This Is How Bees Work

By: Guest Reviewer

On: January 21st, 2010

[This is a guest review by Cosmic Fool. If youâ€™re interested in writing an article for TIGSource, please go here.]

I think I’m going to have to meet bento_smile.

This Is How Bees Work is from the creative minds of Jasper ‘superflat’ Byrne and bento_smile, and I know right now its a game I’m going to remember. The passive and relaxing gameplay of bento_smile’s games has never failed to bring a smile to my face, and This Is How Bees Work is no exception.

You open the game to be greeted by 2 simple instructions (Move and Plant) and a pleasantly relaxed queen bee resting on quite a comfy looking plant. The contented smile on its face is a sign of things to come.

The joy of growing and harbouring a home for the bees made me feel like a good person. When I would see the first forest I had created on the horizon I felt happy simply to see it from a distance as a measure of my achievement. It also amazes me the sense of reward I got out of subtle graphical changes. When I would spawn a purple tree or begin to collect red bees I began to genuinely feel like I had created something beautiful in this strange and weird magenta land.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not a game for everyone. Its lack of a superobjective and general endlessness might not appeal to those approaching it as a traditional game. Its beauty lies in a desire to excel on your own terms. If you got joy simply out of traversing the new environments in Knytt and Knytt Stories or seeing the new friends appear on your map in Tanaka’s Friendly Adventure, I’m sure you’ll garner some enjoyment out of this game, hampered only the brevity of the experience.

Posted in Casual, Freeware, Unique / Bizarre, Windows | Tags: BentoSmile, JasperByrne, ReviewedByCosmicFool

Oriz0r

Short and to the point, very nice. I’ll be sure to check this game out.
Timi

Very appealing. I’m checking out the game right now. Games that bring a smile to our faces are fun!
Vincent

Let’s build forests!
Yes it does! It really brings a smile to your face. It offers more possibilities to experiment than you expect. I highly recommend trying this!
Bob

It’s oddly satisfying to fill an endless eye-hurting pink land being with flowers, shrubs, and trees.
Music can get a little repetitive though, and the PINK.
Cosmic Fool

Haha, the pink always struck me as odd, but I guess it works in the end as you fill in the landscape with trees and flowers because the eye hurting shade of magenta becomes your own little personal forest.
bento_smile

The credit’s gotta go to Jasper. :) It’s all his design; I was just a part-time art monkey and assistant!
Cosmic Fool

Well don’t I feel guilty now. Sorry Jasper, no offense meant. Its still a wonderful little game.
Dusty Spur

Not the bees! AHHHHHHH Ahgarbulagabah my eyes! my eyes! AHHHHHHHH! AHHHHHHHhhhurgh!
Dusty Spur

Sorry, Wicker Man immediately sprung to mind :< The art direction in this game is significantly better than being stung in the eyes by bees! By which I mean it's really charming.
http://lumberingdream.com/ !CE-9

Bumbledrop. yes.
fullspectrum

Excellent work Bentoflat/Supersmile!
undertech

The title made me think of a sex education game.
bateleur

Presumably a homosexual sex education game, on account of the lack of birds? ;-)
http://www.godatplay.com God at play

I’ve been working on a musical garden game that attempts to provoke this same kind of response. I was unsure what to do with it, but playing this game has inspired me to finish it.

Thanks for the hope, guys!
softy

Glad to see this is where games are going nowadays, really great!
kosh

a game ?

come on , atleast in knytt there was like an objective.
wiki excerpt:”Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. ”

where were they ?

please, just call it a interweb-floopie or something :)
Jad

I’m gonna have to meet cactus

I’m gonna have to meet derek yu

I’m gonna have to meet po D

I’m gonna have to meet konjak

I’m gonna have to meet terry

etc

‘ U ‘ this game looks like colorypoo and happy, will check it out
Vania

So I just hold down left mouse button and move around?

I dont care if a game lacks a superobjective, but this one doesnt offer you meaningful choices.
gidge_lizardmin

@kosh

Don’t start that again.

Also I found all of those elements anyway:
– Interaction was pretty obvious.
– Rules are there too.
– I made up my own goal of trying to make natural looking forests.
– And there was a bit of challenge involved in that.

So, I suppose it’s opinionated but I really enjoyed this Game.
kosh

yeah you are completely right gidge.
i forgot you had to press the mouse-button
Cosmic Fool

I already said its not for everyone. Some part of me feels quite annoyed when your general attitude towards this is to act like you found out something I didnt. All you said was covered in my initial review, so rather than act like you’ve discovered some new and holy truth, play games you enjoy and ignore this.
Deacon Blues

It’s just that we have certain expectations when we visit the Independent *Gaming* Source. That is, we expect games, and when one of these infrequent updates is not a game by any strict definition, it’s a disappointment. Sure, it’s not for everyone. Nothing is. But it should probably at least be for the site’s target audience.

Although I suppose a not-game is preferable to industry news that no one cares about or a teaser trailer for a game that promises to be released within the next twenty years.
bento_smile

@Deacon Blues, but there are people here who enjoy this sort of ‘not-game’ too! I mean, I am interested in games and not-games (for want of a better word. I just think of ’em all as games) and for that, I don’t think it’s necessarily good to segregate them. It’s important to have both!
http://vacuumflowers.com/ Sparky

I think there are a lot of really great experiences to be had outside of what’s traditionally considered a game. The category is a lot larger than just the genres we’re all used to.

I think we all stand to gain by being open minded when playing things that don’t quite work the way we’d expect them to. It’s fine if you don’t enjoy something of course :) .

But attacking the game isn’t very productive. A list of responses you had or specific pieces of feedback are a lot more constructive.
Mr. Podunkian

i enjoyed the game when i played it, but it seems really shallow. it seems like a half-attempt at making an educational tool and a half-attempt at making a game, and it falls short on both ends simply from its unwillingness to commit to either. as it stands, it’s just a toy, but because the interactions are so rigid and obvious, the game is missing the sense of exploration and experimentation that comes with games like these.
Yakatori

@Podunkian
The majority of video games are essentially toys. Easy to play, hard to master, is the hallmark of a really good toy.

There are extremely few games that transcended that.
http://www.klikscene.com Radix

No, there’s an established distinction between games and software toys.

(I haven’t played this and don’t have an opinion.)
Generic Troll

OMG DIS SUX ITS NUT A GAEM TIGSORCE FUK U 4 POSTIN DIS!!

@THE PEOPLE WHO MAED DIS PEACE OF SHIT: PLZ DIE!!!!1
bald space marine fan

i think this game would be better with trophies and a cover system
xhunterko

I haven’t played this yet either. But on a related note, FLow, FLOwer, and Nanoplankton are not games? Or is bit.trip not a game?
ssp

@kosh, deacon blues et al: i could semi-understand the whole vvvvvv price “controversy”, but this? it’s like some people come here just to look for reasons to get their panties in a bunch.
Vania

I stand by Sid Meier’s definition that a game is “a series of meaningful choices”. Games like flow, flower or Knytt fit into this definition, this one not so much…

Experimentation is great, this game is an interesting experiment, it has some charm to it but it has 0 depth (this is what the OP means by “brevity”).
Ssp

Why is that a problem though? It’s fun to play around with for a while and I don’t think it’s meant to be anything more. No one’s claiming it to be deep or an earth-shattering masterpiece. What’s your point? Arguing semantics over the definition of “what a game is”?
Slather

I think Vania’s point is that it doesn’t have any meaningful choices, so its just a fun toy- or a prototype. It is a super-charming little toy, though!
Slather

Also, Morbo says, “BEES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!! GOODNIGHT!”
Anarkex

Ssp, I think the important thing here is more the definition of what a GOOD game is. Depth plays a huge part in that. And the whole discussion here is really about depth: its very definition in games is “meaningful choices”, after all.
Nostifaru

I really like the look of this game, but I can’t seem to get it to unzip with Jzip. Anyon else found this?
xhunterko

Try using 7zip. Just google it. I’ve use it to open .rars.
creath

People often mistake non-games and games when the objective is obscured or player-generated. Sandboxes are valid games, but I wish this had a little more depth. Was fun for 5 minutes, wish there was more cause and effect over time.

@Vania: “Superobjective”? Is that the new design word of the week, or are you analyzing games with Stanislavsky’s acting system?
bald space marine fan

no cutscenes or arrows telling u where to go? feh, i’ll be at ign
Vania

@creath: I was just quoting the reviewer, but I think its an old game design word.

Reviewer wrote:
“Donâ€™t get me wrong, this is not a game for everyone. Its lack of a superobjective and general endlessness might not appeal to those approaching it as a traditional game.”
Cosmic Fool

Yes I used superobjective. It has to do with acting but you know, we’re all casual here.
Cosmic Fool

Yes I used superobjective. It has to do with acting but you know, we’re all casual here.
Cosmic Fool

So casual I can post twice if I see fit.
fuzz

@ anarkex: there is no true definition of a good game. many games that fall outside the mold of what would generally be considered “good” are really amazing. (see vasily zotov’s, jazzuo’s, kimberly kubus’s work)

i can’t believe in an objective reality, and so i can’t believe in any formal and unchanging definition of what is good in any context. it would be fool to do so in the case of any artwork, as you’re missing out on many great experiences if you stick to your arbitrary definitions of goodness.
Anarkex

Fuzz, I’ve been playing games long enough to know a thing about what makes them tick. There is nothing arbitrary about the way I see things. A focus on depth, real depth, from complexity of mechanics, as well as minimizing fat such as grinding and unnecessary dialog, DOES lead to spectacular games. It has been leading to spectacular games since games first came into being. It’s why Chess, Go, Street Fighter 2, Giga Wing, Shiren the Wanderer, and SMB3 are excellent games. This is what makes games worth playing over and over again: the thrill of discovering new things in them and new ways to approach old situations. Even if aesthetically the game references unconventional real-world subject matter and has incredibly endearing graphics and sound, it means nothing if the game’s just another boring frustration platformer.

Believe me, I’m not “missing out” on any “great experiences”. Against my better judgment, I play tons of games like the one in this post. And you know, I have fun. I play the games until I stop having fun. Just with this game, it only took about five minutes before I was totally bored. I’m still not sick of Monster Hunter after hundreds of hours. And I have, on occasion, really appreciated plot in a game to the point where I tolerated boring game design to enjoy the story. The Mother series would be my example. However, As I’ve said before, video games just aren’t built to “tell stories”. What Mother games do is put me through a mediocre JRPG, and reward me with a story I love. I’m enjoying the story IN SPITE of the game, which is what plot-centric game design always results in. You bet I’d give all three games to read just one book by their creator, Itoi. He’s a writer, not a game designer. Just as I would never want to read a novel by Japanese shooting game dev company Cave, but the western 360 port of Death Smiles can’t come sooner.

There may not be any real “objective” truths in the world. But even opinions must be based on evidence and experience, otherwise, they are delusions. I’m not trying to break apart everything beautiful about indie games. I just know our devs are capable of a lot more than this, and I’d rather criticize them in an attempt to bring them higher than keep praising them for churning out “experiences” nobody is going to play more than once. They’re grown ups. I think they can handle it.
Derek

Actually, I agree with you Anarkex – that was really well put. Even though I loved Earthbound, I couldn’t get through Mother 3, which seemed even more shallow as a game.

That said, if you enjoyed I Love Bees for 5 minutes instead of 100 hours, what’s wrong with that? Sometimes I just want to eat a snack instead of a meal, see a sketch instead of a painting, read a comic strip instead of a graphic novel… many things in life are interesting but cannot be sustained in a long form. My problem with Mother 3 is that the point of it seems to be to follow the story and get attached to the characters, and the boring game mechanics make it a chore to do that. But I Love Bees seems like it is as was advertised…

In theory, though, I’m with you. I’d be sad if I felt that indie game developers were “only” capable of doodles and could never create masterpiece paintings. Thankfully, I think we’re more than capable of doing both, and both is what I’d like to see.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view without being a dick about it!
Ssp

@Anarkex:
Firstly, this is a small freeware game probably made in a very short frame of time.I can’t believe you’re seriously putting it up against Chess, a game that is not only not comparable to this, but has probably been developed and refined over centuries? You’ll find that most games pale in comparison to Chess in terms of sheer depth, but that doesn’t make them bad.

Secondly, what’s wrong with enjoying a game that doesn’t have depth? In fact, what’s wrong with enjoying any game? If a game feels good to you, it’s a good game. If you compare every game you play against a set of faux-objective criteria you set up for yourself to see whether it’s a “good game” and whether it’s “OK” to enjoy it, you’ll end up missing out on a lot of good games.

And lastly, how about you learn you learn how to program (with tools like Game Maker and Construct, it’s really not that hard anymore, even for the untalented), and make games you think are good instead of requesting it from someone else, let alone someone who’s generous enough to give his work away for free?
Ssp

Just for clarification: The “untalented” bit of my comment wasn’t meant as an ad hominem. It was meant to illustrate the fact that fulfilling your own gaming dreams instead of waiting for others to do isn’t out of reach for anyone with access to a computer these days.
Yakatori

@Anarkex “Iâ€™ve been playing games long enough to know a thing about what makes them tick.”

You think you know, but in reality you don’t. That’s the thing you’re missing out on.

@Radix “No, thereâ€™s an established distinction between games and software toys.”

Nope, most games are simply toys.