Indie as Opting-Out (IGES Part 6)

I've postponed this post for a while.

Initially the scope of the article was going to remain within the ideas of gaming, but as I began scouring my thoughts, I realized that the conclusions I was coming to about Indie Gaming are parallel to many other "Indie" sources.

Let's take for example the Paleolithic diet I follow. The diet attempts to mimic the diet of our Paleolithic ancestors under the assumption we have not evolved much since their time. It excludes processed food, grains, legumes, dairy, and some other things. You essentially eat a shitload of meat and vegetables splashed with fruits and nuts occasionally.

Most of the ideology behind the Paleolithic Diet is against what we've been told makes us healthy. It goes against "Conventional Wisdom" (such as whole grains being healthy and chronic running as being a useful exercise -- it's actually the opposite).

What is conventional wisdom but the cultural beliefs and ideas that have been thrust down our throats since elementary school. In the face of scientific studies and data, the Paleolithic diet, although against what "they" tell us, is more logical and legitimate. One could argue that the primary people in power perpetuate conventional wisdom, or lies, for the sake of profit (I believe they do), but that's beyond the realm of my undertaking here.***

This leads me to my main point...

Indie is Opting Out.

Indie is counterculture.

Paleolithic dieters are tired of the conventional diatribe that plagues our health systems -- So they opt out.

Men have come to realize the rules of feminism and society are broken and illogical -- So they opt out.

Indie musicians and film makers are tired of working for a check and stretch boundaries and ideas about the medium itself -- So they opt out.

Indie video game developers are tired of working under a system that stifles creativity in search of profit -- So they opt out.

My point is hopefully clear by now. Most, if not all, cases of an "indie movement" are essentially individuals opting out of the current system.

In regards to video games specifically, the only way to further the medium to a higher level of art is to allow innovations. It has been shown that man is innovative when he is not on a quest for money, but rather for the sake of being innovative. A simple reference back to my argument that true art and true business are mutually exclusive is in order. It is only possible for the advancement of the medium if developers are allowed to innovate for innovations sake.

The antagonist here, as always, is money. There is no money to be gained with one guy in his basement with an artistic idea. The scope of indie games will remain small until money is pumped into the system.

"But Zac, didn't you just say money and art are mutually exclusive?" Yes, I did. The quest to achieve or produce money and art are mutually exclusive. The writer Albert Camus had the following philosophy:

"Money doesn't buy happiness. Money buys time, which allows one to search for happiness."

In regards to this article, developers are searching for the "freedom to develop." They need money to buy time in order to complete their search for the "freedom to develop." Money is only necessary here because we make it necessary. Fucking stupid concept right?

The issue is money won't be delivered into the system until corporate executives decides indie games are profitable (which is sort of happening right now. They are in no way facilitating it, but rather allowing it to exist).

The issue I see is that indie games will always have a disagreement with industry executives because they are inherently NOT looking to gain profit.

Indie Gaming Goal -- Make games that express artistic intent regardless of money.

Industry Gaming Goal -- Make money regardless of artistic intent.

There's a catch 22 here. For indie games to make money, they need to be profitable. For them to be profitable they have to consider money in their project. Thus, the developer must sacrifice artistic integrity to produce a product that enough people will buy to be considered profitable.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Obviously, we as consumers could just stop accepting garbage AAA games and start demanding games of artistic value, but there's no way that will happen. The majority of the population doesn't even know what artistic value is.

Ultimately, I see indie games as something that will remain indie. There is enough of a following that they can, and will succeed, but not to the extent that the medium of gaming will be transformed.

There is an exhibit being installed in the Smithsonian American Art Museum dedicated to video games, but it is a shallow approach in my opinion. To say "Pong" is art is to stretch the boundaries of the definition to a point that I don't even want to consider.

But if that stretch is the necessary component to challenge the artistic merit of video games once and for all, well...

Let's just hope it doesn't snap back.

***check out the movie Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. Google it and you can watch it online. Couple hours of your time and you will never look at the world the same way again.

Art Games (IGES Part 5)

These "essays" are becoming less and less essay like as a result of me filtering my thought process. Less text + Same message = More successful blog post, in my opinion. Fuck fluff.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

If you're familiar with the indie scene, you've most likely heard of an "art game." Popular reference points for me, Braid and Limbo, are generally considered "art games."

That begs the question, "what is an art game?"

An art game is not Halo. An art game is not League of Legends. An art game is not World of Warcraft.

What separates Braid from these games?

--As a side note, I think it's disturbing that the term "art games" even exists. WoW and Braid are both games, but we only consider Braid an "art game." Justin Beiber and Incubus are both artists, but we call both "music" as opposed to "music" and "art music" respectively. We don't call Da Vinci "art art."
 

Art Art

It is the interpretive potential of a game that persuades us to call it an art game. By it's nature, World of Warcraft doesn't beg much interpretation. Kill monster -- receive reward -- repeat.

Art games do not treat players like mindless drones. They treat players like they are people capable of critical thinking.

Art games lie as far left on the "Art/Business" spectrum as possible and aren't in it for the cash flow.

Art games teach you something about the human condition. They aren't passive experiences, but rather they engage the player to take with them a message or a thought.

It is interesting to note that my regular definition for "art" is essentially "anything with human intention behind it." Video games are inherently intended to be something as they cannot just occur. Thus a distinction must be made between games and art games. Art games have artistic intention -- something that makes you think.

The idea that the visuals of a game allow you to apply the "art" prefix is nonsense. An art game is not pretty. Graphics are superficial (unless being used to express the authors intention). Yes, Braid is an art game, not because of it's beautiful visuals, but because of the backbone of the game.

SPOILER: You do know Braid's about an atomic bomb, right?

Art =/= Business (IGES Part 4)

At PAX East I was lucky enough to catch a speech by Scott Macmillian entitled "Death of an Indie Studio." This presentation was easily the most memorable one, spoken from the heart of an indie veteran recounting his experiences of a war-torn battle between his creative drive and the omnipotent pressure of finance.

During his slide-show, he made one very interesting point.

True Art is not Business.

This point, albeit not a very obvious one, is a powerful idea that I wholeheartedly agree with. In his presentation he had a line segment, with Art on one end of the spectrum, and Business at the other end.

Art--------------------------------------------------------------------Business

To have a piece of true art, of complete artistic expression, is to expel all notions of profit, of revenue, of financial restraints and limitations.

The example of "true art" that Scott used in his presentation is that of a man named Henry Darger. In short, during a posthumous inspection of his Chicago-based studio apartment, a myriad of artwork (including novels and crafted images) were discovered, something he never revealed to the outside world.

He did this for himself. He created true art.

He was a janitor.

This is relevant to the presentation because Scott had a vision of an indie game he wanted to do and he started an indie studio to do so. The start of a studio though, is turning the key in the ignition for business.

I do not want to rehash his speech on here, so I will  post a link to his slides once they are available.

To create art, is to lie as far left on the spectrum as possible, if not completely left. Only begin sacrificing Art for Business when it is completely necessary to continue the production of your art. Do not fall into a catch 22 of sacrificing Art for Business only to find yourself lying face first in a pile of bureaucratic waste.

Here's an activity: Take the time to produce a piece of music, a drawing, a rendering, or a short story that you are proud of. Put it away. Do not show this to anyone.

Ever.

Nostalgia is Blinding (IGES Part 3)

Was it just me, or was Diddy Kong Racing impossible?

Let's define nostalgia. Nostalgia, from Google definitions, is defined as "longing for something past." It is the feeling you get when you think about the first sweet moment you had with the opposite sex, or a time you and your buddies won a trophy for a competition. These moments of grandeur present us with memories of "good ole' times." Nostalgia, from my perspective, only applies to positive events.

The problem with nostalgia is that it skews our perceptions of past games. You will favor older games than newer ones primarily because they are older. You will enjoy songs from your childhood regardless of how crappy they were (Ricky Martin anyone...just kidding, he's amazing).

To find out how nostalgia skews our perception of games, one needs to look no further than the game awarded the largest amount of "best game" awards -- The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

Legend of Zelda: OoT was a fantastic game. It chronicled Links first polygonal adventure through the lands of Hyrule. It gave us Epona, Links fearless horse companion who had a fetish for carrots. It gave us Ganondorf, the human-esque form of Links arch rival. Ganondorf's malevolence is more palpable, even more fearsome than his beast-like true nature, something I attribute to his human form -- it is more realistic and relatable to us as players.

So yea, this game rocks.


What about Twilight Princess, Links exploits on the Wii. The game has a more mature story, darker tones and atmosphere, and deals with arguably more human issues. The game play is improved (let's assume Gamecube controller) and dungeons are difficult, but not frustrating (hello water temple).

I argue, from an objective standpoint, that Twilight Princess is just as good if not better than Ocarina of Time. So why does Ocarina of Time get all the love?

Nostalgia.

One could argue timing (as it was the first 3D Zelda), but I file that under Nostalgia regardless.

What if Twilight Princess was released as the first 3D Zelda title for the N64, with Ocarina of Time coming out on the Wii years later? In my opinion, our consent would be flipped. Twilight Princess would be topping lists.

I think a further reason we, gamers, vote up Ocarina of Time is because we've settled on it as a standard of gaming excellence. To differ from that statement is to deny being a gamer in some context (like social pressure), but that idea is for a different post.

Is it a bad thing that we view older games in a positive, nostalgic light? I don't think so. The point of this post is to become conscious that you, as a gamer, do this. You do it for the food you eat, the places you travel to, and the people you meet.

Nostalgia places a holy light on things past, and you must be sure not to let it blind you.

The Gamer Entitlement Issue (IGES Part 2)

Side-note: Last weekend, Jake and I attended the Penny Arcade Expo up in Boston.


While there, I attended many interesting panels and discussions on video games, yet one struck me as incredibly interesting -- the one titled "It's not the Length, it's the Mirth (Game Length Versus Value)." This was exactly what I had covered in the first part of the Indie Gaming Essay Series.


During this interview the panel discussed many things that I will bleed into my later essays. One thing they mentioned was an event called the "Size Doesn't Matter Day," a day where many indie bloggers took to their text editors to argue for or against whether the size of a game is valuable. Here is a link to Chris Hecker's (an indie influence of mine, who happened to be at the panel -- an unexpected but welcomed surprise!) blogpost on the subject: Size Doesn't Matter (Chris Hecker). There are links to other blog posts on the subject towards the bottom of Chris's post, and I implore you to indulge in them fervently.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's take a look at a recent incident within the League of Legends community...

Riot Games, the developers of LoL, provided absentee registered users to return to LoL with the gift a free character that the majority of people had to pay for (or get free with time). What happened?

A humongous backlash of fury from the community came forth. They accosted Riot, exclaiming how unjust it was that disloyal subjects of their kingdom were being rewarded while the loyal players who contributed to the game were being left in the digital dust.

The strongest amount of negative attention Braid received was about its length. Consumer's felt the price was unjust for the "short" length of the game.

One of the problems here is price standardization.

Take a look at other mediums to see how price standardization works.

1. Music CD's - $12-$16
2. Digital Music CD's - $10 on iTunes
3. Individual tracks - 99Cents - $1.29

When a consumer spends $10 on a CD, he/she has length expectations. These expectations are usually delivered upon by the producer (30 minutes to an hour of music) and no one comes out irritated. If a producer provided only fifteen minutes of music for $10 the consumer would question it, and be irritated. A certain + or - area is allowed, but when it goes obviously beyond the boundaries set by standardization, the consumer raises an eyebrow curiously and furiously.

How do these price-points come about? I'm not really sure (probably some sort of supply/demand situation), but I DO know that the industry is stalwart about they're price points. They do not bend them. The music industry sets the price points, and then the public gets familiar with the cost/content relationship.

"AAA" video game companies have used the $50 or $60 price point for consoles, and $30-$40 price points for mobile games.

The problem I see with video games is not centrally standardization, but cross-platform or continuous standardization. The fact that indie games on the PC, XBOX, and the iPhone all cost varied amounts of money is confusing to a consumer. The consumer doesn't really know what he's getting into and can become increasingly frustrated as he tries to create a pattern for himself.

Solution? The industry needs to set standards. XBOX Live is already on this track, with polished indie games recieving a 15 dollar tag, but that's about as good as it gets. The iPhone price market is all over the place and steam sales continually mess up a consumers thoughts on buying games and the inherent value of a game.

I think depreciating value of games over short periods of time lends to this confusion. If steam can cut the price of a game in half for a day, how do I interpret the value of the product?

This argument is a little loose, so here's some glue: gamers are confused. The prices of other mediums are pretty static and provide us with a mental foothold for the value of those mediums, and video games fall short here.

So back to entitlement. From what I see, gamers tend to under-value games. Unlike a physical thing you can hold or touch, video games lack the image of "work" behind them. Consumers don't grasp how long it took for your team to code one feature of your game, and they definitely don't understand how much time and effort it took to make the product. This then leads them to believe that they deserve more than what they are getting.

Remember the League of Legends thing I stated earlier? People were outraged by Riot's behavior. Are you aware that League of Legends is completely free to play? I have personally never spent a dollar on it and probably spent more time on it than any individual wants to admit.

My argument, then, is that gamers are confused about the value of games. Failure to have standardized pricing (which leads to understood value) and failure on the consumers part to understand how much work goes into video game production are the reasons that gamers feel so entitled to content.

Edit: I would like to add this to the argument...

The pirate culture skews digital value even further. I know a few people who never dare spend a dollar on a song, album, or film because they can just download them for free. When people start getting these things for free, they become desensitized to the value of digital products. To some of my friends, one dollar is too much (something I find completely ridiculous).

What about people who simply like the product, regardless of anything else? Take a look at how Radiohead sold their album "In Rainbows." You could download it for free (or maybe a penny) or pay as much as you wanted. Up to you as the consumer, to assign value to the product you were about to purchase. What was the result of this? They averaged slightly above average sales.

If a consumer likes your product, they'll buy it regardless. It's the iffy-ones that need to be convinced of value.

Criticism of Game Criticism (IGES Part 1)

Recently, I read an article titled The Rise of the Indie Developer. The article is a very interesting read about indie game development with quotes from popular indie artists akin Jonathon Blow. This article inspired the following post, as well as a few more all related to Gaming Culture and Indie Gaming, or what I call "Video Game Theory." Here is the first installment.

IGES = Indie Gaming Essay Series

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the midst of the aforementioned article, the author mentions a game called Flower developed by Thatgamingcompany. The game apparently did well on the PSN and got great reviews, yet I had never heard of it. I hop over to Wikipedia to check out what the game is about and I see this under reception:

Eurogamer's Tom Bramwell had similar praise, describing it as "pleasantly innocent and uplifting", though he awarded it a lower score than other reviewers as he felt the US$9.99 price was too high for the game's length.

I've heard this same negative criticism countless times -- that the price of the game is too high considering the length of the product. This resonates with some games that I love (I.E. Braid and Machinarium). The only criticism that Braid ever receives is that it is too short considering the $15.00 price point.

Braid - Too Short?

I think that time length is a completely irrelevant matter of criticism. Holding any kind of medium under the spotlight of length or replay-ability is a completely abhorrent measure of that mediums wholeness. Time criticisms, unless relevant to what the authors intention is, are missing the point.