| Article | Guardian: Mirror’s Edge is Just Too Innovative For Reviewers |
According to an article posted on Friday in the Guardian Games Blog, Mirror’s Edge is getting less than perfect review scores simply because it’s got too much innovation for reviewers to handle. The article by Keith Stuart titled “Do game reviewers really understand innovation?!” makes a few rather interesting claims.
Stuart points out that the game probably wont be getting scores as high as other major titles coming out this season, but says rather boldly that “if it were a movie, Mirror’s Edge would be critically lauded by the specialist film press – it would be considered a forward-thinking masterpiece.”
His main argument seems to be one of the weight (or lack thereof) given to “innovation” in reviews. Taking examples from film Stuart makes the argument that when a game is being innovative, is it not fair to give it leeway if the innovation comes at a cost to the conventional aspects of games?
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?
And this is where my opinions begin to differ with those held by Stuart. I don’t think Mirror’s Edge is as stunningly innovative as claimed. It’s a seemingly new idea yes, but it’s not a grand enough leap forward from other games to warrant the high level of praise being given to it. First person perspective, running away from enemies, avoiding direct combat, quick time events, the colour blue: all of these things have been done before. The innovation is the combination and blend.
I am a firm believer that most of the artistic language games use is embedded within the aspect unique to the medium: the gameplay. One of the most important parts of the gameplay itself is how you control your character’s movements and interactions within the game world. This makes the controls a very integral part of the experience.
In the example above, Stuart talks about giving leniency to the game. He gives comparisons between the game’s shortcomings and those of critically acclaimed films. In my opinion, equating the effect of control issues in a game with an unconventional narrative structure in a film is wrong. A much more accurate comparison would be to liken control issues with a poorly constructed narrative; something creating a profoundly different effect.
I think he is misinterpreting the target audience for most reviews. The example of a review he gives is one from IGN. It’s not written as an artistic deconstruction of the game to be read by well informed game critics; it is written for the average gamer. And the average gamer most likely doesn’t realise the artistic value games take on. These are game reviews, not game critiques. The difference between the two highlighted last year in a talk by Ernst Adams.
A further example of the difference between a reviewer and the critic is that a reviewer should take into account the value (in cold hard money) of the game. This is something which will change the priorities of the player, and subsequently those of the reviewer, likely pushing aside the purely artistic or innovative parts. A game critic would do what Stuart suggests is needed: de-construct, and applaud innovation and art. I completely agree that there is a need for articles like that to expand the audience of gaming as well as the artistic expressionism games are developing. But I don’t think that the average game review is a place for that.
Judging this medium on set criteria like graphics, sound, gameplay, lasta-fecking-bility – oh God, sometimes all that crap needs to be torn up.
I happily second his call for more in-depth, critical analysis as a basis for a review of a game. But I don’t agree that the places for the exploration of the often subtle artistic substance a game provides is within mainstream game reviews.
Reviewers are not undervaluing innovation with Mirror’s Edge; they are simply reviewing it based on the often shallow yet highly effective common criteria of quality. This is a definition of ‘quality’ that reflects less of the artistic or innovative value of the game, but more the enjoyment of the gamer.
|
|
True innovation lies in games able to leave a lasting impact on the player, like Portal. Yeah, it had a new mechanic, but the narrative style was the true innovative element which granted it such acclaim. Mirror’s Edge is just Prince of Persia in First-Person; that’s not true innovation.
Besides, what’s so important about innovation? A good game is a good game, whether it is old or new.
I have it and I thoroughly enjoy it.
Though many of my friends find it frustrating and not fun at all.
I have beaten the game and found it at its high points incredibly fun, and at its low points extremely frustrating. The game itself is a beautiful game, and the platform mechanics are really well done. My issue is with the combat. I understand that you are supposed to run away, and In most cases that is fine. But in some you are required to disarm and take a gun, or die. The difficulty curve is annoying and took away from the fun i was having with the platform aspects. I suggest making the game more like portal, making the platform aspects harder and more puzzle-like and leaving the gun mechanics and combat out. Either that or make them streamlined and easier to use. I expect great things from the sequel. Because unlike movies the sequel is almost always better.
They said the same thing about Lair. Think about that.
Agreed. That is all. If they want to be innovative, do it the Portal way. I don’t know if I would’ve enjoyed Portal as a full-length, full-priced game.
Problem is, asking someone to spend $60 and potentially dozens of hours to experience “innovation” potentially at the expense of fun is a tall order. I think if the game were released at a budget price or $30-$40 it would’ve done much better.
I definitely agree with the point about the importance of gameplay. Gameplay, by it’s very name, defines the difference between it and all other forms of entertainment. I read a really interesting article in the Guardian about the concept of ‘pure film’, the idea that if you focus too heavily on dialogue vs cinematography you turn a film into a piece of literature and lose the point of having a film in the firstplace. A lot of the games-as-art debate seems to miss this point, focusing too heavily on cinematic or literary games rather than games that focus on pure gameplay. I’d call something like Ikaruga, Gears of War or Castle Crashers a better argument for games as art than something like Mirror’s Edge because they don’t attempt to be Dickens or Kubrik, they just do what no other medium can - enthrall the player with their gameplay mechanics.
I don’t think excusing shortcomings in a game with innovation is a good idea.
If it was something entirely new, people would still see the apparent flaws in gameplay and level design.
By trying to defend like that, well, in my personal opinion, your ego may have suffered a blow.
Gaming is art to an extent, but at some point you have to consider what separates it from everything else, gameplay.
If you overlook that, then I could see how a game can’t get perfect scores.
Hey! I like your post “” so well that I like to ask you whether I should translate into German and linking back. Answer welcome. Greetings Kroatien