Bio not provided
Love the format! Reminds me of the old "apology" letters from old academia that build up and then knock down fabricated counter arguments.
I recently wrote an article about why I decided to go indie that hit a lot of the same notes (mixed up with a bunch of emotional gobbledy gook).
I bring it up because in that post I came to the conclusion that a lot of what we find as "wrong" with games these days is mostly quibbling about mainstream games satisfying a broad audience, and that identifying merely as a "gamer" has limited meaning now. Basically we have to be a lot more specific than "gamer" if we want to describe ourselves in shorthand these days. The fictional argument here kind of illustrates that point. There are indeed a lot of people tugging and pulling over what games "should" or "could" be, but they're talking mainly about the AAA game space, which is by definition the most mainstream and broadest market segment there is. This is the same creative space that Michael Bay operates in for movies, and I think it's safe to say that much of that content is intentionally adolescent (or adolescent friendly). It's no coincidence that nearly every big budget movie release targets a PG-13 rating. You don't have to be as young as 13 to appreciate James Bond (for example), but it doesn't hurt either.
I still agree with much of what's in this piece. Games are still evolving a more mature independent game scene, and a lot of the middle ground (your games with a mid range budget - so called "B" titles) was cleared away when game scope scaled way, way up. I think indie games will regain this no-man's land, bringing the necessary variety that other formats enjoy. It's a bright future, in my opinion, provided the earth's temperature doesn't increase until we all bubble like rendered fat on a pancake griddle.
Once again, loved this piece. Hope to read more like it.
6 months ago on Games for adults