Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Discovery Channel's Games Documentary Impresses

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the not-the-usual-pablum dept.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun notes the kickoff of a new Discovery channel series called Rise of the Videogame. Blogger John Walker discusses the show, which just began last week, with an eye towards its research rigor and friendliness to the subject matter. He comes away fairly impressed, both by the topics covered and the casting. Along with games industry luminaries like Nolan Bushnell and Al Alcorn, they chat with folks like Steve Russell (of Spacewar! fame) and Smartbomb author Heather Chaplin. "A little visually overwrought with its montage footage of real-world conflict, it's otherwise a solid, informative and supremely well 'cast' documentary. If you've read around the subject, it won't tell you anything new. But it's fantastic to hear the stories from the people themselves. Episode 2 is very sensibly about the rise of Mario, next Wednesday."

15 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. Torrent of episode 1 available by bconway · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since it looks like Discovery isn't replaying the previous episodes imminently (judging by their site's listings), a torrent of the first episode in good quality is available here.

    --
    Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
  2. My humble 2 cents... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been watching these documentaries since weeks ago... (note that I live in Mexico).

    They're fabulous. I watch them and fondly remember the old times. I specially liked the chapter about hobbyists who made games for the Commodore 64, and I remember the Compute! and RUN magazines.

    Those discovery documentaries are an eye-opener which shows you the social causes and effects of videogames (generational breachs, the influence of the WWII and the Cold war in the first videogames).

    What can I say? I liked them all. From the first hobbyists and pong, to the walks of Miyamoto in the japanese forests reflected in Zelda and Mario, to the rise of FPS and games with protagonists.

    I really recommend that show to everyone.

    1. Re:My humble 2 cents... by nschubach · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, damn them video games and their video capability... Why don't people just go back to good old fashioned board games. Who needs fancy graphics!?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:My humble 2 cents... by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem the parent eludes to is that many developers think graphics are more important than the game. Graphics are nice, but if the game sucks, a polished turd is still a turd. I'd rather play a great game with decent graphics than a mediocre game that awes me with shiny for the 30 minutes I play until I decide that it sucks.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    3. Re:My humble 2 cents... by king-manic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good times when the hardware was limited and the focus was in the game itself, not only in the graphics as we see in lots of games nowadays. I find the trend towards minimalist nostalgia a bit too rampant on games.slashdot. The old games were sometimes fun but were more frequently exercises in repetitive game play. Pac man was interesting for it's time but boring as all hell now. Super Mario brothers was fun for it's time but highly repetitive. Back then the focus was on making a buck and you've neatly forgotten the 80% of the games in the bad old days that were just pure unadultered dreck. These days it's still 80% dreck but the EA factory produced dreck still has better basic playability then some of the gems of yore. It's sort of like music, so many older people remember fondly how great music was back in 1960 and gee how bad and crappy music is now. But really there was dreck and one hit pop wonders back int he 60's too and it was also 80% dreck. You've just forgotten all the dreck, summed up a decades worth of music in 40 good songs and compared it to whats on the top 40 now which represents only the preceding month. Similarly the "gameplay" folk take all the games they liked in their youth (10-20 years) and compared it to the last month of releases. No wonder it compares poorly, because you are comparing all the gems from 10-20 years to whats just got released and your nostalgic memory taints the whole endevour.

      Go back and play galaga then play another shooter like Raiden 3, play X-men:the arcade game and compare it to X-men legends II, play Hogans Alley and compare it to Time crisis 4, play pitfall and compare it to Ratchet and Clank future:TOD, or play donkey kong and compare it to Mario Galaxy.

      You'll find the "Good times" weren't so great and we are likely in the midst of a gaming renaissances but you're too caught up in nostalgia to notice.
      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    4. Re:My humble 2 cents... by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's sort of like music, so many older people remember fondly how great music was back in 1960 and gee how bad and crappy music is now. But really there was dreck and one hit pop wonders back int he 60's too and it was also 80% dreck. You've just forgotten all the dreck, summed up a decades worth of music in 40 good songs and compared it to whats on the top 40 now which represents only the preceding month.

      Wow, what nonsense. While it's true that nostalgia plays a part, it is also true that some decades just create better music than others. Don't believe me? Try comparing the good music produced in the 60s to the good music produced in the 80s. Both are old enough to have the nostlgia effect, but you'll find that there is far more quality music from the 60s than the 80s, and the cream-of-the-crop of the 60s is also of higher quality than the cream-of-the-crop from the 80s. This decade so far is another dry spell all-in-all, even though there is some decent stuff out there.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    5. Re:My humble 2 cents... by king-manic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, what nonsense. While it's true that nostalgia plays a part, it is also true that some decades just create better music than others. Don't believe me? Try comparing the good music produced in the 60s to the good music produced in the 80s. Both are old enough to have the nostlgia effect, but you'll find that there is far more quality music from the 60s than the 80s, and the cream-of-the-crop of the 60s is also of higher quality than the cream-of-the-crop from the 80s. This decade so far is another dry spell all-in-all, even though there is some decent stuff out there. The 80's did have U2, Depeche mode, Good Metallica, Duran Duran, Cyndi Lauper, Blondie, Guns and roses, Prince, good Micheal Jackson, the Beastie Boys, run DMC etc... There was good music as well. Compared to the 60's? It's more a different flavor then any drastic change in quality. People who like depech mode may not enjoy the Jimmy Hendrix, people who like the Doors may not be a fan of Cyndi Lauper but they each wrote some good songs.

      What do you define as quality music? Music that endures? Music with some value? Music that a 50 year old guy at rolling stones magazine says is good?

      What is your definition? Music sales? Cultural influence?
      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    6. Re:My humble 2 cents... by nschubach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My question to you... Why do "Mario-like platformers" fail in today's market then? I mean, if it was so awesome then, why wouldn't a direct clone with more levels/power-ups sell better today if you didn't change the graphics one bit? Even Nintendo improves the graphics and adds more content. If they released Ultra Mega Mario X today with the same graphics as Super Mario World and only added content to the game, it would flop. Or maybe you prefer to look at Asteroids? If you were to release an epic 300 hour game today with line graphic ships and flat 2D asteroids, stations, whatever else you'd add to the game people wouldn't play past the first level before they thought it was absolute crap. Sure, a minor few might look past the graphics, but on a whole, the video game industry relies on that one word. Video. It's 50% of the "Video Game" title.

      I'd argue that Katamari Damacy (one of the few unique games) wouldn't be possible if it weren't for advanced in graphics technology. Sure, it's up to the developer to balance polygons with gameplay, but you simply can't say "the graphics are good enough" and expect the game to sell. Hell, look at DirectX and even OpenGL. Constantly adding new effects and features because that's the presentation layer. That's how people judge the scope and power of a game. Screen shots. If a PS3 game came out tomorrow with PS2 quality graphics, it and it's publisher would be laughed off the stage.

      Frankly, I've gone back and played several of the games I thought were fun and I've come to the conclusion that they were only fun because they were awesome looking for the time. I go back now and have a hard time playing with restricted movement, 4-way direction pads vs. 8-way or analog movement and low res images. Wolfenstein (sp?) and Doom were miraculous games, but playing one level today makes me want to throw them aside and load up anything besides that. I truly think that only thing that made those games fun was that they were unique, graphically. There were plenty of "dungeon" games out but being able to spin around "freely" and with enhanced graphics made the game a whole lot funner, even though you had fewer options for character building and arsenal.

      Really though, there's only so much you can do without making the game a chore to the player. Take Masters of Orion 2 vs Galactic Civilization. I can get my friend to play MOO2 for days, but GalCiv went too extreme and pushed him from the genre saying that it's become to cluttered with too many options only to find out that all those options are pointless because above all, carriers/fighters will win that game easily. The learning curve is there though. You can't quickly get into the game, it's too complex.

      So what do you have?

      A simple game, that's a remake of a classic with better graphics? People complain that the graphics are too prevalent, nothing more was added?

      A complex game that's an extension of an old game with decent graphics? People that prefer a nice simple game will never learn it.

      A totally unique/fun game... good luck finding that one. There's only so many movements and actions you can do before the game becomes a clone of something else or a meshing of two different games making both more complex than they need to be. Face facts here. It's either been done, or it's been redone. The game you want it going to come along once every 5-10 years, and it's not going to take you that long to complete it (figure out the pattern) and it becomes boring. Just like sitcoms, movies, and comedy acts. There are only so many jokes you can tell before it starts getting old.

      I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think you might be expecting too much.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    7. Re:My humble 2 cents... by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the end, good music is just good music. With enough exposure to different styles, an individual can even recognize something they might not like as something good. (People who say stuff like, "That's not the type of music I'm into, but it's cool.")

      Except for being luke-warm on Depechme Mode and Duran Duran I agree with all of your choices as examples of good music. (Loved the Cyndi Lauper reference BTW. She's pretty underrated.) I agree there was some great stuff in the 80s. But the 60s were amazing. At the time you had the double-threat of a counter-culture movement that wanted to explore other cultures and influences while also wanting to say something meaningful. This combination lead to an amount of experimentation and depth that produced some of the best modern music so far. Just because nostalgia skews things doesn't mean we should overcompensate when evaluating what stuff is worthwhile. It's just common sense that by some chance of cultural influences that some eras create better quality things in certain areas than others.

      (Just as an aside, the 80s get more complicated when we look at more out of the mainstream music. Stuff like Sonic Youth, The Pixies and Bauhuas that became the influence for what I consider to be an upswing in musical quality in the early 90s.)

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    8. Re:My humble 2 cents... by king-manic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except for being luke-warm on Depechme Mode and Duran Duran I agree with all of your choices as examples of good music. (Loved the Cyndi Lauper reference BTW. She's pretty underrated.) I agree there was some great stuff in the 80s. But the 60s were amazing. At the time you had the double-threat of a counter-culture movement that wanted to explore other cultures and influences while also wanting to say something meaningful. This combination lead to an amount of experimentation and depth that produced some of the best modern music so far. Just because nostalgia skews things doesn't mean we should overcompensate when evaluating what stuff is worthwhile. It's just common sense that by some chance of cultural influences that some eras create better quality things in certain areas than others. There was also a statistically significant bulge in 15-30 years olds in the 60's which tend to be the most creative. so it may actually be a correlation to the number of 15-30 years olds. the 80's was likely the thinnest time for that while the 90's and 00's hit the echo boom bulge.

      Numerically it's difficult to tell. You need to pick a criteria, then you need to evaluate the all songs. The ones a person remembers is tainted by personal musical tastes and sales as a benchmark is extremely relative But there was good music in even the generally underrated 80's. i personally assert that it's about a 80% rule. 80% dreck to 20% good stuff, in almost every age, for almost any medium.

      In my play list is about 100 songs from 1960's, about 80 from the 70's, about 100 form the 80's, about 200 form the 90's, and about 100 from the 00's. I don't claim the 90's had a drastic increase in song quality but I was a teen in the 90's and that music shaped my musical tastes. I no longer have time to consume music like i did before so it's fewer songs in the 00's.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  3. Museum exhibit on history of video games by revscat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Five years ago or so there was a traveling exhibit that came through Dallas called Videotopia. It showed up at The Science Place (Dallas's science museum) and took up the vast majority of available floor space. It was amazing. Basically it had every video game. (Note the period at the end of the previous sentence; I'm exaggerating only slightly.) They were arranged chronologically, starting with Pong and moving onward to Space Invaders and so forth. This was all in one place and every game was a quarter. It was amazing. They even had a sit-down version of Sinistar, one of my all time faves.

    What excited me greatly was that they had working versions of all the "vector" games: Asteroids, BattleZone, Tempest, Star Wars. It also had all the laser disk games: Dragon's Lair, Space Ace, etc. All the games were in *great* shape.

    Anyway, this is only borderline on-topic, but I wanted to share anyway. I'd be surprised if these guys weren't consulted for the documentary. A brief search shows that the name of the exhibit was Videotopia, but it doesn't look like it's touring anymore, which is really, really too bad.

  4. BREAKING!!! by TheoMurpse · · Score: 4, Funny

    Jack Thompson sues Discovery for portraying video games in a sensible light!

  5. "Video game" is two words, editors by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 2, Informative

    The documentary is called "Rise of the Video Game", not "Rise of the Videogame."

  6. Re:How long... by i7dude · · Score: 2, Informative

    Before the 'main stream' accepts video gaming as here, now and legitimate. I don't see many "Rise of Books" or "Rise of Pro Football" segments.

    I think "Rise of Books" was pretty well covered in "Human History."

    dude.

  7. Yes, a little _too_ overwrought! by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > A little visually overwrought with its montage footage of real-world conflict

    A little? I would say a LOT. There were at times I thought, "aren't they going to talk about video games?" If I had this show recorded, I would have fast forwarded through half of this show.

    As far as the core information was concerned, the show was great. However, the "linkage" video to events at the time was, IMHO, way too emphasized. The show gave me the impression that the producers / director of the show was more enamored with the era than with video games.

    OK, I can see the space race tying into games due to the push for integrated circuits, but at first it seemed like the show was about the space race and not about video games. It got way worse when the show was tying in 60s-70s cultural events (hippies, feminism) to video games. No no no, I'm sorry, but neither I nor my kids watching the show got that at all. From what I remember, it was more of a bunch of geeks just "fooling around with the technology to see what it could do" more than what cultural dynamics was happening at the time (and one of the people interviewed pretty much said the same thing).

    If there are future parts of this show, I hope they have more video game history and less non-relevant cultural crap...