Release Date: 28/05/2019
Played On: Win
Available On: Droid / iOS / Lin / Mac / Win
Time Played: 22m
Progress: Completed
Developer: Mario von Rickenbach / Michael Frei / Playables / Playables GmbH
Publisher: Playables / Double Fine
Something I never like reading about in relation to video games is whether or not a particular title is "no different from a book" or "the same as a movie". It's nothing new, because it's often the argument that's made against walking-simulators and visual novels. Although when I read these kind of perspectives, I'm left wondering if the writer has ever actually read a book or watched a movie.
Such is the nature of the beast unfortunately, but a lot of gamers expect some kind of base criteria to be met for a product to be classed as a "game". Usually this involves some minimum level of interactivity or minimal gameplay mechanics, which makes no sense to me at all. Even the simplest and purest form of interactivity like pressing forward to advance a story, is still a form of interactivity. In fact, it feels like they've never read a book in their life, because I've certainly read some books that were far more engaging and interactive than some of the more placid gaming experiences out there.
Don't worry I'm not going to argue the finer points about what makes a game "a game", simply because I don't think it really matters at the end of the day. I know our monkey brains love to categorise everything and label things so that we know what to expect and what will be asked of us, but that doesn't hold a lot of water in my world. In fact, I'd rather ignore whether something is technically "a game" or not, and just focus on whether or not I enjoyed whatever it is that we're talking about.
To that end, I have to say that I very much enjoyed KIDS, which is more of an art project than anything else. I'm happy to call it a game, but thanks to being a surreal and abstract piece of work, this is one that people will perhaps argue over. From a mechanical perspective, this is a game that shares a lot with typical point-and-click adventures. Essentially you're presented with a two-dimensional scene that can be interacted with by clicking with the mouse on certain elements and in various directions.
That's kind of where the comparisons and hard-defined aspects end though, as the rest of KIDS is a series of abstract scenarios that depict events and circumstances that defy any literal interpretations. You might possibly be able to say that there are puzzles to solve, but really it's just because the entire game is made up of scenes that require some specific interactions to "solve" and then move on to the next.
For example, one scene has you controlling a character that appears to be swimming through some kind of passage. By clicking and moving your mouse, you encourage them to move through the passage and out the other side; that's the scene. Another might involve clicking on one side of the screen to make a large crowd of characters move in that direction until they've all fallen into a large pit in the ground. It's that simple and it makes that much sense, but that's not to say that nothing can be gained from playing this game and allowing yourself to connect with the imagery and actions on screen.
I equate KIDS closely with a piece of art because I believe that art relies heavily on what its audience brings to the viewing. This is especially true when talking about abstraction and surrealism, which leaves a lot open to interpretation and experience. Suffice to say that I may react deeply with a piece of art that you think is complete bollocks and meaningless, simply because I manage to connect with it on a personal level that's entirely foreign to you. Such is the nature of art, and such is the nature of this game.
It would be all too easy to just write off KIDS as a game that has nothing going on and was made as just a random collection of albeit interesting scenes, but with little depth or purpose. Maybe that's the intended interpretation that was crafted by the game's creator, or perhaps it's simply leaving enough room for the player to bring in their own existential elements that fill in the gaps and provide a deeper meaning than anything a third party could develop.
Thus, even though I'm going to attempt to provide an interpretation of this game, it might not be anything like that which you would find for yourself. It certainly won't be as powerful or personal for anyone else, but I managed to get a lot out of this game and I will happily recommend it to anyone who's into some of the more creative and artistic game projects out there.
What I got from KIDS on the whole, was something of ethereal and difficult to pin down. In a way this felt like a conversation about society and culture that leaned heavily on existentialism and sociological systems of power. There are heavy themes of conformity in just about every scene, as the game often asks you to control a unique actor among crowds of seemingly blank individuals. While the mob follows universal commands that operate them as some kind of collective, we're regularly given the option to walk away or go against the grain.
This is further highlighted when clicking in the crowd lets out a synchronised clap, or a sequence thereof. Additionally, many of the scenes repeat themselves with slight changes made for each iteration. At first you're alone in a blank landscape that's void of any indication of life in any form. Eventually though, you're wading through crowds and blocked up passages that seem like they're constructed simply to hinder your progress.
Is this a game that's making a statement about overpopulation in society, or how conformity and homogenisation breed more problems as time goes on. With a title like "KIDS", it makes me wonder if there's something in there about the innocence of youth that accepts these social constructs and barrels toward them happily and without worry. Even if the path leads you in to a gaping hole in the ground.
Then again, maybe that's all a big pile of wank and none of it actually applies to KIDS in any way. Perhaps this is nothing more than a series of odd scenarios that require a certain combination of interactions to clear before moving on to the next. I'm not about to say that all of this possible meaning is something that everyone will draw from this simple little game, but I also feel like it's worth noting in one way or another. After all, I went into this game looking for something to extract from the minimal boundaries presented in the work.
Much like when I go to a fine art gallery, I feel like an audience sometimes has to wear a bit of the burden when it comes to finding depth in the interpretation of that which is otherwise ephemeral. I realise this won't be everyone's cup of tea, and to be honest it isn't always the kind of thing that I'm interested in either. I love gaming as a form of escapism and sheer entertainment, but sometimes I feel like I'm open to having a bit of an experience, even if I have to work a little harder to get it done.
Hence why I think that a game like KIDS needs to be clear about what you can expect from it in the first place, which I believe the developers have done a decent enough job with wither way. It's even less of a surprise if you've played their previous effort Plug & Play, which was a similar experience to which KIDS feels like a sequel of sorts. Suffice to say that if you're ready for the kind of experience that KIDS wants to give you, it will live up to its expectations as long as you do.
Playing a game like KIDS might not be an easy experience to define and put in a box, but that's precisely why I love this kind of stuff anyway. I love art for art's sake, and I don't see why video games should be denied that kind of freedom to be creative and express themselves in new and interesting ways. If gaming is ever going to be taken seriously as an actual art form, then we need to embrace these departures from the norm and support their inclusion in the definition of what video games actually are. Getting caught up on whether or not something so unique and creative deserves to be called "a game" is only setting the art form back in more ways than one.
I realise that weird and wonderful isn't the kind of thing that many gamers are looking for when they sit down to play, but that actually doesn't matter. Not every book is a literary masterpiece, not every movie is a marvel of visual storytelling, so let's not pretend like every game has to fit into some kind of watered-down box that defines some arbitrary and meaningless limitations. Even if a game like KIDS isn't your kind of thing, as people who are enthusiastic about video games in general, we should all appreciate the fact that games like this exist. If only to push the medium into fresh and interesting territory that's shared with other forms of media.
KIDS is a wonderful little experience of creativity and minimalist abstraction. Your mileage may vary when it comes to deriving a meaning from everything that happens on screen, but trying to hard is probably doing it a disservice. Instead I just dig this game for being the weird little experiment that it is. It excited me creatively and showed me a few things I haven't really seen before. For my money, that's all I want out of an artistic experience.