Talk:Flower (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Flower (video game) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Flower (video game) is part of the Thatgamecompany series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 9, 2010.
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indie task force.

Noting down for sourcing of dev section[edit]


Will try to add later, anyone else is free to incorporate. -MASEM (t) 15:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


The game is called "Flowery" in Japan. Not sure how that can be fit into the full article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As it was developed in the US (it looks like anyway), we only show the English name. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Correct, thatgamecompany is based in California. There is no Japanese connection to the game. --PresN 19:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


Note from Template:Infobox video game:

distributor - The popular name(s) of the game's distributor(s). Only use this field if it is a different company from the publisher. The name(s) can be wikilinked.

According to that, mentioning "Sony Computer Entertainment" twice in the infobox is unnecessary? Not a big deal but... (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is unnecessary according to the template documentation. Fixed. --PresN 21:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


I think Jenova Chen was creative director, not lead designer (Nicholas Clark).[2][3] (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. You're right that Clark is listed as the lead designer, and I'll fix that in the article, but Chen was the one who determined the direction of the game and what it would be about, which is traditionally the role of the lead designer, no matter what title they use. That said, given that even the composer had a hand in level design, I don't think the 7-9 person company was terribly worried about the boundaries between job roles, so It's probably best to note that both Chen and Clark were in charge of designing the game as a whole. --PresN 19:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Btw, I'm a bit confused, because one source says that developer team was 6-9 big, but their home website introduces 13. (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's odd. Only thing I can think of is that it was 12 people total, but only 6-9 at any one time. --PresN 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and Santiago said in this interview, that it was actually 7-10. (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
So what you're saying is they aren't allowed to hire 3 people in 3 years after publishing a successful game?  :D 13 now doesn't mean they had 13 then. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

genre of game[edit]

According to the people who write on this article, Flower is a "poetic adventure" type of video game? Describing a video game in this way doesn't give any sort of useful information. The genre is supposed to tell you what type of video game it is and what the mechanics will be like. The term "poetic adventure" is incredibly vague and mysterious, and can apply to nearly every video game ever made. Flower simulates flying. You control the wind and fly around. It is a flight simulator. (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It in no way simulates the act of flying a plane, which is what the flight simulator genre is. It doesn't really fit into a genre- adventure is close, but intimates more excitement and action than is actually in the game. "Poetic" adventure, while still being vague, gives the correct sense of what the game is- and on top of that is the official genre tag given to the Japanese version. There are no genre tags that are more concrete without being wrong as well. --PresN 19:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I never said anything about planes. The flight simulator genre is simulating flying, and does not necessarily have to include something that looks like a plane. (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." What you are presenting is Original research. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That said, I cannot really translate/verify the attached reference. I see different genre assignment from different VG sources: Giant Bomb - Adventure GameTrailers - Puzzle Game Critics - Weird Video Gamer - Simulation etc. Perhaps this is a game where we skip this classification? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't Google translate the Japanese page there. here's Siliconera mentioning that the genre is poetic adventure; there's a bunch of others as well but that one at least is easy to prove it's not taking it from the article. --PresN 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I can see how this is a better ref than other usual VG RS directory entries. Still, Siliconera is situational at WP:VG/RS. And that still leaves everyone else mis-categorizing or not subscribing to "poetic adventure". Perhaps a sentence in prose instead or in addition to the infobox field? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Positive Emotions, Most of the time[edit]

Paragraph two states: "Flower was primarily intended to arouse positive emotions in the player, rather than to be a challenging and "fun" game."

I agree with this, but only for 5/6 of the game, which I guess is "primarily". The fifth level of this game is mostly an industrial landscape with overcast rain, thunder and lightning. I do like that, but it is certain a threatening scenario for some. The level itself has several electrified metal structures strung with red lights. Touch the lights and the petals get burned (black trailing smoke), some petals disappear and the player's petal is pushed away from the structure. How does that create positive emotions, other than perhaps to challenge someone to be careful? The level is a challenge since you have to get to the flowers with short surges and more precise controlled movements to avoid the electrical shocks. Some musical dissonance is used. It is still true that your main petal never dies.

My account may be original research, but parts of it is mentioned in this review, which may or may not be notable: (last paragraph of 'Gameplay' section)

This one describes level 5, and also shows a Youtube video. The player is adept enough to not get shocked.

Also, the gameplay section makes no mention of any possible negatives beyond the above. However, the reality is that you do have to meet certain objectives to progress each level. That means retracing steps to find flowers you missed. Even with the halo, it's not always easy to see an unopened flower in a field of open ones. Second, you have to hold the controller and tilt it in three dimensions to move something on the screen and the view, except for showing you effect and objective, always faces only where the front petal is going. That requires agility and control of the wrist, and while many people have digital dexterity to just hold the controller and mash buttons, using the wrist as a mechanism of control just doesn't seem as intuitive.

Another aspect not touched on here is that while you can complete a level, if you don't find certain secret flowers in each one, the flower in the level's pot will not bloom. It's odd to finish a level and see a wilted flower. I do not find that uplifting. Also, the level mentioned above doesn't end with any positive result view like the others do. It just ends.

However, except for the review above, most of the other comments here are mentioned on player forums. I can't find notable sources for those. --WPaulB (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wording in the lead[edit]

I know this is a featured article, so I thought I'd post this here first.

In the lead, the article currently states:

"The game was intended as a "spiritual successor" to Flow, a previous title by Chen and Thatgamecompany. In it, the player controls the wind, blowing a flower petal through the air using the movement of the game controller."

[Emphasis on it added.)

In my opinion, the it is not obvious what exactly it is referring to. It could refer to Flow or Flower—and, particularly with the titles being so similar, I suggest changing it to Flower, to make sure people know which game is being talked about.

Darth Newdar talk 14:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, done. --PresN 15:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Darth Newdar talk 19:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)