I'm
going to introduce two concepts here. I haven't seen them mentioned
anywhere else, and thus have decided to call them "Structural
Proficiency" and "Thematic Proficiency"
Structural
Proficiency . It talks about how technically proficient a game is. Do
the graphics work? Is the game stable? Do horrendous bugs appear
throughout, shattering the illusion? Is it even playable?
Then
there is Thematic Proficiency. Is the gameplay fun? Well balanced?
How does the narrative reflect the gameplay? Does the game have
anything to say? Are the set-pieces interesting and varied?
I
recently sat in a presentation of student-games (I love those).
Game
Alpha was a solid Jump'n'Run. You could jump, shoot and duck. You
progressed until the end, where you encountered a boss, which had
unique attacks. There was interesting work with the color-palette,
and some nice humorous bits that made me applaud (after which the
rest of the class joined me).
Game
Bravo was supposed to be a puzzler. I think. I say "I think",
because it barely worked. The level presented consisted of 3 grey
boxes against the standard-blue background of Unity. The main
character was a cube, and couldn't actually move. The one action that
was supposed to happen didn't. It was a complete and utter failure on
every level.
Yet
when both games were critiqued, it took about the same time. The
things I just mentioned were discussed, which, despite the huge gap
in quality, took the same amount of time to talk about.
What
happened was, that the Critique of Game Alpha (the good one) centered
on its Thematic Proficiency. It already was Structurally Proficient,
so there was no need discussing that.
Game
Bravo (the crap one) didn't even reach the Thematic level. It was
stuck on the Structural Level, never moving beyond it. And was then
taken apart for it.
Colonial Marines fails on a Structural Level. Without this, talking about the Thematic Proficiency is difficult, at best.
The
conclusion I took away from this is: You have to EARN a Thematic
Critique. Your game has to prove to be Structurally Proficient,
before it can be seriously discussed on a Thematic level.
Which
brings me to the infamous 1-10 scale.
Now please bear with me, because this argument will come out In Favor of the
current use of the 1-10 scale (I know, right? I was surprised too). Or at least it might explain how it works, and how it
has reached the state it is currently in.
The
majority of game-journals (be they online or print) rate games on a
scale ranging from 1 to 10 (or 1 to 100%). A neutral, unknown
observer might think "Surely, a 5 would be mediocre," Only
the actual grades given range from 7-9, and maybe a 1 or 2 fro truly
horrendous ones. The grades 4-6 are barely ever awarded. It is
jokingly called the "7 to 9 Scale", because 95% of games
reviewed get one of these three grades.
Which,
if you look at the grades and the idea behind them, is LITERALLY
INSANE.
But
if we take a look at Thematic and Structural Proficiencies, and we
can maybe conclude how this scale came to be.
A
review, of course, takes both Proficiencies into account.
When
a review for a game is given, the score for "Structural Proficiency" and "Thematic Proficiency" are combined.
If a game works structurally, it already deserves at least half the
grade. Hence most games are never lower than 6, as they are "working
games". A Structurally Proficient game also usually has the
basics of Theme down, so the score goes up to 7.
A
bunch of games group around the 1-2 mark, because if a game is
structurally not proficient – as in, it fails on a basic level and
barely works – it usually fails thematically to.
Zoo Tycoon 2, a perfect example for a Structurally sound, yet Thematically mediocre game. Its Structure is similar to the RollerCoaster Tycoon-games, yet Zoo Tycoon doesn't reach the levels of fun of RCT.
Of
course I would like to suggest a "better" method of
criticizing games in journals, but it already exists. Site that
eschew scores, like Rock Paper Shotgun or IndieStatik barely even
talk about the structural thing. That's what it is to those caring
about story, gameplay and art: The Structure beneath it. The canvas
it was painted on. They care about gameplay, story and theme, and the
reviews are more interesting for it.
Some
other sites, like Eurogamer, despite having a score at the end,
barely even need it. The interesting stuff is there, inside the body
of the review, taking apart the narrative of a game.
And
that is what a review should be, after all. An interesting take on a
title. The number at the end is ridiculous, and can't possibly work
in being a general indicator of a game's greatness (which is another
discussion in itself).
This
can work, because it already does. Look at other media, like books of
Film, where there is NO Structural criticism. This seems only to
exist in games.
If
you read a review of novel, the author won't discuss whether the book
is falling apart or the font is readable. It already Structurally
Proficient, and this part can be ignored outright. Hence she
concentrates on the Thematic Proficiency, taking the setting,
characters and plot apart.
If
a movie is discussed, people do not concentrate on whether it is
visible or not. Cinema-technology has changed relatively little in
the last 90 years, and if a review-score is given, it is given on
Thematic Proficiency alone.
...but
not quite. Recently some experimental changes in the film-format have
been added to movies, like 3D or the 48fps-experiment. And suddenly
the Structural Proficiency is discussed again, influencing the
overall verdict.
The Hobbit doubled the framerate it was recorded in, thus justifying talking about the Structural Aspects. As a result the overall scores and verdicts were skewed.
Arguing
about how a game succeeds or fails thematically is the interesting
stuff. This is why we play games, after all. It has gotten better
recently, with the advent of low-fi Indie-Games and the gradual
slowing of the hunt for more pixels.
Because
a game being Structurally better will only result in a mediocre game
at best. Making it Thematically better is the only way to greatness.
