London 2012: The Kotaku Review

London 2012: The Kotaku Review
To sign up for our daily newsletter covering the latest news, features and reviews, head HERE. For a running feed of all our stories, follow us on Twitter HERE. Or you can bookmark the Kotaku Australia homepage to visit whenever you need a news fix.

There are few activities in life that feel sillier than playing an Olympics video game. There are fewer activities that better illuminate how ridiculous the act of playing a video game can be.

You’re not running a 100m dash. You’re pretending to run one. You’re pretending by waiting for the signal, then — press that A-button! — you’re off…. tap-tap-tap-tap that A button to keep running and running. Taptaptaptap faster to speed up! Toofast! Taptap-tap-tap-(wait)-tap-tap….OK. Good rhythm. Almost there. 2nd place? PRESS-A-TO-LUNGE! Finished… Yes. Second place. Silver medal.

You just ran the 100 metres. More specifically, you just tapped a button a lot.

Want to swim the 200m breaststroke? Hopefully you’re good at pulling two analogue sticks in sync.

London 2012, as with so many official and unofficial Olympics video games before it, is a translation of primal sporting activities into a collection of mechanical challenges. In the real world, we would hurl a javelin by running with it, aiming it and throwing it. In London 2012 we would tap the A button to build running speed, pull back a joystick to begin establishing the throwing angle and then we would jolt the joystick forward, as straight ahead as could be, to launch our virtual spear. In real life, we would dive or vault using a series of jumps and twists, folding and unfolding of our body; in the video game version we would press certain buttons at the right time.

The classic Olympic competitions of track and field, of swimming, gymnastics, rowing and shooting, are a contest among the people on this planet who have most successfully mastered simple series of body movements that they have practiced thousands of times.

WHY: It’s not built for fun; it’s built to convey the experience of perfecting a routine and then being the best in the world at it. So are Angry Birds and Street Fighter, but this one effectively involves javelin, hurdles and diving boards — and is a waste of time if you’re not competing online.

London 2012

Developer: Sega Studios Australia
Platforms: Xbox 360 (version played), PS3, Windows
Released: June 26

Type of game: Summer Olympics simulator stuffed with 46 mini-games, mostly recreating track-and-field, swimming, shooting and gymnastics events, with random additions such as women’s beach volleyball and a cool kayaking challenge tossed in.
What I played: Played through a 10-day Summer Games, taking second in the Medal Count to virtual China; tried most of the game’s 46 events; used the Kinect controls; competed online on and off for a week.

Two Things I Loved

  • The game offers the distinct thrill of out-paddling, out-swimming and out-hurdling players from other nations, as a virtual announcer cheers about how awesome your country is. It’s not jingoism if you can’t catch me in the 100 metres.
  • No sappy sentimental stories to be found. This game is about the pure body motions of the Olympics.

Two Things I Hated

  • The dim-witted announcers sometimes praised failed Olympic efforts that they thought were successes. Fools.
  • Lots of missing sports. No rings? No uneven bars? Does this game not want to test my proficiency in rhythmic gymnastics? Judo? The marathon?

Made-to-Order Back-of-Box Quotes

  • “Becoming the world’s best athlete isn’t supposed to be fun.” — Stephen Totilo, Kotaku
  • “A thrilling exercise in non-exercise, as long as you’re playing it online. ” — Stephen Totilo, Kotaku

These classic Olympic activities are adorned every four years with the made-for-TV narratives of the young athlete grasping from an impoverished childhood for a gold medal or of the older athlete just proud to be competing after some disaster of a stumble four years ago. The implication of television broadcasts of the Olympics is that the pure competition between people who have mastered such pure actions as running 200 meters in the shortest time possible, jumping as high as possible or throwing a heavy ball down a field is insufficiently interesting without the addition of human narrative.

London 2012 is a repudiation of the broadcast TV theory of the Olympics. It is wonderfully bland. It is devoid of named athletes and freed of any drama in, say, the women’s 100m hurdles other than the unfolding story of who among a group of competitors has most successfully mastered a simple series of body movements that can get a person down a track, beyond a series of barriers.

How wonderful that in a video game, that most anti-athletic of pursuits, we find this celebration of pure sporting contest. Learn the actions. Practice the actions. Excel at the actions. Be better than anyone else at the actions.

As a single-player video game, London 2012 is perhaps an all too effective simulation of Olympic athletic purity. It may be true to the spirit of unmedicated, unsentimental sport-for-sport’s-sake — however unrealistic that may be — but it also presents a case for how boring being the essential actions of elite athleticism must be. There is, no doubt, a real world thrill to being able to reach to the ground, grab a barbell loaded with heavy plates and hoist it above one’s head. There is also no doubt that doing the same thing repeatedly for days and years of training renders that extraordinary series of movements as the routine. The video game version is similarly all routine. None of the 40-some activities in London 2012 is much fun to execute the first time, and all have lost any of their physically interesting qualities by the 10th. They are routines, better practiced with a mind focused on perfection than distracted by fun. The only joy to be found in the tapping of the A button during the 100-meter dash is the joy of tapping it with a good enough rhythm to win. Singleplayer London 2012 is training. Its 40-something tests of finger discipline, all mechanical metaphors for Olympic feats. It never once suggests that being an Olympic athlete is fun, which feels right.

Multiplayer London 2012 is the game’s stadium, its arena where we can test the repetitious actions we’ve mastered in single-player against the world’s best practitioners of the same. A couple of weeks since the release of the game, the problem is that the Xbox 360 version of this stadium is not well-stocked with athletes. There don’t seem to be many people competing in these Olympics. Try to randomly join a contest. Don’t want to do the discus that the five people you’re matched with are doing? Then back out. Try for a new match. Surprise! It’s those five people again. Perhaps the activity will pick up closer to the start of the London games later this year, but if not, an opportunity is lost.

It’s irresistibly exciting to volunteer to wear the Team USA uniform, hop into a virtual rowing contest against real people wearing the flags of England and Canada and Kenya and then to hear the in-game announcer shouting about the amazing performance by the surging Americans. It would be even more exciting if the game somehow forced players to only represent the country their Xbox, PlayStation or PC is in. But letting players fudge it works well enough. National pride appears to compel plenty of people to identify with their real home country. England currently stands atop the game’s online national pride leaderboard.

Divorced from the Olympics, London 2012 would seem like a mere mediocrity. It is not very fun and it is not improved on Xbox by its awkward, optional Kinect motion controls. The game’s human announcers have no real-life human drama to prattle about, so they’re left to spout generic lines of praise or despair. They’re cued clumsily. They will enthuse about a male gymnast’s superb vault just because he flipped well while ignoring that he landed with the grace of a stumbling toddler.

The Olympics, of course, are not really just about the purity of physical competition. They are a contest of nations and therefore a competition of societies’ techniques for nurturing elite athletes. They are complicated by efforts to illicitly enhance performance and by legitimate improvements in the technology of, among other things, shoes. It is arguably unrealistic for a game like London 2012, which is an official, antiseptic licensed product of the International Olympic Committee, to not include the moral grey of the Olympics amid its brightly coloured rings. But where there are games, there will always be competitors who will find shortcuts. When earlier Olympic games such as the old Track & Field required players to rapidly mash two adjacent buttons, players figured out that rubbing a fork or spoon back and forth, tightly across the buttons, rather than tapping each one with a finger, generated the most speed. Surely, the best London 2012 gamers will find some spoon tricks of their own and the game will seem more realistic because of it.

Some people will find London 2012 boring. That assessment will confirm one or two things. They either have no tolerance for the translation of the sports of legs and arms into contests of the fingers or they ultimately prefer an Olympics that is a tale of people rather than a performance of feats.

London 2012, however, looks good enough and runs well enough to effectively simulate the experience of doggedly practicing some basic task to become the world’s best at it. That is an Olympic ideal. Tossing a javelin in this game may not be as interesting as scoring a headshot in Halo or slingshotting an Angry Bird, but as a method for conveying what it might feel like to actually be in the Olympics, it seems superior to watching someone toss a javelin in real life. The human drama is stripped away, but in its place is a celebration of practice and perfection and of reaching a pinnacle of achievement.


  • So it’s an accurate representation of the menial, repetitive nature of one dimensional Olympic sports and therefore people should play it?

    I think you should consider the fact that all these sports actually suck and that NOBODY would do them in real life if it wasn’t for fame/money/recognition.
    Without those things I don’t see the point in mastering something that’s boring to begin with.

  • I was going to do a joke about how I hope they have a full length marathon in there, and how long that would take, but I looked up the record and the marathon winner took just over two hours. To run 42km. Sweet jesus.

  • 90% of this review could have been written with the following:
    Olympic games are controlled by pressing the same buttons over and over again with the variation of rhythm. This is no exception.

    • At least they learned from it, I guess? One would hope the games get better, rather than worse (surprised they still make this kind of game, actually.)

      Weird write-up. I’m not quite sure what to take away from it. That the thrill of competition makes up for what is a fundamentally uninteresting game concept?

    • That’s what I was thinking.

      So, I should be playing this game but not Dawnguard or Dragon’s Dogma? I guess this just has better gameplay.

  • My apologies, but no.
    I cannot accept this review. You really should have seen the absolute mess they made of the PC version; it bound the worst possible keys to the worst possible actions. I do not own a gamepad, and I’m not shelling out money for one just to play some boring, repetitive sports-themed game. I’ll just go back to playing the less-boring, pretty-much-just-as-repetitive games I usually play, like Kerbal Space Program. That’s just my opinion, though, so don’t get angry at me.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!