Wasn't Flower actually the second game, after flOw?

Everyone should play flower. At house parties we always put it on one of the tv's, and leave the controller on the table. People pick it up, and float around for awhile, wondering if they are just looking at a landscape or something else non interactive. Suddenly they will try to quit and by pushing any of the buttons, the world rushes to life and speed. They figured it out! Invariably, after a few minutes of play, the questions come. How much? On what? What else is there like this?

"Reviews should be talking about what a game makes players feel."
"In other words, we should be discussing games as experiences, not products"

If you want my money, what I had better feel is that the game is providing a lot of entertainment per dollar. World of Warcraft does that. From what I have seen of Flower, and from reading review of Flower, I know that there is no way in Hell I am ever going to pay for a game that seems to be a combination of Google Earth and Google Street View with some psychedelic acid trips thrown in.

In other words, if it's not fun, it's not a game and I am not buying it. My dollars will go toward something fun.

Let me be hopefully be the FIRST devil's advocate.

"Auteur" like Mr. Chen would have you believe games like CoD: Modern Warfare 2 (the functional equivalent of a Michael Bay movie) is just unimaginative. He wants to explore what ELSE a computer game can be, other than a rush. I disagree. I think people like Infinity Ward are also trying to push the boundary of what a computer game can be. Think the jump between CoD2 to CoD4. Now they are pushing CoD4 to the next level with Modern Warfare 2. THAT ITSELF, if they can pull it off, will be an achievement.

A separate but related point:

I think Sony invested in Mr. Chen's, and possibly a few dozen more indie studios, just like what venture capitalists do: diversify portfolio, and hope at least one of your indie studios makes it big, i.e. produce a good 'game' or IP that will recoup all the initial investments and other indie failures.

If people like Mr. Chen can refine what a computer game can be while earning good money, well, good on him. However, ultimately he can only be 'proven' right by the money he earns. That's how Shigeru Miyamoto did it: by making gazillion for Nintendo.

Soma:

Since sales are the main barometer for importance, It'd make sense that you then call Infinity Ward imaginative. And apparently, what IW thought computer games could be were corridor shooters with infinitely respawning enemies and set-pieces lifted out of other media. I'm sure they'll take that to the next level, yes.

Soma, the first part your post does not make much sense.

First of all, Chen didn't say anything about CoD. So, contradicting him on that is pointless.

Second, you say that Chen wants to explore other directions and you think that's bad, because CoD is already exploring the current direction? Or what? That part makes zero sense. Infinity Ward is exploring one territory, he explores another one. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Or do you mean that games should simply never try anything else other than being "equivalents of a Michael Bay movie"? I, for one, am hoping for a bit more variety.

Separate, but related point: I hate it when people put auteur in quotation marks. It suggests some form of pride in being uneducated and shallow. (I'm not saying you are any of that, I'm just saying you give me that feeling).

I agree with you about the reasons behind Sony backing up people like Jenova Chen. I think that an additional reason may also be a desire to appeal to a certain demographic that does not bring money directly, but is useful when on your side (game journalists and others like them, basically).

Oh, and, as a simple game player, I couldn't care less about how much money a game makes. It's certainly not a metric I'd use to measure what I like more.

Soma, the first part your post does not make much sense.

First of all, Chen didn't say anything about CoD. So, contradicting him on that is pointless.

Second, you say that Chen wants to explore other directions and you think that's bad, because CoD is already exploring the current direction? Or what? That part makes zero sense. Infinity Ward is exploring one territory, he explores another one. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Or do you mean that games should simply never try anything else other than being "equivalents of a Michael Bay movie"? I, for one, am hoping for a bit more variety.

Separate, but related point: I hate it when people put auteur in quotation marks. It suggests some form of pride in being uneducated and shallow. (I'm not saying you are any of that, I'm just saying you give me that feeling).

I agree with you about the reasons behind Sony backing up people like Jenova Chen. I think that an additional reason may also be a desire to appeal to a certain demographic that does not bring money directly, but is useful when on your side (game journalists and others like them, basically).

Oh, and, as a simple game player, I couldn't care less about how much money a game makes. It's certainly not a metric I'd use to measure what I like more.

marilena:

Based on the quotes on Chen, he obviously is reacting against FPS, or other actiony games. CoD series is the cream of that crop, based on sales and critical responses, that's why I use it.

My interpretation to his quotes is that, he thinks those kind of games explored one kind of emotions, i.e. THE RUSH. Those games do not explore the other emotions, and he intends to rectify that. He intends to find other things that make people go 'COOL!'.

I do not think that's bad. As I've said, if he or other indie game house can explore new ways to do computer game, great. By all means do it. However, ultimately we live in a democracy. It doesn't matter whether *I* think Flower is a cool little game. It matters only when there is a critical mass of people think it is a cool little game. It would matter because by then, there would be money for people like Chen to develop and refine their idea and give us more cool little game. Ultimately earnings is a similar metric as popularity.

Now I'm old enough to have grown up with computer games, and also old enough to have read lots of books and watched lots of movies. I can honestly say NO computer game ever made me cry like a baby. (Well maybe once, when I lost my Starcraft CD key). Movies do (Gran Torino a recent example, the ending is so bloody predictable yet my eyes just welled up.). Books do. NOT GAMES.

If a computer game can do it, COOL!

Soma, you're postulating that an art form needs to be approached in the same way a business is. It's a metric businesspeople want to apply which fails, again and again, because art is not business. While acquiring funding and distribution might resemble decisions you'd make in a business environment you're inevitably involved in a creative pursuit, and when you start to treat that like a business enterprise you end up with bland, financially stagnant properties similar to soap operas or Alone in the Dark's reboot.

Eventually the creative people have to sit down and make creative decisions, and people who want to ride their coattails to financial solvency have to sit back and shut the fuck up or they're going to lose their "venture capital," as you crassly put it, when they ham-handedly attempt to micromanage something they don't understand. Bully to Sony for giving TGC the free hand they needed, though. For all the issues Sony corp seems to have, trouble supporting their creative types is not one of them.

Choosing Modern Warfare 2, a game upon which discourse is presently impossible, as your example of a counterpoint is odd as well, especially considering the things its predecessor has already done with concepts of identity and mortality in a genre of game normally dedicated to making players feel like invulnerable badasses. It's closer to Scott or Liman than Bay, a simple, readily accessible premise which can be deconstructed by people who care to look closer at the media and its treatment of normally taboo subject matter. A better example of a Bay parallel might have been the ever-explodey, substance light Just Cause series, and you'll notice that Just Cause (like Bay's films a distillation of the most visceral and least interesting parts of other people's creative visions) didn't do too well critically or fiscally.

Invoking Miyamoto, an avid opponent of the interpretation of games as art, as the template for success is equally puzzling. It's akin to invoking Ebert in a discussion on film criticism: a big name with big bucks attached to it which has long since passed out of creative and critical relevance, sustained by history rather than present accomplishments.

Sure, everyone has to pay for their entertainment products. Books and films also have price tags attached to them too, but it'll be a cold day in hell before you see someone applying a score to Tristram Shandy or applying a letter grade to Citizen Kane. The fact that our preferred form of entertainment is still largely formative and coming of age in a time when our culture is obsessed with perceived value is something we need to struggle against, not embrace, and the high price point games currently experience makes moving this discussion forward all the more important.

As for games never eliciting an emotional response, judging by your approach to the medium it sounds like you've done all you can to innoculate yourself against it. I'd suggest you give Shadow of the Colossus a try. If you don't feel something playing that game you're probably dropping enough lithium to level a horse. Granted, it's scary to open yourself to an experience and legitimately enjoy it, and also frighteningly uncool (particularly when you're talking about games, a media with a lingering social stigma), but in the end it's the only way you ever develop a relationship with a film, a book, or a game.

As for your thoughts about criticism and the necessity of earning some sort of financial critical mass in order to attain relevance... Well, first off, your reaction as an individual should be the only reaction that matters to you. A critical apparatus should exists solely to help you discern if you'd enjoy something which has piqued your interest, not form the context in which you interpret a game. Second, which games industry are you watching? Do critics discuss the Petz franchise avidly? Or do people puzzle over "leaked" footage of Beyond Good and Evil's sequel? Is Petz a better game by however many more millions of copies it sold than Beyond Good and Evil? Is The Da Vinci Code a better book than Farewell My Lovely? Or, to make a more apt parallel, The Brief, Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao? Selling more copies doesn't make something more relevant or intrinsically superior, and if you're planning on using that as a cultural barometer for games you're going to be disappointed with all but a handful of the products you purchase (one of the noteworthy exceptions therein being the incredibly marketable Call of Duty 4).

It's all good and well to demand a certainly level of quality from the things we throw money down on for entertainment purposes, but "fun factor" has fallen out of favor as a criteria in reviews for a reason. It's pointless to discuss something as "being fun." What you find "fun" I might find boring and trite, and what I find fun you might find pretentious and obtuse. By attempting to engage in an actual dialogue we can see the moving parts that make these games fun, the reasons we purchase and play these games.

And, marilena? I wholeheartedly agree on the whole "auteur" being used as a dirty word subject. So, Soma? Less celebrating ignorance, more sitting down and opening up. Tell Call of Duty 4 what you really feel. It's listening, and it won't laugh. It's there because it cares about you.

I can just imagine the conversation with the Sony executives:

"Yeah, this game is too much fun, I'm going to have to take some out. Maybe I'll add in some slow loading screens. Can't have the audience being entertained, we might make tons of money. Pfft, who wants that? Sell outs and big wigs, that's who. Not you guys at Sony. Right?"

""That's like talking about a car and how fast it goes - saying 'it has great graphics' is like saying 'this car has four seats'. Reviews should be talking about what a game makes players feel."

Oh great. It's not as if Gillen needed an ego boost.

>. It's not as if Gillen needed an ego boost

Gillen's not the only man who's ever made this point, he's just the only man who ever made it and put 'Manifesto' at the top (and tbf, one who made it earlier than most)

" Reviews should be talking about what a game makes players feel[...]In other words, we should be discussing games as experiences, not products."

I agree up to a point, but I don't think a simple description of emotional response is any more interesting than saying that a game is 'fun'. 'Flower made me feel happy and wistful.' 'There Will Be Blood made me exalted and exhausted'. 'Transformers 2 made me cross.' It's not very useful.

Doesn't good criticism outline the link between the effect and the technique? Shouldn't Chen's ideal reviewer be talking about in what ways the graphics are stunning and how that contributes to the effect?

OmegaChervil:

Let me say this up front: I HATE CoD4's core shooter gameplay. HATE HATE HATE it. It is the WORST kind of on-the-rail shooters.

I also recognise its quality and innovations. CoD4 is an action movie coming alive. It is much better than just passively watch some really cool explosions. But you don't need to strain the brain too much either. This I think is why other people think it is 'the shit' and hence a megahit.

What I completely disagree with you is the 'holier-than-thou' attitude about games. Who am *I*, or other dissenter, to say that it is a BAD game?

I can critically and objectively dissect WHY CoD4 broke no new ground in terms of gameplay or narratives. Likewise, I can convince other people that CoD4 is dumb. What I cannot do is to convince them it is BAD. They enjoy it, and even after I point out to them why CoD4 is dumb, they don't care. Their love for epic action game outweighs any criticism of dumbness.

By now should I say those people are WRONG in their judgement that the game is GOOD? Is that some kind of false consciousness? It could well be so, because most people are 'thick as a brick' that they refuse to see the 'truth'. But equally possible is that it simply isn't true that the dumb CoD4 is a bad game.

I'm inclined to believe the latter, based on one important evidence: sales. How do I or anyone know some objective truth about the game? Through sales. People buy game that they think is good. When it is good, they tell their friends to buy it. If it isn't, they tell their friends to forget about it. So when a game is a megahit and continues to be a megahit after launch, this is evidence that *people in general* think 'this is good'. You have to sit up and take notice when you are against the crowd.

Now I'm not saying sales SOLELY determine the quality of the game. What I'm saying is, sales tell us SOMETHING about the quality of games. It is *objective evidence*, as oppose to my *subjective opinion* about a game. Returning to my earlier comments that, although I hate CoD4 I still see its technical and presentational achievements. It doesn't make me consider it a good game but at least I wouldn't think people are dumb shit for thinking it is good. It is just that I have different standard compared with the public.

I also do not rule out there are new and wonderful ways to make good computer games. In fact, I leave it to 'auteur' to explore these territories. We KNOW for sure an 'auteur' has hit something new and interesting by the megahit he makes, like Will Wright with Sims and Simcity. What I disagree with most is to ignore one important objective evidence in the debate about quality of game: sales. It may be crass but evidence nonetheless.

PS I HATE HATE HATE Transformers 2 for all the reasons I HATE HATE HATE CoD4.

Alexis - I sort of read Chen's statement as a cry for games to be discussed more like books and films within our own critical apparatus, with people talking about how and why they felt a certain way about an experience. I think he'd rather see us say "Flower made me feel wistful through its simplistic controls and carefully constructed minimalism" or "Transformers 2 made me feel cross because it represents the worst aspects of contemporary American cinema" than "Quake Wars had some good graphics, they're an 8.5 out of 10."

And, Soma: first off, re-read the posts responding to your own. I never claimed Call of Duty 4 was "good" I just offered up two examples of action directors whose work more accurately parallels, in my opinion, of course, COD4's treatment of the shooter genre. I also never claimed your opinions were invalid, I simply responded to them.

That said, I think you should carefully read up on games, their marketing, their sales, and the way publishers and developers respond to these numbers before you make claims which seem to stem from a capitalist philosophy discounted in the late 19th century. www.gamasutra.com is a great "under the hood" site which could give you some insight in to how sales are a product of much more than the quality of a game.

And, finally, hating things and flamebaiting on the internet remains as unimpressive now as it has always been.

Soma, sales are not an objective measure of a game's success. Sales numbers are an aggregate of multiple subjective opinions, and so therefore only tell you what a lot of people happen to think. No to mention that success is already a loaded term. You have to define success according to who (whom? Also who/whom the fuck cares?). Sales are an objective measure of success to investors. They're the ones who stand to profit from a game's high sales figures, and so of course would define success SOLELY on those figures. That being said, I think OmegaChervil isn't properly acknowledging the relationship between business and Art.

It's fine that the creative helmsman of any artistic endeavor is primarily trying to create something that's sole purpose is to evoke emotion, challenge pre-existing dogma, or perform whatever purpose you think it is that Art is aiming at. In fact, we're probably better off that those artists aren't burdening themselves with heaps of concern over the financial viability of any such endeavor. But the fact remain that so many forms of Art (digital ones in particular) are at leas--in part--reliant upon time, materials, and a production apparatus. All of which costs money. Typically, these artists don't have the means for that kind of mass-market production. So, they have to be financed, and that makes them reliant upon and beholden to their investors. Unfortunately, that sometimes means they have to sacrifice their goals, vision, and control to their investor's whim. This is an absurdly typical and standard experience in most major Art forms. Fine Arts maybe a different story some of the time, but any of the arts that require a substantial amount of equipment, people, and therefore money, will have that sometimes unfortunate consequence.

Of course, this doesn't mean that experiments don't eek their way into this somewhat rigid system, hopefully marching the flag for artistic evolution forward a bit by excruciating little bit.

And while I agree with OmegaChervil that Videogames are a nascent medium still in its infancy, I disagree that any discussion of "fun" is somehow no longer relevant to the discussion. While it's true that videogames have a limited history, there can be no denying that the heritage they DO have is steeped in and largely defined by the "fun factor". Entertainment and Art do not always sync up--though there are exceptions--and Videogames have predominately show preference for the former over the latter. Most of the games that are produced today are looking to provide some kind of attractive hours-of-entertainment-per-dollar ratio to the consumer. And videogames that seem to have this intent, should be judged according to that metric. For some of those games, I want to know just how fun they are. And good gameplay mechanics, aesthetically pleasing graphics or style, and replayability are judged as important only insofar as they serve that end.

This, of course, doesn't mean that there isn't room for a new kind of interactive experience that doesn't have "fun" as it's express purpose. I think it's likely that there will be some kind of split between Videogames and this medium. For the time being however, all of these varied creations are lumped into one category for efficiency's sake. When someone sees you holding a controller, they don't ask what artistic endeavor you're exploring, they think "videogame". And that's the way it will be for a while.

Soma, sales are not an objective measure of a game's success. Sales numbers are an aggregate of multiple subjective opinions, and so therefore only tell you what a lot of people happen to think. No to mention that success is already a loaded term. You have to define success according to who (whom? Also who/whom the fuck cares?). Sales are an objective measure of success to investors. They're the ones who stand to profit from a game's high sales figures, and so of course would define success SOLELY on those figures. That being said, I think OmegaChervil isn't properly acknowledging the relationship between business and Art.

It's fine that the creative helmsman of any artistic endeavor is primarily trying to create something that's sole purpose is to evoke emotion, challenge pre-existing dogma, or perform whatever purpose you think it is that Art is aiming at. In fact, we're probably better off that those artists aren't burdening themselves with heaps of concern over the financial viability of any such endeavor. But the fact remain that so many forms of Art (digital ones in particular) are at leas--in part--reliant upon time, materials, and a production apparatus. All of which costs money. Typically, these artists don't have the means for that kind of mass-market production. So, they have to be financed, and that makes them reliant upon and beholden to their investors. Unfortunately, that sometimes means they have to sacrifice their goals, vision, and control to their investor's whim. This is an absurdly typical and standard experience in most major Art forms. Fine Arts maybe a different story some of the time, but any of the arts that require a substantial amount of equipment, people, and therefore money, will have that sometimes unfortunate consequence.

Of course, this doesn't mean that experiments don't eek their way into this somewhat rigid system, hopefully marching the flag for artistic evolution forward a bit by excruciating little bit.

And while I agree with OmegaChervil that Videogames are a nascent medium still in its infancy, I disagree that any discussion of "fun" is somehow no longer relevant to the discussion. While it's true that videogames have a limited history, there can be no denying that the heritage they DO have is steeped in and largely defined by the "fun factor". Entertainment and Art do not always sync up--though there are exceptions--and Videogames have predominately show preference for the former over the latter. Most of the games that are produced today are looking to provide some kind of attractive hours-of-entertainment-per-dollar ratio to the consumer. And videogames that seem to have this intent, should be judged according to that metric. For some of those games, I want to know just how fun they are. And good gameplay mechanics, aesthetically pleasing graphics or style, and replayability are judged as important only insofar as they serve that end.

This, of course, doesn't mean that there isn't room for a new kind of interactive experience that doesn't have "fun" as it's express purpose. I think it's likely that there will be some kind of split between Videogames and this medium. For the time being however, all of these varied creations are lumped into one category for efficiency's sake. When someone sees you holding a controller, they don't ask what artistic endeavor you're exploring, they think "videogame". And that's the way it will be for a while.

Poo - Great point about the high cost (and ergo low risk) apparatus by which games are made. I was definitely being overly reductive in my comments on the relationship between business and art, and the points you raise are excellent. That said, I do genuinely believe that games benefit when "creatives" are given a free hand, and I think that games as an industry have more trouble finding it than say films, which have also have a prohibitively expensive and time consuming production process. I think that's something that won't realistically change for some time, but I think its going to have to if we're going to grow as a culture, and the sort of bottom-line thinking that Soma outlined isn't helping.

It's also worth noting that there's been a lot of progress on this front. The Path, for example, was paid for with a government grant, the like of which you might see musicians, artists and authors applying for and as the WSJ article shows publishers such are becoming much more supportive of their developers creatively as time progresses.

I'm also not trying to say that "fun" isn't important, but I think it's a reductive and overused term in the discussion of games. If we replace it with, say, entertaining (as in "Is this game entertaining?" rather than "Is this game fun?"), that might help to generate, instead of end, discussions. As long as a reviewer can point to an intangible "fun" quality, without discussing how or why he feels this way, I think video game discourse is going to suffer.

My "fun factor" specific comment was supposed to be a reference to the hey-day of Sega and SNES reviews where "fun factor" was one of the bullet pointed criteria for assessing game quality, along with graphics, difficulty and controls. It just says jack-all about what a game is and is better served by discussion just what makes a game fun, rather than whether or not this eldritch quality exists in the first place.

While I totally agree that games are going to stay lumped together on the fringes for the forseeable future, I still think that we need to keep pushing to develop both the discussion of and creation of games in to new territory. To make an awkward analogy, I think we need to keep trying to sneak our seats over to the grown up table, even if they're not ready to serve us wine.

Look, what I did is to make an argument that you should take into all available evidence when considering the quality, including sales. I also made an argument that the differing opinions about quality may be due to differing standards, not that there is a common agreed standard to start with (the 'fun' standard). One standard is no more valid than the other, just like I am no more right in loving orange over apple.

I can make an objective case that 'look, you don't have to think of video game JUST as a pass time, you can think of it as literary device'. I show them rough gems like The Path and get them to see the avant garde in video games, but if those people aren't open to those ideas, that's pretty much it. I cannot alter the subjective standard people apply to video games. THEY have to change the standard by their own will.

I don't look down on them and say they are dumb. They are free to choice their own standards.

I can keep trying, or I can find some other ways to entice them. That's where the 'auteurs' come into the equation. If they keep pushing out cool little games that break the mould, some people may just wake up one day and say, 'hey, video games can be much more!' and win them over to the new standard.

If you think that's a flamebait, well... I thought people here HATE CoD4 and its functional equivalent, Transformers 2, so I thought I'm just preaching to the choir. Apparently I'm wrong.

And I know about some of the tactics publishers use to push sales. But then I always believe you can't polish a turd. If something is shit, it got found out, eventually. People have differing standards about what's good, but they have same standards when it comes to what's BAD. And sales, if anything, will show that. Not just the raw sales, but the sales compared with projections. Those turds are those with high expected sales but just fall completely flat at launch.

@OmegaChervil - You're right, and that's why I said I agree up to a point. That point is the one where games criticism is often still more well-intentioned than thought-through. It's the same point really that you make about discussions on fun, above - identifying the response without explaining it isn't interesting as criticism or useful as review, unless we know a lot about the reviewer.