these games could potentially be the marios and sonics of the next generation.