Guess who started a legacy?

What is a Classic? And Does Classic Always Mean Keeper? Part 1 of 2

The words 'classic' and 'masterpiece' are bandied about quite a lot these days; from films to TV shows to records to novels. There are modern classics, cult classics and just plain old classic classics, seminal and universally acclaimed works that will stand the test of time. So why should video games be any different? Although video gaming is a comparatively new art form when considered alongside the written word and audio/visual entertainment media, you’d be a bit of a fool to ignore the success and influence of today's gaming industry. After all, it's now not uncommon for a top end AAA video game to outdo a Hollywood blockbuster in terms of revenue. As a result of widespread commercial success and appeal, many games are now considered staples in the libraries of both casual and hardcore gamers worldwide. These are games that we will continue to talk about, scrutinise and revisit for years to come. From a personal point of view, if a game is a 'classic', it will occupy a permanent space on my shelf and will never be subject to the routine cull of dust gatherers and 'in the disc tray once' titles which I've so foolishly bought and still buy in the wake of the inevitable pre-release hype train. For me a true 'masterpiece' is a game which grabs me so wholeheartedly that I would panic if I misplaced my copy, even though I would have no real plans to replay it anytime soon. But equally there are games which offer thoroughly excellent experiences from start to finish, which are lauded as classics but which I won't feel the need to keep in my collection from now until the day I die. So, what makes a game a 'classic' - cult, modern or otherwise? And does 'classic' always mean a game is going to be a 'keeper', a permanent feature in a gamer's library? Just to get this out in the open before we kick off: the purpose of this piece is not to determine which games are classics and which are not. Nor am I claiming to be any sort of authority on what makes a game a masterpiece. I may mention a few games by name to illustrate a point but I know that the word classic will mean very different things to very different types of player. It doesn't actually matter whether you are an avant RPG player, a lover of platformers, a fan of racing sims, mad for MMOs or a purveyor of open world chaos and exploration; but there are certain boxes a video game really should tick to be considered in the highest echelons of gaming culture. Often when playing a genuine classic you can actively feel the love and thought that has gone into every aspect of its development. This could be a meticulously mapped and resultantly slick control system, a coherent and thrilling story involving believable characters that do meaningful things in a world that feels lived in and alive. Or it could be clever level design which throws up surprises and variety at every turn, a high degree of challenge which keeps you coming back time after time, even in the face of multiple failures or even a sense of longevity and reward in exchange for the player having chosen to invest hours of their life in a single experience. A classic may possess all of these, working together in harmony to create something very special. Or just some of these. Not all video games need to rely on depth of character and story development to make them successful, for example. The overarching factor is what a developer sets out to accomplish, what their aims are and how well these aims are executed in the final product. Developers don't necessarily set out to make classics. Don't get me wrong, a developer is always aiming to make the very best game possible but it's what happens once a game has hit the shelves that can often determine whether a game gains classic status or not, for good or for bad. I've seen games that are absolutely wonderful from beginning to end, adored by the critics but unfortunately never gain any real traction with the public, shift far fewer copies than they really deserve to and are then often labelled as 'hidden gems' or 'cult favourites' but are sadly left relatively forgotten. Enslaved: Odyssey to the West stands out here, selling a mere 500,000 copies. We've also seen games that have promised lots pre-release but have fallen short when it comes to execution of core gameplay mechanics. The criticism attracted by No Man's Sky is the obvious example. In theory this could be hugely damaging to consumer confidence in a developer being able to deliver and meet expectations on a consistent basis. Thankfully in practice consumers are rarely as damning. More often than not consumers value good games over loyalty to any one developer. Thankfully. One bad release doesn't necessarily mean that it's game over, especially if the next game is a huge hit. But for the smaller developers, can there be a next game following a huge commercial flop? In the case of No Man's Sky, only time will tell for Hello Games. My feeling is that they should be afforded another chance, and to their credit have already set about things in the right way post release thanks to some hefty and very well received game enhancing updates. Despite the feelings of fan entitlement and talk of broken promises that came bubbling to the surface once discs began to spin in consoles, Hello Games did not set out to make a bad game, just as no one sits down with the intention of making a classic. And its also important to note too that for many, this is by no means a bad game at all. Not even close. The aesthetic beauty of its procedurally generated worlds alone is a marvel for some. Before being too quick to criticise, we should stand back and realise that at their core developers are teams of very talented, passionate people who make games they hope to be proud of and that they themselves would enjoy. Long may that continue. But any developer would be lying if they said they do not pay attention to what their target audience wants. It is too simplistic to say that was where Hello Games fell down, to continue with this example. Things change in the development phase and that's the way it is. The creative process is one that is constantly in flux, as it should be to allow the flexibility for new ideas to take shape and others to fall away. But at the same time being sensitive to your market is at the heart of any successful industry. As much as they are in it for the love of games, developers make games to sell copies and consumer behaviour is a huge factor in driving change which in turn keeps giving us fresh waves of new and exciting experiences that are packed with all or some of the features discussed above. For good or for bad, the consumer has perhaps the biggest say in how well received a game is and its perceived classic status or lack thereof. Commercial success is only one indicator though. The Xbox Classics or PlayStation Platinum range of days past sought to place games in the 'classic' category based on sales alone and bring them to the consumer at a fair price. Having once been a teenager living off a quite limited weekly supply of pocket money, this was always welcome. But if we look at sales alone, this does not always guarantee classic status. The Call of Duty franchise releases a new entry in the series almost every year, selling millions of copies in a blink, thanks to an engaging, well scripted single player campaign and fast paced, satisfying multiplayer modes. Hugely successful sales figures are one thing but can each successive entry in the series really be considered a classic? You might say no in the broadest sense of the word 'classic' but to the legions of loyal fans of the series, the COD games may very well be classics, in spite of recent criticism that the series is becoming a bit stale. The power of the fan community is a huge factor when talking about classic status which arguably carries as much if not more gravitas than sales do. You might say that of course if you are a fan of game or series of games, you buy the product, make your contribution and so a game's fan base is very closely linked to sales revenue. And, yes it is. But it's not quite as simple as that. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 has sold somewhere approaching 20 million copies worldwide to date. From Software’s Dark Souls released in late 2011 has 'only' sold around 3 million units to date. Admittedly both are very different games but both have very passionate and dedicated fan communities, neither more or less so than the other and who would both argue their point for their game being considered a 'classic', regardless of sales. I'm glad to see that from a consumer point of view, gaming is and has always been an aesthetic experience first and foremost and not one about numbers and popularity. Gamers don't see sales figures flashing before their eyes as they shoot an enemy, slay a monster or screech around a corner and not all are driven by mass appeal. No matter what your gaming background may be, video game enthusiasts value their own experience of a game above all else, with many also proud to occupy a place in and make a contribution to their respective fan communities. And it's thanks to the relatively recent proliferation of the internet that these fan communities have really gained a firm platform upon which to exert a meaningful influence. Gamers are a species not afraid to make their opinion heard and the internet has made that even easier, for good or for bad. And it is heartening to hear that developers do listen to gamer opinion too. The developers of Nioh for example have rolled out no fewer than three demos, the first two serving as test spaces to gauge fan opinion in the now common beta format. But aside from the voicing of opinions, fan engagement with Dark Souls and Modern Warfare 4, both now relatively old games, has not receded. Although players of Modern Warfare 4 in its original release format are now dwindling, YouTube is still awash with Call of Duty multiplayer videos and skilful kills spanning the whole series. A recent reboot of the Modern Warfare is evidence alone of the fan appeal of this particular entry which will also aim to pull newcomers in too no doubt. Six years after release, Dark Souls on the other hand not only still has a very active PvP player community but is also able to boast of wikis that are as deep as the decent to Blighttown and as wide as the Gaping Dragon's toothy appendage. And across both series, content is always being uploaded and updated as new things and ways of doing things are still being uncovered. For fans of these games and many others considered classics within their respective communities, it is this wider experience that exists outwith the bounds of the game's world that is just as valuable and special as the game's world itself. You may think the phrase 'one can't exist without the other' does not apply here, as the game's world will exist regardless of how many people engage with it. But had there not been this deep engagement from fans initially, fixes and improvements may never have been made nor may there have been the appetite for subsequent entries in these series; subsequent entries which often aim to distil, refine and develop the winning formula to serve their fans and gain new ones along the way. So in saying this, it might be fair to assume that not only do classic games breed fans but fans and their feedback breed what developers hope will be further classic games. So the game’s a classic? But does even that make it worthy of becoming a permanent feature in your collection? Part 2 of 2 to come in a few days time….