The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

LudoErgoSum — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:45:55 GMT

While, for my part I've enjoyed Mirror's Edge, I agree in principle with your arguments. It's an unfortunate side-effect (for developers at least) that in order for a game to be critically well-received, it has to get a few basic things right - controls, pacing, save points, difficulty curve, etc, and it's only games that are able to balance all of these demands that can hope to qualify for entry into the critically-adored company of the Portals and Little Big Planets of this world.

These 'basic' requirements are there for a reason, however, because without them the player is faced with an interrupted, non-immersive experience - no matter how gorgeous the visuals or intermittently brilliant the gameplay is, any flaws in these basic pillars of game design will inevitably remove the player from the designer's carefully-constructed world and dump them back in their living room with an extra level of frustration that wasn't there before. No one plays video games to make themselves feel more stressed.

It's difficult to come up with an analogy in any other kind of entertainment, and perhaps herein lies the problem with the thinking of the three commentators referenced above. In particular, between Keef's frequent blogging on the increasing synergy between movies and games, and Leigh's recent Kotaku article on mass market consumption of games vs. music, it's possible that they are trying to bring together media that have similarities in some areas, but irreconcilable differences in others.

The fact of the matter is that, with the greater level of immersion that gaming offers versus other media, designers and developers of digital entertainment must shoulder a greater level of responsibility in ensuring that these immersive experiences that gamers crave live up to their potential and are not broken up by a game's mechanical inadequacies.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

ColbyCheese — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:24:18 GMT

"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."

Do you know who else talks like this? College students. They also have the luxury of sitting around with lots of free time, and not much to do with it.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. I used to be like that. I just can't do it. I don't get paid to play games. Therefore, it's more difficult for me to acquire my games (they're not free) and find time to play them (again, I can't play them at work and I have a spouse and kids to hang put with). So I don't have a lot of time for what Mr. T would call "Jibba! Jabba!".

A game for me, first and foremost, has to be fun. Not perfect. Fun. If it has really bad controls, then the story or visuals need to make up for it. It's all give and take, but at the end of the day, it needs to be fun.

Having said that, I agree with the spirit of what you said, Sr. Croal (Aye Caramba!): Don't tell me to be quiet. Your game sucked. It's smart, but it's not fun. I'll pay $50 for a "fun" game, but "smart" games are only worth about $10. Granted, it's a different medium, but I can get much "smarter" books for $5.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

jaynoon — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:38:39 GMT

I'm frustrated with this discussion, because I think it gets in the way of the concept that reviewers are individuals that experience games differently, and as a result have varying opinions of them. Some prefer innovation, others prefer mechanics--but neither stance is wrong.

GTA 3 has a 97 on Metacritic. People may forget, but that game has intense mechanical issues. But the innovation and breadth of the experience lead almost all reviewers to give it a 10. I wouldn't want it any other way. It's just too bad that for whatever reason, Mirror's Edge failed to inspire the same sense of awe in the minds of the critics.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

stephentotilo — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:07:43 GMT

N'Gai, the arguments you've quoted are derived from the idea that reviews coax people to try or avoid games. Should there be an anxiety that a game getting a 60 won't be tried by a consumer? I don't know. But clearly some of the gaming press feels that concern.

As for your take on Mirror's Edge, I'm disappointed to read you only like one flavor of the game's gameplay. Time trials are great. But so is the rush of being chased by people shooting at you, running across rooftops away from helicopters, cops and a stream of machine gun bullets. Failure is seldom fun in games, but Mirror's Edge's amazingly fast checkpoint reloads keeps the pain very light. Bummer you didn't dig it more.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

Samit Sarkar — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:23:48 GMT

I agree completely, N'Gai. As far as I'm concerned, a videogame can innovate all it wants, but if it isn't fun to play, well, innovation be damned; I won't enjoy nearly as much as these three individuals would perhaps like me to -- and I certainly wouldn't be able to give it high marks in a review. As you said, gamers see with their hands: elements like poor controls or unsatisfying gameplay can easily/quickly mar a particular game, regardless of innovation and freshness.

Certainly, you can recognize innovation in a game when writing a review, but ultimately, a game should be an enjoyable time above all else. If innovation contributes to that, great. But if other parts of the game detract from the overall experience, then I don't think it's right to ignore or trivialize those flaws simply because a game does something new.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

isildur21367 — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:40:30 GMT

well you wrote a nice piece on mirrors edge and reviewers but what i find what you and a lot of the media are missing, is the over emphasis on packaged goods console video games. if you pay attention to the world, its not about console games. in fact just look at the valuations of traditional console game makers -- EA, THQ, Midway, Sci, Atari, etc. They are hammered and they are not making any money. In fact, its all about online games. Look to Asia. The Asian online game companies have bigger valuations and more profits than any console maker. The only western game company that is doing ok is Activision and thats because of Blizzard.

Maybe instead of focusing so much on the console game market which in many respects has hit a wall, look to where the true innovation is ocurring --- online. Better business models (more profit) and more growth. These traditional single player retail packaged goods console games have matured. Face the facts console fan boys.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

cahiersduvideogames — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:17:40 GMT

The issue at hand is that videogame reviewers are in the midst of making a tough transition from the enthusiast press model of consumer advocate to the more serious examination that comes with full fledged criticism.

IGN is, and probably always will be, a site dedictated to writing that is essentially a glorified form of product description. The demand for this kind of writing will probably always be there in our industry and I can't fault IGN for fulfilling that role.

However, I think what the "Thinkers" are frustrated with is the obsession with minutae the enthusiast press often shows. Do game mechanics need to be addressed? Absolutely. But frequently there's an itemization of gameplay rather than examination of it. Battle systems, inventory management, special combinations - these things all need to be addressed within the larger experience of the game, but instead they often become pieces which are "rated" individually then tallied up in a final score. This type of approach to reviewing a game is just as counter productive as the vague reviews aimed at mass audiences in newspapers. As reviewers we must strive for the middle path.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

perrinbar — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:09:37 GMT

You know N'Gai, I blame my subscribing to your view of the primacy of gameplay for my agreement with you. I have only played the Mirror's Edge demo and I don't expect to buy the game until it is much cheaper simply due to breadth of options and limited funds. I applaud DICE for innovation and I think it is at least valid to raise criticism of reviews for perhaps ignoring this. However, that's as far as I can go in agreeing with them. What does it matter if a game innovates without being fun? That's what the point of a game is after all. In fact I'd go so far as to say that if the innovation isn't fun then it isn't finished. No one wants an unreadable book or an unwatchable movie with a great idea behind it. Except maybe Finnegan's Wake, but I think that is simply craziness. For a gameplay idea to be truly innovative it needs to get all the way from cool idea to fun execution. In the end that is what makes a good game, not good ideas but good execution. The recent Gamasutra postmortem of Army of Two is a great example. They innovated, but Call of Duty 4 killed them in execution. I don't buy games just because it was a good idea, I buy games because it was a good idea and executed well. That's what being a game designer comes down to. You have to make it fun, not just a cool idea. It's hard work and that's why there aren't a ton of spectacular examples of success, but it does mean that innovation combined with execution can mean sales, critical praise, and perhaps a place in the video game lexicon.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

stephentotilo — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:23:33 GMT

@perrinbar, As I said below in my comment to N'Gai, I think the anxiety here is that many people seem to be talking about all-or-nothing propositions. There are great games. There are terrible games. But there also games in between that may be flawed but worth a play-through.

If we can appreciate an ambitious but flawed movie, can we appreciate its equivalent in a game? There isn't a simple answer to that.

On the one hand, I can think people are out of their mind to suggest that Mirror's Edge is so flawed that it's not worth playing through. But we're talking about $60 works that take at least eight hours to play through and sometimes 25. We're not talking about $12 movie tickets for a two-hour experience. The time and money investments required to experience a major 360/ps3/wii/pc game encourage people to be more strident in their votes for or against.

And so we wind up with is Simon Cox on his 1up blog pleading with gamers to buy Mirror's Edge, because in his judgment it's at least good enough and the low sales he's hearing about worry him.

How good does a game have to be to be worth it? How high does a game's review score have to be for someone to play it?

What consumer of entertainment says "no" to more offerings than the gamer does? And with good reason, given the expense? Or not?

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

GregSanders — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:10:53 GMT

I quite agree with this piece. I think gamers and reviewers can go wrong when they focus on graphics at the expense of innovation; however, focusing on gameplay seems quite fair. As games mature as a medium, we can expect some innovative games will intentionally break the 'rules' of gameplay, but in this case the problems seem more one of poor execution.

That said, I've just played the demo so far, which I rather enjoyed. I'm intending to buy the game, I just want to recoup some of the money I spent on election stuff first. One thing I do wonder, without having played the game yet, is whether it would benefit from a slightly more open world model where you could learn levels before encountering them under high pressure situations. Often that can feel like padding but in an eight hour game where a level requires repeated plays (albeit in bite-sized segments) that might be just the trick.

From the Penny Arcade review and a few of the other comments, it sounds like Mirror's Edge may have repeated the Assassin's Creed mistake of too many baddies in a non-combat game as the end approached. However, based on Totilo's comment below some people had fun with that part. So I guess I'll have to judge for myself.

Oh, and on the sequel thing. TV reviewers talk about improvements that could be made in future episodes all the time. Obviously games don't repeat as much as TV, but reviewers for other mediums incorporate the likelihood of sequels so I don't see why the gaming press should do any different.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

mrcrowpsey — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:01:13 GMT

This probably comes down to taste N'Gai but for me Mirrors edge isn't only fun to play when you run quickly from point a to point b, i actually enjoy the slower more portal like progression sections (i turned the red off and usually have to slowly find which way is the right way) when no one is shooting at you. i think DICE managed to create a camera and controls that allow me to just simply enjoy moving through the environment as faith. They also created beautifully designed and crafted levels that are for me a pleasure inhabit and transverse, no matter at what speed.

the environments in this game are eye candy for sight and soul, that alone would usually get me to enjoy a given game (old school adventure fan here) but then they let you move and explore these environments through flowing and immersive controls and it just becomes a game who's all other faults are inconsequential to me. would it be better if i could fight people better? sure, shoot better, sure... but i don't think it makes scene to fault the game because it doesn't.

p.s. am i the only one that sometimes gets these amazing old Thief vibes from this game? wouldn't it be so cool if you were a thief instead of a messenger, and packed a bow and arrow? dice should make thief 4! : D

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

Wossname — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:16:57 GMT

I think what we're finding with Mirror's Edge is that those who love the game really really love it, despite the flaws. I count myself in this camp.

There's always a frustration when you like something a lot and other people don't seem to like it as much, but I agree that evangelising the positive is a much better approach than trying to rebut the reviews.

The frustrating thing is that the things Mirror's Edge fails at are not the innovative things - it completely nails those: the unique look, the body awareness, the complete lack of HUD, the use of shoulder-button controls to allow move and look and act simultaneously. What is fails at are the non innovative bits: the story, checkpoint spacing, the cutscene animations, the gun combat.

Mirror's Edge didn't innovate and fail. It innovated and succeeded spectacularly, and then added some crappy bits on top which ruin the game for a lot of people.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

Primosis — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:42:12 GMT

I find that quite often the opposite is true, where games that have great execution but little innovation often get slammed. Obviously you could make a huge list of games that have received praise for being extremely polished non-innovators, but I'm struggling to think of any that are new IPs.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

perrinbar — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:18:30 GMT

@stephentotilo:

That is the crux of the problem. As I said, I'll be more than happy to buy Mirror's Edge once it comes down in price but at the price point of games on the PS3 and 360 it's hard to justify the purchase of an interesting but flawed play experience. I would say that by essentially mandating a price of $60 on retail games the industry has created a scenario where it is more difficult for flawed but interesting games to succeed. I wish I could afford to buy any big title that comes out, but I can't and I'm not interested in essentially acting as a patron to companies with innovative ideas. Innovation is damn important, but again, in the end, execution is what matters. So I agree that there is certainly a middle ground, games aren't perfect or terrible, but usually somewhere between. However, if I only buy 5 games a year or so, I want the 5 most perfect for my $300. That's the rub and if we start differentiating prices maybe games like Mirror's Edge will see the sales it likely deserves.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

The Joel — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:00:52 GMT

Being an innovator has never exempted an artist or creator from criticism. Across history, artists who push the limits are more often than not criticized in their time and only accepted fully by later generations. But that's not even that important. Mirror's Edge is a game and it has to be played. If playing it isn't fun than why should it be given a free pass for being innovative? Is it even innovative to produce a crappy game? Arguably, that's just falling in line with most of the games that have ever come out.

That last sentence was entirely rhetorical. I think Mirror's Edge is pretty fun but it has some things wrong with it. Does the novelty of the experience gloss over its defects? Not entirely but it does balance them in my overall opinion of the game.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

ShawnElliott — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:14:39 GMT

N'Gai, you've nailed it. Mirror's Edge hopes to elicit a graceful, unrehearsed, and gymnastic performance from players under high pressure. Imagine the pitch: jumping puzzles without the stops and starts; without the uncertainty of players who want to carefully plot a path and leisurely calculate possible outcomes to unfamiliar leaps of faith. That's challenging. Since toothless scares lose their motivational impact once we sniff them out, it takes a real threat to prevent players from lingering . And real threats can, of course, kill. Trial-and-error gameplay is inherently evil; it just goes against DICE's dramatic intentions.

On another note, controls and combat systems are often where games innovate, and much of Mirror's Edge's innovation is certainly mechanical. Yes, I'm stuck on Keith Stuart's commentary, and I wish that someone would specify the nature of the innovation driving this discussion. For instance, I have no idea what Stuart means when he asks “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?” He can't mean that Mirror's Edge “aspires to re-interpret” the controller itself, can he? Perhaps he has the first-person game's approximation of physical presence in mind?

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

ShawnElliott — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:17:23 GMT

That should read: "Trial-and-error gameplay isn't inherently evil"

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

Rutilcaper — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:10:10 GMT

If you'll forgive me for the hyperbole, this "A for Effort" mentality that some critics have borders on offensive. All someone has to do to be a critical darling is try something remotely untested? That's unreasonable and it goes against the spirit of all creative works, not just games. A book written in an unfamiliar style or a movie filmed in a disorienting, non-linear way is not automatically considered exempt from scrutiny. Whatever one decides is the purpose of gaming this day of the week (inform, entertain, evoke feeling, all of the above), if it fails at its purpose, why should it be given credit just for trying? Innovation without quality appeals to no one but the chin stroking self-titled elite, at least, I hope it doesn't. I want to play GOOD games, whether they be fun "i just shot all the monsters with my laser gun!" or insightful, "wait a minute, I killed my wife and this whole game has been a weird, effed up purgatory."

Frankly, though, it was summed up plenty succinctly by your one sentence response before the jump, N'Gai. My paraphrase: does innovation give games a free pass? Short answer: No.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

Dartastic — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:28:39 GMT

I find it quite interesting when people bring up the issue of pacing in this game. To me, dealing with SWAT teams, Snipers, etc is a fantastic way of punctuating the action and the feeling of speed. Suddenly running through the environment isn't just about taking the quickest path and executing it perfectly, it's about outsmarting your opponents. Do you stop and fight, or do you try and run past them? If you try and run past them, do you take one or two out so you have a better chance of escape? All those factors really helped me enjoy the experience a lot more.

Stephen hit the nail on the head when he said "Time trials are great. But so is the rush of being chased by people shooting at you, running across rooftops away from helicopters, cops and a stream of machine gun bullets. Failure is seldom fun in games, but Mirror's Edge's amazingly fast checkpoint reloads keeps the pain very light." This directly correlates to why the game isn't selling well; people mainly focus on the single player experience, where the game can be over in a paltry 6 hours. While it's true that you can run through once and be done with it, the game has probably some of the best replay value (without multiplayer, that is) that I've seen in years due to "embracing" trial and error, and embracing all the little factors (like the SWAT teams) that make up the experience. Competing against your friends to top their times is fantastic; I remember the first time I actually beat the speed run time in the last level, and it felt brilliant. The main problem with this title isn't innovation, controls, or any of the little details (like the shooting mechanics, inclusion of people with guns, etc.) that people can squabble over. It's the fact that when people heard that the single player mode could be completed in 6 hours, they immediately glaze over the Time Trials and Speed Runs, which as you state is "the most satisfying portion by far of Mirror's Edge." Because let's face it, $60 dollars for a so-called 6 hour game is a lot of money.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

EliJust — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:55:43 GMT

@ShawnElliot It seems to me that when he says that Mirror's Edge is "a game that aspires to re-interpret the very interface between player, screen, and character" he's referring to how the new controls developed for Mirror's Edge (in addition to the "normal" controls for a first person game) effect the player experience in how they perceive the virtual environment (through the screen) and how both effect their perception of their virtual body. It seems he was referring to a "mental interface" or how the player perceives the connection. However, I feel this is exactly why the game should be marked down for poor controls. If the intent of the controls was to heighten the experience of motion and practice of le parkour. If the controls don't work to give this feeling, and sometimes work to hinder it, then the game has in part failed to reach it's goal, and should not be lauded for attempting something it did not achieve. I think the same thing goes for any aspect of the game that stands between the player and the core idea of the game. The reason Valve games work so well is because through their extensive play testing from the very beginning of the game process they are able to distill their game down to only what is important and helps heighten the core of the game. By starting so early they also are never so far down the rabbit hole on some idea that it would cost too much time and money to change it, something I would assume happens at many other developers. Portal works because it is pure in it's idea and executes that idea in my opinion almost perfectly. I played through the game in one sitting, I was never frustrated at the game, and when it ended I was happy and satisfied with my purchase (although it did help the game that when I played HL2 Episode 2 there were references to Portal's "Aperture Science"). I think that while games should be praised for trying something new (much like "Alone in the Dark") it should not be a free pass for them, and anything that hinders the innovation from working should rightly be criticized, because it is standing in the way of the game reaching its fullest potential. It seems nonsensical to me that somebody would say that criticizing the controls of a game that is about revolutionizing the control of first person games is off limits in a review.

re: The Big Idea: Are Videogame Reviewers Missing the Forest for the Trees When It Comes to Assessing Important and Innovative Titles?

GregSanders — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:20:59 GMT

After reading a commenter on my blog who made a similar argument to Wossname, I'm changing my position a bit. If a game successfully implements a valuable new innovation, then screwing up some of the other parts of execution shouldn't necessarily keep it from getting a good, if accurate review. I think most people want there to be a Mirror's Edge sequel, one that could add some polish, as aside from Valve and Blizzard products, most companies don't seem to be able to put out really innovative products that get the other stuff right. And I can think of a fair number of innovative games I loved, say Deus Ex, that certainly had some polish related issues.

So if I were reviewing a game that I thought was a flawed breakthrough, it'd probably get something like an 80 in my book with the flaws clearly stated. However, if it failed to properly execute the main thing it was innovating, that would be entirely different.