David Thomas stated in his article 'Creating a Past for Games' that, "without history, games may have no real future" (2002). I am not about to refute this statement--but I will examine what he has overlooked and explore creating a history through Square Enix.

'Classic' games such as Pac-Man, Asteriods, Dig-Dug and the lot have been reissued multiple times throughout the nineties and continue to do so today usually in the form of multi-pack games--such as 100 Classic Arcade games that was released for the original Nintendo console. Although this is hardly a preservation of game history more than an attempt to profit from games designed for an obsolete console, that fact remains that some of the more popular and arguably ground breaking games continue to exist within the discourse of the gaming world.

Furthermore, the popularity of the emulator in conjuction with the X-box has allowed for Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Sega and even Turbo Graffix 16 games to continue to exist within the gaming discourse. Arguably, a history is already being created by slowly filtering out the ground-breaking and engaging games from the manufactured 'fluff' Literature and film is no different, in the days of Sophocles many authors wrote and performed plays, but only the quality works remain to this day. Like anything game history going to take time to develop and structure itself.

Moving on.

What I have notcied within the dicourse of video games is that RPG's, and most notably SquareSoft games, are still dominant within the gaming discourse. Square Enix released Final Fantasy Chronicles (2001) for Playstation in response to the high demand for back issue RPG's--check out Ebay, you can find a copy of Chrono Trigger auctioning at about $110 U.S. The demand for these games are still notable, but why?

Firstly, and most obviously, the replay value of most RPG's are high. Most RPG's take at least 20 hours to finish and are packed with side quests and secrets. However, I don not believe this to be the main reason, rather RPG's are very similar to modes of entertainment that many cultures are familiar with--film and literature.

The RPG was really the first genre of game that offered a detailed story line that the audience could participate in--essentially an interactive film or novel. The RPG was also the first genre to explore more detailed endings and cut scenes, thus making the genre more recognizable to the pre-existing form of film. Although many people find RPG's tedious and annoying, to those with a love for storytelling RPG's offered something that many other games could not.

As games advance, storylines, plot twists, character dyanamics are becoming increasingly more intergrated into games and thus, emerging as a new form of storytelling-- as was film to the novella or play. However, the RPG's still remains a leader in the art of storytelling through this medium.

As the history of games slowly begins to take shape the RPG will find itself a comfortable place within the discourse of gaming. Moreover, because of the progress of storytelling within current games, I believe that in order to argue games as art, RPG's can be used strategically to argue said point. I'm not saying that only RPG's contain substance, but RPG's still have the richest stories. As a strategy it would be much easier to use this in order to argue 'game as art' to people outside the gaming discourse (or even those within that do not believe so), because storytelling is something that as a culture (not only our own) can familiarize with.

Once games are recognized as art they will more than likely become more carefully preserved and thus a structured and more encompassing history can evolve more rapidly.