REDDER

This is a critique of REDDER, a puzzle game game by Anna Anthropy. The game can be found at newgrounds here: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/529992

This is not a review (it's not going to tell you whether or not the game is good or you should play it.) It's a critique. Thus, it will contain spoilers, as it is impossible to discuss a game without discussing its contents.

If you want a review without spoilers, here it is: REDDER is a good game. It is almost certainly worth your time and attention. Play it.

(Notes on accessibility: the game involves red / green switches which may be inaccessible to colorblind people. The game contains intentionally distracting elements which may be inaccessible to people with ADHD or similar conditions.)

--

I have been struggling to write this critique for five years. This struggle has been puzzling for me. REDDER is a fairly simple game, but the emotional aspect of play elusive. I've finally decided to give up waiting for insight and just describe the game, hoping that others might be able to offer me the missing pieces.

In REDDER, the player controls an astronaut who, after running out of fuel, has made an emergency landing on an abandoned planet, implied to be Mars. The planet seems uninhabited by humans but has a base, abandoned except for robots. Scattered around the base and environs are crystals, which you need to repair and/or refuel your spaceship. Getting each of the crystals requires solving a puzzle of some sort. The puzzles are organically worked into the environment, usually involving switches, robot drones, and moving blocks. There are no gated areas or power ups: every puzzle can be completed at any time and every area can be accessed by walking and jumping, right from the start.

To win the game, you must find all but three crystals, and return to your ship. There is a special ending if you get all the crystals.

As you get more and more crystals, the game begins to exhibit increasingly severe glitching. Blocks are replaced by static, the robots change appearance, and so on. There is no explanation for this, it simply happens, and you have to deal with it. Many players have been confused and thought that this represented real bugs in the game. The intensity of the glitching can make the game very difficult to play. If you collect all the crystals, the game converts into a geometric, wholly representational form of colored dots that is much easier to read.

None of this, though, conveys what the game is actually like. What I've described is a fairly accessible puzzle platformer, simple without being simplistic, but my primary experience of REDDER is not procedural, but emotional. The game conveys an intense, clear, profound emotion that is, to me, deeply comfortable, and very hard to describe.

First, there is a sense of solitude. Not loneliness, when I play REDDER I don't feel a longing to encounter another human. The character, the astronaut is alone, but she is alone at the start of the game as well. She is a person, alone, doing what she needs to do to survive as cleanly as possible. The game has no words, because there is no one to talk to, no one else in the room, or even the world. REDDER feels empty in the way that a solo hike feels empty, if you hike in a remote enough place that you won't run into others.

I struggle to put my feeling on why the game makes me feel this way. I mean, obviously, the character is alone, but other games with a single protagonist and no other characters don't manage to provoke the same emotion. I think part of it is the masterful music, which definitely conveys a sense of peace at the same time as loneliness, part of it is the exact nature of the controls (they are weirdly precise, and make you feel weirdly precise in the same way that, when alone in the woods, making a fire or pitching a tent feels precise), and part of it is some ineffable artistic aspect I have never been able to put my finger on.

Second, there is throughout the game the growing feeling of foreboding. Obviously, this comes from the glitches, but also simply from your situation, stranded in space, going from who-knows-where to who-knows-where-else. "Something has gone wrong," you think, "something is going very very wrong." But, again, there is no sense of urgency to this or, at least, there isn't for me. It is a passive sort of doom: I will die, and I might die here. I will do my best to not die, but perhaps my best won't be enough.

(this has nothing to do with "dying" in the game which merely causes you to return to one of many checkpoints. It is an attempt to describe the emotion.)

Playing REDDER feels like being alone, in the wilderness, coming to peace with your eventual death while trying your hardest not to die.

Why? You've got my best guesses. But it's a beautiful game, and a subtle, strange experience. I wish we had more like it.
So the second best review of Polaris is by John Snead. I call it "a review" but it was really just a livejournal comment. It is this.

"The entire concept of Polaris utterly repels me."

Why is this so good? Let me try to hit a few points:

1) It is concise. Not saying that all critiques and reviews must be short (def. not this short), but it says exactly what it wants to say without mincing words. I've seen much much longer reviews (1000s of words) that contain much less information.

2) Like all good critique, it is a personal expression. John is expressing his reaction to Polaris. He's not trying to make a universalizing statement. He doesn't have to. He's trying to express his own experience of the work, which he does well.

3) It is well written. "utterly repels" is a great turn of phrase. "The entire concept" shows that it is not that he thinks that game is poorly executed, but that he finds the basic concepts of it repellant.

4) It is truthful. At the time that he wrote this, I didn't know John at all. Now, through odd coincidence, he's a friend of mine. Polaris is absolutely a game he will not enjoy if he plays. He is right to be repelled.

5) It communicates with the reader. To both me and the person he was responding to, it said "this game is absolutely not for me." To the general audience: if they know the sort of things John likes, they will know that Polaris is not those things. To me: If John was in my target audience for the game, this would indicate to me that I was seriously screwing up my presentation. As it happens, he's decidedly not the target audience, so it's indicating to me that my marketing is working well: I don't want to attract people who won't like the game.

So that's the start of providing a good critique*: Be concise, express yourself, write in good style, tell the truth, communicate clearly.

* I'm not strongly differentiating between review, critique, and design-process feedback here. Not because I don't think that there are important differences, but because what I am saying here applies to all of them.

P.S. John, if you read this, I hope you're okay with me using you as an example here.

Profile

P H Lee

March 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
91011 12131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 15th, 2025 03:19 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios