Jump to content

"an Interactive History Of Video Games"


Mike1812
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Sunday Times this week has a CD ROM called 'The Month' which has an interactive history of video games. What that means I have no idea but I thought some of you might be interested if only to point out the mistakes. It has Lara on the front :lol: I've never tried any of the previous 'Months' so I dont know what the content is like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as Tim Wapshott had nothing to do with it, then this could be okay. His games reviews in the Saturday Times' 'Play' were riddled with inaccuracies and very poor judgements. I read a good article about computer games in the Times Educational Supplement recently. The Sunday Times probably has little to do with either of those though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She happens to have starred in some of the most abysmal and forgettable videogames of all time.

And don't give me mainstream. Pacman/Mario/Sonic are far better videogame mascots. Lara's just the one the lazy (and usually uninformed) journo's go for.

I agree. Tomb Raider was an okay game that the media turned into a phenomenon. Something being recognisable to your mum does not automatically make it important/timeless/a design classic.

It's like doing a history of Hip Hop and putting MC Hammer on the cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting Lara Croft on the cover of "an interactive History of Video Games" would be about as relevent as putting MC Hammer on a history to Hip-Hop.

But just as understandable as putting beckham on the front of a history of football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez. You guys sure don't wait before you start insulting something now, do ya?

I completely agree. The fact that Lara is on the cover is negligable and in fact is completely understandable - she's the most recent 'icon' games have, and probably more far reaching than classic or retro characters. Who else would they put on there? Mario, Sonic or another cutesy character? What a hilariously selfish line of thought. That said...

...this is The Month we're talking about. My problem with The Month is it that it ISN'T editorial, which is how it's pitched to consumers. It's all completely advertorial - publishers pay for their games to feature, The Times has no mandate to cover quality titles/products/films/music and they just try to get the 'biggest' launches that month to spend money with them (i.e. the ones with the biggest marketing spend that month, geddit?).

So, with that in mind, I'm wary of this complete history nonsense. Sounds to me like they're using it to draw in more gamers as readers, which they can then boast to the publishers. 'Hey! Our gamer demographic has shot up! PAY US DOUBLE!' etc. Meaner and more cynical than even the likes of Enter The Matrix (at least Shiny believed in what they were doing... mostly).

(Oh, and from what I saw in MCV's reports on the launch of The Month in the summer, Tim Wapshott has some part in it - although if that's as a writer or the editor, I'm not sure.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Oh, and from what I saw in MCV's reports on the launch of The Month in the summer, Tim Wapshott has some part in it - although if that's as a writer or the editor, I'm not sure.)

Noooooooooo!

But in the spirit of not passing judgement until I've seen it, hoorah this may be rather good. People saying so are right that Lara being on the cover doesn't mean it won't be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Lara is on the cover is negligable and in fact is completely understandable - she's the most recent 'icon' games have, and probably more far reaching than classic or retro characters. Who else would they put on there? Mario, Sonic or another cutesy character? What a hilariously selfish line of thought.

Yeah, because they're really kiddie, right? Jesus.

Never mind the whole business of them being connected to a whole slew of decent games during an era when iconic 'mascot' characters were the focal point of the medium. Around 1989-1992 these characters were more widely recognised than Mickey Mouse, sold tens of millions of games, and the games themselves represented more or less the cutting edge of game design and console tech. If you're going to put a 'character' on the cover of a history of gaming, it's going to be Mario, Sonic or Pac-Man.

Lara Croft, Duke Nukem, Max Payne, yadda yadda yadda. These aren't icons, they're characters. They work in one context then it's on to 'someone' new.

But yeah, nice stab at distancing yourself from us 'losers', shame it wasn't thought out all that well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is? Tomb Raider? The Lara Croft character?

No and no, respectively.

Yes and yes.

How do you like them potatoes? Hmm? HMM?

Jut the first one mind. Prince of Persia in 3D with knobs on. Brilliant.

And Lara. Not a design classic? Sure thing buddy. Sure thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.