I don't often read reviews of major titles. Part of this has to do with my job -- generally, by the time something comes out, I've not only been exposed to the same pre-release hype as everyone else, but I've talked to enough people, either devs on the title or fellow journos whose opinion I trust, that I've developed enough of an interest level to judge for myself.
I have noticed lately, however, that the primary reason some major titles -- Spore, for example -- have suffered in reviews is because they lack complexity in certain areas of the design; "complexity" is often substituted for "depth". At a glance, this is an understandable criticism strictly from the standpoint of expense. The average consumer, despite being overwhelmed by the pace and frequency of gigantic launches, does not buy a new video game weekly, to say the least, and at the $59 price point, expects a title they can delve into and spend some time with.
But I wonder, from what perspective are reviewers judging complexity, in the broader sense? Are we talking about controls, the sophistication of the game mechanics, the game's length, its plot, characters, what? Spore's taken knocks for being simpler in its earlier phases than it is on the Civ level, which puzzles me a little bit in an era where gamers seemed utterly relieved and refreshed by the simplicity of flOw. I haven't played Spore yet and I don't like flOw (as a player, while I like it as a journalist, if that makes sense*) so I can't opine on the topic in specific, but it's got me wondering -- why has simplicity become a dirty word, and why does an absence of complexity seem to translate automatically, in reviews, to a lack of depth?
I liked Mercenaries 2 because it was something I could see putting into the hands of any of my friends and having them not only enjoy it, but be able to play it to its full extent -- in other words, there were no complexity barriers that might preclude anyone at all from exploring the full game. No More Heroes is still one of my favorite games of the year, and yet I hear from a lot of people who were annoyed there wasn't more "to do" in the city; they would have liked to have seen it more interactive, a perspective that makes less sense to me when you consider it's a game that thrives on its artistic experience and the addictive simplicity of its fighting mechanic.
Especially as we're hoping to see games proliferate into the culture at large, I think the idea that everything needs to be terribly, universally complex is unhelpful, and I wonder where it comes from. And even though reviewers are meant to evaluate each game on its own merits without comparing them against other titles unless a game begs that comparison to another, I wonder if we're approaching new games in quite the right way, overlooking subtly intelligent and technically solid achievements because of some idea we've pre-imagined on what the experience "should" do for us.
Or maybe this is more of me advocating for why I should just get to replay Symphony of the Night all day. Simple, but deep, yeah?
[*I've been mailed some critiques of this statement, but I think it's fairly straightforward, and am unsure what's so hard to understand: flOw makes a good story. It's tightly-made, compellingly simple and is one of those indie success stories we love to hear. It proves itself relevant time and again to discussions on modern games, which is why I often find myself referencing it.
None of this means I enjoy playing it, though. It's not my taste and I don't have fun playing it, but my personal taste doesn't invalidate the reasons why it's successful -- and I know that, in not enjoying it, I may be in the minority. Just because I dislike something doesn't mean it's not important, and I often find it necessary to differentiate my play tastes from what is clearly critically relevant or newsworthy. As a gamer I have the leisure to love and hate whatever I want, but in my writing I feel a responsibility to some measure of objectivity, and understand the necessity of perceiving a title from several different, pragmatic angles besides my own sentiments. "I respect flOw but I don't enjoy it" -- how's that?]
