All writers are liars. You know that though, don\u2019t you? That\u2019s what you learnt at high school when your teacher forced you to write those essays on some book you didn\u2019t 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\u2019ve had a chance to read the book and realise it for yourself.<\/p>\n
This book is not, as the title suggests, an analysis of\u00a0Wario Land 4<\/em>. 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.\u00a0A Critical Analysis of Wario Land 4<\/em>\u00a0is 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n *Game designer, Dan Cook, succinctly covered many of these problems in his essay,\u00a0A blunt critique of games criticism<\/a><\/em>. I would recommend reading his article to further understand some of the issues this book attempts to address.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019ll 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\u2019s\u00a0What Games Are<\/a>\u00a0is one such example. For this book, I\u2019ve used the work of Richard Terrell. Richard runs the\u00a0Critical Gaming blog<\/a>\u00a0and 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\u2019re interested enough in games to buy this book, then Richard\u2019s blog should immediately strike you as profound. I urge you to take a look before digging into the main analysis.<\/p>\n The most confounding and inexcusable aspect of games criticism, and games writing in general, is the lack of evidence to support a writer\u2019s claims. Without evidence there is only opinion, and if there\u2019s anything we\u2019ve learnt from the internet, it\u2019s that anyone can, and does, have an opinion. Evidence grants authority. It proves that the writer isn\u2019t 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\u2019s often vague, insufficient, or never properly scrutinised. Saying that game X is boring because levels Y and Z are poorly designed doesn\u2019t 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\u00a0\u201cboring\u201d<\/em>\u00a0means. The more extensive the evidence and thorough the explanation of the connection between the evidence and the argument, the more credible the article.<\/p>\n (This is why FAQ writers and Let\u2019s Players have a leg up over game critics. FAQ writers because they\u2019ve already written extensively about the game system, and therefore have it all mapped out in their head. Let\u2019s Players because they have the evidence right in front of them, which makes it easy to shoot off a quick observation in context).<\/p>\n When evidence is utterly void, the only way to grab reader interest is to inflate opinion. Thus, we see posts with titles like\u00a0\u201cIs Zelda Skyward Sword the worst game in the series?\u201d<\/em>, backed up with a few paragraphs of fashionable ignorance. Forget about looking at the dungeons, inventory, story, or game structure.<\/p>\n In\u00a0A Critical Analysis of Wario Land 4<\/em>\u00a0all assertions are backed up with evidence and detailed explanations. My opinions are downplayed to the point that I don\u2019t even reveal if I like\u00a0Wario Land 4<\/em>\u00a0or not. The goal is to interpret the game for what it is; not to talk about my feelings. I\u2019ve 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\u2019s these details that define the game.<\/p>\n Of all the games one could write a book about, don\u2019t you find it a little odd that I chose\u00a0Wario Land 4<\/em>? I could have written about a\u00a0Bioshock<\/em>\u00a0or an\u00a0Uncharted<\/em>. Instead, I chose a simple game with a child-friendly veneer released more than 11 years ago on a portable platform\u2014talk 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:<\/p>\n So there you have it: my ulterior motive is revealed and you\u2019re free to press on to the first chapter. One final word though. I\u2019ve 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\u2019m sure that you\u2019ll 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.<\/p>\n Daniel Johnson<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" All writers are liars. You know that though, don\u2019t you? That\u2019s what you learnt at high school when your teacher forced you to write those essays on some book you didn\u2019t care about and some theme seemingly unrelated to it. We write books about one thing, only to talk about something else. I too must […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-5665","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielprimed.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5665"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielprimed.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielprimed.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danielprimed.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danielprimed.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5665"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/danielprimed.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5665\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5908,"href":"https:\/\/danielprimed.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5665\/revisions\/5908"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/danielprimed.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}#1 Games are Complicated<\/h3>\n
#2 Thus, A Clear Language is Needed to Critically Discuss Them<\/h3>\n
#3 No Evidence, No Authority<\/h3>\n
\n