EGM: Endless Ocean Is A "Non-Game," Doesn't Deserve A Review
In the latest issue of EGM, editor Crispin Boyer explains why you won't be seeing their review crew taking on Nintendo's diving simulator, Endless Ocean; according to Boyer, it isn't a game, and therefore, doesn't belong in their magazine.
Why isn't it a game? Endless Ocean gives you a sailboat and a stretch of the South Pacific to explore at 10 fathoms. What it doesn't give you is danger, conflict, enemies, a story, obstacles a health bar, bosses... you know, game stuff. ...Your goal here ultimately is to catalog as many fish as you can get in petting distance, stopping along the way to give dive tours to tourists who want in on the hot fin-petting action. And if that sounds more like work than a game, then bingo - That's why EO kicks off our inaugural installment of Electronic Nongaming Monthly.
Whether Crispin is being serious or just giving an cheeky excuse for missing the deadline, it sets an interesting precedent. Should we expect EGM to review the next Animal Crossing, Nintendogs, or Sony's Afrika, assuming the photo-safari speculation pans out? Many game reviewers praise the "non-game" elements of open ended sandbox titles, like throwing cars for distance or scaling buildings in Crackdown, but does an excess of freedom or a lack of vicious piranha negate the inherent game-ness of a title? Assuming the pool of new and non-traditional gamers grows and the market for hardcore game genres becomes more marginalized and niche, these sorts of conflicts will be something that game fans might have to accept.
More of my opinion after the jump.
To my eyes, arguments like Boyer's read as elitist and arrogant, a little like claiming that rappers aren't musicians just because you don't like the music. Hell, I've played a ton of real live gamey-games that felt like a chore - mowing down aliens on heroic and legendary in Halo 3, finishing every sidequest in Mass Effect - so I just don't buy that part of the argument. There's no doubt that Endless Ocean isn't to everyone's taste, and I don't think magazines or websites should be required to review everything that falls across their desks, but to deny that the title is a game at all seems arbitrary. To outsiders, the "non-gamers" who might enjoy EO over No More Heroes, such distinctions will seem hypocritical and dismissive, and ultimately a little defensive. The problem could lie less with titles like EO, and more with an outdated review/score system that is no longer represents a growing number of titles or gamers.
As an aside, 1up.com, the web partner of EGM, did review Endless Ocean, giving it a rather favorable 8.0.
Crispin Boyer ... defines what a non-game is [NeoGAF Forum]
Dawdle
Posted to Hot Stuff, Video Games on 27 January 2008
· Comments (16)
Other stuff like this: arika, egm, endless ocean, nintendo, opinion, wii
Crispin strikes me as one of those people who see on message boards who claims that "casual games" will mean the downfall of "hardcore games". That piece of his just screams he has a chip on his shoulder with regard to games like Endless Ocean.
What strikes me as odd is that there is a game which EGM has reviewed in the past which seems to be almost exactly like Endless Ocean in premise: Pokemon Snap. The whole point of that game is to catalogue creatures.
People generally fall into two catagories. There are those that "get it" and those that don't. Crispin admits this title is lost on him, so can't he just move on and not bash it? Christ, even I get tired of negative, cynical gamer routine.
I agree that this is a ridiculous argument (if he's actually being serious) - games now require health bars and ammo to be "games"?
I'm the first to agree that Endless Ocean is more about exploration than domination, but don't we have enough of the former already available to the gaming public?
Is his suggestion that we further narrow the window of what are acceptable "games" so everyone is sitting around buying only futuristic shooters and sports games? Oh wait, that's practically happening already.
The value and enjoyment of non-gamey games isn't at issue, at least not to me.
However, I don't think that games like EO are a fair fit for the review paradigm in place today.
A game like that could be reviewed, and scored poorly because it doesn't fit the virtues we have decided to judge games by, or it could go un-reviewed and just get a "here it is" style brief write-up or editor's spotlight piece.
In games that are so non-liniar, non-goal oriented, non-gameplay based, there isn't much concrete to say about them in a review. Every game has decent graphics and sound now, the hardware is so powerful that they don't matter unless they are suprisingly stellar or horrifically bad. Outside of that, everything nice about a game like EO is in the 'what you want to get out of it catagory' of individual interest and experience, and you can't put that to any objective measurment.
I don't think the review structure is outdated or problematic though. I think that reviewing a non-game like EO is like grading an abstract painting -- its far too subjective to slap a number on it. I think games that 'are not traditional games' shouldn't be marked like every other game.
Think about this if you will.
Under his guidelines, Pokemon Snap! Isn't a game.
Pokemon Snap is definitely a game. There are goals and objectives: you need to throw an apple here, agitate a Pokemon there and other game-type things in order to activate levels/evolutions and score points in photographs. 'Bosses' come in the form of rare, hard-to-snap Pokemon. It is also so far removed from reality that you can always tell you're in a game.
I haven't played Endless Ocean yet so I can't make a valid comparison, but from the marketing it is essentially a diving simulation. Is that such a bad thing? We can still enjoy immersing ourselves in things that aren't games. Some of us like fiction and some non-fiction, so all in all, I can't see how this is negative. He didn't say that Endless Ocean is an unenjoyable experience. As 'gamers' we are probably just protective of our hobby.
I don't think there's a definition of a game, only good or bad examples of an aspect of games. Georgia Tech has been working on a wiki that tries to define all the different aspects of games and catalogs which games make an implementation of it or not. They call it the Game Ontology Project.
http://www.gameontology.org/index.php/Main_Page
He basically said I'm to stubbornly stuck in the way I play games, that I can't figure out how to review this game. So instead, I'll get mad at it for confusing me.
I guess this kinda game, and yes, I'm calling it a game just isn't enough "hardkore" for him to review.
I'm in love with this game. I have always found sea life interesting and I'm sure I'll never go diving. So this is a great way for me to see a shark and not get bitten in half. There's quite a bit of game for $30 too!
This guy sounds like an ass. He sounds just as ridiculous as Ebert insisting that "video games are not art".
There are indeed plenty of crappy "gamey-games" out there that are far more tedious and pointless than Endless Ocean.
Speaking of which, here's my review of the game. Unlike Crispin, I didn't find a review impossible, or even difficult, to write (watch out though because I always include spoilers):
http://eshto.blogspot.com/2008/01/review-endless-ocean-wii.html
So "real game" = "space marines"
Gawd help us
"The problem could lie less with titles like EO, and more with an outdated review/score system that is no longer represents a growing number of titles or gamers."
Amen, sister. As games/interactivity progresses as an artform, the ridged and narrow definitions of "what a game is" will be forced open to include more types of experiences like this. This response from Crispin proves that this EGM's review system is an outdated relic of an era behind us.
Having played EO, I can honestly say this is an experience unlike any other on Wii, this hardware generation, and in the history of games. If you think that this might be your thing, you owe it to yourself to check it out. This *game* is something special.
I had previously already lost all respect for EGM, and reading this just validates my disgust with them. These guys belong on livejournal or some geocities blog, not a real magazine.
Why is this news?
The point is to play. The point is to have fun.
Anyone who forgets this... really has nothing whatsoever to say about games.
Or, arguably, much of anything in life that is of any true value.
Here's a simple test to see if you have died inside:
There's some really pretty stuff in front of you. Could be fish. Could be rocks. Could be toys.
If you can't find a game to play with yourself within a few minutes - you're dead inside. You are taking up space.
Find ten blue fish within five minutes. Find as many red rocks as possible. Pile the toys as high as you can. Chase the green fish until you find out where it lives. Counting games, seeking games, hiding games, piling games, exploring games.
Goodness. This man... this reviewer?
What a hollow, boring thing.
I pity him.