I mean, I largely agree with both of these guys, even if they're being assholes about it. Like this:
So far most of what these wanna be arty games have been doing is draping themselves in the 'moody, heavy foggy atmospheric fx, sounds of wind and echoey laughing children in the distance' window dressing used by other mediums that HAVE made people feel and think (paintings, movies, novels). And once the games kind of look like these other mediums, the game makers shout really loud, "Look! We're art and important too cause we look/sound/feel just like all that other stuff". And lots of gamers and lots of journalist buy it hook, line, and sinker.
describes how I feel about Tale of Tales pretty well.
I don't want to make art games because I didn't fall in love with the medium playing art games. I want to play games with challenge and room for creativity and FUN, like the games I grew up with. Most people who play games do, that's why they play games.
It's totally justified to demand that of any product claiming to be a game as art. Games should be games, and not in a "it technically is a game because you control how fast your character moves through the cutscene" way, but in a "Hey, that looks fun, can I play?" way. And someone can march in here squawking about how some people
want to play an extended interactive cutscene, but I don't care. Art games are niche, and I think niche games are a waste of time.
It kind of sucks that Sterling used the term "indie game" to mean "art game", though.
Player
