the very first attempt at using the Cathode Ray Tube, i.e. the basic building block at the core of any TV up to a few years ago, for gaming purposes. It was a missile shooting game, by the way, where the targets were represented by overlays to be placed on the screen.

Q. What is the “golden age of video games” you may plug the book, but also explain what you mean and why was is Golden, weren’t they all underpowered with very limited graphical and sound capabilities, shouldn’t they all be buried and forgotten about?

The "golden age", as defined in the book, covers the years of the early affirmation of video games as a medium and as a commercially successful product able to conquer a stable place in the homes of millions of people throughout the world. Namely, we are talking about the years between the release of the Atari VCS (1977) and 1994 when the industry landscape completely changed due to Sony PlayStation's launch and the definitive affirmation of the IBM PC, with the consequent bankruptcy of previous industry leaders like Commodore. Those years were so much full of bright ideas, technical advances, amazing games, catastrophic failures and terrific successes that they really can't be ignored nor forgotten! I think any person, regardless of age, with an interest in video games or business or even just pop culture, should get into that fascinating period, play at least a few games on the most relevant platforms and understand how they were able to achieve "fun" despite technical means that could easily be overshadowed by a simple modern smart phone! There's actually an important lesson to learn here: "Fun" is not really dependent on technology prowess but on good game design and ideas, and there were plenty during those pioneering years that defined the different gaming genres as we know them today.

Q. Do you feel recent games and consoles have lost something from the
“golden age?”

They did, but I feel that sense of wonder and discovery that was characteristic of those years is actually coming back thanks to the indie scene that is getting more and more relevant on new, emerging and cheaper platforms. New, risky ideas were at the core of the game development experience in the early days but this had to be stifled once development teams and budgets became so big that risking a failure was not an option any more. Anyway, as I was saying, all this is coming back all over again on different platforms that allow smaller developers to be more agile and, most importantly, more daring in their choices.

Q. How much do you think “commodore” contributed to this “golden age”?

I think it's impossible to underestimate the significance of Commodore on the gaming scene of the eighties and early nineties. The two main actors that greatly shaped those years were arguably Atari, for the first phase dominated by dedicated systems, and then Commodore which led the home computer revolution during and after the infamous industry crash of 1983 (for which they actually played an important role by bringing home computers to prices comparable to those of consoles thanks to Jack Tramiel's vertical integration mantra). The C64 and the Amiga were amazing gaming machines and it's no wonder that so many talented developers of today cut their teeth on these systems, and many people still develop for them!

Q. Do you think the hardware or software is more important? For example you could have and in the past there has been some truly exceptional hardware but not much in the way of software (games), Nintendo seem to be very secretive in the past about how to actually code the device was this a wise choice?

Well, Software runs on Hardware so we may be tempted to say that HW is more important, on the other hand, in a practical commercial environment, we see that it is SW that sells HW so we'd say that SW is more important! Looking at the history of gaming platforms, we clearly realize that a HW which is not designed to be developer friendly will not attract enough attention regardless of how powerful it may be so, without proper HW, there won't be good SW either.

It's a bit of a chicken/egg situation: each one needs the other to be successful! Regarding Nintendo, their restrictive policies often drove some controversy and indeed it wasn't easy for developers to get started on the Famicom/NES back in the day. Many believe this was actually a "test" aimed at discriminating only the very best developers so as to keep the game quality as high as possible. A bit harsh for sure, but we may say it worked and drastic measures where clearly needed to revive dedicated systems after the crash and the rise of home computers in the mid eighties.

Q. What in your opinion went wrong with the games industry and also why did the whole thing crash and Commodore and Atari die such a painful death?

There were many factors acting together and it was clearly a very complex scenario. I'm afraid it'd be too long to discuss it here so I'd suggest your readers read the book to find out my analysis on the subject! ;)

Q. Do you feel it’s now primarily about the money, whereas in the past is was more a passion to create something?

Money and passion seem like a good/evil or yin/yang dichotomy, with the two components always struggling to find a proper balance which constantly shifts between the two: in the early days, in general, we may say passion was in the lead. This wasn't that true any more in the early eighties and, indeed, we had the crash. With the home computers we had a first Renaissance period with companies like Rare and Codemasters being founded by young, talented developers driven by their passion for writing games and later, with bigger and bigger teams and millionaire budgets, clearly it was money that dictated the choices instead. Now we see passion coming back quite strongly with many indie developers writing games because they have ideas they want to implement, without necessarily the aim of becoming rich. It's a never ending cycle: passion drives the pioneers, success arrives and, with it, money. Businesses expand and money becomes more and more important, ultimately bringing a reaction
in creative people who want to be free to realize their vision without the pressure of quarterly financial reports and so on, and the cycle repeats itself.

Q. Do you think enhanced graphics and Sonics create a game, or is it still the game play; and the graphics and Sonics in the game really are there to enhance the experience?

As a game designer, I tend to believe that game play is king. Sure, realistic graphics and sound clearly don't hurt and can create truly immersive and fantastic experiences but they are not a "sine qua non" condition to have fun, though.

Q. What makes you go “WOW”! and what was the first computer or game that made
you go WOW?

I'd say how the game succeeds in sucking the player into its virtual world.
The first real "WOW" moment for me was when I played Impossible Mission on the C64. The digitized speech and smooth animations where like nothing I heard and saw before! This doesn't really contradict what I answered in the previous question, though, as they were perfectly functional to the game exploration, puzzle solving and platforming gameplay.

Q. While researching the book what surprised you the most about, the things
you learnt?

It was surprising to see so many sources contradict themselves and see how much confusion and misinformation there is still around! No precise data exist for

--- CrashWrite 2.0
* Origin: -:)--- Dragon's Lair BBS --(:- (39:901/281)