Alexey Pajitnov, who created the ubiquitous game in 1984, opens up about his failed projects and his desire to design another hit.
He prefers conversations about his canceled and ignored games, the past designs that now make him cringe, and the reality that his life’s signature achievement probably came decades ago.
The problem is that that guy created what is probably the biggest, most timeless simple video game in history. Your chances of repeating that are really low.
It’s like you discover fire at 21. The chances of doing it again? Not high. You could maybe do other successful things, but it’d be nearly impossible to do something as big again.
Star Wars has been described as "science-fantasy" for decades. I wasn't aware that there was any controversy on this point. At least the author of the article admitted to the fact that it is blatant click-bait.
That said, some Star Wars novels could easily fit into the traditional science fiction framework. That's one of the things I love most about the franchise: It accommodates all genres!
I thought this was already well established? Star Wars has the aesthetic trappings of sci-fi (spaceships, lasers, aliens, robots, etc), but the stories themselves are all fantasy. Other than some stuff in The Clone Wars series, the movies themselves don’t really ponder the same things that sci-fi movies would ponder, they’re more about classical good vs evil stories, fantastical magic powers, and the hero’s journey.
There's an entire genre of fantastic arcade/versus puzzle games not named Tetris. And that whole genre lies forgotten in ruins now. The one game that survived the longest was Puyo Puyo, but ironically, you can blame Tetris for killing that IP in the end.
I wish any developer luck in trying to do anything at all with this genre, give me something new and I will be first in line to buy ten copies. But I don't think Pajitnov, or anyone else for that matter, will ever find even 1% of the success Tetris did. I just don't think audiences still want this genre anymore, they just want Tetris and only Tetris.
I think the difference is that in sci fi stories they always have a scientific explanation for things. Star Trek is a good example of this. Tricorders, shields, phasers, warp drive, impulse drive, and replicators all have in-universe scientific explanations. They might be made up, but there is no element of magic in any of it.
Star Wars, on the other hand, doesn't really get into those things. Yes, there are technical manuals, but we don't see engineers on the Death Star reversing polarity. And nobody liked it when they tried to have midichlorians be a scientific explanation for The Force.
So I would agree with Mr. Hodgman that Star Wars is, in fact, a fantasy. It's a space fantasy, but it definitely lacks the "science" part of "science fiction."
I have very little to add to the overall discussion regarding SW being fantasy. But I think its important that you bring up the Tricorder as to me that one piece of Treknology DEFINES Trek as a scifi film/tv series and I want to add my completely unsolicited take on it.
Of all the popular science fiction franchises out there you often see the usual components; space ships, FTL travel, sophisticated weaponry of some kind. And usually these elements all get lots of screen time and attention. They have special names, special abilities, rules and constraints. Time is taken to explain these to you either through dialogue or on screen examples. They get nice big close ups either of the prop itself or of the actor using it.
And its true that most scifi I’ve seen has featured some form of handheld sensor data acquisition and display device, but never is it a main stage prop. Its usually just a repainted PDA or UMPC, or failing that just a box with some lights and a screen that some extra waves over something in the background. I can’t think of any show or movie that gives the lowly scanning device as much love as Star Trek. Right from 1969 its been an integral part of Star Trek storytelling. Sure usually just as plot conveyance, but still. It has a name, it has abilities that are reasonably explained. Its a device which has a singular purpose of using technology to demystify the unseen world around us.
I think the Tricorder tells you everything you need to know about the difference between Wars and Trek. Im a bit obsessed with them, tbh.
You're absolutely right about that. The tricorder is hugely important to Trek, and I think there's another reason that makes it the most "sciencey" of sci fi: When someone on Trek sees a weird thing, what's the first thing they do? Scan it with their tricorder. Why? Because they're scientists first, and scientists know not to trust human senses.
in sci fi stories they always have a scientific explanation for things
I think there are two issues with this: it’s not a requirement that sci-fi explain things; and it’s not clear what would qualify an explanation as “scientific”.
I would say, rather, that the implicit set of laws governing a sci-fi world are a superset of those currently understood to govern ours, while in a fantasy world the governing laws contradict those governing ours.
I would say, rather, that the implicit set of laws governing a sci-fi world are a superset of those currently understood to govern ours, while in a fantasy world the governing laws contradict those governing ours.
I like this a lot. It covers really old sci fi like Mary Shelley or Jules Verne, and reinforces the idea that fantasy stories (good ones, anyway) need to also have laws.
Yes, I agree with this. I've thought about this before, and Star Wars doesn't really qualify as "Science Fiction", because we never learn about the science of anything. It's just there - part of the scenery. That's the fantasy aspect; we're not thinking about realism or how things work, we are just fantasizing about a cool futuristic space setting with space magic and swords with blades made of light.
E tam. Ja go szanuję za dwie rzeczy. Kiedyś zareklamował Signal i wiele osób zaczęło korzystać z tego komunikatora. Później kupił Twittera i swoimi decyzjami sprawił, ze wiele osób przestało korzystać z tej platformy i przerzuciło się na szmer, mastodon itd.
Metroid and Castlevania are two of my favorite series, and I adore the genre. That being said… I just can’t seem to get into Hollow Knight no matter how much I want to. Maybe I’m not putting enough time into it but I just keep getting bored quickly every time I pick it up. I think it’s partly the environment, every room looks very same-y so far. I want to like it but I’m clearly missing something
I fundamentally dissagree with the term “metroidvania” because Metroid and Castlevania are different. Both are what I call a “side-scrolling action platformer,” but Metroid gives the player powerups to encourage them to explore their environment, while Castlevanias powerups focus almost entirely on combat. Therefore Metroid includes “adventure” in its genre, but Castlevania does not.
I never got lost in a Metroid game, but I also have a pretty good ability to remember how I got somewhere. Metroid does a generally pretty good job making nearly every room memorable and unique to help players not get lost, and Metroid has mostly included a map to help players as well. If players are still getting lost, IMO that’s just a skill issue.
But I understand what the author is trying to say, and they are right. Actually getting lost is not what they mean, they mean level and game design that lends itself to encouraging exploration by trial and error. Level design and game design that shows the player some impassable wall early and then when they get the ability to pass it later on, leaving it entirely up to the player to remember. Backtracking is a mandatory staple, if a Metroid game has no backtracking, especially for item expansions, then it is not a real Metroid game. Making the player be the one to do the exploring and not holding their hand is crucial to a good Metroid experience. This is why I consider Metroid Fusion, Other M, and Dread to be among the weaker Metroid titles. All three have an obvious, forced always on hand-holding mechanic that you don’t find in other Metroid games. Like the developers don’t trust the player to actually be smart enough to figure the game out.
The “metroids” and the “vanias” do definitely feel different, but the cross section in that Venn diagram is pretty obvious, and that’s what the genre is named for. I prefer the “metroids” to the “vanias”, but even the “vanias” have tons of non-combat upgrades.
while Castlevanias powerups focus almost entirely on combat.
Castlevania has always (edit: I mean since SotN) had a pretty heavy emphasis on movement abilities to access new areas. Looking at SotN, we have double jump, high jump, swimming, mist form, bat form, wolf form, as well as good ol' keys to literally unlock the environment.
This is why I consider Metroid Fusion, Other M, and Dread to be among the weaker Metroid titles. All three have an obvious, forced always on hand-holding mechanic that you don't find in other Metroid games.
I'll give you Fusion and Other M, but I'm going to have to disagree on Dread here. The game does sort of guide you along an intended first playthrough route, but so does Super! It's a delicate balance to give the player room for exploration while still ensuring they don't get stuck not knowing where to go. That balancing act should not be seen as disqualifying, or else we're throwing out the genre's foundational text too. If anything, the biggest difference between Dread and Super here is that Dread actually has more developer-intended sequence breaks. If you play Super as intended without utilizing any speedrunning tech, you almost always follow the same route in the end.
Castlevania has always had a pretty heavy emphasis on movement abilities to access new areas
The -vania part always seemed a bit odd to me as well because of the history of the games, but it makes sense based on when the term became popularized. If someone had tried to coin a term for the genre earlier I think it would’ve been Metroid-like alone, specifically because the early entries of Castlevania didn’t really have any movement-based mechanics upgrades until SotN. Even things being locked behind item progression was only in Simon’s Quest before that (although it looks like Vampire Killer had some more open levels where you had to find keys). I’m not familiar with Rondo of Blood, which looks like it had some exploration of levels with the secondary character, but again without upgrading movement mechanics.
So you basically had Metroid ('86) and Super Metroid ('94) being quintessential examples of the modern metroidvania genre, whereas there were almost a dozen Castlevanias before SotN ('97) that were mostly linear.
But that’s exactly why we have the word metroidvania.
The term Metroidvania initially referred to entries in Konami’s gothic 2-D action Castlevania series whose mazey maps closely evoked the Metroid games
It was sometimes used derisively in forums, but it was to tell apart the likes of Symphony of the Night from the likes of the linear ones. And then as we got more Castlevanias like Symphony of the Night in the GBA era, it became part of the definition of what this genre is.
I suppose I should've been clearer there, I really just meant the Koji Igarashi-era games, not Classicvania. As the other comment mentions, the term Metroidvania was actually originally coined to separate the two eras of Castlevania, before the genre exploded in popularity and it became repurposed.
Kinda seems misleading considering they said they need 7 mil copies sold to break even and 6 months after release it had sold 11 million. Blaming the layoffs on this seems like a transparent misdirection to make people think they lost money here. They want to spend less money, and I get that from a business standpoint, but it seems like they’re looking for reasons to make people accept worse looking games. I don’t really play high graphics games, but if they start decreasing the graphics budget I expect to see a decrease in cost. Don’t pay the same for less.
I agree with the other comments saying it’s about fun and not graphics, but this seems to have been published to get people to expect worse graphics regardless of fun.
nytimes.com
Ważne