It's probably never a good sign when someone asks me a question that begins "Do you remember when we were kids...". Like I needed to be reminded that I'm inching ever closer to 30, and my main hobby is still considered something for children. For that matter, as is my secondary hobby. And tertiary hobby. And quaternary hobby. But I digress. Anyhow, the trip down memory lane surrounded the age-old question of gameplay. I was asked to remember, possibly fondly, about a day when it wasn't a big deal that a game only had about a dozen levels, or could be beaten in about two hours. Back then, that's all we really cared about, right? Just getting a few hours of electronic bliss?
So I've been thinking – what was it back then that had me so entertained by going through something like Amagon for about 90 minutes when these days I get disappointed if a game is beaten in under ten hours? What happened to my priorities from my prepubescent days to now, when I have to trim my beard weekly? So I went back over my game collection from the 8-bit era, and thought about then and now.
Well, I can figure out one thing for certain – I was much more easily entertained back then. This isn't as bad as remembering how much I enjoyed He-Man when I was five (seriously, if you watch the Masters Of The Universe cartoon as an adult, you'll swear you were beyond hope back then – that show was awful). But remembering the games I eagerly replayed back then is like ticking off some truly terrible moments. The aforementioned Amagon. King's Knight. Street Cop. Mystery Quest. About the only game which I knew was terrible even back then was Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. To be honest, I was entertained by short games even back then because, well, I just didn't have any standards. Apparently, those were a 16-bit upgrade.
To some extent, another part was the challenge issue, which I've written about before. As a comparison, let's take Battletoads and The Bouncer. Now, should you know what you're doing, it takes about 90 minutes to beat each one (though the former can be beaten quicker if you know all the warps). And before any mouthy person doubts – yes, I beat Battletoads. Just wiggle up and down, staying mostly centered, during the fastest parts of each vehicle stage and you'll survive without a problem. Strategy aside, a gamer with reasonable skill at the game can beat each one in the same amount of time. But as you might guess based on how I had to discuss strategy for Battletoads, that game was much harder. Some of the best gamers I know couldn't beat it. Meanwhile, you could pretty much sleepwalk your way to the final boss of The Bouncer. And a harder game is going to involve you more, because you have to have more skill and focus to beat it. A game that involves you will inevitably feel more satisfying for the same amount of time.
There's also the fact that quite a few classics came our way that were later expanded upon. Sure, recent installments of the Castlevania series have been huge games to tackle. But the original is still tons of fun, and it feels like just as much an accomplishment and joy to beat the original. Could another Castlevania game similar in length and build to the original still be as much fun as, say, Symphony of the Night? Of course – it's just that the series evolved into longer games. That's really because of gamers – we wanted more, and they delivered.
Finally, part of it was that we had little idea of what gaming could end up being. I mean, sure, we had games like The Legend of Zelda back in the beginning. But even that would only take three or four hours once you knew all about it. It wasn't until the first Final Fantasy game came out that I could believe a game could occupy me for a month just to beat it for the first time, even with the skill I had picked up from beating a hundred games beforehand. I bet it's that way with many neophytes getting into video games today – they have no idea at first that they could deal with a racing game as intricate as Gran Turismo when they first start out on Mario Kart. It's not that the games have gotten larger (there are still plenty of shorter games out there). What we've looked for has gotten larger.
Keep in mind that this isn't to say games were better then, or better now, or anything like that. It's merely a reflection on both where the industry has gone and where older gamers have gone in response. I can just imagine this column, in spirit, being written all over again twenty years from now, with today's youngsters writing the same basic idea on whatever will be replacing blogs by then. The games themselves don't change. Only how we look at them changes.
