having just run through it i think there's something vaguely gratifying about it, in part because i cant really fully disagree with the general thrust of it, and i do think more artists probably should state unabashedly and unequivocally what they're about without really giving a damn (since ironically the push for sincerity inevitably ends up resembling nicecore aesthetics, no one wants to represent that inverse of being sincerely excoriating it seems). but i mean yeah my bigger problem here is just that i wish this could explore some of those concepts and ideas without being very much a soapbox inspired by a twitter thread. ive never once been convinced that art is praxis, either. to believe that would be adhereing to an insular worldview that eulogizes works that ostensibly share our politics without a care for technique, emotion, the messiness and thorniness that can make these works compelling, etc (thinking of how automata was praised for being so 'obviously' left-leaning when yoko is a massive libertarian, etc)

This game sounds so obnoxious jesus christ.

Just thought I'd offer a bit of pushback to this by posting the comment I made on the game's itch page:

Well the game was inspired by a tweet thread by Scott Benson, and Scott tweeted about this game which is what brought me here. Here's the thread if you're interested: https://twitter.com/bombsfall/status/1200447389552779265

My takeaway from the game was that people often view the "tender emotional" type of indie game as risky and avant-garde when in actuality they have become their own genre and marketable under capitalism. I thought it was funny that there was a "wholesome direct" showcasing indie games not long after this game was released: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwCNzOPR8Ck

I don't think this game is trying to discount people who feel impacted by those games though, but it is critical of how everything exists under capitalism and there's no escaping it unless we change it. Like one of the examples it brings up is how people writing about their mental illness are simultaneously expected to have their work defined by their mental illness, but also aren't allowed to have it be a defining part of them, they have to view it as something they were saddled with to overcome. And it's expected to be portrayed as very individualistic rather than dealing with the societal pressures of capitalism. One of the things Scott Benson says in his thread is that it's what you do with it beyond the cute twee aesthetic that really counts, because that's where the meaning comes in, if it's just the aesthetic then it's just kind of marketable but hollow. And then it ends (at least where I crashed) with labor going to help labor survive bourgeois neglect, because dealing with the system is really the most important thing to helping people.
(end of itch comment)

I'd also add that I don't think we should discount the revolutionary potential of art. Obviously, just making a piece of art isn't the single golden key to the revolution, but you only need to look at how people have played games like Night in the Woods or Disco Elysium and developed more radical politics out of their experience with those games, to see the political value of art.

To elaborate (because I am always paranoid about being misinterpreted online) I don't think that the game is necessarily making the pointed claim that the individuals who make or find value out of these games are "phonies" or that these games are inherently fascist/capitalistic any more than anything that exists under the current system. I think it's main point is that while we exist under the system, works which do not challenge that system end up in a sense reinforcing its values. It's more about how art interacts with the system it exists under than it is about placing any particularly harsh value judgment upon the individuals engaging with said art, hence why the chicken character is legitimately earnest in the art they've created, they just haven't put this immense thought into how it interacts with the system, like the cow has.

kingbancho:
I definitely think these kinds of naive optimist movements, like what hopepunk became or what many wholesome games circles look like, are worth interrogating. I also would like to see more art that is sincere in other ways. There was recently a bit of controversy with the game Boyfriend Dungeon, the story of which is apparently expressly about responding to abuse and harrassment, and people seemed to want the game to be "softer". This is pretty flattening and kind of self-centered, and I think more games should be allowed to be bleak, or aggressive, or a bummer. I like soft art, but I like sharp art, too.

HotAnarcocoa:
I, admittedly, wrote this in a flurry before immediately passing out, so I welcome pushback on perspectives I may have missed. As I said, I do think there are insightful critiques within Tender Frog House, and I think the critique of naive nicecore is accurate. I also think the cow's comments (which I presume is a stand in for the author in this little catechism) on the flattening of mental illness experiences are ones I agree with wholeheartedly. There is a problem with "wholesomeness", and it's one we should absolutely interrogate.

The issue for me is that Tender Frog House doesn't really limit or temper its critique, and as a result, it implicates innumerable artists and their art. Because it doesn't levy its critique against a specific game or stated philosophy, it implicates really anything that could be described as "wholesome" or "twee" that does not raise its banners high.

Regarding the revolutionary potential of art: I definitely wouldn't say that art has no potential for radicalism. But I do think there is an occasional tendency to overemphasize that role in the sum of art itself. I of course support political art, but I've found that there is a lot of art criticism I've seen that pushes it for me. You bring up Disco Elysium, which is fitting because what's pushed me towards this position was seeing articles criticizing Disco Elysium and Joon-Ho's Parasite as not being revolutionary enough. Art is too subjective to have incontrovertible political messages, games especially so, and I think this is an untenable standard to expect art to fulfill.

I think that the philosophy that the game is responding to are some of the things that chicken lays out at the start, namely the idea that wholesome games are by nature of their sincerity: radical, brave, and avant-garde, and that they equate positivity with political resistance. I fear that the context that people are missing from this game is that the dev made it in a day after reading that twitter thread by Scott Benson, and that thread was an interrogation of that idea that wholesomeness inherently gave those game the previously stated attributes. Like, I played that game and, at risk of the internet thinking I'm a dullard, found a lot of its observations profound, and yet I still enjoy wholesome games. I assume the dev of this game is a fan of Scott's, and Scott made Night in the Woods, so I assume both of them are also not anti-wholesome games. So it's with that knowledge that it's very hard for me to read the message of this game as "wholesome games bad."

I think our only disagreement on the political potential of art is likely a disagreement in degree rather than kind. Obviously I agree that art is subjective and that there will always be varying interpretations of any given work, but I still think that an artist imbues their work with certain messages that they want to convey. Like, there's a reason that every political ideology under the sun uses propaganda, it's a valuable tool to push their ideals forward.

I'm in complete agreement that the notion that "wholesomeness" is intrinsically brave, radical, and avant-garde is false, and if this were particularly attacking that position, I might not take as much umbrage with it. But, as I said, my issue with Tender Frog House, as I read it, is that it does not limit its scope to that position, instead taking on the entirety of "wholesomeness", thus insinuating too many people to count.

Art is undeniably imbued with ideology, and can definitely inspire political action! I guess I'm just saying I don't find attempts to measure the precise efficacy of art as political action to be a particularly useful exercise.

Something I think is sort of a bummer is that people seemed have stumbled onto this review and as such kind jumped to dunk on this game. I don't wanna get too self-important, but I feel like a lot of attention on this site was spurred by this review, and while I still stand by my point, I think getting mean-spirited about the author is just as if not even more cynical than the viewpoint espoused in the game.

I might be giving the post too much credit in not really bringing attention to the 'wholesomeness' as a literal quality as you and Franz seem to. For me I think the analysis mainly applies to art about trauma and over subjectivity (like dating games) rather than attacking, I dont know, Banjo Kazooie or something. But it's totally fine if the presentation etc. is not your jam or w/ever. I can only hope I relayed as decent a rebuttal as I can and it would be nowhere without your thoughts. Maybe I'm also just a hater at the core. Maybe I should read more into the adorno jazz thing so that I make sure not to make the mistake he made there.

Re: Adorno, it's been a while since I read it, but IIRC the short of it is that Adorno believed jazz was less creative and expressive, more specifically because of how solos were structured. That they "gave the illusion of freedom" and that it was ideologically regressive. Adorno also apparently did not listen to much jazz and probably did not understand what it was doing; he was more of a serialist, and I'm not sure free jazz ever got to him, though I'm not sure I think he'd like that, either

The reason I bring it up is because of how it posits a specific understanding of what art ought to be, and it to a political thesis. And I personally have grown tired of that. I'll have to read what you wrote to comment on it. Again, I still think the perspective expressed in this game is pretty frustrating.

It sounds like Adorno missed the mark, thanks for underlining that point and bringing it to note. I'll leave you be here now tho. Thanks for the incredibly mindful chat :3

I wrote this on your post but you turned off comments oops!

I was initially writing a longer comment before I kinda just came the conclusion that I didn't really have it in me. I'm too tired and mentally ill to write it out. It is unlikely I will touch the game again; the first playthrough was incredibly draining for me, and even on the off chance I did feel differently, it's not a risk I want to take. So let me be relatively quick.
1) To be clear, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, either!
2) I'm not against negative criticism. I'm against dunking. That bit was not well written. It's a whole thing to explain, but it's not really relevant. Neither TFH nor this write-up are dunks. It was sort of an aside, and I'm blending in irritating arguments I've encountered recently.
3) I have expressed agreement with many of the claims and attitudes expressed in TFH, and I continue to be in agreement with much of it in spite of my overall response.
4) The thing I am against with TFH is the seeming antagonism and cynicism towards aesthetic codes and self-expressions that differ from the author's preferences.
5) I personally think asserting that the art someone has made or enjoys belies an internal conservativism, dishonesty, and even a degree of self-delusion, constitutes a form of attack. Not necessarily ad hominem, but it is a directed form of criticism. It directly implicates someone personally.
6) This may boil down to a simple disagreement. Art is political. I don't typically shy away from the politics of art. But I simply do not believe any reasonable and useful metric to say whether or not art is praxis or not. And the sheer amount of conversation and discourse I've been privy to that attempts to prove this one way or the other has only convinced me that not only does no such standard exist, but it also frankly doesn't matter much to me anymore.

And finally,
7) "If you really believed this to be the case then you'd have to be completely neurotic about any negative write up you give of a game."
Correct! I am! I don't like doing it! It causes me anxiety, and I generally avoid doing it if I don't think I'm making a meaningful or productive point. It genuinely aggravates me that people have jumped to dunk on this game seemingly because of me, as I have recently expressed. I generally temper everything I say to an obsessive degree. Can't say I don't practice what I preach!

Hey, I made Tender Frog House. I saw today that it was getting an unusual amount of traffic over the past couple days and thought I'd try to find out why. It seems to have come from the recent conversation about the game on this site. I had not seen this site before, it's cool that this exists. I wanted to reply to some of that conversation—not solely to this review, but without a forum-style thread to reply to, this comments section seems like the appropriate place.

The first thing I want to say is that I deeply, earnestly appreciate the thoughtfulness that many of you have brought to bear on this little game I made. While I totally sympathize with vehemently's concerns about laying the groundwork for personal attacks—and know that those concerns extend further than a dunk's impact on me personally—I hope nobody is losing sleep about it in this case. The pleasure of finding a community of people having a substantial conversation about something I made considerably outweighs any annoyance I feel at being the target of a low-effort dunk or (what I feel is) a willful misreading of the game I made.

I also think many of the criticisms (on this site in general, not in this review alone) of the game's apparent argument and structure are insightful and well-founded. I agree with many of the criticisms about how the game's argument fails. I don't agree with all of them, but, to be frank, I don't think it's really my place to argue 'on behalf' of the game I made, and I think the conversation about the game is better-off without that kind of contribution. The one thing that I will say is: Yes, Adorno's dismissal of jazz was an indefensible embarrassment, and deserves the derision it receives nowadays. Nor should it be papered over or excused—not only were his arguments themselves bizarrely underinformed, they seemed indicative of profoundly reactionary thinking. That said, I see a tendency in modern discussion of his work to invoke his writing on jazz as a means of dismissing his work and thought in general. Minima Moralia is an urgent, brilliant book, and perhaps the most horrible, beautiful, vital account of what this world we've made does to us. I hope his justifiably infamous writing on jazz does not poison the well for people who might find that book as incredible as I do.

In lieu of arguing for or against the game, I wanted to share some of the context around it, because I think that'd be more useful to others:

I made this game in the spring of 2020 as part of the coursework for a 'prototype games' studio. The studio was about 10-12 grad students and ran for one semester. Every student made and presented a small game every week based on a prompt we were given, and we had a short critique/conversation after the game was presented. We were encouraged to spend a day at most working on each game—I think I spent about 3-4 hours making Tender Frog House, most of which was spent coding and doing 3D work. I believe Tender Frog House was the last game I made for the studio. When we were done with our games we'd upload them to itch so that we (and peers/friends that weren't in the studio with us) could play through each other's work.

As you might expect, given that there were just a handful of us, we became intimately acquainted with each other's work. Our crits and in-class conversations quickly developed themes and ongoing concerns as we wrestled with our own intentions for our games, our various aesthetic interests and pet obsessions, our parallel or perpendicular sensibilities, etc. The prototypes we made were a part of that conversation, as we'd make work in response to or acknowledgement of one another's contributions. This is what Tender Frog House was made to be: My little coda to a 14-week conversation I'd been a part of.

Now, I absolutely do not share this with the intention of invalidating criticisms of the game. Firstly, I don't expect anyone else to know or care about the context behind this game, and of course people who play it are going to take it as it is. I think those criticisms all stand regardless of the game's background. Secondly, I'm delighted (if a little trolled-feeling) that this polemical little game I made has become one of the most-circulated and -seen things I've ever done, far in excess of other things I've put much more work into. It's both flattering and embarrassing, and has had a few good lessons for me.

I share this because when I look back on this little game, I'm surprised by how tenderly I feel toward it. Not because I think it has such merit in and of itself, not because the arguments it makes are so valuable or irrefutable, but because of how effectively and jaggedly it captures a particular moment in a particular ongoing conversation I was having with a particular group of people. This was the last game I presented as part of the studio—the conversation ended with that class.

I don't expect anyone to share or care about this sentimentality. But I think there is something in here that might be of public interest. A lot of the criticisms of this game's arguments seem, to me, to address lapses and lacunae in those arguments: It fails to identify solutions to the problems it points to; it fails to account for and situate the pleasures of the aesthetics it's critiquing; the net it casts is too wide and too indiscriminate. I agree that addressing those criticisms would make the argument more sound and more compelling; I also think that that sort of movement to measuring, universalizing, and narrowing the argument's focus would have made it a much less specific product of the moment in time it came out of, and therefore a less-precise snapshot of that time.

I think that eschewing of universalism in favor of specificity is, ironically, of value to a public audience. I am, as a reader, very tired of the universal in contemporary writing on aesthetics and politics—I'm tired of charitable equivocation, of mealy-mouthed bet-hedging, of essays that start with soft suggestions and end with faint, wistful utopianism. I think that thoughtful, well-founded antagonism and cynicism have their place, and are sorely lacking in games and art right now. It feels like a set of ideas enter the essay machine and come out as so much porridge, indistinguishable from both the ideas before them and the next ones coming down the line.

I want more works, more games and movies and books, that are strident in their specificity, that worry less about exceptions and programs and more about creating new language and providing new lenses. Tender Frog House does not succeed in that—the conversation it captures for me likely does not translate to a public audience. But I believe a better version of Tender Frog House isn't necessarily one that correctly identifies where praxis can be found in modern games, or how wholesomeness can be rehabilitated, or what a meaningful metric for political efficacy in art can be found. I think the better version is one that contains its context, so that players can come to its argument as a coda rather than a program.

I really hope I'm not stepping on toes here, but here goes.

@Gewl, while this is probably awkward for Vehemently themselves, I absolutely love your response. I'm sorry you feel concern trolled to some, I think it's actually accurate to feel so to some extent but I don't want to risk hugboxxing about this. I've tried to outline those irritations in my write up on This Box Conveys People which is actually a great game.

I would invite you to if you want to devise your own 'forum' space to copy this and make it as a 'list' or if you'd prefer I can do this for you. Otherwise we can just have this count for itself. You are free to respond and post to either of my reviews on the game to if you'd rather.

I really love this line in particular "It feels like a set of ideas enter the essay machine and come out as so much porridge, indistinguishable from both the ideas before them and the next ones coming down the line." as it reflects my experiences with formal university essay work. I figured the piece was made for a game jam since it was attached to it, not to a university. The time constraints of the piece are not lost on me, who enjoyed the overall aesthetic more than most else here. I don't think they are lost on Vehemently either who meant absolutely no ill will in covering it initially. It's good to see your analysis is so optimistic.

I'll check out the Adorno book, you made a great pitch for it.

I decided in advance to signal boost it here let me know if you'd prefer for that not to be up. Thanks again for the warmth given to our gross little cesspool :3

*concern trolled by some

Thank you for your thoughtful and grateful response and perspective, gewl.

A few quick notes, no obligation to respond:

1) First of all, I'm going to be extremely real with you: the only reason I even know what this game is is because I was making a large list of frog games, and this popped up when I was moving through the database.

2) Regarding Adorno, I want to be clear that I definitely think Adorno was an incredibly insightful writer in much of his work. I don't think he should be dismissed. Rather, what I wanted to highlight with that was that I believe Adorno's critique of jazz was deeply cynical and misguided, and that I believe his cynicism preceded and superceded a more, in what Erato_Heti has been calling it, liberatory interpretation of art. Adorno was a deeply pessimistic and cynical theorist, and that is part of his style and perspective. I think his writing on jazz indicates some of the issues with that. But that certainly doesn't discredit the rest of his work. There is a book, Jazz as Critique by Fumi Okiji, that deals with Adorno's perspective, that I've been meaning to read for a long time.

3) I personally believe context is actually quite important to text. We can still discuss how context and its omission in a text can cause that text to have failings or issues or confusions, but I do believe context is very valuable in interpreting and processing media. In this case, while as you can imagine I still stand by my criticisms, understanding how it was made and why frames the arguments differently. And if nothing else, I think hearing your thoughts on it both then and now is insightful.

4) Lastly, I intend to play This Box Conveys People some time soon. :)

Thanks for the kind response! Very quickly:

I hope this isn't awkward for vehemently or anyone else, and was hesitant about replying because I didn't want to make anyone feel discomfited or anything. Part of the reason why I decided to is that I really did want to communicate how nice it is to see thoughtful conversation taking place around one's work, and that the conversation being critical does not (in this instance, at least) whatsoever detract from that pleasure for me. I really do want to thank you both for taking the time and care, it means a lot.

And I didn't mean to come off like I was accusing anyone else of trolling me in a sidelong way. What I meant was that I feel like I've trolled myself a bit, in that this hastily-made thing has been circulated much more widely and provoked much more interesting conversation than other things that I've put way more time into (and in so doing probably overworked the dough).

The punchline here might be that for our last prototypes in the studio we were each given personalized prompts designed to push us out of our comfort zones. The prompt that I got for this one was "Make It Pop", which I interpreted as both pop music and popcorn. I did not think whatsoever about this thing finding wider circulation while I was making it, but I've spent the last couple years feeling like I (by happy accident) did very right by the prompt whenever TFH is the subject of interest or criticism.

Oop, hadn't refreshed the page since vehemently's gracious response. Thank you, too! I'm glad you've appreciated my thoughts, I've appreciated yours. And I hope some of my other work is more to your taste, although I fear This Box Conveys People might play into some of your (very reasonable) frustrations with cynicism's role in art. If that's the case, I hope some of the work I put out this next year satisfies your appetite.

I'm actually not as opposed to cynicism as I might sound; I just think it needs to be measured. I have cynicism in my body, as well, haha