Who Should Be Reviewing Fl0w? Curators?
The second post from the Tale Of Tales blog I've linked recently, this one, from the creators of art-game-happening The Endless Forest, talks about a review of fl0w, ' Games journalists and The New Games', and it's... interesting.
The slightly controversial positioning, based around a Eurogamer review of the PS3 version: "It is quite clear that Flow is not a game like most. That its focus is not on gameplay as such but on a different kind of interactive experience, an experience that inspired its title. I’m happy that games websites report on products like this because I think they are extremely important for the future of the industry. But after reading the review, I’m starting to doubt whether games journalists should be the ones doing this job."
He continues: "It’s a bit like having sports commentators criticizing a fine art exhibition. Not that I want to make a big issue about Flow being art or something. But it does seem to be designed with different purposes and require a different attitude than that of a games journalist (or a gamer for that matter). Not necessarily so these kinds of games could get better scores. But because their scores might be better motivated. Now it seems too much like judging an opera performance based on the cut of the dress of the soprano. It might be an ugly dress, but that’s hardly the point." Thoughts?
Comments
These kinds of retorts overwhelmingly come off like fl0w fans who are pissed that there are people willing to point out that the Emperor is naked.
Posted by: Tetsuo | April 4, 2007 9:05 AM
The game as art bit came up in the discussion of Super Columbine Massacre. I think games can be artful, and that one can make a game art just as one can make anything art. But the experience of playing a game is of a different order than the experience of appreciating art.
Posted by: jhn | April 4, 2007 10:34 AM
Setting aside the critical reception of flOw itself and whether or not it is deserved, I do feel that there are inadequacies in mainstream game criticism. Game reviews are put together using roughly the same language as those for a set of headphones or an email client in PC Magazine ("Control is very responsive! But the A.I. teammates are about as useful as chalk on a whiteboard!"). And for most games, that gets the job done -- that's what you want to know. But some games could really use reviews written in the elegant language of a good film or literature critic, or at least an essay on the game apart from the unavoidable critique of play mechanics (or, even better, an essay addressing the mechanics in a thoughtful way!). I was pretty excited when my favorite pop/art magazine The Onion A.V. Club added game coverage, but unfortunately, their reviews all seem to follow a dull template not far removed from those of mainstream game magazines, and they've done nothing else with their expanded coverage aside from an inaugural interview with Will Wright.
Posted by: Shih Tzu | April 4, 2007 10:35 AM
It's clear that there are "games" and there are "artistic games," and there is "art" and there is "interactive art." It should also be clear that both sides have been reaching closer and closer to the point where there is a mostly smooth continuum between these points.
It's important to distinguish "games journalists" who write about games in general from the "games journalism publications they write for. Games journalists in general definitely should be reviewing both Flow and hypertext and interactive art installations. Lederer's doubt is more accurately directed at the publications. No matter how sophisticated games journalists become, will Eurogamer ever stop grading games on the same out-of-ten rubric?
Posted by: Tablesaw | April 5, 2007 2:29 AM