Sir or maam for people who are older, and usually miss or buddy for people my age. It's becoming more apparent to me, though, that bud and buddy are not welcome or endearing on the west coast.
Also, what about Looney Tunes? Bugs Bunny is almost 80 years old...What child didn't grow up on some Looney Tunes?
What child won't grow up on some Mario or Zelda?
I think it's too early to assume we've seen the video game Looney Tunes, and the question isn't necessarily who won't grow up on Mario or Zelda, but which Mario or Zelda game they will grow up on. It's also plenty presumptuous to think those franchises will be around forever or that they will be the best games to have come between now and the next hundred years.
It is certainly presumptuous, yes...but we're sort of just throwing tennis balls in a manatee tank, here.
It is also so strange to think that Mario or Zelda could at one point just not exist. Like...Does Nintendo just say "Alright, that's the last one. We had a good run. Thanks everyone!" or do they just go completely under or what? More baseless predictions, yes, but it is all pretty fun to think about.
I don't want to take away anyone's fun in imagining which games from today will be immortalized. I think this is actually an interesting thread. I've even given my own insight as to which game or type of games I think will be around longest. I didn't write that original response so as to shut down conversation. I don't feel I've come up with the answer, so much as an answer that may have been a little outside the box. Can't speak for Zeke, but maybe that's the idea he got. I wish he had answered your question about a fantastic story seriously, though, and I'd be interested to see your pick if you haven't posted it already.
Metroid Prime has all those things except arguably competent gunplay. (it's competent by GC and Wii standards) Although I assume you want a PC game since you mentioned Unreal. (you could always just emulate it)
Probably not the type of gunplay he's looking for, but I think those games are plenty competent as far as shooting goes. They definitely work around some of the control limitations, but I don't find them frustrating to play. As far as an alien atmosphere... kinda mad I didn't think of that one. I think this is a good call. OP should take note if he hasn't played these.
Also, what about Looney Tunes? Bugs Bunny is almost 80 years old...What child didn't grow up on some Looney Tunes?
What child won't grow up on some Mario or Zelda?
I think it's too early to assume we've seen the video game Looney Tunes, and the question isn't necessarily who won't grow up on Mario or Zelda, but which Mario or Zelda game they will grow up on. It's also plenty presumptuous to think those franchises will be around forever or that they will be the best games to have come between now and the next hundred years.
Games have not reached their full potential yet. It isn't even close. I think the eventual "classics" everyone will be studying are far from even a conference white-board.
Honestly man, I'm not saying you're saying anything other than that. Just because I made the point that video games are a different medium and tell stories differently doesn't mean I think you don't think that. It's just an idea I had that I put up above...I'm certainly not riled up and Ezekiel doesn't seem so either...Tbh you seem the most fired up about whatever the hell is going on here.
What I AM saying, and what I think Ezekiel is also saying but I don't want to speak for him because this has become a bit of a mess, is that we disagree with you about that last bit. I do really believe that there are "classics" that have already been released that people will be looking at 100 years from their release—like some of the games mentioned in this topic.
I'm not saying you think games are garbage, I don't think Ezekiel ever said you think games are garbage, I'm really just trying to make my point crystal clear. There already exist classics and masterpieces. Video games will continue to foster more classics and masterpieces and yes those will probably make our current ones pale in comparison, but classics are classics for a reason.
Let me clarify, and I hope I don't need to go farther than this without writing a book's length of lawyerly verbiage that points out every implication and every possible loophole of thought that could possibly be used for the purposes of misinterpretation.
Sure, many classics have already been made - many that undoubtedly lay the groundwork for games to come. Casablanca (to use what I hope ends up being a simple analogy) did not invent parallel editing or subtext, after all. I fully believe, that the vast majority of games that will be considered classics have not yet been made. Your Mario 64s and your Half Life 2s will be similar to film's Battleship Potemkin and literature's Odyssey by Homer as opposed to the writings of Hemingway or the movies from the film school generation. But who, other than college professors, talk about cyclopes's or Odessa Steps sequences? Not many do.
Edit: I really didn't want to insult anyone's tastes here and I hesitate to point this out, but as long as the argument over writing quality exists... I don't understand how anyone with what looks to be a Sopranos avatar can think Call of Duty 4 has a "fantastic" story. It's a pretty generic context for the campaign. It's a fine context, but there are no memorable characters and so much of that dialogue is rote modern combat jargon or lines that are straight ripped from film. The lines ripped from film, "Check those corners" (Aliens) and "I am serious, and don't call me surely" (Airplane), kind of prove my point.
I thought my sarcasm was pretty obvious. I couldn't have picked a more obvious example. Jesus.
Any game which had a significant cultural impact on wider society. So WoW.
This really fascinates me. Gaming historians will have to acknowledge WoW's importance and influence but at the same time that game just kind of isn't going to be playable like it was. Hell, it isn't even the same game now in so many ways. What the hell does that mean? Are they then going to show videos of WoW circa '06, '07, etc. and talk about Leroy Jenkins? At least with a lot of other culturally significant games they're still basically the same...Mario, Zelda, Minecraft, Dark Souls--you can still consume them as they were originally intended. You can still read Shakespeare as it was originally written or watch The Jazz Singer in its original resolution.
Films also go through edits themselves which makes categorizing them kinda confusing. I mean, which version of Star Wars /will/ be remembered? I mentioned piracy in my old post, but I think it should be mentioned that the best way to play these games in 100 years will probably be through sketchy means like that. There's no museum of static or original releases of games that can be played. If I wanted to play WoW's launch version, I could join a private server, sure, but that gets into my point of getting such things through sketchy and possible illegal means.
You made me think of how the library of congress has started cataloging games recently. Even so, version control is impossible. I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but online games present the problem that in 100 years... how are you possibly going to find a group of people to play your specific version of WoW with, let alone WoW at all. Maybe AI will be so advanced that they can simulate online human behavior, but that's Star Trek stuff. This is another reason I always harp on single player story and why I think those games will stand the test of time, because player bases and common game mechanics change, but story pacing and solid writing is forever. WoW might not be so loved 100 years from now, even though it has proved so far to be the game with the most all-time staying power. I can't believe it would be possible that people who are used to the multiplayer games of 2117 would still be fervent Wow players. I can imagine they'd still enjoy The Last of Us.
(Gonna go through point in bold by because I think you said a couple of interesting things. Hope this doesn't look confusing.)
So, while I don't disagree with you that comparing books to other media is wrong(Comparing any two types of media most definitely isn't wrong. Dialogue writing and plot structure, for one, transcend their respective mediums), it really is only natural. Even if there are fantastic games without any story at all (Journey, Flower) and games of course don't need to tell a story (No shit, but I happened to like the ones that do. I was merely naming a few areas where games could and some games need to improve.) and that's what makes them a unique entertainment medium, there are still games that do tell stories and I think it's just fine to compare the best video game stories to the best novels and movies...I agree with Slaps that games just haven't gotten there yet. (Thank you.)
BUT! At the same time it is important to note that a story like Dark Souls—which, on the surface, is really kind of cryptic and hidden and not even really there at all, but once you do some digging turns out to be fascinating and elevates the game to some place really special—can really only exist in video games and what do we do then? How do we properly judge it? Then if we compare it to Anna Karenina or Star Wars we're doing it a terrible disservice—I agree with you there. (I agree. I never said someone should compare a game like Dark Souls to anything in a preceding media.)
Both of you assume I don't think video games bring there own unique flavor to the table, which is something I never said. It should be obvious and if you really think I'm arguing that point than I say again... you are putting in zero effort to try and understand me. That is a very basic implication. The original point I wanted to make and the entire crux of this argument I never asked for is the following.
Games have not reached their full potential yet. It isn't even close. I think the eventual "classics" everyone will be studying are far from even a conference white-board.
I don't understand why this is such a provocative idea. That prospect excites me to know end. I just don't get how you can read that and somehow infer that I think everything else that came before is garbage (gonna point out I might be putting words in zeke's mouth here, but it's just how it's seemed so far. I'm open to clarification). It's the most inoffensive idea I've ever managed to rile someone up over.
Edit: I really didn't want to insult anyone's tastes here and I hesitate to point this out, but as long as the argument over writing quality exists... I don't understand how anyone with what looks to be a Sopranos avatar can think Call of Duty 4 has a "fantastic" story. It's a pretty generic context for the campaign. It's a fine context, but there are no memorable characters and so much of that dialogue is rote modern combat jargon or lines that are straight ripped from film. The lines ripped from film, "Check those corners" (Aliens) and "I am serious, and don't call me surely" (Airplane), kind of prove my point.
@ezekiel: If you think storytelling in games has reach what it has in books or film, then you are the one who is delusional. If you really think I'm saying no one has ever made a masterpiece of a video game, then you'd have to wonder why I play games for at least an hour a day and discuss them as my favorite art form on a website like this. If you want to put any thought into a post I'll gladly read it, but if you are going to continue to make wild presumptions that make no sense then I'm not going to waste my time. Go start a pointless fight with someone else.
Log in to comment