The (actual) problem with LittleBigPlanet

Posted by Gary Hodges at 11:18 PM Dec 01, 2008

Flipping through this month's EGM (and wondering if I'll be doing it this time next year), I let myself settle on a short column by John Davison, "The problem with LittleBigPlanet". It's a good headline - or at least, good at getting my attention since I've watched the hype leading up to LBP's release (and the resultant sales figures, the equivalent of a commercial shrug) with some fascination. Since I have my own theories about what went wrong, I was eager to compare notes with Davison.

The first 60% or so of Davison's piece simply makes the case for why LBP should be an amazing success... some examples:

...it's clear that [LittleBigPlanet] beautifully constructed and has probably the most deeply satisfying and consistent aesthetic of just about any release this year...
The PlayStation 3 clearly needs its genre-defying, demographic-busting blockbuster... Something that wraps its arms around the broader audience and gives it a big, friendly hug and says "Check me out! I'm only on PS3, and I'm everything you've wished for!
Hardcore gamers and PlayStation fanboys alike think LBP is exactly the game that will do this. How could it not be? Look at it! It's amazing.

And yet...

Put [LittleBigPlanet] in front of someone who's not a gamer, though, and the response is a little different. It's not quite the unbridled enthusiasm that we all feel. How do I know? I asked.

"What? I don't get it."

"So... I have to make it myself? Why do I have to do that?"

"Can I just play the stuff other people make? It looks like a lot of work."

"It's cute but very weird."

His conclusion:

It would appear that the LBP community will be divided between givers and takers. Despite wonderfully produced tutorials and the constant reminders about expression, creativity, and individuality, it's perhaps a bit too complicated for "normal" folk.

The onus is on us to inspire. It's on our creativity and our willingness to share. This could be one of the most important game releases of the year - and it certainly is for the PS3. If it does well, it'll change the future of games.  

Some thoughts:

Unlike Davison (or Dave Halverson, or elements of NeoGAF), I don't believe in burdening gamers with the responsibility of making a game or genre or console a success. Gamers should buy games because they want them, not because doing so serves some larger philosophical point or buoys a particular niche or helps some company with its commercial aims. In the great cosmic list of good, legitimate reasons to buy LittleBigPlanet, "changing the future of games" does not place, or even show.  That's point one.

Point two: I have to take issue with Davison's overly simplistic, condescending suggestion that LBP's creation modes are "too complicated for normal folk". I'll just say this: I'm not interested in that aspect of LBP either, and I can assure you, John: it's not an issue of complexity.

The flaws in Davison's thinking (and arguably, Sony's ambitions for the game) become evident when you really analyze who he thinks LBP is for, and what is actually is. I'd like to enter the following phrases into evidence, your honor:

Laid out like this, isn't the intellectual wrong turn Davison made obvious?

(Even ignoring the fact that when it comes to predicting trends in gaming, hardcore gamers and PlayStation fanboys (and for fairness' sake: games journalists) would be outperformed by a squirrel monkey with a Magic 8 Ball?)

Here's the truth of the matter: LBP is not genre-defying, it isn't demographic-busting, and it's lunacy to imagine its little burlap limbs are even capable of such a Herculean feat as "wrapping its arms around the broader audience". Frankly, I'd be more comfortable arguing the opposite position: that LBP has the narrowest appeal of any title released on the PS3 thus far.

Why? Well, I'm a big fan of stripping away all the flesh and ogling the bones of something to really see it for what it is (maybe that's why I majored in physical anthropology), and when you do that to LBP - when you burn off LBP's charm, slice away Stephen Fry's voiceover and boil Sackboy's smiling face into sludge - what you're left with is a platformer (an ancient genre that's never had nongamer appeal) that requires an interest in designing levels - or at least caring about other people's efforts - for any lasting appeal.

In those terms, it's absurd to expect broad interest in this sort of game (and in a way, a testament to how much a gamer Davison really is, i.e. how removed he is from understanding a nongamer's mentality); in truth, pitching LBP to nongamers is like searching for a demographic that doesn't own a coffeetable, and then trying to sell them... a toolbox and lumber. Wanting to put together a level that's fun to play has a prerequisite of giving a shit about level design, if not a familiarity with platforming gameplay in general - qualities even large swaths of the casual gaming audience don't possess, and certainly not nongamers.

But Davison runs afoul on the other end of the bell curve, too, in treating LBP's appeal among hardcore gamers as a given. Sure, a handful have always wanted to try their hand at gameplay design, and a pinch of that handful will actually see their vision through (a few granules of that pinch will actually be worth sharing).  But the majority of the so-called hardcore are, most essentially, connoisseurs: aficionados of professionally-designed gameplay, impatient with amateur efforts and more interested in regarding (as opposed to inventing) games.

Does every movie buff long to shoot his own flick? Does every voracious reader yearn to write his own novel? Does every audiophile with 3 weeks of music in iTunes dream of becoming a musician? 

No, no, and no. So why would anyone be surprised if a hardcore gamer isn't interested in becoming a game designer?  (Or more fundamentally, why would we be surprised if a hardcore gamer isn't interested in a 2D platformer - a genre that was growing stale when Nirvana was still together - with floaty, indistinct controls?)

Not everyone who owns a poster wants a set of paints and brushes for Christmas.  But that's what LBP offers for your $60: creation tools, which appeals to the same miniscule demographic that buys RPG Maker games and toils away at 2D freeware versions of Ocarina of Time or Phantasy Star 5. 

Sony's gamble was trying to rebrand a niche genre as something with mainstream appeal, hoping an adorable mascot and pervasive marketing would be enough of a nudge for a breakout success. To some extent, it worked - LBP will certainly be the most successful game creation kit to date, outselling the aforementioned RPG Maker many times over.

Too bad that modest goal isn't what they set out to achieve.