Kids' Games are All Right

Avatar: The Last Airbender for the Wii is a mediocre game according to much of the gaming press. I'm not too surprised. I'd figured it wasn't the sort of thing that they rave about and those numbers don't bother me. If a game is rated E, you rarely get a decent idea of what it is like to play it from a lot of gaming websites and magazines.

I don't get it. I know that all video games aren't for kids, but that doesn't mean we don't make any videogames for kids. You'd think that if a game was designed for kids, it would behoove them to assess it from that point of view. But that's not what I'm seeing in the gaming press.

I have a theory about how this sort of thing comes about. A lot of game reviewers come from the hardcore end of the gaming spectrum, so they are not the sort to appreciate this kind of game right out of the box. And they're not taking that into account when they assess these games.

Let's take a stereotypical reviewer. You've got this 20 or 30-something guy. He's been playing Doom and Quake since junior high. Yesterday he and one of the other guys worked on the multi-player parts of some new ninja game. After a day of dealing silent justice and a quick dinner, he signed into XboxLive and was grinding nooblets into hamburger with a gun-mounted chainsaw until 2am. Or maybe he was up until 2am grinding his baking skill and kicking sparkle bunnies on Azeroth. He crawls up the stairs to work in the grim light of morning. He hits the coffee stand and then his editor's office. There he gets handed a cel-shaded box and a short deadline.

He goes back to his cube, takes a swig of coffee and loads it up. He's thrown into a brightly colored Purgatory. The characters are bratty kids with voices that can bend metal. Their posturing and posing is even more annoying than the voices. The music is the cliched combat theme from a cartoon.

Once he gets past the interminable opening sequence it gets worse. The combat and general gameplay are old hat to him. It's simplistic and repetitive, plus the paper-thin story doesn't motivate him to want to put up with it. He gives it a pretty good workout out of a sense of duty and doesn't find anything to truly complain about. There's nothing obviously broken. He sighs, types out his findings, does some math and rates it a 6.7. Then he tosses the case on the done pile and heads back to the coffee stand with a few muttered maledictions about licensed crap.

I'm not suggesting our stereotypical reviewer is making this up. Avatar does have the issues they list. There is a lot of repetitive combat. There were quite a few spots full of wolves where I got sick of bothering the local wildlife and just snuck past them to get to the next story point. The melee fighting can seem over-simplified. In contrast, the way they implemented Aang's bigger attacks with the Wiimote has a rather steep learning curve. It involves coordinated use of the buttons on the Wiimote and the thumbstick on the Nunchuk, as well as different movements of the two pieces of the controller. Using the Elemental powers requires precision tracing of Japanese letters on the screen with the Wiimote.

If you don't spend the time to work on it you won't be able to pull off the coolest maneuvers for Aang and his friends or be able to unlock the coolest loot. And that's where the real fun of the game comes in. That reviewer doesn't have the time or the inclination to monkey with it. He's got a job to do. (Those short deadlines and the viscitudes of the reviewers job is another rant.)

The problem is he's looking at it from his own perspective. The game isn't designed for a 6-hour run through by a twitch-gaming master. It's designed for a 10-year-old who is at least familiar with the series who will spend as many happy hours as he can wangle out of his Mom waving the Wiimote around getting his Master's rating on each symbol.

Many of the things our sterotypical reviewer doesn't like about these games are prized features for their target audience. Let's look at the crop of games for the Naruto TV series showing on Cartoon Network. Naruto: Clash of Ninja for the GameCube scraped by with a "C", averaging 70% on Gamerankings. If you read the text of the reviews, they're comparing and contrasting it against the mechanics of hardcore fighting games. They disdain the lack of new, flashy gameplay. It's too simple and too ordinary. Oh, and there's no online play.

Well, maybe it's too ordinary for them. Let's take a look at Naruto while sitting on my couch:

  • The game can be played as a fun button-masher, which makes it accessible to a younger audience.
  • If you're older and have the hand-eye coordination there is another layer to the game with some creative ways of implementing the high-powered attacks. So older kids can play with younger kids without feeling like it's Fisher Price.
  • The dialog is voiced, and the commands are symbol- and color-based so reading skills aren't a determining factor in the play.
  • Head-to-head local multi-player means you can pull a Primary Lotus move on your annoying little brother without your Mom having a cow. How can you not rock that?
  • Even your sister who loves the show and reads the manga can't find much to complain about in this translation.
  • Who cares if it can go online or not? At that age, your game console either doesn't have online ability at all, you don't have the extra hardware or a connection in your room, or you're not allowed to be online anyways.

Add in the nearly bugless engine to stop the "But I hit you!" whining and you've got a real winner for the rated age group -- particularly for families with multiple kids.

Even high scores don't prevent this sort of misinterpretation. Kingdom Hearts II averaged 87%, with many scores above 90%. But if you read the review text there is a lot of complaining about the simple combat and the twisted Dunwich screeching of the rhythm mini-game in the Atlantica area. But from my couch again, it was another case of a battle system designed for the widest possible skill set and it carries it off beautifully. Not to mention the sheer innate coolness of you and King Mickey going tag-team to take on Xaldin in the courtyard outside the Beast's Castle.

I have to say that I also had a hard time getting through Ursula and her operatic poopsies. I guess it fit the setting. She's over the top in The Little Mermaid, too, but it's not this bad. Whoever wrote those lyrics should be keelhauled. I'm sure Howard Ashman is spinning in his grave like an express-wagon axle. But I wasn't put off by it. I knew the job was dangerous when I took it. There were going to be parts of this game that weren't for me. That section is aimed right at the littler kids who play those Disney Sing-Along games over and over. Once the nausea subsided I went and borrowed a neighborhood five-year-old for an hour or so. She was blissfully happy and even sang along while mashing her way through it. She still makes us load it up when she comes over so she can try to better her scores.

I've seen it over and over and over. If you give these games to an actual kid (or a teen or grown-up whose twitch and gore reflexes aren't twisted up to 11) they get a reception very different from what that review would suggest. Naruto's various incarnations are solid fighting games, and they get consistent playtime at my house even with older kids. Avatar is a nice adventure. That one neighbor kid who keeps horrifying his mother by drawing a blue arrow on his forehead with his markers doesn't care about all the wolves. He's just happy to play with Aang and his friends. Having to have a lot of Finny Fun doesn't deter the flock of teenage girls who still regularly re-play Kingdom Hearts II at my house. They practice singing the credits songs and speculate endlessly over the meanings buried in the teaser for the sequel they unlocked from the end.

After you've been through this a few times you learn to read between the lines. I've had the best luck treating the gaming press and publishers the same way I do a certain portly, overwrought movie critic from Chicago. If he hates it, it's an indicator that we might really like the film. Same principle applies here.

Ignore their little green-yellow-red color coding or whatever that's supposed to tell you what range the score was in. Categorize them like this. If they love the game and give it a high score, odds are you are looking at a winner that you'll probably want to play too. Mediocre scores don't mean skip it, though. If they give an E-rated game a 70% (7/10 or 3/5) then it's worth at least a rental if your kid likes the license or genre. You'll probably be able to stand it, and they'll probably love it.

Low scores are where it gets complicated. If they give it a 50%, read the text closely and see what it is they hated about it. Look for certain key words like "repetitive gameplay", "simple/weak combat system", or "thin/stupid story." If you see those as the reason for the score and your kid is a fan of the license or genre, I'd still give it a rental. If it's stuff like "buggy" or "clipping problems" then I'd steer clear unless the kid is really bored or such a raving fan of the license they'd wade through snow uphill both ways just to get their hands on it.

It frustrates me no end. Game journalism is doing a growing section of their audience a tremendous disservice. Readers can loose a lot trying to translate this way. Even I miss good games sometimes, and I'm a gamer of wide experience. Lord help a non-gamer parent who is trying to negotiate this. And those missed games are equivalent to lost sales. It's up to reviewers and their editors to make this change. Realize when you're writing that review who the game is actually intended for and aim your remarks accordingly.

Comments

momgamer wrote:

After you've been through this a few times you learn to read between the lines. I've had the best luck treating the gaming press and publishers the same way I do a certain portly, overwrought movie critic from Chicago. If he hates it, it's an indicator that we might really like the film. Same principle applies here.

It seems to be an extension of what has been going on in the movie industry for years. If a "kids" movie doesn't have enough adult elements to keep the parents entertained (and possibly a PG or PG-13 rating), then it's likely not likely going to be well received by mainstream movie critics. Now that our oldest is 3 1/2 years old, it is infuriating the number of "kids" movies that I refuse to let my child watch.

This is why I just bought a Wii. Sure I would love to have a 360, and play online with people I know, but we have one TV in our house, and it is in the family room. I am not able to stay up much later than I am typing this (10:00), else I would pass out at work the next day, but there is no way I would even consider having most of the popular 360 games on in front of my child. At least with the Wii, I hope to have a much larger selection of kid-friendly and kid-fun games. Sure it might not be my first choice, but if it means I get to play a game of bowling with my son, then that more than makes up for it.

Mainstream media critics are good for what they are good for - adult entertainment (and not the XXX variety). I think that for children rated games, it will take specific enthusiast sites geared toward kids' gaming similar to what Kids-In-Mind does for movies. I doubt we'll ever see it consistently from the 1ups of the world.

Great post momgamer. Critics of all sorts have similar problems. Games, movies, music, books, etc. should be reviewed based on what they are they are trying to accomplish. You shouldn't try to compare Snoop Dogg to Beethoven or Snakes on a Plane to Casablanca. The most important question any critic should ask themselves is "will this please the intended audience?"

That's one way that Roger Ebert really sets himself apart from other movie critics. Maybe his writing should be required reading for game reviewers?

Generalizing to myself: this is why word-of-mouth is more important to me than game reviews. There are dozens of games that I love that receive at best mediocre reviews (most recent example is Lost Planet). The problem is the representation inherent in the "score" system. One of the things I used to love about Next Generation (before they turned into the ad-laden Daily Radar and died) was the fact that they used to shun ratings, considering them to be unrepresentative both of the game and what they were trying to say about it. A game is a game, and like anything in this life, its meaning to every individual is unique. I'm nostalgic for (though not self-disciplined enough to relive) the days when I'd play one of the few games I had for the NES trying to find any new secret, easter egg, or quirk I could in the game. An after school gaming session with a friend turns into an unexpected laugh fest when we realize we can make mario hump the goombas. In other words, the game was about fun -- in any way possible -- not about flashy graphics, innovative mechanics, or "enchanting" scores.

Congratulations BTW, looking forward to new articles from what looks like your very unique perspective.

Excellent article and congratulations on the new, high-paying jo... what? Oh. Congratulations on the, uh... love and admiration of your peers! Err, friends? Amiable online strangers? Whatever we qualify as, then. Right.

Great article Momgamer! It's nice to see a new perspective on the front page. I think you're the perfect maternal addition to the site.
The article has a good point and it's surprising that games review sites (or at least the ones i visit) don't have a specifically catered section towards children...

I think the "intended audience" is the crux of the issue, because the intended audience of a game is likely going to be different than the intended audience of a gaming magazine or site.
That's why it pays to grow a relationship with reviewers you trust and can relate to.
I don't mean to pick on your article momgamer, because I liked most of it, but a stereotypical twitch-gamer reviewer is probably writing for his audience, who are likely similar gamers. If he is asked to review "Parade Float Simulator" (for example) and he rates it highly for its intended audience, he may be doing his own group of fans/readers a disservice by "recommending" a game they won't enjoy.
I think that's why when a reviewer says something along the lines of "normally I don't enjoy games like this/in this genre, but this one really took me by surprise," I would pay more attention than normal.

On the flip side, I'm sure it takes a while to develop a readership and establish your personality while working your chops. If your editor gives you an assignment, it should be done, but if you haven't been asked to look at it with an eye for "parents looking to buy games for their kids" thenI don't think a writer should be chastisted for reviewing to their own taste.

And lastly, the point about looking for key words and reading more closely is right on the money. If a review wasn't written with you in mind it's useful to know how to filter out the bias and look for things your kid will really like about a game.

Congrats and I look forward to seeing more from you momgamer.

Great article. I've certainly seen this with my friend's kids. Sure, there's no new gameplay new in Shrek 2, but they still love it because it's simple fun that lets them play with the Shrek family. Heck, I love KH2 in part because of the ability to just grind through. Sometimes that's all I want.

Great first article Momgamer. Glad to see you were able to get that submission in.

Great article! As a "gaming parent" I'm really happy to see you bringing more of this perspective to the front-page. I have 2 younger kids (6 and 4) and I can relate to what you're saying here. I have no problem getting a sense if I'll enjoy a game based on reading multiple reviews as well as feedback on GWJ. But trying to gauge a game for my kids is a real crapshoot. My son is big into sports games so it's easier to get something for him. But I find it impossible to determine if any given DS or Nintendo game will be a win for my 4 year old daughter. Your points on "reading between the lines" are helpful.

Good read, MG. I have to agree with Scaphism that it's a matter of them writing to their audience, but I do agree that it would be nice to see either more well rounded reviews, or reviews that clearly state their bias.

So what's the solution? A review site that's geared towards the content aimed at a younger audiences?

Good article, mom! I've a gamerdad that has been frustrated with reviews for children's games for some time now, because of many of the same things you have mentioned. You really can't rely on any game's overall score in any given review, especially in relation to non-kids' games.

I have found aggregate scores to still be relatively reliable, though, when comparing children's games to other children's games. While a kid might think that 70 rated game is really a 90, and that 50 a 75, I can at least compare the 70 to 50 and use that to help guide my purchases. Used in that manner, I have found the current system to be relatively reliable.

I'm with Scaph, too. Different publications have different kinds of readers. The problem is that there aren't many outlets that anticipate an audience that can appreciate these kinds of games. It's an underserved market -- but then again, if GWJ is the best place for that, then we come out the winners so NOBODY START A COMPETING SITE.

I want to thank you all for your welcome and your warm comments.

Scaphism is the only one who really seems to disagree with me, so he's the one who is going to get the bulk of the rebuttal. When you start getting into audience analysis, you're popping the top on a huge can of worms. You have a point, but I have a question for you. How do you define your audience? What do you think the average age of the reader of IGN is? Gamespot? Playstation magazine? How about Nintendo Power?

I don't know about percentages, but I do know anecdotally that kids and teens are a large part of their audience. And not only kids and teens, their parents get drug in when they get asked by the kid for a game.

Purpose has a lot to do with it, too. I don't think the hardcore guys are getting served by this either. Do you really think they're buying E rated games for themselves? Outside of a few exceptional tent-pole games like KHII, I'd say probably not. They're not looking at the review for Naruto because they're tired of Mortal Kombat Armageddon and they think this is the next good fighting game down the pike. They're looking because they've got nephews and nieces and whatnot with birthdays coming up. Or they've been asked by some guy in the office for some advice. So they're really not getting what they need out of those reviews, either.

Do I have a solution. Of course! I'm a practiced denizen of the soap box. First part Lumpus and Sheared got - sites that are aimed at kids. They are out there. Kids-in-Mind is pretty good. A lot of you already know this but I should probably put a caveat here. I also write for a site called Gamerdad, and that's exactly what it is.

The problem is those sites aren't run by the big publishers. They don't get the marketing machine behind them. You don't get a subscription for them shoved down your throat every time you buy something at your local gamestore. Their reviews aren't quoted in the magazine ads or on the back of the boxes. They're not in the magazines. Gamer parents eventually find out about them, but the non-gamer parents who really need the help don't. They're at the mercy of the IGN printout their kid just brought them, or that big shiny spread in Playstation magazine.

That's why the big publishers have to step up, too. Some of them have started. Microsoft has started a large initiative to talk about family gaming and to get people using the Parental Controls on their Xbox. Hopefully some of the others will follow suit.

Silly Momgamer, nobody actually reads those.

They just go into the forums and post misspelled obscenities.

Well I agree completely. Just trying to find my 5 yr old a game is a tiresome chore, and I'm a gamer. My wife went out to gamerankings looking for a high rated GBA game and I told her to forget it. If it's a game he's going to like, the people that review the games won't.

He likes the game to be DUMB, and SIMPLE, which scores low in review land.

Good article! You know I've always been a fan.

I cannot disagree more. I think there is confusion in the article between games children like because they are licensed with a familiar set of characters and games that are good. For instance the following have all been critically well received"…

Super Mario Sunshine, Paper Mario, Animal Crossing, Viva Piñata, Pikmin, Loco Roco, Katamari Dalmancy, Ape Escape, New Super Mario Brothers, Mario and Luigi Partners in Time, etc"…

All good games, as far as I know all have an E rating and, are awesome games for kids. Every time my good friend brings over her 7 year old son he wants to play Jurassic Park for the Genesis. This is not because it is a good game but rather because he loves the movies. I'm not saying a licensed game cannot earn a legitimate 9 score, I am simply saying that a licensed game will be instantly more enjoyable to a fan. This is why I can enjoy almost any Star Wars game no matter how poor it is.

Reviewers should rate games on their merits and flaws otherwise it destroys the values of ratings. Why doesn't a child deserve a 9 game rather than a watered down 7? Why should a reviewer give a 7 game a 9 rating just because it's a game for kids?

Answer, he shouldn't.

I bet you could disagree more. If you really tried.

I suspect there is an over-representation of fresh-out-of-J-school graduates writing game reviews, with few journalists who actually have children. Why pay real writers when the populous laps up the drivel? The IGNs rise while the old PG Gamers fall. But doesn't GamerDad represent the parent gamer?

Anyway, very very happy to see your voice on the front page. Look forward to more Halo 2 time Bring the kids next time.

Djiim, while I see your point, the definition of merit is what's at issue here. The problem is that the big publishers even bother to review kids games. Yes, there are plenty of "kids" games that are quality inside and out. The folks doling out the 9s and 7s on kids games are often not used to playing with kids, so what they are REALLY saying is "hey, here's a kids game grownups can even enjoy" which is NOT the same thing.

I don't have a problem that kids like bad games. Parents surely know that their children have poor taste in many regards. A gamer parent should no more expect their children to dress fashionably or appreciate good food, than only like good games. Fundamentaly, asking the reviewers to rate the games on how much a child will like them does not work, unless the entire site is dedicated to such an analysis. Momgamer has a perfectly valid point but her suggestion that a mainstream publication devoted to videogames maintain a double standard in regards to children's games simply undermindes the rating systems.

I'm just saying.

I don't why you can't write a review and if you have to give it a score, give it two sets. One for the kids (target audience) and one for the more experienced gamer.

I like Lunchables and Spaghetti-Os, but I know they're bad for me.

I really hate to nitpick an otherwise excellent article; but...

momgamer wrote:

I've had the best luck treating the gaming press and publishers the same way I do a certain portly, overwrought movie critic from Chicago.

He's not really portly any more.

I never was portly. I don't know what she's insinuating.

momgamer wrote:

It frustrates me no end. Game journalism is doing a growing section of their audience a tremendous disservice. Readers can loose a lot trying to translate this way. Even I miss good games sometimes, and I'm a gamer of wide experience. Lord help a non-gamer parent who is trying to negotiate this. And those missed games are equivalent to lost sales. It's up to reviewers and their editors to make this change. Realize when you're writing that review who the game is actually intended for and aim your remarks accordingly.

The problem with this idea is that as a professional critic (well, hell, as anyone with an opinion), you can ONLY speak for yourself. Criticism works when readers latch onto a critic with whom they find themselves agreeing... that's why I always find it baffling when people rail against certain critics for trashing the newest "genre" film (Lisa Schwartzbaum at EW seems to get a lot of this). People, you KNOW she doesn't like those kinds of films, so why expect her to review them differently that she always has?

To get back to the topic at hand... a professional critic, as I said, can only represent HIS OR HER OWN opinion. They do everyone a disservice is they say something like "well, this game was meant for kids, and while it controls horribly, and is poorly done, I guess kids might like it." How does that reviewer KNOW a kid might like it? Is he really doing anyone a favor by trying to predict what someone else "might" like?

I've seen people like Roger "the portly, overwrought" Ebert (and others) bring a young child ALONG with them to a children's film, and get feedback... because truly, isn't that the only way possible for an adult to fathom "what a child likes"? History is full of adults trying to guess what kids want from a product, and failing miserably.

Rather than complain about an IGN or EGM staffer slamming a "BRATZ" game, it's probably better all around to find a review source that actually features input from kids.

DJIM wrote:

Reviewers should rate games on their merits and flaws otherwise it destroys the values of ratings. Why doesn't a child deserve a 9 game rather than a watered down 7? Why should a reviewer give a 7 game a 9 rating just because it's a game for kids?

Answer, he shouldn't.

Answer is correct but the assumption before it is incorrect. You're assuming the reviewer is rating a game fairly without bias or applying his/her own subjective qualities onto the review.

Try playing a toy that is for children and rating it on your own terms. Then try playing with an adult-orientated toy and rating that too. The adult one will obviously score higher because you take the "facts" into consideration. ie. It's more complicated has more use and will last longer rather than become boring after 5 minutes.

The only completely fair way to review children's games is to have a famitsu-style "board" of children who review games - say 3 to 5 of the little tykes ;). A comparable example in the grown up world are the recent fiascos surrounding Neverwinternights 2 and other games with reviews being given to people who are (or consider themselves) "hardcore rpg'ers" or not interested in the genre presented to them. These reviews will never be fair to the majority of the population. In an ideal world it wouldn't matter as the reviewer would base the rating on the merits of the game, unfortunately we all carry our gaming baggage behind us waiting to dump it onto the next relationship we encounter. It's why perhaps, as we age and play, we become more demanding and critical of games.

BTW, the assumption that reviews should somehow be "objective" is also incorrect.

Reviewing something is by its very nature totally SUBJECTIVE. It is one person's opinion. Each and every person who reviews anything -- be they professional or amateur -- can only speak for themselves, and bring all of their experiences, preconceived notions, and evaluative criteria with them to every potential review. ((the defeinition of a "objective" review? A press release... or else the preview section in most gaming mags))

As I said above, the purpose of professional criticism is for the reader to find a critic THEY AGREE WITH... in other words, you want to find someone who has the same subjective views as you do. Most game reviewers (in places like EGM) are writing for the "typical" gamer, which I imagine would me a male in his 20s-30s. So is it that surprising when the review games from that perspective? Best bet is to find a site that is specifically FOR parents, that review games from that perspective AND use actual kids someway in the review process.

Well, i wasn't just confining my post to specifically games for kids. The problem is that many sites and magazines don't list who reviews the games and on other sites it sometimes seems like whoever gets a game is almost random.

Like i said, i'd prefer a Famitsu-style review with an objective overview of the game and 3-5 scores from as many recognisable and named individuals. At least then we'd know what was going on.
Even on the sites that i know give out reviewers names, those same reviewers are not always in the same genre. Basically the way you're describing the profession of criticism through your eyes means that reviewers have a pointless job that should be striken from the industry. I know that reviews will never completely be objective but the reviewers could at least try to strive for that otherwise it's nothing but a farce.

SommerMatt wrote:

the purpose of professional criticism is for the reader to find a critic THEY AGREE WITH... in other words, you want to find someone who has the same subjective views as you do.

This is perhaps the most insightful sentence of this entire thread.

rabbit wrote:
SommerMatt wrote:

the purpose of professional criticism is for the reader to find a critic THEY AGREE WITH... in other words, you want to find someone who has the same subjective views as you do.

This is perhaps the most insightful sentence of this entire thread.

I can now die happy-- I have my epitaph.