Dissenting Opinion: LittleBigPlanet
Forget what was promised; explore the beauty of what was delivered.
10/30/2008 6:54 PM | 6 Comments | Page 1 of 3
Oh, Jones, what have you done? Didn't you see the beta tag come off the site? I'm sure you read the press release this week; we're big-time now! But you had to go 'round the back of Media Molecule and slash their tires. (Sorry, UK folks, tyres.)
LittleBigPlanet rates a "Fry It"? Jones and I usually agree (on the subjects of beer, whiskey and
Far Cry 2, for example), but this time? Can't do it.
Sure, some of the content is insufferably cute.
Game writers generate hype, perpetuate and reinforce it, and then -- when it comes time to write the review -- the time comes to divorce it. In the case of
LittleBigPlanet, some of the divorce proceedings were bound to turn ugly. Sony would love a killer app for the PlayStation 3, and a visually distinctive game like this one is almost destined to fill that role (on company spreadsheets, at least). They've pushed the game and we've joined in. But it doesn't have to be the Next Big Thing, and it isn't. Yet this is still a beautiful, striking and ingenious piece of work.
When I first fired up the demo and finally the retail version (that is, the pre-recall retail edition), none of the hype mattered. I didn't see
LittleBigPlanet through the prism of game-changers or even as a Mario clone (despite the reference I'll make in the next paragraph -- that's review foreshadowing!), though I do dig fellow Game Truster Scott Alexander's "Pixar Mario" nickname. I saw only an idiosyncratic little platformer with a personality unlike anything else on the shelf.
At the end of every level you'll be judged on performance, but don't worry about it. Only a formality.
I don't want to do a point-by-point refutation of Jones' review, even though he and I disagree on most every aspect. I'll hit a couple of quick points and then move on to the big stuff. For instance, I can't agree with his estimation of the difficulty level. Certain levels are challenging, but not unjustly so. User-created content will eventually be cruel, certainly -- when you meld The Sims and Mario, designers are naturally going to lock other players into deathtraps. But the Media Molecule crew isn't guilty of doing so; frustration never entered into the equation for me.
Perhaps the difficulty seems high because Sackboy doesn't move with digital precision. The little stuffed kid has a tendency to conserve momentum, yes, and to bounce around a bit. But the Prince of Persia once liked to take a couple extra steps after I told him to stop, too. I got used to the way he moved, and once I understood Sackboy's mobile inclinations, the controls clicked. No problem; they even feel appropriate, given the handmade aesthetic.
But perhaps the chasm between Jones' opinion and my own was created by expectation of a different sort.
There's no motivation for any of this, no overriding goal à la
"save the Princess," is the core of his argument against
LittleBigPlanet. In response to which I have to wonder, why would anyone want one?
What the hell is this thing? I don't know. I love that I don't know.
I do love story in games. I like being taken for a ride that has a specific destination. But I thought about this a bit while
reviewing the latest Golden Axe game. Why did I play the original? It wasn't for the story. I played just to play it; I played for the simple entertainment the experience offered. If you wanted to put a tag on it, you could say it was all about Seeing What Happens Next. What's the next monster, the next background, the next boss? Without any narrative overhead, those could have been anything.
Golden Axe could have shot its three characters into space and I wouldn't have blinked -- I would have loved it, actually -- as long as I was entertained.
