I don't often read reviews of major titles. Part of this has to do with my job -- generally, by the time something comes out, I've not only been exposed to the same pre-release hype as everyone else, but I've talked to enough people, either devs on the title or fellow journos whose opinion I trust, that I've developed enough of an interest level to judge for myself.
I have noticed lately, however, that the primary reason some major titles -- Spore, for example -- have suffered in reviews is because they lack complexity in certain areas of the design; "complexity" is often substituted for "depth". At a glance, this is an understandable criticism strictly from the standpoint of expense. The average consumer, despite being overwhelmed by the pace and frequency of gigantic launches, does not buy a new video game weekly, to say the least, and at the $59 price point, expects a title they can delve into and spend some time with.
But I wonder, from what perspective are reviewers judging complexity, in the broader sense? Are we talking about controls, the sophistication of the game mechanics, the game's length, its plot, characters, what? Spore's taken knocks for being simpler in its earlier phases than it is on the Civ level, which puzzles me a little bit in an era where gamers seemed utterly relieved and refreshed by the simplicity of flOw. I haven't played Spore yet and I don't like flOw (as a player, while I like it as a journalist, if that makes sense*) so I can't opine on the topic in specific, but it's got me wondering -- why has simplicity become a dirty word, and why does an absence of complexity seem to translate automatically, in reviews, to a lack of depth?
I liked Mercenaries 2 because it was something I could see putting into the hands of any of my friends and having them not only enjoy it, but be able to play it to its full extent -- in other words, there were no complexity barriers that might preclude anyone at all from exploring the full game. No More Heroes is still one of my favorite games of the year, and yet I hear from a lot of people who were annoyed there wasn't more "to do" in the city; they would have liked to have seen it more interactive, a perspective that makes less sense to me when you consider it's a game that thrives on its artistic experience and the addictive simplicity of its fighting mechanic.
Especially as we're hoping to see games proliferate into the culture at large, I think the idea that everything needs to be terribly, universally complex is unhelpful, and I wonder where it comes from. And even though reviewers are meant to evaluate each game on its own merits without comparing them against other titles unless a game begs that comparison to another, I wonder if we're approaching new games in quite the right way, overlooking subtly intelligent and technically solid achievements because of some idea we've pre-imagined on what the experience "should" do for us.
Or maybe this is more of me advocating for why I should just get to replay Symphony of the Night all day. Simple, but deep, yeah?
[*I've been mailed some critiques of this statement, but I think it's fairly straightforward, and am unsure what's so hard to understand: flOw makes a good story. It's tightly-made, compellingly simple and is one of those indie success stories we love to hear. It proves itself relevant time and again to discussions on modern games, which is why I often find myself referencing it.
None of this means I enjoy playing it, though. It's not my taste and I don't have fun playing it, but my personal taste doesn't invalidate the reasons why it's successful -- and I know that, in not enjoying it, I may be in the minority. Just because I dislike something doesn't mean it's not important, and I often find it necessary to differentiate my play tastes from what is clearly critically relevant or newsworthy. As a gamer I have the leisure to love and hate whatever I want, but in my writing I feel a responsibility to some measure of objectivity, and understand the necessity of perceiving a title from several different, pragmatic angles besides my own sentiments. "I respect flOw but I don't enjoy it" -- how's that?]
14 comments:
Could you maybe elaborate more on your comment on how you don't like flOw as a gamer but you do as a journalist? I'm curious what exactly that meant.
I don't think an average reviewer really knows what an average player (for any particular target audience) wants or expects out of a game.
I defer to Mr Lost Garden.
I'm probably over-simplifying things, but here's my theory. Game journalists play a LOT of games and see even more. Because they play so many games, they get to a point where virtually everything they play has been 'done before' and they've seen it before, and so it all starts to seem simple and repetitious. So what really gets them jazzed is something really new and off the wall. Adding complexity is one way to 'raise the bar' and make a game different.
I don't know that there's a huge correlation between what is a good game to a seasoned gaming journalist and what is a good game to an average casual game player. I think hardcore game players model their likes and dislikes off of the journalists, to a certain extent; they read the opinions of a journalist they trust and accept and integrate those opinions into their own worldview.
Sure, Sean. flOw is original, creative, it's beautifully made, it's the kind of story I like about an innovative independent design getting noticed and promoted.
I just hate playing it. Bores me to tears and causes me hand and neck tension. It's not my personal taste as far as what I enjoy spending my time on, but I appreciate its relevance to the industry I cover.
Just because I personally don't want to play something doesn't mean I dismiss it as a journalist, though -- I try to approach games and write about them in a way that includes perspectives other than my own and audiences that aren't me. As a writer there is a difference for me between "This is a good game" and "I like this game."
I guess it's like, let's say you're a film reviewer, and you like fantasy flicks, and you hate mafia movies. Still, you'd never say The Godfather sucks -- you'd weigh it based on your understanding of the film industry and its audiences more than you would on your personal taste.
So basically, I don't like to play flOw myself, but I think it's a good game. That answer your question?
I believe that it is a mistake to think that something has to be simple in order to be approachable. What you should look for is clarity, usability and appropriate difficulty levels for different audiences.
Removing complexity for everyone is not a universally good thing. Even an absolute beginner may want more complexity and challenge as they they improve. If teenagers are only given infant's picture books to read they would be justified in saying that they are too simple even though their clarity might be refreshing compared to James Joyce.
I think that this is the main point of Flow actually. If a game becomes too hard or too easy at any point then the player will lose the flow and stop playing.
Just to throw an alternate theory into the mix, I'm not convinced that most game reviewers understand the difference between depth and complexity. In other words, in many cases, the reviewer may be trying to say, "I wish the game were deeper," even though he is actually saying, "I wish the game were more complex."
Given all the other ATROCIOUS word substitutions I see in reviews all the time, the idea that something so relatively "subtle" might slip through doesn't seem like a stretch to me.
Lazarus -- agreed. Not just reviewers, but everyone. Complexity doesn't equal depth, "complex" doesn't mean "complicated," "simple" doesn't necessarily mean "easy," et cetera.
Also agree with those who say that most reviewers can't help but view games from the perspective of a very, very experienced gamer, which only serves a small portion of the audience.
I agree that complexity and depth should not be interchangeable. I have seen it a bunch recently and it started to bother me a little. It seems like modern games require certain equivocal traits in order to be considered "good". Complexity, depth, and occasionally length are just a couple that bother me the most. Sometimes games can be great without fitting into any of these boxes or just one or two. Braid (sorry about beating the dead horse) is short, has a good amount of complexity, but is not necessarily deep. Viva Pinata (one of my favorite games :P) is simple but is surprisingly deep. And from what I gather in Spore, it falls into a couple different categories as you progress through the various stages.
You are right...Maybe the approach to games these days is just screwed up. I say we get to fixin'.
What an odd criticism to make; that the early stages "lack complexity." Not just because the audience's expectations are probably different as you've mentioned, but also because it sounds like the reviewer's totally missing the point of the game. If it's all about a progression from micro to macro, why would you want the first stages to be any more complicated?
I've already spent a good 20 hours on Spore myself, and even though the Space Stage is an incredibly vast and fun game of tiny nuances and dozens of hours of gameplay, sometimes I feel like playing the 10-minute long Cell Stage instead. One, because it's so simple, and two, because it's amusing to jump to the exact opposite of the spectrum where you are literally less than a speck in the world. To over-layer that first stage would probably ruin the game.
A large part of Spore's novelty (the positive meaning of novelty...) is that it strings you along from, let's say, Space Invaders all the way to EVE Online. You can choose to play at any of those points of complexity, but Spore is probably the only polished experience that carries you up this evolution of game design in succession. I don't know if I should be disappointed that that is going over a lot of reviewers' heads, but it seems to be the case...
Well, we're back to the discussion that rampaged across the Internet a couple of weeks ago: whether we need more "elitist" or more "populist" game reviewers. Sure, some reviewers are way too experienced to look at the game from a newbie's perspective; but I like it that way, because I'm an experienced (and thus, discerning) gamer too.
Truth is, we probably need (and have) both: game snobs can read Gamespot and Eurogamer (not quite the equivalent of the NY Times film review section, but the closest thing to it) and everybody else can read, I don't know, whatever the gaming counterpart to the NY Post film review section is.
Just don't criticise reviewers who "have lost touch with the average consumer"; it's a GOOD thing that not all reviews are written for the lowest common denominator.
Most hardcore gamers play games competitively. They play games to feel good at something. When a game doesn't validate that nascent requirement for the grousing manchild reviewer, he retreats to technical criticisms.
Spore is not a game about winning, it's a game about delight and expression, about the pleasure of creating and the consequence inherent in those choices. Adding a more complicated system of play for wins and losses would distract from the essence of the game. It's not about winning, losing, or tactics. Still we could never give a game a 10 that's not centered on validating our need to feel like we're "good" at something.
Well, I wonder if the lack of depth criticism of Spore comes from the way it was advertised. It was setup as a game about evolution. You start from the cell stage and evolve all the way to colonizing other planets. Choices you make early on have ramifications later in the game. Evolution is a complex subject, so one would assume that a game that uses evolution as a major element would have some complexity through out.
Either that or perhaps Spore has become a victim of its own hype. I mean for the past several years it seemed that every other week there was a preview article about it on IGN or some other website, talking about how revolutionary or amazing it was beyond anything we had ever seen. Maybe I’m making a gross generalization, but if you promise the Moon but you only showup with a photo of the Moon there’s going to be disappointment.
Curbsidebandit
P.S. Thanks for update the identity options with anonymous, Leigh.
I think it is fair to say depth is 'game play mechanics that become more interesting, the more you play the game' - and Spore lacks this in a number of its phases.
It is worthwhile pointing out that the Civ phase is probably the most simple from a game play point of view, but has more depth than some of the other phases in the game don't. At least, from my limited play through, I had to start thinking about how I might use a particular ability more effectively, as opposed to just using it.
I'm still forming an opinion, of course.
There's nothing wrong with simplicity in games. I share your opinion about flOw, Leigh, but I must admit that the game has a beautiful simplicity to it. There's nothing in excess, you simply swim around to find food and eat things smaller than you, while avoiding things bigger than you.
Spore, on the other hand, is not a simple game. There are several things to consider while playing, even on the cell stage, which is the simplest: you have the basic flOw-like gameplay coupled with the collection aspect and testing out new builds of your creature. However, it doesn't have the appropriate depth to match that complexity. No matter how you change your creature, no matter how well you collect, you're still essentially playing flOw, just with a creature you've created. It's not that the complexity of the game is a bad thing, it's just that the game is considerably more complex, but the number of outcomes you can get has stayed essentially the same, which makes the game seem shallow. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just for the cell stage (which last about a half hour), but this applies to every stage until you get to space.
Post a Comment