Slashdot Mirror
Attempting To Create A Gaming Canon
David Thomas writes "There's a newly posted list of games every developer should know over at Costik.com, and a similar recent attempt at The Ludologist - both articles concern the idea of a 'canon' of games. Like a literary canon, the idea is there is a list of classic games anyone serious about games should have played, in the same way any serious lit person will have read through the canon of literary works." Gentlemen, look over the lists, and please start your heckling now.
I'm definitely more impressed by the costik list than the Ludologist list. While you're obviously going to open yourself to a great deal of attack, the level to which they've broken games down by type and genre gives more room for exploration of truly 'canonical' titles that don't have to be compared in direct terms when it comes to their inclusion/exclusion.
The look at non-video games is important here too. Who could possibly call themselves a true gamer if they haven't gamed off-screen? Particularly relevant for game designers when it comes to understanding what makes video gaming different to other forms of gaming.
All in all the more people argue about such lists the better! Surely it will all take us closer to a true canon that can be held up in future as a respected list?
... and that's "elitism".
This is just another dick measuring contest. "Oh you haven't played X? You're not a real gamer". Give me a break.
People who go on about literary canons all have one thing in common: they're a bunch of concieted academics all trying to prove they're more important than the next concieted academic because they're a bigger expert than the next guy.
Does anyone really think gaming would benefit from going down the same path?
Play the games you enjoy, and if you're a developer, let your influence flow from your personal favourites, with a healthy dose of inovation.
It's like in music: some artists have been influenced by Dylon, some by the Sex Pistols, some by Nirvana, etc. Different people are going to draw from different sources. Nobody criticises an artist if they can't name the Beatles albums in chronological order, so long as they make good music.
a) in most fields, this is not an option. Would you care to explore for yourself the world of literature? Not totally unguided you wouldn't - there are way too many books and way too many bad books out there to go through without a torch of some sort (teacher, friend with similar interests, website that recommended good books before, etc.).
b) this may not apply to you, but many people actually like being told what to do. They won't come right out and say it, of course, but it seems to stem from a psychological impasse, a bit of being gunshy if you will - people are unsure of the direction they are taking and want some kind of confirmation, a word from "on high" (which manifests itself as imperatives or advice from bosses, teachers, parents, etc) so they have an affirmation that what they are doing is Right and Good and Will Not Fail. Sartre touched on this with his famous quote "man is condemned to be free" - we all want the beauty and liberation of freedom, but we are scared as hell of being solely responsible for our own decisions.
I agree with you that having a literary canon along the lines of "if it's on this list, it's good; if it's not, it's worthless crap" is ridiculous - however, the reason that we are inclined towards establishing a list of works of literature that earned the good housekeeping seal of approval is to save us the time of wading through the bad ones. For what its worth, I find just establishing trusted sources and taking recommendations from them (letting yourself be the final judge, of course) works wonderfully.
I'd say that both of you have a point. On one hand, I'd say that we should value the value of peer review. If a lot of people say that a book is particularly good, then we should likely give it a shot. I still have yet to read (or watch, FWIW) The Count of Monte Cristo, despite a number of recommendations, but I recognize that it's a good idea to do so, and intend to read it.
However, I *also* find it annoying when I see people criticizing literature because it doesn't follow what they consider to be solid writing style. I read an AP article by an English professor about the Harry Potter books (which I also haven't read) about how the books were basically poorly written crap that didn't compare with classical literature, and on how depressing it is that our society now considers *this* good literature. He particularly panned the use of cliches. To me, that seems ridiculous. If most people enjoy a book, then it's doing a good job of being entertaining, at least for a certain target audience. Because of realities of marketing (Stephen King nvels get pushed more these days than Andre Dumas novels), there may be *some* distortion from "the way things would ideally be". However, ultimately, if people are enjoying a work of literature, criticizing that writing is a lost cause. Very few people I know enjoy reading Moby Dick. Perhaps it makes wonderful use of metaphor, and perhaps it has many layers of meaning. Perhaps it even tries to contain a certain degree of insight. However, if it's not enjoyable to read, ultimately the author has failed to do something that I consider an important element of writing. Melville, begone!
Look at the Matrix (yes, film instead of words, but it illustrates my point). My initial reaction to public opinion of the Matrix was to be a bit irritable -- dammit, how *dare* people laud the Matrix for containing the brain-in-a-vat concept? They shouldn't say "wow, it's like we're in the Matrix" -- they should be saying "wow, it's like we're in Descartes' brain-in-a-vat!" But, on a second look, I realized where I'd gone wrong. The Matrix, an infinitely more lowbrow piece of work, had had far more success spreading an important philosophical idea to a large chunk of the population.
May we never see th
Listen, the whole "literary canon" thing was created by a bunch of elitist, tweedy snobs in an attempt to legitimize their superiority. They claim that in order to be a "real" writer of literature, you have to have read a certain number of extremely boring books, and agreed with their snobby, boring interperetation of same. If you have ever suffered through a conversation with one of these people, you know that they basically sit around memorizing their professor's pet literary criticism instead of actually reading and enjoying the books themselves. And, most INTERESTING books are written by people who IGNORE the "canon". Outsiders, in other words, people who aren't involved with literary academia. I find the situation funny: the literary canon crowd write long, boring, self-congradulatory books that only other tweedy types read, while outsiders publish books that are interesting and relevant to the rest of us.
A real gamer doesn't sit around worrying about whether he's played the correct set of games to properly introduce himself to the genre. He's been in the genre since he was a kid. If he's into, say, first person shooters and strategy games, he probably has at least thirty of them in a CD holder somewhere. He understands first person shooters completely. He knows the genre like the back of his hand. He doesn't need some "canon" to help him. Fish already KNOW about water; they don't need swimming lessons.
Having said that, the people who might be interested in this ridiculous "canon" are people who want to be game developers but who DO NOT PLAY GAMES THEMSELVES. They're just like the posers and wannabes that flooded the dot-com boom back in the nineties, people who don't care about the art and who just want to cash in. "Hey, videogames are big now -- let's make some money, how hard could it be?" they say. They think, in some weird freshman lit major way, that "anyone can write about anything as long as they do a little research". So they try for something like this silly canon, thinking that all they have to do to create a great game is study all the games that have made lots of money, and make a new game JUST LIKE THOSE. And, their game tanks in the market because it's just another derivative piece of shit with no new ideas, and every real gamer sees it as such instantly.
I fucking HATE these people. They ruin everything they touch.
If you're not a gamer, don't bother trying to write a game for me. You'll fuck it up, it'll suck, and I'll hate you for it. Look at the wide range of games that suck, and I guarantee that behind every game that sucks is some noob who thought he could just waltz into a cushy game developer position after a weekend of playing DOOM.
I want to play games written by people who genuinely love games themselves, and who have been playing games since they were kids. I don't want to play games written by some corporate stiff who took a bunch of games listed in a "canon" home for the weekend and struggled through a level or two.
You're either a gamer or you're not. And that's all there is to it. It's not something you can fake.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
What about those fun playground games, like:
* Red Rover
* Dodge Ball
* Hide and Seek
* Cowboys and Indians
* Jump rope (great single and multi-player action!)
Not to mention things like Football (both American and the rest of the World), Baseball, Cricket, etc.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
1. Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it.
2. There is nothing new under the sun.
A canon is useful because you can use it as a basis for comparison. "This is Adventure. This is ET. Try to make a game more like the former and less like the latter"
A canon is also useful because it can bring to light old concepts that worked well that have been forgotten due to the corporate crap you rail on about. A good portion of the upcoming generation of gamers has never even heard of M.U.L.E, for example. By having a list and being able to say "Check this out.." we make sure we don't just lose good ideas permanently.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
What is wrong with exploring for yourself?
I'll have to agree. I think that getting out there and playing a variety of games is better than being told what games to play.
As a professional, independent game developer, I find the lists useless. I consider myself a pretty serious gamer and a student of game history, but I barely know half the games there.
One of the biggest issues is that a lot of the older games are mostly lost to time. I played arcade games obsessively as a kid, but I only really got to play some of the classics due to the involvement some of my friends have with emulation. I didn't appreciate a game like Robotron when I was 10, and paying $1k+ (plus shipping!) to get a live machine seems a bit insane. People looking for a legal way to play these classic games are mostly out of luck.
You can say the same thing about older consoles and computers, too. Strict copyright enforcement and the ravages of time have made some classic games very hard to find and play. Finding legal copies of these games is damn near impossible.
Further, the lists focus on big-name games. Ultima is mentioned, but what about the critically acclaimed games produced by Spiderweb Software? Is the Exile series less worthy of attention just because it is "shareware" instead of being published by a large company? Why does Anarchy Online get a mention on the lists when it is widely considered to have the worst launch in history? Why doesn't Meridian 59 get a mention when it is widely considered to be a pioneer in the retail graphical online game market. Especially considering that former developers of M59 went on to work on a lot of other online games, such as UO, UO2, The Sims Online, Shadowbane, etc.
Finally, there's a lot of repeats. Do you really need to play Parappa the Rapper and Dance Dance Revolution in order to appreciate both games? Both games have to deal with music and rhythm with some differences. Yes, those differences result in different games, but even those differences can be found in other games.
I think what would be more interesting would be to pick different vital gaming elements and then provide games that provide a good example of that.
For example, using a computer game-centric list:
Game types
Music and Rhythm games (DDR, Parappa, Samba De Amigo)
First-person shooter (DOOM, Quake)
RPG (Ultima, Might & Magic, Final Fantasy, Exile)
Online RPG (Ultima Online, EverQuest, Meridian 59)
Game art styles
Tile engines (Ultima 1-5, Exile)
Cell-shaded (Parappa, Jet Set/Grind Radio)
2.5D (DOOM, Meridian 59)
3D (Quake, Half-Life)
Notable games
Ultima 4 - introduced morality and consequences for actions in a fantasy RPG.
DOOM - introduced multiplayer games to a wider audience.
I think this would be a much more useful list for distilling what people probably should be noticing about these games. Of course, there are flaws with this as well. The business side of things has obviously influenced things, for example, but which game really introduced which business model?
My opinion,
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog