Atari 2600 still schooling game designers
At the Game Developers Conference on Friday in San Francisco, Georgia Tech professor and author Ian Bogost talked about the lessons that can be learned by game designers from the iconic Atari 2600.
(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET Networks)
SAN FRANCISCO--If you draw a straight line representing the evolution of video games from the Atari 2600 to the Nintendo Wii, one thing is clear: if you don't know your past, you can't know your future.
That was the central lesson of Georgia Tech professor Ian Bogost's Friday talk at the Game Developers Conference here, "Learning from the Atari 2600." Essentially, Bogost argued, it's not always necessary to reinvent the wheel; sometimes, instead of being discarded as so much arcane, the discoveries of the past are best adapted for the future.
Bogost and MIT assistant professor Nick Monfort recently published Racing the Beam, a book about the iconic Atari VCS, popularly known as the 2600. So Bogost's talk Friday was clearly drawn from the research for that project. And while his fondness for the 1970s-era video game console was evident, the point he was really trying to make was that the seeds of successful games--especially those enjoyed by large groups of diverse people--have very little to do with the latest and greatest technology and much more to do with mechanics that make for enjoyable shared experiences.
'Racing the Beam,' the new book by Ian Bogost and Nick Monfort, looks at the history and lessons that can be drawn from the Atari 2600.
(Credit: Ian Bogost and Nick Monfort)For Atari co-founder Nolan Bushnell, a former carnival barker, the bloodlines that led to the 2600 were three things, Bogost argued: the fun-for-the-whole-family excitement of a midway, the shared competition of a game of darts played in a tavern, and the gather-around-the-TV sense of family time afforded by the den. At the same time, Bushnell wanted to repeat the success he'd had with coin-op arcade games like "Pong," but for the home.
What he was after was what Nintendo has also tried to build into its Wii: a feeling that people can have fun doing something together. That's why going to the movies is so much fun, or going out with friends to a bar: because it's something people can do together, in a social space, whether they're competing or not.
And it's about context, Bogost said. You can drink at home, but it's not as fun as doing it in a bar. Or you play pool in your house, but it's not the same thing as doing it with friends at the local tavern. And while no video game system can replicate being out in public, the right mix of game mechanics and tools can allow people to feel like they're in the middle of a social scene, even if they're in their living room.
"That's why Wii Bowling is the best game in the Wii Sports collection," Bogost said. "It really re-creates the experience and context" of real bowling.
"So what we see, I think in the (2600)," Bogost said, "is the adaptation of familiar subjects for familiar spaces."
He talked about the successes and failures of some of the games designed for the 2600, explaining that, for example, the original 2600 Pac-Man game didn't work because its designers didn't do a good job of adapting many of the atmospheric elements of the original arcade version. For example, it was missing the familiar music, as well as the animation of Pac-Man chomping and turning as he made his way around the maze.
A successful adaptation, however, was the 2600 version of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. In that game, players were tasked mainly with attacking Imperial walkers, blasting away at them again and again until victory was achieved or defeat assured. So rather than trying to re-create the entire storyline of the movie, The Empire Strikes Back, the game's designers cleverly focused on the one, most memorable, scene from the movie.
The Atari 2600 version of The Empire Strikes Back was successful because it incorporated the enjoyable experience of one of the best scenes in the film it was based on, Bogost suggested.
(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET Networks)Contrast that with the infamous E.T. game for the 2600--which Bogost said tried to faithfully re-create the film's sense of alienation, and which was a terrific failure--and you can see that successful games don't require complexity. Instead, they require adaptation that fits the format at hand. Shooting Imperial walkers conjures the best parts of Empire Strikes Back and thrills players with quick, simple action, while the E.T. game tried to hard to do too much with a beloved franchise.
Bogost's lessons drawn from the 2600 for modern game designers, then, revolve around the idea that innovation is less important than adaptation. The best Atari 2600 games were adaptations of games that had come before--Pong, Spacewars, Star Castle--that did a great job of porting the player's enjoyable experience into the living room. The worst--Pac-Man, E.T.--tried too hard to break new ground.
Further, he said that while there's always the temptation to try to re-create, or modernize, properties from the past, what really works is updating the experience that people had with them.
In addition, he said, it's important when trying to update those experiences, to keep in mind the limitations, or virtues, of the machine for which the new game is being created. Knowing that the PlayStation 3 supports terrific graphics doesn't mean that a game is going to be good just because it has big explosions or incredible realism. But build a game like Flower, which depends on beautiful images, and the PS3 is the perfect platform.
And lastly, Bogost said, timing matters less than it may seem.
In other words, while it may seem crucial to get a title out as fast as possible to, say, leverage interest in the movie it is based on, that's not always necessary. He explained that the Empire Strikes Back game for the 2600 came out two full years after the film.
"These things linger, especially for kids," Bogost said, adding that his son had once told him, "'You really only go to the movies to see if you want to get the DVD.'"
To be sure, Bogost's talk was somewhat abstract and he wasn't drawing direct game design conclusions. Rather, he was trying to explore the ideas that simplicity is often a better approach than trying to do too much, and that as a platform, the Atari 2600 proved that it was possible to make people happy and to have commercial success, without starting from scratch each time, or shooting for the stars.
Instead, by carefully thinking about the experiences that people enjoyed in the past and applying them to the 2600, game designers in the 1970s and '80s were able to make titles that combined the best aspects of social environments and bring them into the home.
And now, years later, even in the era of machines like the Xbox 360 and PS3, which are more powerful than anything that could have been envisioned in the era of the 2600, Nintendo has found a way to apply some of the lessons learned in the past and adapt them for the present.
"The Atari is a living, breathing relic," Bogost said. "It's a strong aspect of (the video game industry's) history, and we should know about it for those reasons alone."
Daniel Terdiman is a staff writer at CNET News covering games, Net culture, and everything in between. E-mail Daniel. 
Honestly now, I think you're giving Atari too much credit for that one ;-)
Final Fantasy is a game that has a very limited audience. A game thats full of cut scenes and feminine looking characters with gameplay completely disconnected from the storyline does not appeal to everyone. But thats personal preference, and the bottom line for games is to challenge players and have them have fun. Most modern games, especially your generic shooters, are only fun for few minuites after the awe of graphics and explosions wears off.
But they are simply trying to appeal to modern 12 year old gamers who line up at gamestop to buy that new shooter chanting redrum.
I, on the other hand, believe that the game market for older audience resides in shooter RPGs like Deus Ex (original, not that piece of **** sequel) and Mass Effect, or complete startegic genre of games like Superpower (not second one which was a complete flop) and Hearts of Iron.
I wonder if Sony will bankrupt itself trying to market the Playstation3, or begin seeing the light of simplicity...and that the "gamer" market that is content seeing great graphics on yet another sports/shooter rehash is not large enough to build and sustain a business model.
you may find it more social to interact with strangers on the internet, but many find it more gratifying laughing and having fun with direct friends and family. There was a much larger element when I played bowling with my bro and cousin until 3am when compared to my brother playing 16 player GTA online with strangers that mutter useless jargon.
All three major consoles will appeal to people, but I think it's a stretch to call internet play "social gaming."
Nintendo went backwards and decided to go after the new generation of kid gamers and their parents who are buying them games.
Microsoft and Sony are paying attention to the gamers that grew up playing the Sega Genesis, Super Nintendo, and PlayStation.
Atari is a great American success story, but it is an even better failure story. I think Nintendo and other Japanese videogame companies learned more from the Atari failures on what not to do, than on the Atari success of how to market a product well.
I don't see anyone arguing that Nolan Bushnell invented video games above. The fact is the Atari 2600 was the most popular console of its day, and that's why it's studied. It sold 29 million units. Ralph Baer's systems sold a fraction of that.
The point isn't about who was first, it is about who was most successful. That's really the whole reason behind this presentation this professor is giving. He may as well have thrown in a slide about why Atari was successful and Magnavox wasn't. (Probably would take more than one slide to make the argument, but I'm sure a lot of the same points about game design would have applied to Atari vs. Magnavox as Atari vs., say, Sony or Microsoft).
SO DID DRAGSTER. i must have broken a few joysticks on that game!
and space invaders was cool.
ms pac man was a lot better !!
People tend to forget Super Man 64 which has a first level, truly a training level, that hardly anyone can beat and if you do not beat the training level you cannot play the dam game.
I mean, imagine the hat trick Atari (actually Atari's 3rd party developers) pulled on Mattel's Intellivision, when Pitfall, Enduro, and Robot Tank came out! No one imagined those kind of graphics would be possible on the 2600 back in the 70's when cartridges were limited to 4K and no one knew all the software 'tricks' of the system.
The 2600 is a GREAT system to study because it was a clean slate. You had 128 bytes of RAM, a very basic graphics chip (that essentially drew scanlines), and an 8bit processor - go to work! Later consoles would limit programmers to using character-only graphics, or push more 3D pixels around, but programmers back in the day had to design the artwork, sound, and programming. It was a true art form.
www.exploded2600.com
Games share the same genre, and most people that like one, don't like the other. FPS vs MMO, RPG vs HNS. The list will go on and because people on the internet are mule-headed opinionists, they will continue to refuse to see merit in someone else's opinion or choice and will then continue to "flame" the "n00b" for doing the same thing they did. FPS games will differ in their physics and mechanics engines enough to make one enjoyable to play, and another not so much. Same with features in MMO games...you have to find what you like, and then it's a franchise for you. The game itself isn't a franchise, the players are what make it so. Take a look at the NFS franchise from EA....I *LOATHE* EA for all the sports crap they come out with, merely because it's repetitive and I don't think too highly of sports (though Super Football for the 2600 was good :) ), but for the most part I enjoyed every single one of the NFS franchise all the way through Carbon for the PS2. Yet I don't like Grand Turismo..so i'm not blindly following a genre, but more what I like.
And in case you haven't played NFS in an arcade or at home, I'll let you in on a hint: At home, you don't have a bunch of kids running around screaming and making noise to disrupt your focus of tagging out that cop. At the arcade..you can't hear when the cops are coming anyways, so it's just not worth playing. Gee...doesn't really seem like they took the social environment from the arcade and put that in to the home version.(thank god). Social adaptation my ass.
- by BlazeEagle April 10, 2009 7:23 PM PDT
- At least nowadays, Gameplay AND Graphics matter. These attributes go hand in hand.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(25 Comments)BUT, Gameplay is what matters most, Obviously.