UM writes: Lately I’ve been feeling nostalgic, so I decided to count down the top 15 movies of 1999. Today I’m feeling much the same way, so I thought I’d give it a try with video games. And just like there were a ton of classic movies that came out a decade ago, the same is true for games. Many classic series got their starts this year, and you might have a laugh at what we thought used to be “cutting edge” and “graphically stunning.”
But even with technological advancements, there are some games on this list that have retained their playability to this very day.
In a career spanning interview, I speak to the creator of the Silent Hill, Siren, and Gravity Rush franchises about his 30 year time within the industry, what his thoughts are in making the transition from working for a AAA publisher to essentially becoming an independent, whether he’d be open to working on new iterations of the franchises that he’s renowned for, whether he’d be open to collaborating with any of the horror greats in the games industry, and what his long-term goals are for the next 30 years… Enjoy!
Interesting read, although the questions should have been more focused, and I think Gravity Rush, at least the first one, is fairly dark. Never got into the sequel.
I loved both games. There are pervasive themes of darkness worked in, but they're very vibrant games and Kat (history withstanding) is a very light-hearted character in a world that has its dark moments, but it's very generally upbeat, especially in comparison to Siren and Silent Hill.
Wait, dude made all 3? Wtf? Dude has a knack for cult classics like damn
"So most of the games that I’ve worked on have been new IPs, even though I’ve made different franchises and stuff. But I want to note that every time I make a new IP, my resources are pretty limited, and they’re limited by the company that I’ve worked for. So in that sense, Silent Hill, Siren, and the first Gravity Rush game, I think that we were striving to achieve something new, as opposed to making a big budget videogame. So I feel the need to do that every 3, 4, or 5 years. And I keep making new games, so going individual, like going indie right now, for me, I don’t really feel limited, I feel that it suits me more. So it feels like I’ve got an advantage, because I know how to work with limited resources."
That's encouraging. I really hope Sony would approach Toyama-san for a Gravity Rush sequel.
Gary Green said: Tempting as it is to dedicate our first installment of PlayStation Icons to a franchise-leader like Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, or even Sackboy, instead I’m choosing a character that I, like so many others, connected with on a personal level. He’s a moody, world-weary teen, a proud loner with no time for the drama of others, and yet he’s also a hero just waiting for the motivation to unleash his full potential. He’s a warrior. He’s a leader. He’s the king of internal monologues. It’s time to meet Squall Leonhart.
Mario Party has had quite the rollercoaster over its lifespan. First the games were good, then they were bad, and lately, we've been seeing some good entries in the series again.
I swear, 97-99 had some of the best videogames ever made. It's insane. What I love about these games is that each and every one of them felt unique, and never shied away from experimental game mechanics. That level of innovation, and a desire to break new ground seems to be going away at quite the rapid rate. Remember, these games had smaller teams with smaller budgets, hell, the multiplayer for Goldeneye was developed by two employees ON THE SIDE, in secret.
I feel like since I was born in 1990, I was exposed to some awesome games that absolutely spoiled me. Why is it that games that looked nothing like real life proved to be captivating? I wasn't worried about Tony Hawk's likeness in THPS, the visual language still allowed me to just enjoy the game and its mechanics instead of fretting over "physics-based eyelash sway" like we get in today's games. Make no mistake, there are some awesome games coming out every year since then, but I feel like the level of experimentation has decreased exponentially from the mainstream.
My favorite game of the year was probably Bloodborne, because it had an old school vibe to it. It felt like a game that shouldn't of existed in today's market, but it does. It's an insanely challenging, gory and utterly competent action game that nails combat and traversal perfectly. It looks great, but the foundation of its own design was so well realized, and polished to such a high degree, it felt like the developers actually CARED about putting out a game that didn't require a hundred patches to become "playable".
As a kid growing up in the 1990's, I was treated to so many awesome experiences, and my personal gem of a game was probably Pokemon, a game that I had no real expectations of until I wasted away in my bedroom playing it nonstop. I grew an appreciation for the magic that was game development, and amazed by every technical facet of the game I was playing.
"This game is huge, and it all fits on this little cartridge".
I think for me, when a developer did an interview for a magazine like GamePro or EGM, The developer seemed genuinely excited to bring a new game to market. They wanted to release a product of their collective imagination, a physical "hold-in-your-hands" depiction of hard work and magic in equal measure that had something to say. Obviously, when your are jumping into a new dimension, like from 2D-3D, there is going to be alot of stress, and I'm not trying to say it was all sunshine and rainbows, but compare even a young David Jaffe or Tim Schafer working on PS1 games to how they act today, and it doesn't feel like a dream to them, it's hard work, scrutinized and extrapolated by millions of players and critics, as well as the publisher imposing an impossibly tight time frame and the intent of not changing too much of what works, for fear of a loss of sales.
Now, we have Kickstarter and Steam Greenlight. We have developers breaking off from big studios to form their own, and recruit other industry legends without oversight from a "middleman".
And most importantly, we have big franchises from big publishers that have reached market saturation, and said publishers told by the gaming media in general to either back off on rampant release proliferation, or change up what has become tired and predictable. It's amazing how many scenarios can be based on, "innovate or die".
We'll just have to wait and see what happens next.
The year Dreamcast launched too.. Such great times back then