It seems we’ve reached the point in gaming history where everything over a certain age is automatically “bad”. I’ll be honest, as an enthusiast of gaming from the 8, 16 and 32-bit eras, this is a massive bummer to see, because it makes it a huge uphill struggle to convince people that it’s worth exploring gaming history.
I’m sure this is a temporary thing, and that the people who would get something from acknowledging and exploring gaming history will always find their way into the classics of yesteryear, but it’s still frustrating and annoying. Particularly when people start spouting their opinions as fact.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the realm of home computer games rather than console games. Home computer games were of massive importance to the games industry in Europe, but to see folks so casually write so many of them off because they are perceived as “worse” than console titles from the same period is a huge fucking bummer. Plus we get the old “inverse hype” problem: games that were popular back in the day are now lambasted as “actually not being that good after all”, rather than any consideration being given to why they might have been popular and so well-received back in the day.
A good example is pretty much anything by The Bitmap Brothers. On their original release, to home computer fans, a Bitmap release was an event. These were games that were slickly produced, good-looking and, particularly unusually for the period, sounded great, too, thanks to their use of sampled intro music.
Yes, there were cases where the hype definitely got the better of everyone, with Xenon 2: Megablast probably being the best example of this, but there are other cases where hate is thrown for reasons I genuinely don’t understand. Probably the best example of this is Gods, a well-presented platformer with some interesting levels, plenty of secrets and a lot of replayability.
Speak to someone today about Gods and chances are they’ll brand it as “bad”. Having been playing Gods quite a bit recently due to the impending release of The Bitmap Brothers Collection 2 for Evercade, though, it absolutely is not “bad” at all. To say so is ridiculous. Are there elements of it that might be an acquired taste, or for which game design has moved on? Absolutely. It has stiff controls, an inexplicable inability to jump straight upwards and some of the most obtuse secrets in all of gaming. Like most European-developed platformers, it has no concept of invincibility frames other than immediately after respawing. And it doesn’t scroll or move as smoothly as games developed for console.
But none of those things make Gods a “bad” game. They might make it a game you need to put a bit of time in before you understand it, sure, but again, that’s not “bad”.
There are plenty of other examples of this, too. The James Pond series springs to mind. This is a series that certainly does have a stinker in its midst in the form of The Aquatic Games, but the most commonly cited game from the range that people think is “bad” is James Pond 2: Robocod, which is probably the best of the bunch. And it’s a game that is still pretty good to this day.
Again, though, context is everything. You have to understand that in Europe, console ownership was by no means the “norm” — and those folks who did have consoles maybe only had three or four games. For those who didn’t have a console at all, Robocod was a revelation. Here was a scrolling platform game that, to ST and Amiga owners, offered many of the same appeal elements as titles like Super Mario Bros. and Sonic the Hedgehog. Is it as good as either of those games? No. But that absolutely doesn’t make it “bad”, either. It makes it especially noteworthy that it was among the best platformers we had on 16-bit home computer platforms at the time.
I guess a lot of this is a side-effect of the way that online discussion seems to have precisely zero nuance to it these days, whether you’re talking politics or video games. Everything is an us-vs-them situation, and there are accepted “correct” and “wrong” opinions. And the lack of nuance means that it’s near-impossible to have a viewpoint that takes a little from column A, a little from column B, because both columns want to hand you a flag and make you stand in line glaring at the other group.
I won’t get into political examples, because that’s a sure-fire route to starting some arguments — though I will say that Disco Elysium, which I played recently, handles the “shades of grey” quite nicely — but in the case of video games, there’s very much a divide between those who think console games are the only retro worth preserving, and those who acknowledge that home computer gaming is a thing that actually existed, and in many cases prefer it to what consoles offered.
I occupy a space between those two viewpoints. A lot of my online work focuses on home computer games precisely because there’s not nearly enough discussion about them compared to console games, but that doesn’t mean I reject console games altogether. On the contrary, in more recent years in particular I’ve had a lot of fun exploring parts of the NES, Master System, Mega Drive and SNES libraries that I never had access to back in the day. And those systems are technically superior to the general-purpose home computers of the time.
But that doesn’t mean home computer stuff should be rejected either. There’s value there. There’s cultural history there. Sure, they might not scroll as smoothly, sound as nice or play as well as some console games, but they’re not “bad”. They are part of gaming history, too. And it’s starting to genuinely annoy me when people just reject things they’ve arbitrarily decided are “bad” for one reason or another.
So if that’s you, knock it off. And if it’s not you? Well, I’ve got a bunch of videos you might be interested in…
Want to read my thoughts on various video games, visual novels and other popular culture things? Stop by MoeGamer.net, my site for all things fun where I am generally a lot more cheerful. And if you fancy watching some vids on classic games, drop by my YouTube channel.