The review of Flow by Richard Leadbetter on Eurogamer made me think. I’ll start by quoting the last line of the article:
If you’re looking for something more like a conventional game, I’d lop off a mark or two from the final score.
That score being 7 out of 10.
The largest part of the article describes the mechanics of Flow. In terms of objective, avatars, attacks, moves and levels. When it finally arrives at talking about the aesthetics of the experience, it calls the game a tech demo and goes on about HDR, HD and THX as norms to judge beauty by.
I have not played Flow on the PS3. But I have played the Flash version, seen some video footage and read about several players’ experiences with the game. It is quite clear that Flow is not a game like most. That its focus is not on gameplay as such but on a different kind of interactive experience, an experience that inspired its title. I’m happy that games websites report on products like this because I think they are extremely important for the future of the industry. But after reading the review, I’m starting to doubt whether games journalists should be the ones doing this job.
It’s a bit like having sports commentators criticizing a fine art exhibition. Not that I want to make a big issue about Flow being art or something. But it does seem to be designed with different purposes and require a different attitude than that of a games journalist (or a gamer for that matter). Not necessarily so these kinds of games could get better scores. But because their scores might be better motivated. Now it seems too much like judging an opera performance based on the cut of the dress of the soprano. It might be an ugly dress, but that’s hardly the point.
On the other hand, there is a lesson here for us, designers interested in new forms of games. Electroplankton is a similar game with one big difference: it has no traditional gameplay to speak of. Perhaps as a result of this, it doesn’t get criticized quite so negatively as Flow might. Perhaps, games journalists realize that a “pointless” experience like Electroplankton completely escapes their grasp.
This seems like a smart strategy. Stay away from gameplay. Don’t give them anything that would allow your game to be compared to Mario or World of Warcraft. Concentrate on what your game is really about. And leave out the redundant stuff. Even Richard Leadbetter can’t help but admit how good such a thing can be.
It’s disappointingly bereft of content, but I can’t help but like it for what it is, and its mere presence on the XMB often makes me load it up as a distraction during my working day.
They are not made out of stone. They are people. They can be moved.
I hope the future brings us journalists who can actually write a review about that side of their experience. Aren’t there supposed to be “New Games Journalists”? Or has that fad faded? Maybe the New Games Journalists should talk about the New Games. Makes sense to me.
again you put in (great) words what i was more or less thinking, but enable to formulate
(the sports commentators analogy is perfect ! :D)
I blogged on this very pattern in late Feb, it pisses me off two. Play With Fire, which I worked on, got reviewed in Wired briefly, and came under the same summary lack of insight. It pisses me off.
I’m not sure the sports commentator analogy works on any level. A sports commentator reviewing art, an analogy for games reviewers reviewing, er, games? Huh.
That aside, I think it’s folly to categorise an entire profession and field of journalism based on a single writer, a single review and a single game.
The phrase ‘New Games Journalism’ was coined drunkenly in a blogpost by Kieron Gillen, who writes for PC Gamer UK and, occasionally, Eurogamer. I suggest you go read some of the stuff in PC Gamer (written by anyone), or some of the stuff Kieron specifically has written elsewhere.
But it’s worth noting that NGJ was never considered a replacement for any other kind of writing, and was never specifically meant to be the kind of thing you’d include in a review. A review is designed, first and foremost, to tell people with the game is any good, and whether it’s worth spending your money on. Art criticism isn’t meant to do this, by the way. Nor is sports commentary.
If you’re looking for a more emotive, experiencal, anecdotal write-up of a game, there are plenty of reviews that include that, however. If you’re looking for a more contextual, artistic consideration, then you’re best off looking towards articles and features, than reviews. Kieron’s write-up of Super Columbine Massacre RPG might suit the bill: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/86/3
As might the same man’s take on System Shock 2’s AI dominatrix, SHODAN: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=154696
It’s fine to review the gameplay in Flow as long as that is not presented as conclusive. The mere fact that these products are still called games shouldn’t stop us from looking beyond that. A games journalist nowadays should figure out what is the most interesting and important element in a game and not assume that this is gameplay.
Gameplay is always the most important thing, because it’s all encompassing. To qualify as a game at the most basic level, you’ve got to be interactive. If it’s interactive, pretty much everything in it is gameplay. But that’s why, as a word, it’s essentially meaningless. Magazines like PC Gamer UK will never, ever use it in their reviews.
This is also why reviewers and critics tend to break the game down into its smaller constituent parts.
This can seem mechanical, I agree. As if they’re writing about a piece of hardware – a car or headphones. However, discussion of those parts should always be with the aim of evoking something of the game as a whole. For example: What sort of experiences are these artistic choices attempting to provide, are they successful, and are those experiences worthwhile?
Many reviews do that, is my point. This review didn’t, but that’s poor evidence for all games journalists not being up to the task.
I find that I agree and that games such as flOw or Electroplankton and probably more deserve attention of another kind. They’re not just intending to be games, they are more like interactive landscapes.
Maybe it is asking too much from game reviewers to be able to write about them in a ‘game review’ fashion. Maybe these games (or experiences) should not be reviewed at all (with the scoring etc.) but I think there are several game journalists who can handle it.
Im not sure why this sort of review seems at all suprising. A 7 out of 10 from eurogamer is atually much better than the majority of other review sites/mags would even give for Flow. I probably wouldnt visit eurogamer if I wanted to know about the more ‘arty’ end of the gaming spectrum, just as I dont listen to radio1 to find out about alternative music. Mainstream sites will review games with a mainstream approach. If your project is experimental,left field or willfully ‘arty’ then you cant expect a glowing review alongside motorstorm etc..
Graham is spot on too, there are plenty of insightful reviewers out there, writing great peices. They just dont always write them for mainstream mags. Keiron, Ste, Jim Rossignol, Always black etc are good journos imo. Not to mention the occasional excellence of a peter molyneux, will wright, greg costikyan, raph koster developer blog or presentation. Im more likely to check out the work of these people to find a broader more considered view than I am to check IGN.
I also agree with Graham in that any project that calls itself a ‘game’ needs to be willing to stand up to traditional gameplay critique, or at least counter criticism in some way. FLow is a great concept and a great ambient experience but when considering gameplay in a more ludic tradition it isnt very rewarding.
Perhaps it can be equated to video art. An isaac julian film may be a good art work, but not necessarily a good ‘film’ in the accepted sense. It probably wouldnt receive much praise in empire magazine for instance.
There is a growing scene around more experimental games and art-games. Like any subset of a mainstream genre many of the elements will slowly seep in, either under the radar or via the more thoughtful reviewers.
I actually think that games like Flow are part of a new direction in games that has the potential to grow much bigger. One day it will be clear that the current so-called mainstream games press is in fact the niche group, a marginal minority of gameplay-obsessed boys. There’s no need for artistic games to be underground because they can reach a much wider audience than the “mainstream” games.
I for one would like to see games websites grow and adapt to this changing climate. Otherwise, rather than underground and hidden, I believe these “experimental” games will simply be picked up by the true mainstream entertainment press that is much much larger than any games website.
Even now, if you ask “normal” people about multiplayer games, e.g., they will say “Second Life” long before they say “World of Warcraft”, even though the latter still has many more users. World of Warcraft and its ilk may even continue to have a majority in numbers, but in terms of cultural relevance and impact on society, the New Games will reign supreme. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that gameplay-centric games are only appealing to a narrow fragment of humanity while games like Flow can appeal to people from many different backgrounds.
Again, I hope the games press can grow to embrace this wider audience.
“Even now, if you ask “normal” people about multiplayer games, e.g., they will say “Second Life” long before they say “World of Warcraft”, even though the latter still has many more users.”
Hmm I tend to disagree, the UK newpaper Sunday TImes had an 8 page sepcial on WoW only last weekend. But I think you are right in terms of profile, but even if SL does have a good profile it still has a very small numer of users (gamers or otherwise), and is in my opinion more offputting to non-gamers than WoW. Id say that 50% of the people I know playing WoW have families (who they often play with) and many dont necessarily consider themselves gamers either. SL is newsworthy, but until someone throws money at it properly and gives it decent tools & rules I think it wont crack the mainstream.
Im not sure what you mean by ‘new games’ anyway. Games designers have been writing experimental games along the lines of flow etc for years. I think that there has been a recent crossover from ‘new media’ artists who are now interested in gaming and think that they are somehow expanding the field in a previously unexplored way. Perhaps they are, but its not as if games have previously been limited.
“but in terms of cultural relevance and impact on society, the New Games will reign supreme”
Not at the moment, If you take a look at any info on RMT, Castronovas work or the numerous socialogical reseach texts on MMOs you can see that MMORPGs are promting huge changes in the management of online communities and virtual economics.
“gameplay-centric games” so what is a game if it isnt gameplay-centric? It may be more like art or more of an emotional/ambient experience, but it probably wont be good when judged for its gameplay and therefore why do we need to cling to the idea of ‘game’ for such a project.
The ‘casual games’ scene is really growing right now, as is the ‘serious games’ scene. Both of which have some interesting approaches to gaming outside the ‘traditional’ mainstream. I know im being somewhat pf a devils advocate here, but I feel that any practitioner who is becoming involved in an existing medium should research and reference as much as possible from that medium. Its just as easy to say that pop music is badly produced drivel for kids, but we know that that is not exculsively the case.
p.s. enjoying the opportunity to rant
The thought that current games would once become mainstream, scares me. I admit that. The idea that so many people would enjoy submitting themselves to games as we know them, is plain frightening. This may be why I am trying to be hopeful and imagine other futures, and perhaps find proof for them where there is none.
On the other hand, I think my hope extends to the whole games industry and community. If it is correct that the typical goal-oriented, rules-based gameplay appeals to only a fragment of humanity, much like board games do, e.g. then the industry will stagnate.
You are right that there have been many other types of games in the past. Text-based adventures and CD-Rom experiences were once the mainstream. But currently, it seems like the offer has shrunk. Most big contemporary games are incredibly conservative in their structure and game design. There is a market for this, for sure. But I think this market is getting very close to complete saturation.
And all the while, the large majority of the population does not play games at all. Yet these people enjoy other types of entertainment just fine. I think they would enjoy certain types of interactive experiences too. Just not games. Games are considered childish or nerdy by them.
And lastly, don’t you think it is an incredibly poor use of interactive technology to just make games with them? I mean games in the traditional sense, with goals and rules and all that. There’s so much more that can be done with this technology. It doesn’t even have to be art.
I am aware of the fact that there have been many experiments in the history of computer games. But those have often been even less accessible than the mainstream. The New Games seem to be reaching out, far outside the games audience. They seem to be made for other people than the hardcore gamer group, rather than only a subset of it. For me, this is a sign of maturity.
I don’t mind using the word “games” for all entertaining interactive experiences, even if strictly speaking they are not games. Movies are not recorded on film anymore, yet we still call them that. Comic strips are often neither comical nor strips, but we still use that name. What else should we call it?
“And lastly, don’t you think it is an incredibly poor use of interactive technology to just make games with them? I mean games in the traditional sense, with goals and rules and all that. There’s so much more that can be done with this technology. It doesn’t even have to be art.”
I never said that technology should only be used to make traditional games. Its just one use of technology, and you seem rather dismissive of the actual validity and/or power of traditional games “with goals and rules and all that”.
“The New Games seem to be reaching out, far outside the games audience. They seem to be made for other people than the hardcore gamer group, rather than only a subset of it. For me, this is a sign of maturity.”
Im still not sure where you have got the phrase from, because again Im not sure that there much actually new about these games. Is SimCity included? because thats around 18yrs old, The sims maybe? But yes I agree that these types of games show a maturity that the majority of titles don’t and point towards a broader potential of gaming.
“I don’t mind using the word “games” for all entertaining interactive experiences, even if strictly speaking they are not games. Movies are not recorded on film anymore, yet we still call them that. Comic strips are often neither comical nor strips, but we still use that name. What else should we call it?”
Well I personally think its too unspecific. Especially if you are trying to willfully stretch the exisiting assumptions of a mediums boundaries. Comic strips are rarely called that anymore (unless of course they are funny and strips). Graphic novel is often the term chosen to present a more indpeth/mature/artistic aspect of the medium. Movies arent called movies because of the physcial format, nothing has changed in the production of mainstream movies to need the term altering, they are still ‘moving images’. However we do have arthouse movies, video art and various other subgenres that orbit around the central medium.
Im happy to call things games, no matter how removed from traditional gaming they may be. But they have to face up to that tradition in some way in order to position themselves in the territory.
Which tradition?
Contemporary computer games are a hybrid art form. They draw as much from games as they draw from movies, literature, poetry, painting, sculpture, architecture, etc. In fact, I believe that it is this hybridity that is the major factor to their current succes, not the fact that they are games.
“Contemporary computer games are a hybrid art form”
you can say this about practically every art form/medium. Movies contain literature, poetry, painting, sculpture, architecture too. But each also has some individual merits that set it apart from its influences, this is the specific tradition. Computer games have this as much as any art form, its just that not many people are aware of it. Contemporary games that shun the lessons of ludology are often criticised for not being good games. Games without gameplay are often referred to as toys rather than games (even by their developers) and there is another whole discussion on the differences in ‘play’ that describe interaction with a game or a toy. You may feel that these definitions of form or practice are hindering creative practice, but in my opinion they are necesarry for a deeper understanding of any medium.
But I think we are probably going round in circles here, I suspsect that you are more interested in an emergent or narrative experience than a ludic challenge. Indeed games are increasingly aspiring to cinematic experiences, which is no bad thing, because as you say this broadens their appeal. Im just interested to see how games can retain elements of challenge, skill and competition and not evolve into punctuated cutscenes or pretty chatrooms. Emergent narrative is a hot topic in game design at the moment and I hope it will allow games to be more narrative/cinematic without losing their ‘gameness’. Its well known through game research that players do not usually make the best storytellers. (everyone has a novel in them but not everyones novel is good)
Anyway I should probably stop ranting now (fun though its been). Its a sign of progress that we are actively discussing such topics (both here and occasionally in the press) and Im looking forward to checking out ‘The Path’
good job? i think so.
Actionbutton reviews Elecktroplankton
http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=151
maybe the new games journalists CAN review the new games properly… but perhaps not on sites specifically about reviewing games?
That Elecktroplankton review does explain the game quite well but even though the reviewer is trying not to, he ends up judging it as a game nonetheless. First of all by saying that it isn’t one (and giving it a score of zero as a result). And secondly by calling it “horribly boring and a little repugnant after you get over the novelty of it all” which is something you would say only if you expect it to be typical game to satisfy those typical game urges.
You would say the same thing about a feather, a landscape, a poem or a table if you would judge them as games. But we don’t. We like feathers for their own sake. We sometimes even like them better than games.
So I don’t think I’ll be giving this review any stars. 😉
Anyone using expressions like “If you like game X you’ll love this” or “If you’re into genre X, take 2 points off the score” should be fired anyway.
I tend not to post comments on blogs, but I have found yours more thought-provoking than most (though I don’t agree with everything you say :-). I am a “gamer” I suppose, though I don’t like shooters much, but I am a research programmer, so I probably fall into the male-nerd demographic who appreciates the “game” aspect of interactive media.
Anyhoo, I wanted to comment (mainly) about Second Life, as it is definitely NOT the kind of interactive experience that appeals to me or that I think is particularly worthy. Even the name is a bit telling, should we be offering a virtual “life” so people can escape the one they have (however bad it seems). I’m not sure an all-encompassing experience is healthy or desirable. There is a false sense of security in such complete worlds (a la MUDs of the 80s), and from what I can tell, too much opportunity of abuse of power from creators/addicts/first-comers. Maybe it’s in the execution – I can see a lot of good things in Second Life, but I think it suffers from lack of authorship, direction and control – lowest common denominator syndrome, perhaps.
Ok, maybe that makes me sound snobby, but your site got me thinking a bit about the difference between artistic merit and mass appeal, they are not correlated, and “games” seem to have not much of either. I am not interested in seedy user-created islands, where the participants are obsessed with sex and money (again, that’s just the “impression” I get about SL, but what else can I go on?).
I want a rich interactive experience, but I also like plot, and vague goals to achieve, but I don’t want to create everything myself, and I don’t want to necessarily suffer the products of the masses of other people “playing” the game too. But maybe that’s just a community thing.
Ok, so this comment is more of a ramble than I meant, but I thought just saying “I think Second Life is an abomination” might be taken the wrong way