Within the last couple of years the video game industry has had an explosion of stellar franchises that arguably rival any other kind of media created thus far. But unlike years previous, advancing technology has allowed designers and storytellers to craft amazingly unique experiences with characters and storylines that would have baffled their awe-struck 1980's counterparts. Uncharted, Bioshock, and Mass Effect are just a few big names that come to mind when thinking of huge games with massive storylines. More and more, it seems like common trend to treat these games like individual stories with plots and character-arcs that end when the game ends. In other words, when the developers decide that Nathan Drake is satisfied with treasure hunting days and the saga is over, there won't be any more Uncharted games. While that was just an example, many games that are being played today are reaching or are going to reach a similar fate. But really, is there anything wrong with that? If so, what can be done to change it? Should "the end" really be the end?
Over the years I've heard a lot of old-school gamers lament over the favorite franchises. While this is nothing new or exciting, an interesting facet of this issue is that most of the games they talk about are long forgotten relics of generations past. I personally try to look up on my gaming history the best I can, but I believe that most people my age don't know what Rush 'n Attack, Lode Runner, or even Space Invaders looks like. This is sad considering how many big hits there are from a time of quarters and cartridges that are simply forgotten or lost. It's true that some of these games have reappeared on services like Xbox Live Arcade and PSN, striking a nostalgic chord with fans of these classic titles, but not reaching the appeal that they originally had. What about 30 years from now when we are playing Uncharted on our new Sony phone? Will our kids or even grandkids bother to download it? What will happen to our favorite franchises in the future?
Back in the 80's and 90's video game characters, and particularly their stories, were introduced after the game was made. Wanna try that theory? Try guessing an old game's story by playing the game, then read the game's manual. You'll probably have a totally different insight on the games story and characters. This was obviously a limitation of the technology, but also a smart and efficient way to open up your franchises for future installments. Nowadays, games are seemingly built from the ground up with storylines and character-arcs in mind. The rise of cinematography in video games, and the - ahem - trilogy, have created a finite limit to sequels and the future of franchises. Do you like Gears of War? Well there probably won't be any more of those games coming out of Epic any time soon. Why, because Epic wrapped up the trilogy. Naughty Dog probably won't be making any more Uncharted games with The Last of Us on their plate. (Not to mention that Sony Bend kind of has the reins on that franchise now.) It seems like the more we add cinematic and storytelling experiences within our games the more of an expiration date to our franchises. After all, a story's got to end sometime right?
Engaging storylines and characters are not the problem. If they do anything they've actually helped video games move forward in the spectrum of art and media. But imagine movies, in movies you can create characters and storylines and trilogies and sagas and people will keep coming to see them time and time again to experience the scenarios and emotions you've presented. Video games are not like that. At the most you may only spend three hours digesting a film and then you can move on. Video games take tens of hours to complete and then demand physical skill or mental prowess to even play. Films haven't fundamentally changed since their conception, so a viewer who just watched something today could appreciate a movie from years past. Gameplay design degrades over time and decade's old hardware can become almost impossible to find. Also, video games are a very progressive medium by their nature. That means a space opera that will come out twenty years from now is going to be automatically better than Mass Effect 3 either in graphical fidelity or modern design. (Moore's Law, if you will.) It also means that Uncharted's shooting sections will look more like a rafter in the eye than a thorn in the side twenty years from now. I guess it could be said that games are, quite sadly, a throw-away medium by their nature. The question that should be asked isn't "how can we recycle our IP's and give them to new generations" but rather "how can we sustain an experience and create something timeless that future generations can look at and learn from".
It's been said that time mends all wounds. And while this is usually false, video games have the ability to evolve from the nickelodeons and picture shows they are today and become box office masterpieces. Would anyone have thought that "Jump Man" would become one of the most recognizable mascots in history? With current technology we are on the threshold of something amazing. Already artists, programmers, and designers are crafting experiences that would have been unimaginable decades ago and unthinkable years ago. Games like Bioshock and Mass Effect are just a small example of the amazing things that storytellers are doing with gameplay and design and this is only the current generation. Although the current state of games is wonderful and awesome we can always do more. Hopefully future generations can look at today's work and learn from our mistakes, re-master our current works of art, and keep "the end" from being the end.
- Wayne Strickland