DIGITISER
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ

THAT DRAGON, INTERNET BACKLASH by Mr Biffo

15/1/2016

22 Comments

 
Picture
When I wrote my review of That Dragon, Cancer I hadn't realised that there had been a massive online backlash against it.

It's weird. I read several reviews before giving the game a go, and afterwards did wonder whether there was a degree of leniency going on in the scores.

Certainly, the Green family, who created the game, don't need any more grief dumped on their heads. They've already lost a son, and the last thing they need is a bunch of games journalists telling them that their tribute to him was a complete waste of time and effort.

Fortunately, that didn't happen; the reviews were, almost unanimously, glowingly positive, and the game received much praise for bravely tackling such a provocative subject in such a nakedly personal fashion.

Consequently, it was left to the internet to give the Greens their kicking.

Picture
Unfortunately, the reviews of That Dragon, Cancer didn't exactly chime with my own experience of the game, so now I'm faced with the possibility I've inadvertently added to the online negativity. 

Reviews described it as something "everyone" should play, that it was "important", and "necessary".

In all honesty, I actually feel guilty that I don't agree with them. Somehow, in feeling that it wasn't completely a success either as a game, or a work of art, I'm somehow not being empathic, or sensitive enough. That, somehow, by criticising the game, I'm making light of what the Greens have gone through.


In all honesty, That Dragon, Cancer isn't a pile of crap - I just don't think it's very good, or a story that needs to be told. We all know that children die of cancer (and in these past few weeks, cancer has been in the headlines in a big way), and I didn't feel I learned anything new from the "game". Instead, it felt more that I was experiencing a couple's raw and fumbling attempts to portray their grief.

I completely respect the rights of creators to produce whatever they want, or need, to create. I wasn't moved by That Dragon, Cancer - but I was moved by the knowledge that it came about because a five year-old boy had died, and that a family was suffering unimaginable pain as a result.


NEITHER HERE NOR WHERE?
It's neither here nor there whether anybody liked the experience of That Dragon, Cancer. It's a story that the Greens had to tell, to process something catastrophic. By all accounts, completing the project tested them financially, and - given that work on the game was begun prior to the death of their son - quite possibly tested them emotionally.

What I do find interesting is the level of debate that has sprung up around the game. Clearly, there's a degree of trolling taking place, while other online commentators feel as I did, that some reviews went soft on That Dragon, Cancer, due to its subject matter (I also felt the same thing about Depression Quest, and - though I admit I've still only scratched the surface of it - Gone Home). 

Others made the absurd and needlessly personal suggestion that it was a game that exploited the death of a child for financial gain. Others still took issue with its Christian message; the Greens may have lost their son, but took solace in their belief that his death was part of something greater.

I'm not religious. Even when I've grieved, I've found no solace in our silent and passive God. I started going to church for a couple of years as a teenager, and all it succeeded in doing was confirm for me that I don't believe. But I get why people do it - I get that thinking there's nothing more out there, that there's no greater purpose to existence, can be terrifying. Again, it's about respect.

COMMENT IS FREE
Comments on the Steam message boards have been along the lines of the following: 
  • "Theres just some things you dont make videos games about. This is just f*ucked up. Whats next playing a mother that looses her child at birth?"
  • "Really a game about cancer? I understand it may be done in good taste with lots of emotion but to make a game about cancer is pretty low."
  • "By buying this game you literally finance two maniacs who want to bring up their kids in a christiand tradition, which is essentially child abuse"
Picture
​Others criticised the game's £11 price tag, for what amounts to around two hours play, tops.

Some of the proceeds go to charity... but then, there are even those who have complained about the choice of charity.


​For whatever reason, That Dragon, Cancer has become one of those industry whipping boys, which spring up from time to time. Much of the criticism of it seems absurd - who is anybody to tell the Greens how they should remember their son? And if certain subjects were "off limits" to creative works, then much of the art that the human race has produced would never have existed. It also seems wrong to question the motives of a family who are grieving.  

At the same time, it's equally wrong to jump on people for criticising something simply because the subject matter is a bit touchy. Dealing with big themes doesn't make a game immune to criticism; certainly, I think That Dragon, Cancer could've been much better and more effective than it was (the photo of the family above I find far more moving than the entirety of the game), but it is what it is.

​That's how the Greens chose to present their grief to the world. Whether you think that's worth £11 is up to you - as is whether you think it's any good or not.

FROM THE ARCHIVE:
PATIENT ZERO: HOW THINGS GO VIRAL by Mr Biffo
VIDEO GAMES: A PRIMAL INSTINCT by Mr Biffo

LARA CROFT: THE FRAIL PSYCHOPATH by Mr Biffo
22 Comments
PeskyFletch
15/1/2016 05:49:19 pm

How sad that some divs on the internet need to boost their own self worth by bashing grieving parents, i'm no "god botherer" but if someone gets comfort from faith fair play to them and to be honest i'm a bit envious.

Reply
Superbeast 37
15/1/2016 06:01:23 pm

I've seen very little that I haven't seen directed at hundreds of other games or even directed at myself for speaking highly of some titles.

I don't think products should get special treatment just because of the subject matter.

Although I doubt the gaming press agree with that and are no doubt happy to dish out an extra point or two if they are sympathetic to the subject matter/political message/dev. They don't help the situation as gamers clearly feel they somehow need to compensate and redress the imbalance if they feel the press has gone soft on something. Just check the comments on a COD review!

However at the end of the day all abuse should be directed at the product and not the developers - unless there is some impropriety/anti-consumer business model and even then it should be kept relatively polite and not too personal.

Internet is internet at the end of the day though. I just had a nasty message on PSN with a personal attack on my appearance. No one cares though - including me!

It's like walking into a playground and being surprised when someone calls you four-eyes! If you are asking money for something you have to expect such scrutiny (within the aforementioned limits).

Reply
Admira Spiney O'Sullivan
16/1/2016 10:49:52 am

The word "product" is interesting, because it brings back the question of "are games, or can games be, art?".

For those games that try to be something more than a fun product, as this one does, the old scoring system becomes even more irrelevant than before. I was quite glad that Biffo skipped giving this one a number as it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that is meant to be rated that way. This and Just Cause 3 are two totally different things with different purposes, using the medium differently, and maybe shouldn't be judged the same way. This thing seems like more of an art piece using games as a medium than a pure game, which calls into question how to judge it. I wouldn't give a piece of art in a museum a numerical score, or judge it as a "product" ("this Miro is just a 6/10!, I want my price of admission back"), and I'm not sure I would with this either. There is definitely a question about how well it uses the medium to make the player engage with its theme, and that's definitely up for debate. But not in terms of "did I get my money's worth in gameplay time" or the traditional consumer-driven review style of "graphics, engine, sound, etc, %".

I think Biffo's view is pretty fair as a result. It seemed to come down to "it didn't convey its message to me as effectively as I'd hoped, but it's an interesting experience". That said, it's clear that the creators and Biffo are viewing the whole thing through quite different lenses, so maybe the exact message they are conveying isn't going to get across the way they want it to the same way it would to someone who shares their beliefs. But then, that's art for you. Highly subjective.

Maybe the art argument seems like a cop-out, but for years gamers tried to get the medium taken seriously, only to seemingly turn on anything that actually tried to do so.

Reply
Admiral Spiney O'Sullivan
16/1/2016 11:02:19 am

Also the "it's the Internet, expect abuse" playground argument isn't exactly the best indictment of us as gamers.

Superbeast 37
16/1/2016 04:06:33 pm

"its the Internet, expect abuse" - means that if you have millions of people all able to be heard then it's a statistical probability that some will be nutters. One bad apple tends to be louder than a hundred thousand reasonable people.

The fact that you would consider the actions of the few to be an indictment of millions of innocents is for me telling.

The real problem in the past couple of years is not the handful of bad apples but rather those who would exploit the actions of a few bad apples to attack a larger group.

We see it happening both in and out if gaming.

Admiral Spiney O'Toole
16/1/2016 07:55:21 pm

Telling of what, precisely? I don't like it, but people, and subcultures, get judged by the masses what they tolerate, or are at least not seen to condemn. And loud stupid abusive voices do make us look bad. It sucks, but it's true. A lot of people have done pretty well out of making gamers en masse look like villains this last year. It annoys me when people lend them a helping hand.

Superbeast 37
18/1/2016 07:45:32 am

The people lending them a helping hand don't give a monkeys. There is a good chance some have no interest in the subject matter and are just rent-a-trolls moving from controversy to controversy for the Keks, and as we have seen in the past couple of years some "victims" have even been caught red handed false flag attacking themselves.

Responsibility rests 100 percent with the bigots who would attempt to smear innocent people.

From groups like the EDL right down to the gaming press/msm, anyone doing it is scum and worse than the trolls in my opinion.

We are responsible for our own actions and not those of anonymous people with unknown motives on the other side of the planet.

We should not shy away from fair and deserved critique of commercial products and their creators just to avoid association with bad elements. Rather those trying to make the association should be under fire.

Admiral Spiney O'Sullivan
18/1/2016 08:42:31 am

I didn't say it was a good thing, just that's it how things are, though.
Again, you talk about "commercial products", which is interesting. I see this sort of pop up a lot lately in debates about ethics in games journalism (which in many cases seem to just be an attempt to strip talk of ethics out of games journalism, and make them back into functional toy reviews). It really limits the discourse that can be had, especially where you have games offering experiences that are basically the antithesis of commercial shooty-punch gameplay. It's like reviewing arthouse cinema the same way you would a blockbuster. It is still fair to critique games like this on how well they succeed at it, but some of the comments are ridiculous (especially ones about gameplay length). There is definitely a backlash right now at independent games that are seen as darlings of the journos in some quarters (Gone Home etc), who like them for trying something new with the medium (bear in mind how much of the same stuff they play - just look how tired Biffo was of last year's samey games), and accept that they're not going to be at AAA standards of polish, not
as some progressive conspiracy to make all games into walking simulators.

RandomReviewer
18/1/2016 07:10:24 pm

I thought Biffo's review was just the ticket. The thing is though, even some holier-than-thou arthouse cinema magazines still use review scores. If people only read the score and not the written review then that is their problem. But the act of having to award a score focuses the mind of the reviewer in a way that stops them disappearing up their own aperture.

And to muddy the issue further I'd say it isn't simply consumers vs art fans as there are some things that impact both groups. Like if there are technical problems that get in the way of the storytelling, for example. Or the issue of the replayabilty (sorry) being close to zero because the narrative/theme/overarching story are either lightweight, poorly executed or both. I'd add that both graphics and gameplay are also of importance to an art crowd as they are both tools for conveying a creator's message.

So I don't think the gulf is as large as we sometimes think.

Admiral Spiney O'Sullivan
18/1/2016 10:09:24 pm

I'd agree there's a crossover of issues, the technical aspects here seem to impact how the message is conveyed, so that's relevant. But the message and the themes are the point of the game here, so it should be judged on those, and maybe it deserves an extra look for trying something different that a AAA game about some guy shooting guys for some reason wouldn't get if it had similar issues. But I don't like idea of treating every game as a "consumer product". It's soulless, and reductive. After years of gamers wanting the medium to be take seriously, having people want it to be treated like toys again is just saddening.

I get that there's a pretty big grudge between a lot of gamers and games journalists this last (and there's definitely some sources that are pretty toxic, even if they do focus on interesting or different games), but it seems like a lot of people are quick to tear down anything seen as (a) a journalist darling, and (b) some kind of threat to traditional games.

Superbeast 37
19/1/2016 08:11:13 am

If they are asking for money then it is a commercial product.

I don't give a monkeys if the dev says it is "art". They don't get a free pass from me!

I also think that issues such as VFM and game length should be equally applied to these indie titles as it did to Order 1886.

I'd describe the latter as being as artistic as many an indie title that tried to hide behind the phrase.

I don't equate "art" with being taken seriously either.

Admira Spiney O'Sullivan
19/1/2016 08:44:39 am

It's pretty clear we just disagree on this fundamentally and are never going to come to any kind of conclusion. I'd rather we didn't treat all games as toys, even if we are scared of the consequences of being treated like a real medium. But out of curiosity, what exactly did The Order 1886 actually try to do with the medium that was new or interesting?

Nobody's saying "it's indie, give it a free pass and pretend it's perfect because of art", though it's no doubt easier to believe that. It's just that trying something new is to be applauded and people interested in playing something different are willing to overlook flaws if the overall experience is worth it. If you don't like that, there's plenty of shooty consumable productis on the market that accomplish little that wasn't accomplished in Half Life or Uncharted, and always will be.

Admira Spiney O'Sullivan
19/1/2016 10:29:43 am

Correction: someone out there probably is saying that everything indie gets a free pass and an automatic 10/10. I'm not, I'm just saying that if people want a different experience, then compromises have to be accepted because the big publishers certainly aren't going to take those risks, and it just doesn't make sense to me to rank games made on a fraction of a AAA budget (and facing different economies of scale) and with a different purpose to AAA games alongside them just because they share a medium.

Jopijedd
15/1/2016 08:40:59 pm

I don't think you should feel any guilt for "adding to the online negativity", because frankly you didn't. What you did do was an honest review of a piece of software (as many have said, game doesn't sound right), which was not sensationalised and demonstrated empathy with the developers who brought it about under horrible circumstances.

I have far more respect for somebody writing an honest review based on their opinions than the smartarsed trolls of some games forum trying to score cheap points.

Reply
Gaijintendo
15/1/2016 10:29:52 pm

That is a pretty interesting way to deal with you grief; to channel it into something artistic. And to share your grief, that is probably considered a healthy thing to do, within reason.
And to be criticised for your art. Twas ever thus.
I would like to think they are confident in their art, and criticism draws them closer. I sincerely hope that.
I totally agree with Da5e in the previous article, who cropped the killer line:
"Who am I to tell Ryan and Amy Green how to feel about their death of their child?"
Who are we to tell people how to feel? That's a really good question people should probably ask themselves all the more.

Reply
Mr Biffo
15/1/2016 10:47:45 pm

Yep. Bang on. It's a healthy mantra to live by; we don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.

Reply
Kelvin Green link
16/1/2016 12:32:39 am

I wonder what the "you shouldn't make games about this subject matter" think of Silent Hill 2?

Reply
Kelvin Green link
16/1/2016 12:33:55 am

Sorry, that should be:

I wonder what the "you shouldn't make games about this subject matter" crowd think of Silent Hill 2?

Reply
Superbeast 37
16/1/2016 09:55:29 am

Oh yeah I'm always dismissive of news articles talking about a "backlash" or some celebs comments causing a "storm" or "controversy" etc as it's usually just a very small number of professional outrage mongers creating noise out of all proportion with their numbers.

To what extent is there really a backlash about a title no one (relatively) has heard of?

How many are even commenting on it and what percentage are making comments that cross a line?

Who determines "the line"? The faux outrage mob for whom saying "its not very good" is a thought-crime warranting the death penalty?

How many innocent people will be smeared/tarnished for the statements of a handful.

As someone that hasn't been involved in commenting on it, I'm acutely aware that everyone wanting to fill me in on it will be trying to push their own narrative!

Reply
RandomReviewer
16/1/2016 05:53:14 pm

I had a similarly weird experience looking through the Destructoid comments regarding That Dragon. They seemed to split down the lines of those equating all criticism of the title to a crime vs those who think it's a great idea to hurl pointless, vitriolic abuse at the creators. I get the sense that this game is being plonked down into a preexisting feud between two different groups and I think that has skewed perspectives on both sides, especially when it comes to reviews. Mr B's piece was one of the few that reviewed the game as a game, rather than as a symbol of his ideological pov.

Reply
Admiral Spiney O'Sullivan
17/1/2016 09:59:19 am

To Biffo's credit, he does link the Steam forum in the first paragraph, so you can have a look and make your mind up as to whether it constitutes a backlash. He didn't just cite a Kotaku article and be done with it.

Reply
Gramma Nazzy
17/1/2016 11:35:43 am

Are those real Steam reviews? I dunno, they don't look sloppy enough to me... :P

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    This section will not be visible in live published website. Below are your current settings:


    Current Number Of Columns are = 2

    Expand Posts Area =

    Gap/Space Between Posts = 12px

    Blog Post Style = card

    Use of custom card colors instead of default colors = 1

    Blog Post Card Background Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Shadow Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Border Color = current color

    Publish the website and visit your blog page to see the results

    Picture
    Support Me on Ko-fi
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    RSS Feed Widget
    Picture

    Picture
    Tweets by @mrbiffo
    Picture
    Follow us on The Facebook

    Picture

    Archives

    December 2022
    May 2022
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    November 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014


    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ