NeoZeedeater

I've found that in a general sense for me the most endearing and memorable games of my past are those games that the general new gaming public aren't exposed to, but the sad part is that's because there aren't more games like them, which also is because so few people heard of them and made the purchase. That's a really shitty spiral the more you think about it. Without proper word of mouth and hype some great gems get one installment and such poor sales that no one ever looks at them as a decent model to build off. Imagine if GTA III, or Half Life or Halo had no hype or reviews or amazing sales off word off mouth how different the gaming industry might be right now, then in reverse imagine what we might have received over the last few years of something like BG&E had sold the way we all know it should have. Instead of sitting around hoping that a sequel finally gets released more than half a decade later, we would have seen the end of a trilogy which likely would have been incredible.

It's a shame.

Making a large impact is difficult, especially with how quickly things are moving forward, that and the media will always be pushing in the opposite direction - which is focusing on the next big thing. Younger people who are growing up in this gaming generation really don't know anything (or seem to care to know) about the history of this hobby, influential titles, or the "hidden gems" that get swept underneath the mainstream. Growing up I didn't have anyone to expose me to all the things I missed out on, and I am forever playing catch up. But, it was this website, and certainly your efforts, that really made me care about digging into the history of a lot of games, as well as playing more oldies that I missed. So, you have made a difference!

You really need your own retro column here.

I actually do feel like there's some progress in the gaming media, and I think wikipedia has been a really powerful tool there. Obviously wikipedia has a lot of misinformation here and there too, and the way it is dependent on the media since original research is prohibited makes it difficult for researchers who don't get to publish stuff on IGN first like me.

But I absolutely have noticed stuff that I wrote on wikipedia get parroted elsewhere. Just for a TNL tie-in, I remember a long time ago we had a discussion on what to call the platformer sub-genre that Prince of Persia/Flashback/etc belonged to. We didn't really reach a conclusion, but someone suggested "cinematic game" or some such, so I called them Cinematic Platformers when I wrote the wiki entry, and now I see that term actually pop up more and more often. I know where it came from because I made the term up.

Of course that's not an example of better information, but I do see research I've done and then later incorporated onto wikipedia show up all over.

Lazy (or overworked) writers will never just start working harder, but as accurate information is more available to them, they're going to lean on that. So I do see things getting better.

Keep doing what you are doing NZE, I always enjoy reading your posts and opinions on things (unlike most of the tropinions hyberboles, including my own). I would imagine it would be difficult to have a higher standard in videogame journalism, but hey, anyone can start a website/blog so if anyone can do it, it is you.

Thanks guys.

I shouldn't say there has been no progress in the media. I do love how today's media is much more likely to talk about console games and PC games together as both being video games although the rise of multi-format gaming has probably contributed to that. There are other little improvements as well. When I say the media hasn't improved, I'm mostly thinking of recent years and some disturbing trends like the romanticization/fact twisting of Nintendo's past. I think it's inexcusable to have articles/lists nowadays covering '80s gaming and having it pretty much all being NES and maybe a few arcade games. Shouldn't the quality stuff that wasn't as big in sales back then be getting at least a bit more recognition than back in the day instead of even less? Gamers have had over 20 years to catch up on some of the important games they couldn't afford or missed back then. And if they haven't caught up, that's fine. I just don't want those people getting paid to write about older video games.

That wiki example gives me hope for making an impact, though. I should definitely use it more. I have made corrections here and there, and I also sometimes do little things like change the words "US market" to "North American market" or add in Oceania alongside Europe when it applies to help make vocabulary more accurate and inclusionary.

Oh, another one I noticed as a wiki ripple effect, after I named Alpha Waves and the first 3D platformer in a couple places on wikipedia, I noticed the creator of the game Cristophe De Dinechin embraced the distinction and wrote a lot about it, giving a really detailed behind the scenes account of its creation. I've seen it pop up other places too, but it's obviously not a game that comes up in the mainstream media.

Omega Race was a pretty cool arcade game. Have you played the 2600 version NZE?

Yeah, it's a good version for the hardware. Commodore's ones are much nicer, though. The VIC-20 version is easily my favourite because it's the only one the runs really smoothly and lets you do more things with your ships movements, i.e. tapping the joystick just right to quickly become stationary or send yourself bouncing back and forth in a straight line.