Bottling Lightning Twice: the challenge of following up a phenomenon

Occasionally a game comes around that surpasses all expectation. Such games become phenomenal, smashing genre conventions and presenting critically-acclaimed, excellent mechanics that other games scramble to replicate. I like to call such successes ‘bottled lightning’ games, as these titles tend to hit at just the right time and scratch just the right itches that make such phenomena practically impossible to feel ‘for the first time’ again. 

One example of such a game is Minecraft; in a games industry that at the time was dominated by linear action experiences and cutscenes, this game created a unique mix of survival and free-form creation unlike any other experience at the time. The true measure of the game’s bottled-lightning status was in its imitators; Minecraft clones became a dime-a-dozen; before it went multi-platform, developers raced on consoles to have their own ‘Minecraft-like’ experience to capitalize on the game’s immense popularity by presenting near-imitations. A renaissance of sorts happened in the genre of ‘survival games’ (a genre I’d argue didn’t so much exist pre-Minecraft), where hunger and thirst meters, as well as the mechanic of crafting from gathered materials, became commonplace in the market, even in games where it made no sense. 

With Minecraft being a billion-dollar product nowadays, and therefore the go-to-target of hipster scorn, it’s easy to forget the game’s early status as a pioneer that launched many modern trends we see today. Like it or not, Minecraft indeed bottled lightning. Who doesn’t remember the unique feeling of discomfort and newness as they launched the game for the first time, and how exciting the community was when they were discovering and re-telling every little legend and myth that formed around the game? It’s impossible to recreate that feeling in the game today; to play Minecraft for the first time again is impossible.

Dark Souls exists in a similar vein to Minecraft, and achieved widespread popularity in a similar, albeit less extreme way. As mainstream RPGs, such as Skyrim, became perceived as being simplified and ‘too easy’, and with the industry suffering from a perception of being ‘dumbed down’ to fit with an increasingly mainstream audience, Dark Souls came along as a punishing, opaque experience that offered deep, complex systems and a high barrier to entry. The game was a celebration of everything that had, up to now, been accepted tropes of videogames being so niche. As a phenomenon, Dark Souls gained notoriety rather than outright affection at first, as a difficult game accessible only for a certain kind of gamer and unapologetic of that fact. But as an industry trend, Dark Souls was a bona-fide cult hit, and it was undoubtedly helped by its unique flavour of gameplay that was rare to see in the games industry. 

Arguably, Dark Souls was the only game of its kind to truly strike its own unique formula that has been difficult to replicate, even for its sequels from the same company; for all the love Dark Souls II and III get, most fans now agree that the original Dark Souls is undoubtedly the quintessential experience of its gameplay. Even the game that preceded it, Demon’s Souls, doesn’t quite scratch the same itch. Dark Souls is certainly not without its imitators, many of which are excellent games, such as the sublime Japanese mythology-inspired Nioh. 

This leaves the problem of how to bottle lightning a second time; how does one follow up such phenomenal success with the weight of expectation? Fans would arguably want a sequel which would bottle lightning a second time and so uniquely feel new and exciting to play. But the sad reality is that this is, by definition, impossible to achieve with a sequel. Even if it succeeds in being so unique that it becomes its own phenomena, much like how Dark Souls did with its following-up from Demon’s Souls, a quitter hit that didn’t quite match its successor’s dizzying heights, it’s arguably because that game is so uniquely its own that it is instantly set apart from anything else. Instantly a game like this would set itself apart from its predecessors. Such games may bottle lightning in their own way but not their original inspiration’s lightning. So maybe the best way to approach such sequels and follow ups is not to expect this to happen and instead be happy creating new and interesting interpretations of the lightning formula; arguably, Dark Souls has already found some success in doing this with its sequels and with Bloodborne. Its sequels are successful and well-liked by critics and present interesting takes on the formula their predecessor founded. While not quite the same as playing the original, sublime title, what these games do is create unique interpretations of their own that make for great videogames. 

Bottling lightning may be something to aim for, but for audiences to expect the same to happen with follow-ups to the game would be foolish; a Minecraft 2, for example, would probably not nearly be a successful venture because it wouldn’t go off on quite the same tangent that Minecraft did and scratch the unique itch in quite nearly as impactful a way as the original. But instead creating new formula that expand on and interpret gameplay in new ways is still a worthy aspiration for any sequel and can sometimes be its own bottled lightning.

Do consoles have a place in a world with PC gaming?

Every gamer knows the old meme of the PC gaming master race. For years, PC Gaming’s most vocal defenders have shouted to all who would listen about the seemingly endless benefits of gaming’s most powerful platform. Those gamers that still squabbled over their preference of Playstation or Xbox were regarded as lowly console peasants. This argument is one of the many controversial issues debated among the gaming community, spawning many debates of its own surrounding framerates, resolutions and the relevance of plug and play convenience.

My personal view is that yes, playing on the PC is the most premier experience available to gamers today. If you want the very, very best way to play a videogame, chances are that outside of console exclusives, you will want to play it on the PC. This issue sums up to basic logic; simply put, playing on a PC lets you play at the highest resolutions and framerates with the highest graphics settings possible, if your computer can handle it.

However, that last qualifier is the sticker in this debate; for many gamers the sheer level of cost and research needed to play the latest games at such a great level is a prohibitive point. Many PC builds can range into the thousands of pounds and there are many pitfalls with compatibilities that can brick such machines. Imagine buying a thousand-pound machine only to inadvertently make one fatal mistake, and break the machine rendering all that cash a waste. It’s intimidating, to say the least.

The value proposition is handily debated about between PC and console gamers; the former insist that affordable builds can match, if not exceed the performance of the latest consoles at a lower price, while many console gamers have found that the small outlay for their black boxes offers the best possible value. It seems quite obvious at first; £250 for a PS4 today vs £1200 for a good, future-proof PC. From the level of investment, it looks like consoles come out winning.

However, PC gamers are quick to counter here; a PS4 costs £250, which gives you a machine that can do nothing but game (and some multimedia features). On the other hand, a PC gives you access to basically everything; fully-featured internet browsers, productivity software and an indispensable level of general functionality combine with best-in-class gaming performance for those with big enough wallets.

In addition, there are the infamous Steam sales, many of which represent huge savings that can more than decimate the cost of a game. Then there are other avenues; from the resurgent indie scene that offers a glut of excellent experimental games at tiny price points, to the widespread and much-championed modding community. PC gaming offers something for just about everyone.

In my opinion, on the value level there is a purpose for consoles. Quite simply, consoles remain the most accessible way to get into gaming at a moderate-to-hardcore level. To play the latest, most important games, the average person can just pick up a black box for £250, plug it in, download a patch or two and they’re away.

With a PC there are many differing and intimidating levels of access. To get into PC gaming there is a lot of research required from graphics cards to processor clocks. It’s hard to gauge the right amount of investment required to give you the best experience. But again, for the customisability and range the PC remains triumphant; if a gamer is so aligned, they can still play even on a low-budget machine with no graphics capability to speak of. There are a massive amount of Indie and Flash games that can cater for these exact needs. What is still up for debate, however, is how much value this actually offers. Sure, playing Flash games is one thing, but they’re a far cry from the latest and greatest AAA experiences out there. There may be many levels at which a player can game on a low-budget PC, but how much of this is worth playing when at around the same cost for a PC with such low-capability one can buy a PS4 and open themselves up to playing the latest Doom, or Resident Evil 7? This may be a controversial point, but who can honestly say they can find a £250 PC that will reasonably run those titles?

As a gamer that has recently bought a gaming PC, simply because I want to experience the very best way to play games for once, I have to say that I am not as devout a follower of the PC Master Race doctrine as many others are. The main conclusion here is that PCs are great value if you want to experience the very best way to play, but there is a place in the market for consoles. Like them or loathe them, the world will not be a better place if the consoles just failed. As I have stated before, more competition is, in general, usually a better thing for both consumers and for companies in the gaming space. As a proud owner of a new, proper gaming PC, I want to make clear that I love gaming in all its forms, and this includes consoles. This whole argument that pitches consoles and PCs against one another is just one way in which the gaming community is breeding toxicity, and I hope that this article has gone some way in showing why that makes little sense. Quite simply, there is a place in the market for the consoles and for the PCs and if the gaming economy is going to continue to grow we need to be more accepting of people’s purchasing choices.

Gaming's Moral Panic is Over

Not too long ago, video games were seen as the enemy; Jack Thompson, a fanatic among lawyers, was one loud voice among millions calling for the end of gaming. The hobby was under near-constant attack from media of all political leanings. It was a pretty bad time to be a gamer, especially a teenage gamer. I recall having games taken from me because the latest sensationalist article by The Sun called them evil. Instead of being viewed as a source of learning, development of skills and critical thinking, games were the single worst thing to happen to anybody’s childhood. Ever.

The reasons for this are wide-ranging; America had a gun lobby that was too powerful, which desperately blamed everything but guns for the increasing number of school shootings. Western countries being too stubborn to admit widespread social problems and instead blame those pesky new-fangled gadgets that the kids are all into these days. On top of this, we had the confrontational nature of video game companies that sought to flirt with controversy, deliberately courting the outrage of society in order to get the free marketing that came with those angered news headlines.

However, I like to think that we have turned a corner on video game thinking. Jack Thompson is disbarred as a lawyer and has largely come to be ignored. Criticism on games has now taken the form of affecting social change and better societal representation, instead of calling for games to be banned. More people than ever are engaging with games in some way. The moral panic is over.

Perhaps more incredibly, people are now starting to see games as something positive. Even going so far as to suggest the use of video games as therapy. This Reuters article cites a PLoS ONE study that found the video game EVO to have benefits toward ADHD and sensory disorders. Games are now becoming the opposite of what they used to be. Instead, people are realising the positive impact that a healthy engagement with gaming can have on their lives.

I think this is because, as it became apparent that games are here to stay, people had to become more willing to accept them. I am a member of the camp that widely believes that games are healthy and can be used as great teaching and learning devices, as well as great tools for critical and literary thought; I predict that in the next few decades we will begin to see earnest literary criticism of video games by academics.

By accepting video games into culture, this garnered a more positive relationship with them. Instead of being the rebellious thing to do, playing video games is now fairly normal. As this shift occurred, people were now taken seriously for their thoughts on gaming. Celebrities now count professional gamers and YouTubers among their ranks. Culture has shifted to allow video games into the mainstream, and this in turn allows serious academic thought toward gaming.

I believe that video games will make great therapy tools and in time, gaming will become a serious, well-considered subject of learning. Just like movies, and books before them, serious academic thought will turn to video games, picking them apart and understanding the technique behind the classics. Eventually academic study of this will be viable, and I am all too excited for this to happen. I believe that the inherent nature of video games, being at the crucial centerpoint between many forms of art, lends them to be analysed in artistic thought.

We, of course, need to turn this thinking to the next generation. Kids will be raised on ever-more-complex and engaging video games, and gamers, as prospective parents, need to learn how to teach their kids to engage with gaming in a healthy way. When I have kids, I will be looking to engage with my kids on different video games and use this to encourage critical thought. Ask them to look at why they like certain games more than others. Encouraging critique and encouraging academic thought of any kind is vital to developing a healthy relationship with any media, and is an opportunity that I think has sadly been missed out on to any serious extent when it comes to video games.

Soon, I believe that gaming will be as regarded as movies or books. We will have game buffs, as much as we have film buffs and bookworms. We will be able to think in a more evolved, critical sense of video games, and I believe that once we are capable of such analysis, the medium will reach new levels of maturity. I am totally excited for this and wait eagerly to see what gaming in the future has to offer us. Given where we have been, gaming has passed all of its hurdles and challenges, and now seeks as an industry to become mature and take pride of place among other well-regarded forms of media.