Ori and the Blind Forest, or, Why Do We [ART] What We [ART]

Ori and the Blind Forest is a game that got me wondering what I look for in art, and why, and how to approach what art is to me in a review.

This post has two very distinct parts I could not make harmonious; mea culpa. But IMO the second half is more interesting/important so skip to that if you’re bored or w/e.

Ori and the Blind Forest is a metroidvania about a forest spirit who has to revitalize a dying forest and defeat the evil owl who destroyed it. The World Tree is destroyed by the owl, Kuro, and the Tree’s last child, Ori, is flung away to be raised by a weird yokai thing, Naru. Ori then has to journey back to the Tree to save the forest from Kuro. (Incidentally, if you live in a fantasy world and name your child Kuro, you have only yourself to blame when they’re evil.) I found it to be pretty boring and don’t know that I’d rec it. When I write these, I often think, “What would someone have to say to me in order to get me to recommend this game/book/whatever to them?” and with Ori I can’t really come up with anything, at least not anything that has me rec Ori before a bunch of other similar games that I liked much better.

I’ll elaborate on that in a second, though. Let’s get gender out of the way first.

Aside from the silent protagonist (who is genderless), there are really only three characters in this game that matter: The World Tree (male), and Kuro and Naru (both female). All three are defined by relationships to their children.

This game has strong feelings about parenthood, and strong feelings about a very gender-essentialist parenthood.  Naru is a Good character because she is nurturing and sacrificial (stupidly so, starving to death instead of asking her child to find them both food; it is better to die in a traditional maternal role than be a mother who in dire times asks the child to pitch in). Kuro is a Bad character because her children die, and then further bad because she seeks revenge (see: woman, scorned) instead of rolling over and taking it. Only by returning to her rightful place — a sacrificial, abnegative place — can she be redeemed. It’s only by dying for children that Kuro regains the value she lost, while Naru’s immediate, proper sacrifice is, in the end, rewarded. Further, it’s by seeing the selflessness of the Good Mother that the Bad Mother is reminded of the proper way to act.

The Tree, meanwhile, is the quinessential father character — strong, all-knowing, and completely absent. The Absent Important Father is a very common, old trope, to the point that the first time we brought it up was at the very beginning of the first Hunger Games books. The Good Mother nurtures incessantly and then sacrifices herself; the Good Father is a distant figure who fosters independence while nonetheless controlling the narrative (in this case, literally narrating). The Bad Mother crosses these lines and attempts to coopt the active role.

I actually had all these thoughts and then kind of went to myself, “Maybe I’m overthinking this and it’s not that bad,” but when I tried to imagine the genders reversed here it was immediately clear just how crazy-rote these roles are. A story about two overemotional fathers giving up their lives for their children while a powerful, distant mother watches amusedly just does not happen. Both of the female characters in this story are fridged in a very typical way men never are, as inspiration/payment for their children. This just isn’t a plot you see in reverse, and that is what I think is really key here.

Why anyone in this game has a gender at all is pretty baffling, honestly. It’s a game about monster-looking forest spirits. If there was ever a time to be vague, it’s this. But instead the writer(s) made a conscious choice to gender everyone, and then another one to gender them very regressively. That Ori is explicitly genderless becomes less of a good thing in this context, because having Ori be a ‘she’ would have mitigated these issues at least a little. Instead, Ori isn’t so much actively genderless as passively ‘not woman.’ It’s Ori’s not-womanness that allows them to take an active role in the story’s narrative as opposed to having to take on the woman’s supportive role (or, like Kuro, be an active woman, which would make her evil). Why make Ori genderless instead of male? I honestly don’t know. Perhaps the team realized just how much worse that made the optics; or maybe it was as simple as wanting the game to appeal to the most people. Regardless, though, the choice has the effect of further othering the female characters. This is a better, more meaningful, more inclusive of everyone story with a no-gender cast, and that’s what it should have been.

I realize I just spent five paragraphs on that, but it’s not actually what I want to talk about. I want to talk about art, and how it affects us, and what causes us to see it a valuable — not whether it has value, as I’m of the opinion that art generally has intrinsic value, but why a piece does or doesn’t affect an individual and how.

This is a heady topic for what I found to be a very mediocre game. But in a weird way I think it’s mediocrity that begs this question the most — we can lay down clearly what makes something bad, and we can rant and rave about the things we love, but why don’t we love something we don’t hate? Why, twenty hours into a 60 hour playthrough of Hollow Knight, did I make the comment on Elmo’s post ‘This is Art,’ and yet at the end of 10 hours of Ori I can’t bring myself to feel anything about it other than ‘Well, that one’s done’? This game doesn’t do anything really wrong, and it, on paper, does a lot of things right. So why, even though I don’t hate it, do I not love it?

My entire playthrough of Ori was swarming with these questions. I was struggling to articulate my feeling that it was a boring, uninspired game. The production values are top-notch; the level design is solid; the controls are tight. I have few complaints about the gameplay or visuals or plot. But it feels so empty. It feels, to me, like it lacks heart.

But wtf does ‘heart’ even mean? ‘It lacks heart’ was the phrase that I kept landing on, but it really is a copout. What is it that elevates something like Higurashi, or Radiant Historia, or Hollow Knight? Hell, I still think about The Sick Land sometimes, as disappointing as its ending was.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I think I came away feeling like the difference was aspiration. What all of those works have in common, on a constructive level, is a desire to do something. Higurashi’s experiments with form and strong sense of social justice; Radiant Historia’s investment in character and deep sense of empathy and hope; Hollow Knight’s utter beauty and interrogation of power and rule; Sick Land’s desire to upset expectations and defy logic. But I don’t even think aspirations have to be that grand. Like, I liked SteamWorld Dig better than Ori even though “””objectively””” I think Ori is the higher-quality game, but SWD was clearly design to be deeply fun, and that came through effectively enough to make it a really positive experience; Ori lacked that clear drive for fun and, consequently, I think of SWD as, uh, funner.

I think my problem with Ori was that it just felt like someone wanted to make a pleasant game. And they did. But there are so many pleasant games, hundreds of which I personally have played, that that alone doesn’t, can’t, make something worthwhile to me. And that’s not even getting into all the pleasant books or TV shows or movies. There is a lot of nothing but what it is out there and when on one side you have the hulking mass of meh and on the other I have the dozens upon dozens of highly aspirational works — and again, what it aspires to may just be ‘fun’ — that have really affected me, hitting something like Ori just can’t feel like it matters, like it’s worth anyone’s time.

This is all, of course, specific to me. While I definitely think there are pieces of art that are near-universally affecting (can’t wait for my age group to start publishing papers about Jurassic Bark), on a day-to-day basis I think the likelihood is that the quality of art that gives an individual satisfaction is probably highly, highly specific to that individual. I don’t think, for instance, I could be as bored by a game like Ori if I were someone who’d only ever played Super Mario. And then there’s the baffling enigma of taste and what on like a genetic level drives us to look for different genres or characters or even words.

I think a lot of the time with reviews, because the internet is how it is, people read a review as “This is how [thing] is objectively forever and always” instead of “This was my experience with [thing].”  I suspect this divide is responsible for a lot of prickly — or even highly aggressive — responses to reviews. And straight up, a lot of reviewers, especially people whose paychecks depend on clicks, do act as though they are some kind of objective authority. But that’s utter nonsense. All you can get out of a review, out of a reviewer, is an answer to the question, “How did [reviewer] respond to [art]?” And if some of the time or a lot of the time or never, they respond to [art] the same way you respond to [art], you can use that person as a barometer for how you might react to something; you can also use them to challenge yourself to explain why you do or don’t [art] their [art].

At the end of the day, I thinkall I can say about Ori is I did not [art] it, and as such would not recommend it. But your mileage may vary.

Also, I worry that I entered the metroidvania genre by playing the best one and now I don’t know what to do, send help.

8 Comments

  1. Roarke says:

    Hm, yeah, I can see how Ori would kind of just get a ‘meh’ from someone looking for more. For me, it was great more for the experience of four adults sitting on a couch together for the first time since they were kids to play a video game. We weren’t looking for more than the game offered, so we all dug it.

     

    Also, I worry that I entered the metroidvania genre by playing the best one and now I don’t know what to do, send help.

    You did, unfortunately. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Hollow Knight is the complete experience. There seems to be some stirring of interest in the genre once again, with people recreating Castlevania: Symphony of the Night with a fake mustache and other stuff, but you’re probably just better off waiting for Silksong.

    1. Act says:

      I’ve been playing a farm sim called Forager and there’s a Hollow Knight skin so I’ve just been wearing it everywhere pretending it’s actually a HK spinoff.

      1. Roarke says:

        I’m surprised and delighted that it’s getting references in other games.

         

  2. Interesting thoughts. I often feel like I have very high — perhaps prohibitive — standards when it comes to art; I tend to feel the “meh” sensation you describe an awful lot. Personally, I diagnosed it as a counterculture outlook; I prefer (increasingly exclusively) art that bucks trends and defies the way things are normally supposed to go, and just by their nature that stuff is going to be uncommon. It breeds a kind of cynicism; I sort of have to resign myself to the likelihood that even indie or “weird” stuff is going to end up conforming to the standard narratives in the end, and be pleasantly surprised when they don’t rather than actively hopeful. Things were different once, but Steven Universe killed that hope pretty dead.

    Also, I worry that I entered the metroidvania genre by playing the best one and now I don’t know what to do, send help.

    You did indeed. I do enjoy several of the Castlevanias myself; Symphony of the Night is particularly popular. They’re still not as good as Hollow Knight though.

    If you want something slightly adjacent to the traditional metroidvania experience, check out Craze’s metroidvania RPGs. I actually made a Reddit post about similar games that are metroidvanias in spirit without being platformers, but I didn’t find much.

    Edit: Why do links no longer work in the RichText editor.

    1. Roarke says:

      I tend to approach art as food: not every meal is going to be earth-shattering, but it fills you up and elevates the good stuff when you have it.

    2. Act says:

      I’ve always chalked it up to overload — I think when you play/read/watch as much media as you and I have, you see so many things being done over and over that it takes something really special to rise above the noise. So it ends up in that weird spot where it’s neither good nor bad enough to be entertaining relative to everything else.

      Def an interesting thread, though I will vote against Rain World. It was a game where I think the dev got exactly what they were going for except the problem was it wasn’t any fun. I think it has the exact kind of hard-to-be-hard gameplay you’d really dislike, too.

  3. Negrek says:
    This is a good post! It’s true that reviews are so horribly specific to the person doing the reviewing, their own taste and personal experiences and the context that they bring to a piece of art. What you mention about not being as unimpressed with Ori if you hadn’t played anything like it before makes me think of everything I adored as a teenager; a lot of it, looking at it now, was meh if not actively bad. But it still had immense power to make an impression on me, because at the time I’d never encountered anything like it. It was more about my own experience, and what those things made me realize was possible, than anything the creator was doing, necessarily.

    I don’t know that I can really imagine a group of people setting out to make a <i>pleasant</i> game, as such… I don’t know of anyone who really begins from a place of, “I want to make a thing that’s just kind of okay.” If it’s something they’re under contract to do and just need to vomit it out to get paid, sure, but I don’t see much evidence that that’s what’s going on in this particular case. But with video games especially, which are hugely collaborative, I think it can be pretty easy for vision to get *diluted*–everybody works on their own thing without really tying it strongly back to the overall desired experience. Even if the team started out with a desire to <i>do something</i>, it’s easy to end up with something where the pieces aren’t all pointing in the same direction, and where some may be actively working against others, and where the central thread is weakened as a result. When it comes to making art, especially in industries like gaming, I think that people often have ambition, but also a ton of shit happens simply as part of the process… Sort of amazing that anything really stellar and cohesive ever ends up getting made at all, actually!

    3
    1. Act says:

       makes me think of everything I adored as a teenager; a lot of it, looking at it now, was meh if not actively bad. But it still had immense power to make an impression on me, because at the time I’d never encountered anything like it. It was more about my own experience, and what those things made me realize was possible, than anything the creator was doing, necessarily.

      There’s a part of me that NEVER EVER wants to revist formative works of mine for this reason, lol, I don’t want to be like, fuck, this really sucks, I was just a kid. I prefer to let certain things live forever in that retrospective bubble.

      I don’t know that I can really imagine a group of people setting out to make a <i>pleasant</i> game, as such… I don’t know of anyone who really begins from a place of, “I want to make a thing that’s just kind of okay.”

      I don’t think it’s so much an active “Let’s make it just okay,” as it tends to be a passive focusing on the wrong things. I think a not-insignificant portion of indie games are born less from a creative spark and more from people who like games wanted to make a game for the sake of making one, and as a result they end up focusing on things like putting all their effort into background art (seriously, why are indies so obsessed with background art) instead of things like story-gameplay integration. I think games are starting to hit the level of ubiquity that previously was only applicable to novels where people so take them for granted that no one stops to think about how much artistry goes into good ones; if you can speak you can write a novel becomes if you’ve played a game why not make one. While I’m very much in favor of art being accessible, it does have the consequence of diluting the pool a bit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar