When I came out swinging in defense of Silent Hill: Homecoming and reacted a bit strongly (okay, flipped my lid) on my fellow reviewers, it wasn't really that I felt anyone was necessarily wrong in their criticisms of the game. I didn't expect to convert the un-convertable; I was either preaching to the choir, or I was the annoying Jehovah's Witness ringing the bell of a staunch atheist.
My point -- and please indulge me in quoting myself -- was this:
"When a title attempts to explore uncharted areas, it risks stumbling into areas that have been neglected for a good reason -- because they don't work as well. But when we fault them for trying, without recognizing that the game might have done a few new things well, or when we treat creativity or an attempt at inventiveness as a design flaw, we're sending the industry some problematic mixed messages. We demand innovation and invention, and then we crucify any attempts in that direction."
The Guardian, which tends to do freaking excellent writing about games from time to time, has a new article up to a similar effect. This time, the lynchpin is Mirror's Edge. I have not yet played it; haven't even seen it since E3, since I've decided to combat my seasonal overwhelm and burnout by focusing on just a couple titles and leaving the rest for the desert from February until July.
Nonetheless, I've been aware of Mirror's Edge's critical reception, and the Guardian's Keith Stuart's reaction to it reminds me strikingly of my own response to Homecoming's. He notes "a general compulsion to counter the sequences of innovative genius with niggling doubts about core mechanics," in game reviews, which he finds "frustrating" and "depressing," and writes:
For example, no-one complains that, say, Pan's Labyrinth or Eraser Head lack the formal, easily recognisable narrative structure of a conventional movie. Their aspirations exempt them from that requirement. So should we really be marking Mirror's Edge down for control issues – a game that aspires to re-interpret the very interface between player, screen and character? Yes, I know, it's a clumsy comparison, but the underlying point is – should reviewers just accept that sometimes incredibly new experiences will lack some of the formal substance we expect from traditional games? That's what innovation is, it's leaping out into the unknown.
Before you get all on him for drawing the film-game comparison, he does admit it's imperfect, but faults IGN's review for looking forward to the inevitable sequel to see if it "fixes" the problems, instead of valuing the first installment, a mentality that would be unheard-of in any other entertainment medium:
What are we really saying about innovation when we require a sequel to prove the concept was valid in the first place? What are we saying about the artistry of games? And ultimately, what does it mean for games criticism, if we can't appreciate visionary moments, because of these weird little checklists of gameplay qualities, constructed and adhered to with near-autistic fervour?
It's a point I myself feel strongly about, and it outlines one key issue: Reviewers know how to evaluate games against the systems with which they're familiar, and not how to evaluate games that break the mold.
And the reviewer's stance is startlingly aligned with that of the consumer, either incidentally or by influence, which suggests a truly depressing possibility: We don't really want games to innovate, we just want them to perfect and repeat the formulae we already know.
And hey, even I plan to forsake all others for Chrono Trigger DS this week. I like games I've already played, I admit.
24 comments:
The difference is that Silent Hill isn't about the mechanics, Mirror's Edge is. I don't get upset when RPGs throw in some worthless minigame (except when you have to complete said worthless minigame to advance), I do get upset when an RPG falls apart in the fourth act (see any Square game).
And innovation in and of itself doesn't mean that its a good game. Countless rubbish student film came before Pan's Labryrinth playing with narrative structures. Along with countless boks and short stories for decades, not all of them good.
Innovation isn't an excuse for crap. Lair tried to innovate too.
Innovation is a trial-and-error process. For every Mirror's Edge we'll get several not so great attempts at reaching the same place, and a bunch more games that try to refine some of its new ideas. I bet you could break all game ideas this way, which is why I think innovation is important to recognize. Even failed innovation.
I find that when the Guardian try to review a game, they're rubbish to the point of unreadable, but when they try to review around a game, they tend to be as insightful as some online reviewers.
I wasn't aware that IGN highly rewarded innovation (actually do, not claim to).
But yeah, it's unfortunate--everywhere I looked there was commentary about its unique features but a faulting for its brevity. Sixty bucks for five hours, no multiplayer, bland environments, and some bad acting?
Old habits die hard.
You're like, the first person on the internet that I didn't see shoot that article down.
I agree with you. the problem is that we cry for innovation but in the end we are just waiting for them to give us the same crap(while I enjoyed GoW2 it's still pretty much the same as GoW)until, by an almost miracle, something new actually catches the gamers eye and manage to survive to get, guess what, a sequel. It's sad but the gamers are the one to blame on this one since they are the one buying the games and thus orienting the market, even if the gamers themselves are quick to blame the industry(mostly EA, Sony) for releasing the same thing over and over.
What's also ticking me off is that mob mentality. Everyone was saying that this game was going to be awesome and now that a few reviewers said it was not so good, peoples are coming saying that the game sucks and that it was a stupid idea.
This is just more evidence of how adolescent this industry is. Its growth is stunted by the conservative alignment of the consumer majority and short-sightedness of its critics. The deep discussions of its content travels in tiny circles. Then the cherry drops as the global economy falters and pushes developers deeper into the rinse-and-repeat formula...
Does anyone see a way out? Is time the only solution or can we hope for a Wii-like software innovation that completely changes everything we understand about games?
The only thing I questioned about Silent Hill: Homecoming was it's existence. Other than that, I love the game.
I haven't touched Mirror's Edge yet, in fact I JUST downloaded the demo today (which I haven't played yet).
Some critics it seems are just as trendy as the genre's they bitch about. They love to pointlessly try and evaluate the "new hotness" without any realm grasp on it.
Kids love to laugh at each other when they trip and fall, and it's no different in this adolescent industry when critics snigger at the few developers stumbling out into the unknown. To my knowledge, Mirror's Edge didn't even do that, yet it's getting hopped on.
~sLs~
For the record, I got Mirror's Edge on day one and I've become pretty obsessed with it.
I remember reading that article when Maggie Greene linked to it on Kotaku, and she had a very insightful comment on whether reviewers should really shoulder the responsibility of talking innovation, when most reviews should be aimed at whether you will like it or not. Your article today on Kotaku kind of implies that they fail on that point, but it should be their first prerogative. A lot of their criticisms stand. The combat is frustrating. The levels can be repetitive. The story is underdeveloped, predictable, and simply serves to detract from the action. These are things that are important to someone that simply wants to play a new game.
I didn't find those as negatives. The combat forced me into Mega Man style rote memorization of levels and circumstances and since I love hair pulling frustration, I enjoyed it. The repetitive level design aided me in finding new lines for my free-running skillz. The story gives me just enough insight into why I'm running away from people. The brevity of the main campaign ensured that I could learn enough from it to be able apply it to time trials. I was awed by the innovation, but I knew I would be from the demo. So IGN's role was to convince others that wouldn't care so much.
Soulja Boy, as loathe as I am to bring him up, is more typical of a person who buys games. Blurbs on game boxes by IGN and 1up should be there for him to decide. A lot of gamers probably don't care about Braid's self-effacing narrative and just see "Mario in the Future". Rather than lament this and the fact that Madden consistently sells out every year based on incremental improvements rather than innovation, we should just involve ourselves more in the discussion of the importance of games for anyone who would listen.
I think Robert has it. No one is knocking Mirror's Edge (or, for that matter, failing to give Mirror's Edge credit) for its innovation. It's getting dinged for its failures in execution. As a consumer, I'm all for innovation; there isn't some automatic reaction that new or different = bad. It's just that poor execution is not excused by being new or different.
Which, I should add, is as it should be. Pan's Labyrinth isn't just different/unusual/innovative, it's also supremely well executed. It's not good just because it's different.
Shiny graphics won't make a poor game a good one and neither will innovation.
I think Alvin and Juv3nal have good points. A good game isn't all about the graphics and in the end "having fun" should be the ultimate goal.
I only played the demo of Mirror's Edge, but I was so impressed I played it 5 times. My first impressions were golden. I saw a game that wanted to immerse the player in an epic fast-pased romp through a dystopian open-world future. Like Assassian's Creed, but with taller buildings. Unfortunetly, it's been written, that the world is linear, AI is sad, and the epic is short.
While this is disappointing, it should still be applauded for it's efforts (fantastically realistic gymnastics, sound, and art style). But an innovative game needs to build off the success of its predecessors if it wants to be the "ulimate package".
--Nefarious
.
The major problem with video game reviews is that they focus so much on things like controls and graphics, but not on whether or not a game is fun and/or enjoyable to play. I understand bad controls can make a game not fun to play, but that's how it should be worded in reviews, not "controls feel loose" or some other confusing term. By your logic, Silent Hill or Mirror's Edge gets a pass for not being enjoyable because they tried something new. I don't want to spend the little money I have available for video game purchases on things that push the envelope unless I have fun playing them. I still don't understand how Assassin's Creed got such high reviews. It didn't seem like an actual game to me, just a way to show off a new controller mapping. "Oh wow! Each limb corresponds to a button! Now If only there was something to actually do in this 'game'."
The problem with Mirror's Edge is that it doesn't have any confidence in its ideas. It would be as if Pan's Labyrinth had the same outlandish, progressive ideas, but ended up muting them in concession to the standards of hollywood accessibility.
Or better yet, compare it to Braid, which bases its entire design around a simple set of novel mechanics. Mirror's Edge feels too much like a traditional first person game with novel mechanics transplanted in.
Of course, I don't think that's the argument most reviewers are making. Mirror's Edge is absolutely worth lauding -- but it is by no means beyond reproach. And if anything, for future creators to learn the right lessons from the game, we would do well to have critics pointing out exactly where it fails.
(note: much of what's wrong with Mirror's Edge can probably be attributed to EA)
I think Alvin makes an excellent point about the responsibility of games reviewers.
I played the Mirror's Edge demo before any of the reviews were published, and I absolutely loved it. It felt like no other game I've ever played, and although I could tell from my short time with it that the combat would be frustrating, I had every intention of buying the game upon its release.
And then I read the reviews. And then I bought Resistance 2 instead. And I've pretty much been beating myself up about it ever since; not because R2 is a bad game, it's not, it's just not much different from the dozen or so FPS titles I've played over the past few years. But why, if I'm a gamer who typically seeks out innovative titles that veer from the beaten path, did I allow myself to be influenced by the words of a few reviewers?
I can only speak for myself on this, but I think part of the answer lies in how I view the community of games journalism. I grew up with videogames being a fringe industry, and therefore with gaming journalism being on the fringe of entertainment media. As such, I've clung to the idea that game reviewers are just people like me, who love videogames, and want to share their enthusiasm with others. While that may be the case on a personal level, it's unfair for me to expect reviewers to ignore the fact that videogames are now a huge industry.
I guess what I'm saying is that I haven't allowed myself to become as jaded or cynical about games reviews as I am about, say, film reviews. I'm a big fan of avant-garde cinema, and almost never let reviews stand in the way of me going to see a film that I think I'll like, because I'm well aware that most movie reviews are aimed at mainstream audiences. When it comes to movies, I tend to trust my gut. Maybe it's time for me to start doing the same with videogames.
this is absolutely a problem with game reviewers, and wii sports' metascore proves it. the rank and file don't understand games in any real way and, as noted, only know how to rank games along some sort of ethereal linear scale according to pre-established criteria.
regardless of how I feel about the cited example (i find that mirror's edge tries hard and fails at being fun) the base assertion is dead on.
"Reviewers know how to evaluate games against the systems with which they're familiar, and not how to evaluate games that break the mold."
I wonder if maybe that's the heart of the problem. Reviewer's don't know how to evaluate games that don't comply to standards, and maybe we as consumers don't quite know how to receive them either.
Innovation is, by definition, an area in which we don't really have any norms. we've got no nicely laid out rules to assess the experience. To do so requires taking a step back from ourselves (having played game after cookie cutter game for years, we have some deeply ingrained pre-conceptions) and getting back to that child who's playing his snes for the very first time, still not sure what this new toy is. That's not always easy to do.
Disclaimer: I haven't played Mirror's Edge, nor read any of the reviews. However I'm interested in this topic.
Games differ from movies, obviously, and innovation looks slightly different in the two genres. But nonetheless, innovation gives neither genre a free pass.
If you have an innovative game where the controls are a negative, the closest film analogy I can think of would be a film with a great narrative, but many production mistakes. Would Pan's Labyrinth be regarded quite so highly if it had a boom mike in frame in every scene? Or if the acting was subpar despite the narrative being superb?
I understand the desire to reward innovation in games, but all aspects need to be considered. If the controls are bad, the controls are bad. We can and should make judgments on this kind of thing regardless of whether or not the game is new or innovative, and we're equipped to do so regardless of how many or few games like it we've played before.
I have noticed a worrying trend towards this in recent years. When we talk of 'classic' games we're nearly always talking of flawed but abitious ones, Deus Ex, Fallout etc. They're all attempts to do something extra-ordinaryilly different that stumble somewhere.
Yet in recent years the trend has been to hand out the big scores to the games that are polished but unambitious, that nail one core mechanic and repeat it over and over. That are user freindly and convenient but ultimately rather samey. Take the Bioware games for instance, they've always had bugs and flaws, but they've always been narratively excellent, but while Baldurs Gate and KOTOR where numbered amongst the best of their time, Mass Effect was swept under the carpet, despite massive strides forward in presentation and combat.
I'm at a loss to explain why this is, perhaps it's an increasing 'professional' approach in games journalism, relying on a more structured review of a game, approaching all aspects as equally important even when they are clearly not.
The only people who can get away with this are those who are making franchises we played back when we were young and less cynical. It's the nostalgia get out clause, they get away with it because we decided to like them before our standards changed, and we're still trying to justify that.
I have to say, going into Mirror's Edge, much like the new Alone in the Dark, I had high hopes. All my experiences as a gamer had taught me that platformer + first-person + jumping = not good. Mirror's Edge, despite not changing my opinion on that too significantly, was very fun when it all flowed correctly.
I'm an absolute sucker for innovation in games. I do believe that I am one of the very few people who actually enjoyed Lifeline (I still own a copy), and I enthusiatically dropped 50 bucks on a used copy of Steel Battalion (that mecha game with the huge controller). I walked into and away from Alone in the Dark happy about the innovation, and while Mirror's Edge felt almost too unforgiving with everything, it was still a fantastic experience.
The difference between innovation and gimmick is sometimes little more than reception. However, Mirror's Edge moves past that barrier in my mind, proving that it is innovative simply by how far beyond any previous attempts at anything like this it goes, even if, all too many times, it falls 20 stories to a splattery bone-crunching restart.
Quoting SVGL: "It's a point I myself feel strongly about, and it outlines one key issue: Reviewers know how to evaluate games against the systems with which they're familiar, and not how to evaluate games that break the mold."
That's a pretty broad generalization, don't you think? In fact, if the comments responding to this post are any indication - and I do think they are - there really is no standard for critical analysis to look to nor should there be.
Video games - as is the case with all other forms of entertainment - mean different things to different people. The fact that they're a form of interactive entertainment significantly alters the paradigm in which we judge them. At base however, any critic - whether s/he knows it or not - is just offering a primarily subjective take on the experience. Some will focus on narrative. Others, on mechanics. Still others will try to capture the entire picture and judge it within the context of the larger medium.
I personally think that this last category is a trademark of some of the most forward-thinking of the medium's critics, but is their approach really any more "right" (or wrong) than Newsday's VG critic speaking to the more varied readership of that particular publication? No.
I think the key "issue" with games criticism is that the medium is still evolving in some significant ways. The drawback of this is that our collective measure of things is constantly in flux. I do think technology will eventually hit a point at which gaming's evolution can be measured in the micro rather than the macro - as was the case with film once color and sound were commonplace - but I cannot begin to imagine what that tipping point might be.
And then there's the running dialogue surrounding the medium. In this very moment, people like Leigh, like Ian Bogost, like Edge Magazine, and many others are actively working to expand the critical vocabulary of video games. In the same way that the technology evolves, so too will critical approaches to discussing it. I think the best thing you can do when discussions regarding the validity of Critical Viewpoint X arise is to consider what you look for in a review. Not what you think belongs in a proper review, but what you personally hope to walk away with when you sit down to read.
/rant
I think Dante nailed it here. The games we tend to remember as classics are games that break the mold, and they're frequently games which get lukewarm reviews or sales. They're the kind of games big publishers don't like to release. Miyamoto almost didn't get to make SMB because sci-fi shooters were all the rage. Squaresoft was on its last legs when it released Final Fantasy (hence the name), it was a last ditch effort, and it was something that really resonated well. Games like Ico that flaunt conventional methods of storytelling are perennially on "most underrated games" lists. Okami went for a fresh, inspired aesthetic and folk tale-based storyline, and it got Clover axed despite high reviews.
With regard to reviewers only knowing how to compare against what they know, I think the problem is more complex than that, because it's more than just reviewers that behave that way, and not all reviewers fall into that pattern. Ico reviewed well, as did Okami. They just didn't sell that well. In every art, there are people who want more of the same, and there are people who want innovation. Right now, we have a mainstream review culture that tends to prize familiarity over innovation (check out 1UP Yours last week and their discussion of the mechanics and controls of Killzone 2 for a good example). I don't think that's too far off from the mainstream gaming public either, considering that safe games are safe for a reason.
The undercurrent of innovation got shifted away from reviewers and boutique devs to indies. Some publishers (especially for their download services) are taking risks on innovative content, but a lot of that is them hunting down indies or indies breaking through. We recognize that, due to many influences and factors, we can't rely on Activision, Ubisoft and EA, for bold innovation (although I'm by no means trying to say they eschew it entirely, it's simply not their stock-in-trade). Why do we think we can rely on IGN, Gamespot et al to recognize and appreciate it?
I do agree with your general feelings, but I also see it as something for the time being unavoidable. Some flaws in games are just hard to overlook.
Controls can ruin an otherwise perfect game. A counter-example would be Portal, it used a tried and true control scheme which meant that there was no frustrating barrier between the player and the game. It was all smiles.
Also, length is a big issue with games; too short and they're poor value for money, too long and they become a potentially dangerous time investment. Nobody wants to pour 15 hours into an RPG only to realise its no fun. Similarly nobody wants to spend time wrestling with control schemes or watching unskippable cutscenes over and over.
Other mediums don't have this problem to such a great extent. You can open a book to any page, rewind and fast forward a movie. At a cinema you can walkout halfway through having lost no more than $10 and an hour for most cases.
I've not played Mirror's Edge, but I think I understand the experience people claim to be having. Its like trying to read a good book, but the print is far to small or watching a movie on your 1" phone screen. It still good, but its frustrating and ultimately much less enjoyable than it could have been.
Am I missing something?
Can someone PLEASE point me to the innovation in Mirror's Edge?
It's a 3-D platformer.
Yes, the mechanic is kind of new, but it's still pressing buttons to jump across gaps.
Otherwise it contains every single platform games trope since Mario first decided to take on the big ape.
Post a Comment