Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
The Two Kinds of Proficiency in Games, and the Two Kinds of Criticism
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
View All     RSS
April 20, 2014
arrowPress Releases
April 20, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM TechWeb sites:


 
The Two Kinds of Proficiency in Games, and the Two Kinds of Criticism
by Matthias Zarzecki on 02/27/13 03:27:00 pm   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

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.

This has also been posted on Matthew On Game Design.


Related Jobs

Treyarch / Activision
Treyarch / Activision — Santa Monica, California, United States
[04.19.14]

Associate Art Director - Treyarch
Treyarch / Activision
Treyarch / Activision — Santa Monica, California, United States
[04.19.14]

Associate Animator (temporary) - Treyarch
Activision Publishing
Activision Publishing — Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
[04.19.14]

Principal Graphics Programmer
Activision Publishing
Activision Publishing — Santa Monica, California, United States
[04.19.14]

Executive Producer-Skylanders






Comments


Ara Shirinian
profile image
how does the quality of mechanical gameplay fit into this? It seems like between your two classifications you might put that under your 'thematic proficiency,' but there isn't really anything thematic about the mechanics of gameplay.

It sounds like by 'structural proficiency' you are just distinguishing how broken or not the game itself is.

Paul Laroquod
profile image
Not to be picky but proficiency is really the wrong word for coining these categories because it denotes a quality possessed by a living being. A game is not really proficient at anything because a game does not do anything independently. Everything that happens in a game demonstrates proficiency on the part of the designer or player. The game is just the middle part; that's why they call it a 'medium'.

Matthias Zarzecki
profile image
Ha, so true :)

Figuring out how to call these terms was somewhat difficult, I'd welcome better ones :)

Marck Ernest Thornton
profile image
Matthias, wonderful post. I gathered three points of action in your writing; your discovery of Structural and Thematic proficiency; your call to remove Structural proficiency from reviews; and your claim that Thematic proficiency is the only way to greatness. I'd like to share my opinion (or maybe just questions) with you.

First, I took a different position with your discovery of these proficiencies. I concluded that the Structural proficiency is only reviewed on a sub-conscious level, only being brought to light if something smacks the player in the face and says, "broken!" This results in equal review times for different quality of games. Why send time reviewing the Thematic proficiency if you just got slapped in the face? Criticize what just slapped you instead.

Second, I don't know if I agree with your call to remove the Structural proficiency. Within industries isn't it common practice to have this side of the review? Is the cinematography, sound design, etc. not discussed among educated laymen and professionals within the movie industry? Is the paragraph structure, foreshadowing, and the complexity of a book not discussed in the writing industry? I believe it is essential to the review process.

Finally, we can certainly think of at least one game done well enough to care little for any Thematic proficiency, instead rely almost entirely on the Structural. #Angrybirds

Charlie Helman
profile image
So what you're saying is:

Games need to work before people can play them and say they are great.

Well, that's certainly true.


none
 
Comment: