For the past year or two I keep wanting to post my take on "cozy games" but then I stop myself because I'm trying to be a good boy and not generate discourse.
But I figured I'd just get my thoughts out into a blog post just to have something to put out there, and maybe if I change my mind someday I can look back on this post and see where I agree or disagree.
I'm inspired to write this after reading this thoughtful piece by @MOKKA, although it's less of a response to that post specifically and more of a response to a variety of different posts I've seen over the past 2 years on the topic. Go follow @MOKKA because they're a great writer and artist, and they make cool games!
When I read people's thoughts on "cozy games" there are two thoughts that I kind of hold equally in my mind.
Thought 1: "Cozy Games" seem to keep, understandably, annoying people
There's been a lot of ink spilled from various writers about the politics of "cozy games." The fact that we're now calling them "cozy games" is proof in itself that the terminology has changed due to pushback. The Wholesome Games twitter account was one of the first brands/communities to put a label on this nebulous concept, and they called them "wholesome." Then, there was a lot of justified criticism about the term "wholesome." Now, although that particular brand hasn't changed the name of their LLC or whatever [which is understandable], I've seen most people shift over to calling them "cozy" so that there's less of a moral judgment in the name.
(From what I understand, in Japanese these are called something akin to "healing games.")
So things kind of got off on the wrong foot from the very start, at least in the English-speaking world, because of one Twitter user's poor choice of branding. For what it's worth, I dislike the term "wholesome games" for the same reasons everyone else seems to. It focuses on a moral judgment rather than the feelings the work is trying to evoke.
There's another point of irritation, which is the arguments "for" making cozy games. For example, there is this academic-style report that Eric responded to in their piece linked above that goes to great lengths to propose what "cozy" is and why developers should make cozy games. Personally, I think this report is kind of buckwild. The first half is kind of interesting, especially in its attempts to try to define the nebulous term. The second half, and specifically the conclusion, puts its foot in its mouth by making bold claims of cozy games being "anticapitalist" and some sort of moral good.
I think that concluding argument is very silly. Personally, I would not have put my name on a report like this.
But also, in fairness, this report was written in 2017. I have no way of knowing if the writers who worked on this feel the same way as they did six years ago. I feel like we've all done a lot of growing and changing in the past six years. The world has changed, and specifically the gaming landscape has changed in the avalanche of the "cozy game" market.
I also think the pro-cozy-game arguments can be irritating to people because they're already self-justified in a business sense. Stardew Valley and Animal Crossing New Horizons are two of the most successful games of the past decade by sales numbers and everyone knows that. It has had a very obvious cause-and-effect, where publishers and developers are making "cozy games" because there is an audience for them.
Are they doing it out of greed? Are they doing it out of sound business-sense? Are they doing it out of genuine interest for making these games?
I'd assume probably the latter, but maybe it's a mix of all three.
I think the biggest source of justified skepticism about cozy games is because they seem to represent, or use signifiers of, things that bother people in real life. Signifiers of "middle class" and "upper class" living. A reliance on what those concepts mean in the white/western world. An emphasis on gaining capital. An emphasis on owning property. An emphasis on maintaining control over that capital and property. An embrace of aesthetics and vibes that some people might consider "twee" or "cringe" or "childish", such as cute animals, coffee, stickers, scarves, blankets, and autumn leaves.
People have very strong feelings about these things in real life, and for good reason. In real life, there have been a lot of really alienating and damaging policies carried out in the name of protecting capital, property, comfort, and coziness. It has hurt a lot of people. I think most of us, at least if you're reading this, are trying to undo these barriers in real life.
Lastly, I understand how seeing tiktokers and youtubers who love this game genre sort of "acting out" the fantasy via blankets, coffee, quilts, playing in bed, playing by the fireplace, etc. can be very annoying or distasteful for certain people. Especially if it seems like a means to gain more followers and clout.
All of that said, the other thought I hold in my mind is...
Thought 2: I don't see how this is different from any other mainstream game genre
I honestly don't.
This doesn't feel significantly different to me than sci-fi shooters, fantasy hack-and-slashers, lavish sports/racing games, etc.
A lot of games that have big mainstream appeal are escapist "numbers-go-up" power fantasies that reveal some of our most embarrassing and problematic tendencies.
Diablo, Doom, Grand Theft Auto, Pokemon, basically all MMOs, Madden NFL, Spider-Man. I feel like they all operate on "turn your brain off" appeal that uses particular aesthetics and vibes to give you a power fantasy. They reflect selfish desires and reward certain behaviors. They valorize power and dominance over the game world. They idealize particular types of people. They alienate and exclude huge swathes of people.
In many "cozy games", the power fantasy involves being able to dress-up your avatar, decorate your home, cultivate a garden, be self-employed, etc.
It's a power fantasy because doing those things in real life can be tiring, difficult, and expensive. So it's fun to do them in a fictional space.
I don't really see how anyone's interest in playing in these spaces and engaging in these power fantasies is any different from doing the same thing in a game like GTA or Diablo. Yes, all art is political. And all games are worth criticizing. But people can also enjoy things for their own fictional game-iness without wanting to enact those forces in real life. If anything I feel like that is the default relationship between a player and a game they like. We all understand this when we play a first-person shooter.
Enjoying Animal Crossing isn't a reflection of anyone's real-world opinions on zoning or market. Enjoying Fashion Dreamer isn't a reflection of anyone's real-world opinions on the fashion industry, etc.
Much in the same way that you can enjoy violent video games but not support violence in real life.
Even the over-the-top way that "cozy influencers" dress up and act out the vibe of the genre I think is not much different from how people embrace the vibes of other genres. People dress up silly and say cringe stuff a lot, as a way of putting on a persona and playing in the genre space. People cosplay in tactical gear and wear horned helmets and faux-fur. And when that type of persona intersects with social media I think it always gets a little dicey, whether it's suburban coziness or fantasy adventure, because the chase for "more followers" is off-putting to watch.
People flock to cozy games because they're games that appeal to them. And developers flock to them because there's evidently an audience for it.
Most people I know who enjoy cozy games (both IRL and online) are happy to have them because they like them and want more games like that. They are often women or gender-nonconforming, and sometimes have no interest in games that focus entirely on combat.
While the recent avalanche of "cozy games" that have flooded the market between 2016 and now probably seems overwhelming and eyeroll-worthy if you're knee-deep in the games industry, to the average person they are still greatly outnumbered by the action-oriented and combat-oriented games that make up a majority of big releases.
I do think a lot of these games are flawed. Sometimes they feel flawed in their game design, or sometimes they feel flawed in their politics. What exactly is their narrative or aesthetic "saying" about the world? These are things worth criticizing.
Again, I sadly feel like most games with mainstream appeal suffer from these design and political flaws. And it's important for us to always be talking about them, especially as developers.
But...I am always rooting for developers to explore this space more. I think the games are fun to play, I like to see new waves of people enjoying games, and I like seeing developers try out new ideas. I think it can be a win-win-win.
I hope that with more exploration and experimentation, this "genre" (although it's really more of a "vibe", right?) can find all the different interesting ideas and executions that we've allowed shooters and hack-and-slashers to find over the decades. I would love for them to evolve past what they are right now, becoming more thoughtful and inclusive, and I think with enough time and consideration they'll get there.
