next »

[FatHat]

As I've grown older, I've noticed that I've become more and more disillusioned with games. At first, I thought it was just me -- that I had grown too "mature" to be entertained by games. It wasn't something I was happy with, I wanted to love games again, but I just couldn't bring myself to feel it.

At around that point I had gotten a (totally undeserved) fully-paid-for press invitation to the GDC, which I took full advantage of.

While I was there, I discovered indie games. It's not that I hadn't know about them before, but I had basically written them off as, well, crap. But seeing all the indie games made me genuinely excited -- not just as a developer, but as a player. I wanted to play those games, which is something I hadn't felt in a long time.

What I realized is I wasn't disillusioned with games. I still loves games. I was just disillusioned with where mainstream games were going.

What bothered me is I couldn't figure out why indie games were so fascinating to me, but AAA games were so uninspiring. Part of it was perhaps uniqueness -- a lot of indie games had some really weird aspect to them that drew my attention -- even if it was just a silly gimmick. But it wasn't just that. As maligned as they are here, I don't think AAA games are as devoid of innovation as some people make them out to be. A lot of things that come out of mainstream studios are pretty interesting and unique.

So what was it about indie games that caught my attention so much more effectively than mainstream games?

I think I realized it today. I think the problem is that reality is boring as fuck.

Mainstream gaming, with each year, seems to be moving closer and closer to reality simulators. Yeah they usually take place in alternate realities (that are so cookie cutter that nobody in their right might really cares about the universe), but the important thing is that their reality looks and acts a lot like our reality with minor exceptions. Things behave pretty much like you'd expect them to.

The problem is, reality isn't that interesting.

Jonathon Blow has a very interesting idea, which is this: whether intentional or not, every game has a meaning of life embedded in it.

Trying to decipher the meaning of life in Mario is sort of fun. The universe of Mario is silly, but it's also very interesting precisely because it's not like this one. Same for the universe of Cave Story. We can relate to those realities, but they're also fun to explore, because they have such unexpected elements.

The universe of GTA 4 isn't as interesting (to me), because it's too similar to the reality I live in. There are no pipes and magic mushrooms. It's just cars and buildings. I see those every day. There's a meaning of life to GTA 4, but its not one I care much about.

I suspect that why I like indie games isn't because they're better designed or more courageous. I think it's because technology has held them back, and so they can't be reality simulators. So instead they have to live in worlds that are a lot less "real", but also much more interesting because they have shunned reality (by necessity).

[CosmicMaher]

I agree on quite a few things there. I too am a bit disillusioned with mainstream games. But as you said, not necessarily because they are bad games, they're just such boring ideas a lot of the time. Brutal Legend mildly excited me, but not much, I'm not into dude metal. The last game I played that had a lot of money behind it and enjoyed is Shattered Horizons, mainly because playing an astronaut in outer space might as well be an experience in another dimension of reality for most people, myself included.

[Seth]

Reality isn't boring.

[Jolli]

reality is only boring if ur life is boring!
bam!

sorry. its the truth

[Seth]

Plenty of mainstream games don't go for realism, either.

[Lord Tim]

New indie game theme:
Making games with "meanings of life" that are entirely false. Subvert reality!


Seriously though, awesome story. It is all true.

[CosmicMaher]

reality is only boring if ur life is boring!
bam!

sorry. its the truth

Can also agree with that. Make stuff more interesting. Go release a herd of balloons or something.

[Zaphos]

The universe of GTA 4 isn't as interesting (to me), because it's too similar to the reality I live in.

Your life is hardcore.

Seriously, ease up on the senseless killing though.

[Seth]

Life, friends, is boring. We must not say so.   
After all, the sky flashes, the great sea yearns,   
we ourselves flash and yearn,
and moreover my mother told me as a boy   
(repeatingly) ‘Ever to confess you’re bored   
means you have no

Inner Resources.’ I conclude now I have no   
inner resources, because I am heavy bored.
Peoples bore me,
literature bores me, especially great literature,   
Henry bores me, with his plights & gripes   
as bad as achilles,

who loves people and valiant art, which bores me.   
And the tranquil hills, & gin, look like a drag   
and somehow a dog
has taken itself & its tail considerably away
into mountains or sea or sky, leaving           
behind: me, wag.

[FatHat]

Ok just to make something clear, since some people seem to have got stuck on my exaggerated headline, I don't actually think reality is boring. The universe is a fascinating place. I just think simulating reality in games is boring, because the best we can do is a cheap knock off. I'd rather focus on doing the things that games can do better than reality.

[FatHat]

Plenty of mainstream games don't go for realism, either.

Well those tend to be the mainstream games I like. 

[FatHat]

New indie game theme:
Making games with "meanings of life" that are entirely false. Subvert reality!

I think that would make for a lot of really interesting games   

[FatHat]

The universe of GTA 4 isn't as interesting (to me), because it's too similar to the reality I live in.

Your life is hardcore.

Seriously, ease up on the senseless killing though.

well sometimes bitches need stitches, my brother from another mother. 

[dspencer]

I think its not so much that they try to be realistic, but that they try to be realistic in the same ways, over and over.

[s0]

I suspect that why I like indie games isn't because they're better designed or more courageous. I think it's because technology has held them back, and so they can't be reality simulators. So instead they have to live in worlds that are a lot less "real", but also much more interesting because they have shunned reality (by necessity).

Interestingly enough, that's also one of my main reasons for turning to indie games. And a lot like you, I also felt there was something "missing" from AAA titles but couldn't quite put my finger on it. It seems that in their pursuit for realism (more like hyperrealism), mainstream games (particularly action games) have lost a lot of "character".

Back when I was a kid playing my N64 (my first encounter with 3D graphics) I remember envisioning the "future" of video games, how realistic everything would look and how awesome that would be. Now that this fantasy has become reality, I came to the realization that it's in fact all, as you said, pretty boring.

[Corpus]

We need a new realism. We need the Hemingway of viderno games.

I agree that people need to explore different approaches to reality far more than they currently do, whether that will lead them down the path of realism, surrealism or something else entirely.

[hatu]

Interesting. I think I totally disagree with reality being boring. Think about some great movies or books. Only a handful aren't "realistic".
If you want to see adventures in fantastical places, you have to read childrens books or watch cartoons.

[s0]

If you want to see adventures in fantastical places, you have to read childrens books or watch cartoons.

[hatu]

If you want to see adventures in fantastical places, you have to read childrens books or watch cartoons.

I didn't mean it as a snide remark, just that if you look at old school game characters and settings, that's where you find similiar stuff.

[SirNiko]

Modern games suck because they cost you $60 for a title that looks awesome, was six years in the making, and offers only slightly more replay value than when you bought Super Mario 3 20 years ago.

Whereas 10 years ago I would voraciously buy all the mainstream AAA titles right on launch day, now I find myself trolling Gamestop's used game section for titles that have dipped below $20. I love Wario games, and I want the new Wario on the Wii, but I just can't justify that it's worth more than $20 to me.

I think the next big trend will be a shift towards playing lots of the download-only games that typically cost $10-15 bucks. Bionic Commando Rearmed on PS3 network earned my respect as the Best Value I've spent on a game in pretty much the last 5 years.

Devs, less graphix, more levels, please.

-SirNiko