Add "further reflections..." article

1 files changed, 219 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/_drafts/reflections_on_videogames_dont_age.md b/_drafts/reflections_on_videogames_dont_age.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d9e5513
--- /dev/null
+++ b/_drafts/reflections_on_videogames_dont_age.md
@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+---
+layout: post
+title: "Further reflections on \"Videogames don't age\""
+lang: en
+date: 2025-06-24
+tag: ["Videogames", "Opinion"]
+---
+
+I translated my ["Videogames don't age"](/2024/07/videogames_dont_age) article into English recently, and while reading it I remembered some personal opinions I didn't
+include and some other points I should've gone over. It's no surprise, I wrote it almost a year ago and in the meantime I've read (and watched videos) more on the
+subject. Some remakes of games I've played and enjoyed were released, too, so I also had the chance of both reviewing and reflecting upon the reaction of the 
+community at large and the opinions of a wide variety of gamers.
+
+![galaga](/assets/images/2025/galaga.png)
+
+# Why do we like remakes so much?
+
+The _remake_ phenomenon is unthinkable in both music and literature. In the former they're usually called covers and in the latter, adaptations. As you can see, the
+perception we have on the closest thing to remakes in those mediums is that of a totally different work. One that doesn't seek to replace that which is based upon, 
+more like celebrating it or offering a fresh take on it.
+
+In movies, they're either received poorly or celebrated on their own qualities as independent creative works, not bound to a base material. 
+In the case of the former, they're seen as both creatively bankrupt and a disrespect to the original and no one truly sees them as a "replacement" of the originals. 
+In the case of the latter, they're seen more as adaptations, and as such, offer a fresh take on the story of the base material. They substantially change the
+setting and characters and they're as decoupled of the base material as the most loosely based adaptation. _Scarface_, _The Thing_ and _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ 
+come to mind. They are not concerned in either replacing the original or offering a take more in line with "modern audiences". They're creatively rich movies that do
+not feel bound to the fact that they're not entirely original.
+
+Ironically enough, unnecessary sequels are usually frowned upon more frequently than remakes. They're seen as quick soulless cashgrabs and as the most obvious 
+reflection of a creatively bankrupt industry, while those unnecessary sequels at least warrant an entirely new story and continuity, something that is arguably more 
+engaging than just regurgitating a past movie's story.
+
+In games, remakes are usually celebrated and the public can't stop asking for more. They love to see their favorite games being adapted by people that didn't
+participate in the development of the original. The trailers generate hype, fandoms of game franchises that include titles not available for purchase on 
+modern platforms can't stop asking for remakes. They can't stop discussing about how some things about their favorite games aged poorly (!) and how much they'd 
+love to see those old games "modernized" (i.e. changed). Bizarre.
+
+## A case for availability
+
+I have a plausible explanation for this: bear with me, this is not research backed, there's no peer reviewed study confirming this, this is just product of my
+perspective.
+
+A sad reality of games is that they're by and large, inaccessible. Most of them, at least. The videogame history foundation published a 
+[study](https://gamehistory.org/87percent/) a year or two ago showing that up to 87% of games weren't available to legally purchase, in other words, 
+most of the medium's history is behind an insurmountable technical barrier for some. You can't  just buy them and be done with it as you could with a movie or a 
+music record or a book, electronic or otherwise.
+
+This contributes to a warped perception of the medium. It's not as easy to engage with past titles as it was when they were new. Their abandonware status relegates
+them to enthusiasts: enthusiasts that do not mind having to pirate videogames, downloading emulators and jailbreaking consoles. Something that is not asked of 
+music fans, readers and moviegoers.
+
+Under this context of general inaccessibility, us, as the public, end up asking for crumbs, for anything, so we can experience our favorite games of the past in a 
+convenient manner.
+
+Remakes become the obvious choice of publishers that both fear losing money on publishing a game that doesn't appeal to modern audiences and covet the possibility
+of selling a new one that doesn't require further development of new and existing IPs. It's a win-win situation for them. Straight up ports and backwards compatibility
+end up hurting their bottom line: it is more financially rewarding to gatekeep their catalogs and to produce soulless remakes for the modern gamer. They don't want
+old games competing against their new ones, remakes or not. They don't care about preservation, because preservation goes against the business model they've been
+building for decades.
+
+This is how poor availability is wielded as a weapon by the big studios, but the effect these practices have on us in the public at large is in the end making us
+see the medium through a warped perception: the difficulty on engaging with classic games renders us, the people that actually bother to play them, a minority. And as 
+such, when you appreciate an old game for what it is, you're adopting the minority position.
+
+The gaming public has exploded dramatically since the 2000s, that translates to a wide sector of that same public that didn't even play (currently considered) old 
+games in their childhood.
+Whatever they know about the history of the medium in general and of game franchises in particular is consumed in any way other than actually sitting down and playing
+old games.
+
+Contrast this with music, literature, cinema. Of course, it's not rare to come across the occasional out of print book, but if games were commercialized in the same 
+way these other mediums are (no vendor lock-in, physical media you bought a long time ago still works with modern devices, multiple ways to both buy and experience a 
+work) do not think that games like _Demon's Souls_ or _Silent Hill 2_ would be out of print.
+
+Comparing gaming with cinema specifically gives depressing results: the reality is that, as I said before, most games are inaccessible, regardless of their cultural 
+significance or popularity, past and present. Mainstream Hollywood movies, specially culturally significant mainstream Hollywood movies are accessible in a way games
+could only dream of.
+
+Imagine that not only can you play your original Silent Hill 2 copy on any modern system you currently own, but that there's also an  infinite amount of retailers
+online that (legally) sell you both the physical and digital version of the game, for peanuts, ready to be played right now.
+
+## The perceptions we would have on videogames in this hypothetical world
+
+Now, do you think the public would be excited for remakes in a world where you can pay a fair price for almost any classic game and play it right now? A world where
+most people won't compare the remake and the original via video footage but with the actual experience itself: playing the remake alongside the original as the
+original is as accessible as any mainstream movie is now?
+
+How would we perceive classic videogames in this world? Do the ideas of "games aging" and that "progress" on non-technical aspects of the game such as control 
+schemes, mechanics and overall design invalidate that which came before would've taken root? I mean, I know people, probably you do too, that simply refuse to watch
+movies in black and white, be they modern or old. But, don't you think that's a kind of insane opinion to have? I think anyone who watches movies beyond the
+Hollywood movie of the minute available in cinemas would consider it insane.
+
+I don't have the answer for this as I'm threading on hypotheticals. But taking me as an example, someone that, if unable to buy a classic game, just decides to pirate
+it and call it a day and play it via emulators or a jailbroken system (no, I am not embarrassed about this confession. Any gaming enthusiast will resort to piracy
+sooner or later as a response to the lack of commercial offers), someone that is open to new gaming experiences, that plays games past and present... I do feel that 
+way about remakes. 
+
+I'm not willing to spend money on them and the majority seem like the product of a stagnant industry to me. And I do think my openness to play games
+regardless of when they were released plays a role in that. Play a sufficient amount of Playstation 2 games in an earnest fashion and believe me, you will stop 
+thinking that saying "Playstation 2 graphics" is a pejorative.
+
+# Do the products of the future delegitimize those of the past?
+
+I've come across a wide variety of opinions in favor of the notion of videogames aging: that this means that the past way of doing things at the time seemed 
+like the right thing to do, but because of further advancements in the medium, these (creative) decisions lost both their appeal and legitimacy: it is valid then to
+say that the good things about those games are bad in retrospect.
+
+As I explained in my [previous post](/2024/07/videogames_dont_age) on the topic: no, I don't hold this opinion. As I stated there, I believe that which was bad then
+still is and that which was good then still is.
+
+I don't hold this opinion because it seems to me that it ignores the wider context: the game those decisions lead to. I find it bizarre to think that it is a negative
+to not be able to aim up and down in _Doom_ when it is a standard in modern first-person shooters. This ignores the fact that _Doom_ is balanced around that fact. 
+It knows you can't (or shouldn't) aim up and down.
+
+As I said on my previous post, anyone who honestly engages with old games would not see this (obvious technical)
+limitation as a negative. The game knows this, the game would never ask you to aim up and down and it provides you with generous auto-aim for that.
+
+Of course the impossibility of vertical aim is a limitation of the BSP engine Carmack developed for the game. A couple years later we would see FPS games that did
+let you aim vertically (actually... it was possible just a year after Doom's release. System Shock came out in '94). Does that make _Doom_ bad in retrospect? 
+It is valid to think that maybe if they were able to implement vertical aiming in _Doom_ they would've done so, but this would've resulted in a radically different 
+game. You don't even have to imagine, GZDoom and some other source-ports let you do that. Have fun.
+
+Does the existence of _Doom_ negate _Wolfenstein 3D_? One uses BSP as the rendering algorithm, the other uses raycasting. It is obvious to notice that one
+opens up a world of possibilities over the other, that one is technically superior.
+
+Still, does the lack of verticality affect _Wolfenstein 3D_ that bad? Is the level design bad? Or, more plausibly, is it fair to consider that the game was designed 
+around the use of raycasting? That the experience it provides, while shackled by technical limitations as most creative endeavors are, still offers a solidly designed
+experience?
+
+That's why saying a game aged badly, for me, just seems like an excuse to not engage with games that do things in a way you don't like. It's a misguided value judgement
+because it's just judgement for judgement sake. 
+
+It just reveals you don't like this or that about some game, regardless of how the experience is as a whole.
+
+# Advancement towards standardization
+
+It is not totally incorrect to infer that (mainstream) games were more varied in the past. It was a wild west, there weren't going to be a lot of people complaining
+about your game having blocky graphics or tank controls. As more and more games came out and technology inevitably progressed, games were starting to play a lot like 
+each other.
+
+Third person games must be over the shoulder, no tank controls, no fixed camera angles, (console) first person shooters all use dual analog, turn based combat turns 
+off  a lot of people so there aren't a lot of games that still do turn based combat. This could lead to people thinking that yes, there is a "right" way to do things, 
+just do whatever else is doing, there you have it.
+
+That's why the Silent Hill 2 remake is an over the shoulder game, or why the Resident Evil 4 one lets you move while you aim. Not being able to walk as you aim in RE4
+is not a negative because the game is designed around that creative decision, but Capcom knows the mainstream audience wouldn't like that in a triple A remake, they
+would prefer a cookie cutter game instead.
+
+Implying that there's a right way to do things leads to that: cookie cutter design. Everything plays the same because everyone is doing the "right thing". And games
+that aren't doing the "right thing" risk alienating an important percentage of the mainstream public, a death sentence in such an expensive and competitive market.
+
+## There's no "right way" to do things in game design... so what do we have?
+
+Creative vision. That's it. If you make a game where you make use of every single aspect modern audiences supposedly hate like high difficulty, tank controls,
+fixed camera angles, blocky graphics, etc. that means that the active decision to include them, regardless if it is technically possible to NOT include them,
+was a creative one. 
+
+You'll end up taking them into account in designing your game. If in the end you do end up with a bad game, believe me, it wouldn't be the fault of tank controls, 
+it'd be your fault for not being able to design around them. Just like ID software designed _Doom_ around the lack of vertical aim, how _Resident Evil_ does the same 
+with its tank controls and camera angles, how _GoldenEye_ designs around being a console shooter on a console that doesn't even have dual analog controllers.
+
+Creative decisions implemented in a cohesive way result in good experiences. That's true for when you both follow the crowd or when you go against conventions.
+
+![demons_souls](/assets/images/2025/demons_souls.jpg)
+
+# The damage remakes and disapproval towards old games ends up doing
+
+I do think that the ubiquity of remakes in the medium do end up causing harm, let's review that:
+
+## Harming the collective memory of the public
+
+I recommend watching [Tepho's video on the matter](https://youtu.be/gF9OTRi2enQ) but as it is a spanish video with no subtitles, I'll summarize his thesis:
+remakes harm our collective memory. He exposes the case of _Ys_, a legendary japanese ARPG franchise infamous for having a myriad of titles across a myriad
+of systems and having a hard to trace lineage. A lineage that is hard to trace due to the fact that most of those titles are they themselves remakes of older 
+_Ys_ games.
+
+This reliance on remakes ends up muddying history: neither wikis nor information sources can get the release dates of the original games right. An important
+percentage of the _Ys_ fandom believes games that weren't the first ones, were. In just 40 years, the official PC8800 release is inaccessible as both a game
+and as a piece of history. Nihon Falcom relegates it to the annals of history and insists that a vastly different remake, which is in itself based on another 
+remake, is the canon version.
+
+You can experience this harm to our collective memory, right now with modern remakes: our main ways to retrieve information on the digital age, search engines and 
+LLMs, put the remakes front and center and relegate the original game to the second page. Entire wikis are rewritten to accommodate those remakes (see the case of
+Demon's Souls). You have to insist on looking for the original to get information about the original. 
+
+Remakes also nowadays eschew subtitles that could indicate that they're, in fact, remakes, publicizing them as both the definitive and only way to experience a game. 
+It is not strange to think that, due to the obscurity and general lack of availability of some games, their remakes end up as the de facto version: the original ends 
+up being forgotten by almost everyone, excluding specialists. Legacies purposefully obscured by studios, publishers and the public at large. A damage done to the 
+collective memory of an entire community.
+
+## Obscuring the objectively superior version
+
+I feel kind of bad using "objective" in an opinion piece like this one, as for every opinion, thinking this or that is better is subjective in nature.
+But, in this case, the use of this word is warranted: I can't say, in good faith, that a game that both disrespects and misrepresents the original like
+how the _Demon's Souls_ remake does is the superior way to play anything: as the original is the baseline, any title that decides to deviate from that baseline 
+experience in such a way that you end up with a vastly different game in terms of aesthetics has decided to ignore the baseline in its entirety: if you want to play 
+the superior version of _Demon's Souls_ you play the original, because it's the only version available. With this I'm not saying that this or that remake is a bad 
+game: they're just incomparable to the game they remake, and as such, can't be the "definitive" version of anything other than themselves.
+
+But this won't really matter to the public at large: if, in their mind, there's two ways of playing _Demon's Souls_, and one requires downloading an emulator and a ROM
+or buying an expensive copy off a scalper and fiddling with configurations, and the other is just a matter of clicking "Buy" in a storefront, people will take the path
+of least resistance, every time.
+
+And after finishing the remake, they will tell themselves that finally, they have played this game everyone was talking about, depriving themselves of the original 
+vision: they will be unaware of the fact that they experienced a fake.
+
+I know this, because it happened to me.
+
+# Conclusions
+
+I think the generalization of these sentiments towards videogames are a direct product of the state of the market. 
+
+I also earnestly believe, that, if you seriously 
+consider games as art, if you think they're a creative endeavor as any other, you wouldn't think that they're so disposable as to warrant "replacements" meant for 
+a "modern" audience. You would engage with them on their terms, you would notice that which you enjoy, that which you do not, you would judge them by both their 
+virtues and defects as products of their time. Just like we do with movies and books. Classics remain classics now and forever. They spur discussions, passions, people 
+keep enjoying and criticizing them in equal measure. The works are seen through the lens of history, we worry we're not engaging with a sufficiently true to the 
+original reprint or facsimile.
+
+Is it to much to ask for the same standards to be applied to games?