I thought about trying to be a contrarian to Mr. Loguidice just for the sake of friendly debate, but I find it hard to find fault with his arguments. During his designated "Golden Age," coin-op, console, and home computer games were new, exciting, and pretty much ubiquitous in the West (particularly in America). All three videogame industries were pumping out exciting games, and the arcades were buzzing!
"t. Ryan Arnold" made a very interesting point about Bill's perspective of "the Golden Era" being perhaps skewed towards his Western experience. I really don't know how Japanese gamers would view this argument either way; would they agree that the golden age could be defined by a similar time period, or would they see it differently? I understand that the coin-op scene in Japan is still going relatively strong, as opposed to the West (particularly America), where it has all but died out. And what about the perspective of the videogame revolution as it was experienced in other parts of the world? Perhaps what we are experiencing now is their "golden age?"
However, Japan is a singular country, but what happened in the West (again, particularly America) had world-wide consequences on the industry as a whole. There are apparently countries where 8/16-bit computing is still going strong, but it isn't a world-wide trend. On this particular argument, perhaps Bill's argument is on solid ground. On the other hand, it would be foolish to argue that Japan has had little influence in gaming culture across the pond. But even on this point, Japan's success in the videogame era was largely tied to the West. I declare "toss up." :-)
I am not sure I agree with Bill that "the Great Videogame Crash" particularly ended the "Golden Age." The "Crash" may have redefined the era, but experimentation and advancement revived and continued into the 16-bit era in all three videogame industries (coin-op, console, and arcade). From the NES, Genesis/Mega Drive, SNES, Lynx, Gameboy, Amiga, PC, MSX, BBC/Acorn, etc. on the computer/console front, as well as Arkanoid, Street Fighter II, etc. on the arcade front, there was still advancement, experimentation, and excitement in all three sides of the gaming industry. Perhaps the "crash" was just a minor speed bump in an overall era. Although I have no offhand knowledge, perhaps Hollywood had similar "speed bumps" in its recognized "Golden Age" also.
It seems to me that the "era" died when the arcade side died. Coin-ops were always more technologically advanced than their home counterparts, and they largely influenced, or even lead, the home gaming fronts, with arcade advancements trickling down to the home front. But you really can't make that argument anymore. "Community gaming" in the arcades is largely gone, instead moving almost entirely to the home front. Without "high scores," the videogame scene seems to have changed dramatically with the loss of the arcade side of the equation.
I guess I'm arguing that the "Golden Era" is largely tied to the rise and fall of "arcade gaming." When the arcades died, the videogame industry/culture changed dramatically.
Matt, you make some interesting points also. However, you backed your arguments by using many "classic works" to make your points. Citizen Kane (cinema), Thomas Edison (invention), and Shakespeare (literature) are no doubt "classics" of their time, but they are singular achievements/people, and not necessarily the sole definition of an "era." In fact, these references are so notable that they stand APART from their "ages." Citizen Kane was certainly a singular classic, but it was merely a part of Hollywood's "Golden Age." Edison's achievements were part of the "industrialization" era, and Shakespeare's works were part of the "Victorian" Era. But their "classic" status seems not so much tied to their "eras," but to their notable achievements apart from their eras.
We all recognize "Star Wars" and "The Godfather" as cinema classics, but they are certainly not products that are considered part of Hollywood's "Golden Age." And we don't talk about the "Shakespeare" or "Edison" era, even though their contributions to their fields has achieved legendary "classic" status.
Similarly, videogames like "Pac Man," "Tetris," and "Doom" will all probably be considered "classics" that stand apart from their eras, noted singularly as "genius" like Edison and Shakespeare in future generations! I'm hoping so, anyway; if games such as this don't get recognized by future generations, then what games will? Will the beginnings of videogaming be considered trash by future generations?
I thought about trying to be a contrarian to Mr. Loguidice just for the sake of friendly debate, but I find it hard to find fault with his arguments. During his designated "Golden Age," coin-op, console, and home computer games were new, exciting, and pretty much ubiquitous in the West (particularly in America). All three videogame industries were pumping out exciting games, and the arcades were buzzing!
"t. Ryan Arnold" made a very interesting point about Bill's perspective of "the Golden Era" being perhaps skewed towards his Western experience. I really don't know how Japanese gamers would view this argument either way; would they agree that the golden age could be defined by a similar time period, or would they see it differently? I understand that the coin-op scene in Japan is still going relatively strong, as opposed to the West (particularly America), where it has all but died out. And what about the perspective of the videogame revolution as it was experienced in other parts of the world? Perhaps what we are experiencing now is their "golden age?"
However, Japan is a singular country, but what happened in the West (again, particularly America) had world-wide consequences on the industry as a whole. There are apparently countries where 8/16-bit computing is still going strong, but it isn't a world-wide trend. On this particular argument, perhaps Bill's argument is on solid ground. On the other hand, it would be foolish to argue that Japan has had little influence in gaming culture across the pond. But even on this point, Japan's success in the videogame era was largely tied to the West. I declare "toss up." :-)
I am not sure I agree with Bill that "the Great Videogame Crash" particularly ended the "Golden Age." The "Crash" may have redefined the era, but experimentation and advancement revived and continued into the 16-bit era in all three videogame industries (coin-op, console, and arcade). From the NES, Genesis/Mega Drive, SNES, Lynx, Gameboy, Amiga, PC, MSX, BBC/Acorn, etc. on the computer/console front, as well as Arkanoid, Street Fighter II, etc. on the arcade front, there was still advancement, experimentation, and excitement in all three sides of the gaming industry. Perhaps the "crash" was just a minor speed bump in an overall era. Although I have no offhand knowledge, perhaps Hollywood had similar "speed bumps" in its recognized "Golden Age" also.
It seems to me that the "era" died when the arcade side died. Coin-ops were always more technologically advanced than their home counterparts, and they largely influenced, or even lead, the home gaming fronts, with arcade advancements trickling down to the home front. But you really can't make that argument anymore. "Community gaming" in the arcades is largely gone, instead moving almost entirely to the home front. Without "high scores," the videogame scene seems to have changed dramatically with the loss of the arcade side of the equation.
I guess I'm arguing that the "Golden Era" is largely tied to the rise and fall of "arcade gaming." When the arcades died, the videogame industry/culture changed dramatically.
Matt, you make some interesting points also. However, you backed your arguments by using many "classic works" to make your points. Citizen Kane (cinema), Thomas Edison (invention), and Shakespeare (literature) are no doubt "classics" of their time, but they are singular achievements/people, and not necessarily the sole definition of an "era." In fact, these references are so notable that they stand APART from their "ages." Citizen Kane was certainly a singular classic, but it was merely a part of Hollywood's "Golden Age." Edison's achievements were part of the "industrialization" era, and Shakespeare's works were part of the "Victorian" Era. But their "classic" status seems not so much tied to their "eras," but to their notable achievements apart from their eras.
We all recognize "Star Wars" and "The Godfather" as cinema classics, but they are certainly not products that are considered part of Hollywood's "Golden Age." And we don't talk about the "Shakespeare" or "Edison" era, even though their contributions to their fields has achieved legendary "classic" status.
Similarly, videogames like "Pac Man," "Tetris," and "Doom" will all probably be considered "classics" that stand apart from their eras, noted singularly as "genius" like Edison and Shakespeare in future generations! I'm hoping so, anyway; if games such as this don't get recognized by future generations, then what games will? Will the beginnings of videogaming be considered trash by future generations?
qoj hpmoj o+ 6uo73q 3Jv 3svq jnoh 77V