December 16th, 2013
All writers are liars. You know that though, don’t you? That’s what you learnt at high school when your teacher forced you to write those essays on some book you didn’t care about and some theme seemingly unrelated to it. We write books about one thing, only to talk about something else. I too must confess to such two-faceness. And as is the tradition with prefaces, I shall now self-indulgently reveal the lie before you’ve had a chance to read the book and realise it for yourself.
This book is not, as the title suggests, an analysis of Wario Land 4. Rather, it is a critique of contemporary games writing, in particular the broadly-defined games criticism. I evaluate games criticism through the proposition of games analysis, a new type of games writing which seeks to improve the art and science of video games through clear language, authoritative evidence, and a focus on interactivity. A Critical Analysis of Wario Land 4 is an example of games analysis brought to its logical conclusion: a piece of writing which thoroughly explains the workings of an entire game. Everything from mechanics to engagement to level design is covered. Without trying to sound arrogant, I would contest that there has never been a deeper, more comprehensive piece of writing ever written about a video game.
This is not to condemn games criticism nor discourage those engaged in thoughtful games discussion (it is, after all, for you guys that I wrote this book), however, while there are some genuinely excellent pieces of writing out there, games criticism certainly has a few issues in its current form*. Thus, it is my intent to use games analysis as a means to improve the state of games criticism. I don’t see games analysis as a replacement for games criticism, but rather as an important subset of the broader discussion. What sets game analysis apart from other forms of games writing is that it acknowledges the following three points.
*Game designer, Dan Cook, succinctly covered many of these problems in his essay, A blunt critique of games criticism. I would recommend reading his article to further understand some of the issues this book attempts to address.
#1 Games are Complicated
Video games are sophisticated systems of rules which employ the expertise of art, maths, science, architecture, literature, psychology, and cinematography, just to name a few. The book, over 450 pages of critical analysis on what many would consider a relatively simple game, more than validates this point. The complicated, interdisciplinary nature of video games makes talking about them with any authority quite difficult.
#2 Thus, A Clear Language is Needed to Critically Discuss Them
Some games writers speak of this magical day when the language needed to critically discuss video games will appear out of thin air and they’ll finally be able to talk about the medium with real depth. While these people are off daydreaming, others have been hard at work making such language a reality. Tadhg Kelly’s What Games Are is one such example. For this book, I’ve used the work of Richard Terrell. Richard runs the Critical Gaming blog and for the past 5 years has been developing a critical vocabulary in which to understand games. His Critical Glossary contains more than 450 terms and is backed up with thousands of pages dedicated to theory and examples from popular games. If you’re interested enough in games to buy this book, then Richard’s blog should immediately strike you as profound. I urge you to take a look before digging into the main analysis.
#3 No Evidence, No Authority
The most confounding and inexcusable aspect of games criticism, and games writing in general, is the lack of evidence to support a writer’s claims. Without evidence there is only opinion, and if there’s anything we’ve learnt from the internet, it’s that anyone can, and does, have an opinion. Evidence grants authority. It proves that the writer isn’t just spouting out ideas, but has a considered and balanced argument. In the very least, it shows the reader how the writer came to form their opinion. In fairness, many writers do provide some form of evidence in their writing, but it’s often vague, insufficient, or never properly scrutinised. Saying that game X is boring because levels Y and Z are poorly designed doesn’t tell the reader how levels Y and Z are poorly designed or how two poorly designed levels can make an entire game boring, never mind what “boring” means. The more extensive the evidence and thorough the explanation of the connection between the evidence and the argument, the more credible the article.
(This is why FAQ writers and Let’s Players have a leg up over game critics. FAQ writers because they’ve already written extensively about the game system, and therefore have it all mapped out in their head. Let’s Players because they have the evidence right in front of them, which makes it easy to shoot off a quick observation in context).
When evidence is utterly void, the only way to grab reader interest is to inflate opinion. Thus, we see posts with titles like “Is Zelda Skyward Sword the worst game in the series?”, backed up with a few paragraphs of fashionable ignorance. Forget about looking at the dungeons, inventory, story, or game structure.
In A Critical Analysis of Wario Land 4 all assertions are backed up with evidence and detailed explanations. My opinions are downplayed to the point that I don’t even reveal if I like Wario Land 4 or not. The goal is to interpret the game for what it is; not to talk about my feelings. I’ve chosen this super objective approach so that the book acts as a polarising alternative to the over-abundance of opinion out there. I want the nuances of the game design to set the agenda, because it’s these details that define the game.
Of all the games one could write a book about, don’t you find it a little odd that I chose Wario Land 4? I could have written about a Bioshock or an Uncharted. Instead, I chose a simple game with a child-friendly veneer released more than 11 years ago on a portable platform—talk about irrelevant! This decision was intentional. Along with making a case for games analysis, I also want to challenge three aspects of the game enthusiast community:
- The games press’s lack of enthusiasm for portable games and games for children.
- The general stigma of playing and writing about old games.
- The focus on games which emphasise ideas over interactivity (i.e. Bioshock and Journey) by writers of games criticism.
So there you have it: my ulterior motive is revealed and you’re free to press on to the first chapter. One final word though. I’ve spent the past 2 years cramming every bit of observation and insight into this book. This will make it a challenging read at times, but I encourage you to stick with it. By the end, I’m sure that you’ll have grown your understanding of game design and be able to further appreciate the level of craftsmanship that goes into these wonderful, interactive works of art.