Video Game Review Site Idea

I've got an idea that I don't think anybody has capitalized on yet. I don't think it would be very profitable, if profitable at all, but I do think that it would be very popular. If you could link popularity to profit, then money would surely be yours.

Here's the idea: review and score video games with respect to the modern era. Some games hold up well over time and other games don't. Fanboys can always be counted upon to rant about how ground-breaking the game was when it first came out; but, with all due respect, this has no bearing whatsoever on the joy or misery that is experienced by a guy playing the game for his very first time ever in the year 2009.

Interested? Click the title to read on. Warning: this is one of my longest yet. But I think Jay specifically would be very interested in what I have to say, given talks we've had in the past. *shrug*

The idea struck me when I noticed how IGN's editors seemed to be torn over this very issue in one of their recent (2007, 2008) Top 25 Games lists for one of the popular video game consoles. The list consisted of three groups of games, which I'll now explain, one paragraph at a time.

The first group are the games that were very popular upon release and are still very popular today and have no reason to cease being popular 10, 20 years from now. Let's pick the PS2. A game that would make that Top 25 list and be in the first group of games would be something like Katamari Damacy. The impressions the game had on people back in the 2000s have little reason to fluctuate for first-time gamers in the 2010s or 2020s.

The second group are the games that were very popular upon release but have been supplanted by superior sequels. This might include a game like GTA: San Andreas, having been bested by its successor GTA IV, or Tekken Tag Tournament, having been bested by newer fighters for the XBox 360 and PS3.

The third group are the games that are being buzzed about incessantly today but which will be all but forgotten in a few years' time. These games don't fade away because of sequels that replace them. Instead, they fade away because they were more like fads and once the fad wears off the gamer discovers just how bad the game really was. This is going to offend a lot of people, but a game I'd put on that list is Okami. I know, I know: half the readership of this blog loves that game. But I wasn't all that impressed by it -- and unfortunately didn't find this out until after I'd bought it. Another example, changing consoles, could be the actual Nintendo Wii console. Not the games for it, necessarily, but the console is hardly anything to write home about. It was popular when it was the must-have item, but now that everyone's had a chance to play one, the stores have finally stocked up on Wiis and message boards are flooded with jaded Wii gamers, the more loyal hanging on to their Wiis while the less loyal have wasted no time in cutting their losses and moving on to other forms of entertainment.

Having explained the groups to you, I can tell you what I noticed next. In the year 2007, it was fair for these games to be labeled "the Top 25," but by the year 2017 less than a third of these games would still make that list for the very same video game console. What do I mean by this?

Let's consider some popular games for PS2 that failed to make the cut. One was Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly. The game has a cult following which should tell you all you need to know: a great hook for a small subset of the population. In FF2's case, the "hook" is a fantastic story and unique gameplay experience. While the controls and graphics are bound to be perceived less amicably as time goes by, FF2's main draw has always been its story. And the thing is, stories hold up remarkably well over time.

Let's consider a more mainstream title that failed to make the list. This time, let's pick Final Fantasy XII. Having already tipped their hat to FFX and a host of other RPGs, the editors at IGN probably felt they couldn't justify giving a precious spot on the list to FF12. They had to be fair and balanced. They had to make sure the game list had some racers, some fighters, some puzzle games too. But the thing is, if they really felt that this game was amazing, then they've been dishonest with us. Their list is disingenuous. Now, I've never played FF12 myself, but I've heard from many a friend that the story is superb. And once again we realize something interesting: story.

Now, is story the only thing which can preserve an older game for future generations? I don't think so. I sat down and tried to sort out which video game components mattered more in the long haul and which ones did not, and I came up with this partial list:

Elements which hold up well over time: plot, gameplay (software-side, i.e. mechanics), music
Elements which hold up poorly over time: graphics, gameplay (hardware-side, i.e. controls)
Elements which are external to the game itself: accessibility, supremacy

I think most of these are fairly self-explanatory. The last two might not be, though. "Accessibility" refers to how easy it is for the future gamer to get his hands on the game. (This can include emulation of the rom. I'm simply considering the overall ease with which he can get his hands on the game.) "Supremacy," for lack of a better one-word term, refers to the fact that the game was either the only one of its kind or remains the best of its kind to this day for no known reason. (I'll provide several examples of supremacy below. Search for "Marvel vs. Capcom" for one that stands out in my mind.)

So, some examples to further clarify all of this, yes?

I think a really easy-to-understand example is car racing games. On the one hand, you have games like the Mario Kart franchise. These games improve (or worsen, lol) over time, but fundamentally the older games are almost just as fun now as they were back in the day. The only problems with the older Mario Kart games are typically their poorer graphics and more limited controls. But the "funness" of the older games remains remarkably unchanged. The courses are just as fun as before. The design was always pretty cartoony so the graphics don't bum you out too badly. I have friends who still prefer Mario Kart 64, Mario Kart: Super Circuit (GBA), or Mario Kart DS to the GameCube and Wii iterations. In fact, so do I. I still enjoy Super Circuit even though it's inferior graphically to Mario Kart DS because many of my all-time favorite stages were in Super Circuit and didn't make it over to MKDS. I'm sure many of my N64-lovin' friends feel the same way about Mario Kart 64.

And then on the other hand we have racing games like Gran Turismo. These games have always been about two things and two things only: (1) the stock of cars available to you in the game; and (2) the graphics. Neither has held up well over time. Each addition to the Gran Turismo franchise has introduced more car models than the previous games had. Each addition to the franchise has been graphically prettier. This is a fantastic example of what we were talking about earlier with IGN's Top 25 list. GT3 (PS2) and GT4 (PS3) are games that will be replaced by GT5, GT6, etc and never looked at again. There's little justification for wanting to play GT3 when GT7 has better controls, better graphics, and more cars to choose from. Nostalgia? Nostalgia isn't a very good excuse when this is your very first time playing the game!

I'll give you a similar example from the world of fighters. When Dead or Alive 3 came out on the XBox, a lot of fans still played Dead or Alive 2 on their PS2s because DOA2 had better costumes or stages or moves than DOA3 did in their opinion. In Tecmo's defense, DOA3 weakened certain characters in DOA2 to try and level the playing field; and its stages, by virtue of all being hi-rise buildings that you could throw opponents out of windows from or off the ledges of, made for a gameplay experience that felt dulled by the repetitive yellows, grays, whites, and browns of architectural materials. If Tecmo had not made a move, this might have been a very good example of another outdated PS2 game that still had a niche. But Tecmo did make a move. They ported DOA2 to the XBox. And they didn't just port it! They actually re-wrote it from scratch using the Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball physics and graphics engines. They copied the stages and the costumes from the source material, but the code, all-new and written for the graphically-superior XBox video game console, resulted in an amazing experience. It was DOA2 ... but with a major facelift. If you were an XBox owner and a fan of DOA, you no longer had any excuse to keep playing DOA2 on your PS2. To top it all off, Dead or Alive 2: Ultimate, or DOA2:U, was the second fighter game in the history of video game home consoles to allow for broadband multiplayer. (A Mortal Kombat title was rushed to release to snag the title from Tecmo by about two weeks.) How could you say no? DOA2:U was either equal or superior to DOA2 in every way. It was in no way inferior. None at all. This is how the world of fighters typically operates: older fighters have very poor longevity because they are replaced by prettier games with better controls, better-looking stages, and more realistic graphics (which we fighter fans love) ...

... or do we? ;3 Because just like the Mario Kart / Gran Turismo comparison, the world of fighters has its own fair share of 2D, cartoon-graphic titles that are still popular today. While these are also typically replaced by successors (e.g. Street Fighter, King of Fighters, and Guilty Gear have all had evermore popular sequels), sometimes a gem will roll along and for some freak accident reason not get a sequel. A good example of this is the second game in the Marvel vs. Capcom franchise. This game came out in arcades over 10 years ago. At the time, it was revolutionary. And today? It's still damn fun to play. It remains one of the most popular arcade machines in any gaming center, although its target audience has shifted away from the kids who grew up with it (and are now bored of it) to the younger generation who is being re-exposed to our Capcom heroes (Mega Man, Chun Li, Ryu, etc) and Marvel legends (Wolverine, Spider-Man, the Incredible Hulk, Iron Man). By virtue of the fact that a better game hasn't come along to replace it, this old-timer is still a venerable member of many a fighter gamer's Top 10 list.

I think you get the general idea. I shan't waste your time listing off platformers, puzzles, or first-person shooters. In general, there are some games which hold up well over time and others which do not, and by taking a look back on the last 19 years of gaming I've been able to reverse-engineer a list of elements which I think, looking forward into the future, programmers and game designers could use to guide their process if they are interested in making games that last for the long haul. (This goes against common business sense -- planned obsolence guides modern capitalist theory -- but is well in keeping with the spirit of the artist's sense of pride in creating a masterpiece for the ages. Whether the team is more business-oriented or more art-oriented will ultimately steer their direction.)

But this isn't about guiding the future of video games. Back to our original point, now that I've thoroughly established my baseline! :) What I want to talk about is the idea that I, you, somebody could start a video game review website that offered (as far as I know) the first service of its kind. And that service would be providing gamers with reviews and ratings of two kinds:

1. for all games played after the site is created, a review and rating at the time of completion that is meant to benefit the audience that exists at that very same time. For example, I rate an August 2009 game in October 2009 and I review it and score it relative to my standards and the community's standards in October 2009.

2. for all games period, a review and rating at the time of publication of the (newest) draft of the article, and one which is meant for the audience of that very same time. For example, I (re-)review and (re-)rate a May 2003 game in October 2009; and I review it and score it relative to my standards and the community's standards in October 2009 and not in May 2003!

I don't know of any video game review site which offers this service. So if you've ever been interested in reviewing video games and have been wondering about a niche you could pursue that could net you a loyal audience and (possibly) some playmoney on the side, then this idea's for you. Contact me if you want more details. Just to clarify, I don't have time for this and I really don't have interest in playing very many video games anyway. Not nearly as many as one would need to get a site like this off the ground. I might be able to play video games straight for up to a month before I'd puke. And that's if I even had the luxury of time to do so. And I don't. :p

---

Here's a list of 10 games that I think will hold up well over time, and below that a list of 10 games that I enjoy today but do not think will hold up well over time. I am interested to know if you agree or disagree, but not very much. I am more interested to know if you understand what I am getting at when I suggest that it would be useful for the Gamer of Today to have access to reviews written today about games from ages ago, i.e. to read about Mega Man 3 and DoubleDragon today might result in a B+ and a D+ but to read about them back in 1993 might have resulted in an A+ and a B+ or even an A-.

10 (or less) games that I like now and expect I'll still like in 10 years:
Super Mario World (SNES) ............. stands on its own two feet, regardless of its sequels' own merits, lucid cartoon-style graphics
Mega Man X (SNES) ............. stands on its own two feet, regardless of its sequels' own merits, lucid cartoon-style graphics
Shenmue (DC), Shenmue II (DC, XBox) ............. excellent story
Gyakuten Saiban / Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (DS) and its three sequels (DS) ............. excellent story, lucid cartoon-style graphics
Mega Man Zero (GBA) ............. a real tear-jerker of a story for the Mega Man franchise. Quite unexpected, very controversial, and (imo) very amazing and logical. I loved it.
Tetris (NES, GB) ............. these two games are my two favorite versions. The franchise went downhill from there. Tetris 2 (GB) sucked and Tetris for the GBA and DS were both major bummers that totally lacked the look and feel of the original games. This is a good example of that supremacy clause we talked about! lol
Puyo Puyo 2 (SNES) ............. the original formula's the best! I welcome newer Puyo Puyo titles, but if they don't look and feel like Puyo Puyo 2 then I'm not interested. :)

Note that some of the games listed above, were they to ever get graphical facelifts, could possibly be replaced by their facelift versions. But they'd still be the same game, I hope that you'll admit me that much at least.


10 (or less) games that I like now but don't expect I'll play much, if ever again, in 10 years:
Dynasty Warriors 6 (PS2) ............... will be replaced by superior version of same game
Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Wii) ............... will be replaced by superior version of same game
Mario Kart Wii ............... will be replaced by superior version of same game
Mojipittan DS ............... will be replaced by superior version of same game
Yu-Gi-Oh! World Championship 2007 (DS) ............... will be replaced by superior version of same game
Pokémon Diamond (DS) ............... will be replaced by superior version of same game

Sort of the reverse of the last list's disclaimer footnote, this time I wanted to point out that while you could argue that I don't know for certain that these games are going to be replaced in the future by better versions, I think it's fair to say that most of these games are assuredly going to get sequels (like Smash Bros. or Mojipittan or Pokemon).