PROGRESSIVE GAMERS: STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

An Editorial, by Garcian Smith

It all started with a little announcement and the subtle release of a few screenshots. The screenshots showed a little blue android firing bots of energy at very familiar enemies against a highly-pixelated, low-resolution two-dimensional backdrop, full of solid color and light on detail. At once, Internet gaming communities let out a great virtual cheer across blogs and message boards, for Mega Man, it seemed, had returned to his roots.

However, since Capcom's announcement of Mega Man 9 for Xbox Live Arcade, Playstation Network, and WiiWare, more puzzling details about the game have surfaced. The music, claims Capcom, will be entirely MIDI, mimicking the NES' sound chip. The screen will slow at points, just like the NES game did. If the player so desires it, the screen will even flicker when Mega Man moves, a graphical glitch originally caused by the NES' aging hardware.

Even more puzzling is the fact that the same Internet communities who applauded Capcom's announcement of the game seemed to laud each successive announcement. Is purposefully emulating technical limitations really important to that many people? I thought at the time. Why would someone be so excited about an intentional downgrade? Isn't that like going to a fancy French bistro and smiling with glee when you're served a McDonald's hamburger?

Well, yes. And that fact casts a disturbing light on gamers as a whole.

You see, the truth is that the Mega Man 9 announcements exposed the reactionary tendencies among many "hardcore" gamers for what they really are. Most of us who sat for hours in front of our convex wood-grain CRT televisions, NES or SNES controllers in hand, are now in our twenties and thirties, our childhood years far behind us. Nowadays, we are far more likely to watch Heroes or Scrubs than Nickelodeon; more prone to go see the latest Tarantino film than the latest Disney film; more easily enticed by foie gras or lamb vindaloo than a fast-food hamburger. Why, then, have our tastes in games not evolved with our age, so much so that for many long-time gamers, the announcement of what's basically a glorified NES rom hack is the biggest gaming event of the year?

Frankly, I have no real answer to that question. That subject matter falls far too deeply within the realm of developmental and cognitive psychology - an area of study which I know next to nothing about - for me to even begin to speculate. What I do know, however, is that these gamers are harmful to the video gaming medium as a whole.

But first, a bit of an aside. Political theory states that people's attitude toward government can be expressed roughly on a linear spectrum, with four major categories dominating: radicals, progressives (or liberals), conservatives, and reactionaries. Basic definitions are as follows: Radicals want swift, dramatic change, usually through violent or insurgent means. Progressives desire change, but are willing to work through the system to see it done. Conservatives wish things to stay the same, and reactionaries wish the state of affairs to return to the state of an earlier time period.

Now, for the purposes of discussion, let us apply these terms to describe gamers. In the spectrum of gaming, there are no radicals, mostly because the term cannot really apply in this context. Conservatives, obviously, are dominant; they are the self-proclaimed "core gamers" who play nothing but the standard genres (FPS, RPG, action, RTS, adventure, and so on), and scoff at anything new or inventive as being "for the casual gamers." And, as MM9 shows, there exists a good number of reactionaries as well. The reactionaries, it may seem, consider themselves above even the conservative "core" gamers. Far from being content with the standard modern genres, they long for the 8/16-bit eras as though they were some sort of "golden age" of gaming; and, thus, they wish gaming to return to that age as much as is humanly possible.

So, that leaves one category all but vacant: The progressives. Where, in an environment so hostile to change, is there room for those who wish to advance gaming as a medium?

Now, don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with nostalgia. The things that we did and experienced as children and teenagers will always be some of the things that we hold most dear to ourselves, and revisiting them can be a pleasurable and enjoyable experience. Nor is there anything wrong with a stream of games from the standard genres; a polished-but-standard platformer, for example, can still be a good bit of fun. However, video games are capable of so much more than those standard genres, and they're certainly capable of much more than what those boxy grey cartridges housed in our younger days. And that is where progressive gamers like you and me must take a stand and make ourselves heard.

Progressive gamers, to put it simply, want to advance gaming as a whole. We support experimentation, innovation, art, and the defiance of standards, as opposed to the stagnation of the conservatives and the antithesis of progress that reactionaries desire. We support the tweaking and breaking down of the usual game genres, as well as the creation of new, inventive, and unique games that defy those traditional moulds. We support the use of artistic license in games; a progressive game is one that portrays and conveys the unique vision of the game's creators, and which does not simply try to re-create real life. A progressive game may even be what conservative and reactionary gamers call "non-games": games that defy the traditional definition of what a game is, and instead focus on revolutionary methods of human-computer interaction; see, for exampe, Wii Fit or Brain Age.

While the definition may seem vague, rest assured that it is meant to be. The definition of what constitutes a "progressive game" will change over time as old standard genres give way to new standard genres, and as the number of gamers who started playing in the 32-bit era gradually ages into twentysomethings. At one point, Super Mario Bros., Doom, and Alone in the Dark were all "progressive games;" now, they're simply considered the once-revolutionary progenitors of "hardcore" genres that have been copied, re-copied, and re-re-re-copied to death. Therefore, suffice to say that the progressive gamer always searches for the new over the old, for it is from those new things that our beloved medium will transcend the boundary from mere plaything to serious artistic medium.

So, in conclusion: If this sounds like you, then please let your voice be heard by letting your wallet be heard. What few progressive development houses exist struggle to gain exposure, and the progressive games released by major developers seldom generate even a fraction of the revenue of a Halo, Final Fantasy, or Devil May Cry clone. While there have been successes in that realm (like, say, Wii Fit), those few isolated mega-hits are not enough. For things to change, we must first show these developers that there is, in fact, a market for progressive games. Therefore, when you go to EBGamestop looking for your next interactive fix, pass up your standard genre pick in favor of something new and innovative.

Who is with me?

Ok, I'm about to hop in the shower so I can't read all that right now, so just answer me this; am I a progressive gamer if I think Mega Man 9 is awesome?

If so, then yes I'll stand up

Nice article you wrote here. The only quibble I have with it is that your call to arms is already being acted on by tens of millions of consumers who're already out there buying whatever they want, instead of listening to some gaming enthusiast who's set in his way.

Nice read though.

You may still be. Read on. :)

@ noname2200: That may be true, but when I see good, innovative games like Boom Blox and Braid being outsold by middling-to-terrible shooters and RPGs, you just have to wonder whether there's something wrong with us gamers as a whole. That's what prompted me to write.

I getcha. Still, we can't be too surprised at some of the sales. After all, the big shooters are being made with safety in mind: the developers know the audience, and they make their games accordingly. The innovative stuff is, by definition, less certain, so it's not too surprising that people will stick with what they know over what's new.

In the end though, I'd counsel you to take heart. The newer stuff is already winning, and our hobby will continue to evolve, even if some folks refuse to go along for the ride (their loss, not ours).

im all for progression in technology but I think kids need to know what gaming was like back in the good old days so this "downgrade" will introduce kids to the NES's power so that kids have a greater respect for the old versus just looking at pictures of older games and calling them crap due to them not being in 3D or have an upwards of up to 15.7 million colors on screen at any given time.

This is pretty much true in every entertainment industry though.  Lots of great bands are overshadowed by people like Britney Spears (or whoever is popular these days).  Arrested Development gets cancelled while American Idol gets millions of viewers.  etc.

Yeah, because games like Shadow of the Colossus and Indigo Prophecy, games meant to further the medium, were completely rejected by the hardcore... 

In reliaty, they were only embraced by the hardcore.

Hell, Metal Gear Solid was pretty new and innovative back in the day, and it was openly embraced by millions of hardcore gamers.

"Core" gamers don't dislike change. They're just afraid of certain types of change.

I actually think Megaman 9 actually fits the progressive gamer model better than anything else. How many games intentionally limit themselves in anyway? It is an odd step forward admittedly, but I would argue it is a step forward. It is little more than an attempt to use nostalgia to sell a new game but even that is a new effort. I am not saying the old ways are the best for everything, but they are sometimes a great way of doing it. Certain things that can be done well in 2D cannot be done well in 3D and Megaman 9 is a clear sign that some developers see this.

I love the new control system of the Wii, but you will never pry a 2600 paddle controller from my cold dead hands. I will enter Up Down Left Right A Start into my Genesis til the day I die. I also happen to love dual analog controls on the PS360.

What does that make me on the gaming political spectrum??? Progressive-core? Retro-liberal?

I love the idea of new 8 bit experiences and i still buy games like Atari Anniversary Collection, Sonic Mega Collection and Megaman X Collection to get games like Megaman X3 that I've never had a chance to play. Yet I always want to see new things like Wii Sports. I also love both Fixed camera and Over the shoulder Resident Evil.

There are just times when capturing people's ideas into little boxes is impossible. I love playing games and i am merely content to be called a gamer not a "Modern Retro Bipolar-Core Gamer".