Let's take a moment to talk about "weird" games. You know; the ones that don't necessarily sell very well, that might not be as polished, or honestly even as "fun" as some better known titles. The ones that have both enthusiastic fans and severe shortcomings. What is it about these games that sticks with people, even when these games fall far short of the benchmarks for success in the industry? What is the place of these oddities and artifacts? Over my next three articles, I hope to share with you some in-depth examinations of three of my favorite video game oddities: Baten Kaitos (2004), God Hand (2006), and Eternal Poison (2007).
However, before we begin those analyses, it would be prudent to lay down some groundwork regarding exactly what it is that makes a title "weird." In lay terms, it's probably easiest to say that a weird title is one that is unsuccessful in an interesting way, but both the terms "unsuccessful" and "interesting" are inherently loaded expressions. "Unsuccessful" is probably the easier of the two to define, as in this sense, we simply mean that the title sells poorly by industry standards, and has a markedly small fanbase. Neither God Hand nor Eternal Poison managed to sell over 100,000 total units in the North American market, while Baten Kaitos did only slightly better by selling around 160,000 units. Compare that to a contemporary AAA title, Super Mario Galaxy (2007), which sold 500,000 units in just its first week.
Of course, one could also measure a game’s success by the legacy it leaves behind. Titles like Super Mario Bros. or Final Fantasy are easy to evaluate on this axis, as they have spawned sequels that number well into the double-digits, alongside prolific spin-offs and practically countless pieces of tie-in merchandise. The legacies of weird titles are harder to pin down, but there is an argument that they do sometimes succeed in this manner. While they may not become the cultural juggernauts that mainstream-successful titles do, they can achieve cult status or, through their developers, influence future works in some ways (God Hand being the most notable in this sense, influencing titles like Asura’s Wrath, Mad World, and even Bayonnetta). I would still consider this “unsuccessful” versus a title like Sonic the Hedgehog, but a weird game is not often completely forgotten.
This is because, as I said, these games have small but dedicated fanbases. So, that brings us to what makes these games "interesting." While I will have in-depth opinions of specific features for each of these games in their respective upcoming articles, in a general sense interesting features can be considered either highly-ambitious efforts in gameplay or storytelling (which, to be fair, do not always pay off), or extreme deviation from typical design choices. Sometimes this means taking narratives in unexpected directions or using unconventional storytelling devices, such as breaking the fourth wall. Other times, it’s replacing tried-and-true play mechanics with radically novel approaches. The common element is risk. These are games that are willing to color outside the lines, so to speak, and take chances that more mainstream (and more successful) titles often do not. There is a boldness in the visions for these titles that is both engaging and memorable for players that see them through.
This raises an important issue - why don't players purchase these titles, then? Why don't these risks pay off, and why doesn't "interesting" translate into "success?" Part of it is surely the well-known principle that consumers stick to what is familiar and comfortable for them, but that cannot fully explain the situation at hand. After all, there are other titles whose risks do pay off, and whose choices translate into the births of new, profitable franchises. Why not these games?
I argue that it comes down to a question of "fun," and more specifically, a question of “not fun.” Any title that takes chances outside of conventional design strategy has a barrier to overcome with consumers. These games have to prove themselves, especially if they don't have massive backing and promotion from a major studio. As a result, these games depend on positive reception and good word-of-mouth to succeed. The games I will be examining suffered from mixed reception, and almost non-existent word-of-mouth. Frankly, each game possess shortcomings that would have always made initial responses to them lean towards the negative. Answering the question of “not fun;” a game is not fun when the amount of work it requires exceeds the reward the player feels for playing. Each of the three titles in this series presented an additional hurdle that made them unfun for new players, preventing the word-of-mouth needed to build a successful brand. Some of the play mechanics were wildly non-intuitive; some narratives had a level of complexity that was unwieldy, especially at the start of the game. Some had strange branding, or unappealing art design, or were already niche genre titles that were made even more niche by their radical design choices.
But players who stuck with these games found that they eventually overcame these barriers, and presented more reward than work. Bold design and novel approaches gradually made the investment of time and effort worthwhile, and dedicated players found that their initial frustration gave way to enjoyment as they became comfortable working with and around these games’ mechanics. God Hand even developed eventual cult-classic status as a result. However, that took time that is never readily available in a highly-competitive sales environment. As a result, these titles fell by the wayside; obscure oddities that are only lauded by a few dedicated acolytes.
This, then, is the position I find myself in. Over the next three articles, I will be presenting Baten Kaitos, God Hand, and Eternal Poison, three games which most definitely fit the description weird. I'll talk about what makes them interesting and what hindered their success, and I'll talk about why it is that I still reflect on them over a decade later. I hope this series will help the reader understand the weird games they love a little better, and help us all to be more willing to take a chance on a title that might not otherwise be what we were looking for.
Dr. Daniel Gronsky is a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature and Cultural Science, focusing on media studies in film and video games.