I use terms like "Golden Age" for fun and convenience, but really I don't think we have enough perspective to define it in any historical sense. Who's to say what games will be considered important a hundred years from now? It's not like many of us care today about the earliest novels or films. Something like Pong or Pac-Man might be considered turning points or just little blips, no more interesting nowadays than Thomas Edison's "The Astor Tramp" or those coin-operated peep shows, or it could be the equivalent of Battleship Potemkin or Modern Times. I'm sure there will always be folks interested in this stuff purely for the technological/technical aspects and history, but not much else.
My guess is that what will tend to stick around the longest are games that are either very simple and unique, such as Tetris, and very deep, very artistically important games (the equivalent of "Citizen Kane," "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," and "The Seven Samurai.") These films are important because they are technically innovative (some might say "ingenious"), but also very watchable and moving (at least to serious film buffs) all these many years later. Of course, as you say, a "Golden Age" tends to evoke the idea of a bunch of major milestones being hit upon in rapid succession. OR, it could just a nostalgic looking back to one's favorites, that mythical "good ol' days." OR, it could be simple prejudices passed along by historians, such as their loathing of the "Dark Ages/Medieval Period" and their admiration of the "Renaissance" and "Enlightenment."
In any case, I think a Golden Age of Videogames would entail a period of intense growth, both technologically and artistically. We'd have to see big, bold strides being made in areas like graphics and interface, but also (and more importantly) wonderful and very compelling art. Only a few developers seem to really be operating at that level today, and I imagine the best are in Japan. You can't deny that the Zelda and Final Fantasy games are some of the most ambitious in terms of both art and artifice (even if I personally don't care for many of them). I remember thinking Half-Life 2 might have potential for greatness, and just possibly some games like Planetfall and Planescape:Torment. Of course, a big problem in all these cases is that they run the risk of there being too great of strides made in technology, so that later generations wouldn't even know how to approach something like P:T. What I'm saying is there might be such a rift there as there is now between a full-length feature film and those 10-15 second peep shows that cost a dime. OR we might be in that early silent film era...Who knows, really? We'll just have to wait and see.
I use terms like "Golden Age" for fun and convenience, but really I don't think we have enough perspective to define it in any historical sense. Who's to say what games will be considered important a hundred years from now? It's not like many of us care today about the earliest novels or films. Something like Pong or Pac-Man might be considered turning points or just little blips, no more interesting nowadays than Thomas Edison's "The Astor Tramp" or those coin-operated peep shows, or it could be the equivalent of Battleship Potemkin or Modern Times. I'm sure there will always be folks interested in this stuff purely for the technological/technical aspects and history, but not much else.
My guess is that what will tend to stick around the longest are games that are either very simple and unique, such as Tetris, and very deep, very artistically important games (the equivalent of "Citizen Kane," "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," and "The Seven Samurai.") These films are important because they are technically innovative (some might say "ingenious"), but also very watchable and moving (at least to serious film buffs) all these many years later. Of course, as you say, a "Golden Age" tends to evoke the idea of a bunch of major milestones being hit upon in rapid succession. OR, it could just a nostalgic looking back to one's favorites, that mythical "good ol' days." OR, it could be simple prejudices passed along by historians, such as their loathing of the "Dark Ages/Medieval Period" and their admiration of the "Renaissance" and "Enlightenment."
In any case, I think a Golden Age of Videogames would entail a period of intense growth, both technologically and artistically. We'd have to see big, bold strides being made in areas like graphics and interface, but also (and more importantly) wonderful and very compelling art. Only a few developers seem to really be operating at that level today, and I imagine the best are in Japan. You can't deny that the Zelda and Final Fantasy games are some of the most ambitious in terms of both art and artifice (even if I personally don't care for many of them). I remember thinking Half-Life 2 might have potential for greatness, and just possibly some games like Planetfall and Planescape:Torment. Of course, a big problem in all these cases is that they run the risk of there being too great of strides made in technology, so that later generations wouldn't even know how to approach something like P:T. What I'm saying is there might be such a rift there as there is now between a full-length feature film and those 10-15 second peep shows that cost a dime. OR we might be in that early silent film era...Who knows, really? We'll just have to wait and see.
Matt Barton, Managing Editor
Location: St. Cloud, Minnesota, USA
Email: matt@armchairarcade.com