IGF confirms conservative climate in games industry

[Michaël Samyn]

Two games. Both nominated for the "Sundance Festival of videogames". Guess which one won?




Tip1: it's not the one with the sophisticated imagery, the gripping voice acting, the innovative interaction, the mesmerizing story and brooding mood.
Tip2: It's the one with the pixels.

Now, I'm sure Monaco is a fine game. But if the IGF isn't going to look further than that, who is?

In a better world, Trauma would have won the award.

I guess this means, we have a lot of work left to do here...

[Derrick]

Is it safe to say that certain indie design elements are becoming "trendy"?

[Jeroen D. Stout]

Seeing some recent footage of new smaller games I do see a rather large effort in making more minimalist games. Perhaps it feeds in the nostalgia people have? Old games = pixels = not modern + corporate. Like some modern art cinema goes for cellphone look because it seems innocent.

[Jeroen D. Stout]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99115-GDC-2010-Game-Design-Challenge-Real-Life-Perma-death

This article about the GDC also shows people would rather have a fun Facebook game about real death than (Kim Swift's) karma game (which also seemed a bit much ludic to begin with, health bars and such).

When I imagine presenting a game concept to the public there that would be my fear - that they would pick something silly anyway.

[zerojuan]

The pixel trend is a reaction against the "polygon arms race" mainstream games seem to be doing since the 90s. For years game developers have focused on making things more realistic that they ended up sacrificing gameplay -- more efforts where put into making 3d boobs jiggle with real physics than create balanced gameplay and multi-branching storylines. There has been so much creative potential on advanced graphics but most of it were wasted on teenage power fantasies. Taking out the visuals opens up the inner game structure for scrutiny. If we strip all the visuals in most of today's games we can easily see that games didn't really progress much these past decades. I still see Wolfenstein, Mario, Final Fantasy, heck even Custer's Revenge.


While I agree that visuals can do wonders to a game (see Braid's WIP versions), picking a different art style for Monaco would have overshadowed gameplay, its greatest asset. Use realistic graphics for the masses and make my game suffer, or use pixel art turn off publishers but make a great game. That for me is the indie spirit.


But of course, indies shouldn't use pixel art as an excuse. Just as artists shouldn't do abstract art because they can't draw.

[Michaël Samyn]

I actually think Monaco looks quite pretty. But that's not the point. The point is exactly that this 3D technology has only been used so far, as Zerojuan puts it, for "making 3d boobs jiggle with real physics". I think this technology deserves a lot more. And I hope independent developers will explore its potential.

I also don't think it's fair to say that the commercial industry has not evolved gameplay and indie developers have. I cannot see a big difference between the two in terms of gameplay. If anything, most indie developers seem to desire to go back to early arcade gaming when games were still "pure", while commercial games sometimes try to open up the medium to a wider audience.

I have no problem with catering to an audience that wants a retro game experience. But I'm missing a true independent scene here: developers who really explore with the medium. Maybe Notgames can do part of this work.

And I think Trauma does this. And that is why I would have liked to see it win the IGF.

[Thomas]

I cannot see a big difference between the two in terms of gameplay. If anything, most indie developers seem to desire to go back to early arcade gaming when games were still "pure", while commercial games sometimes try to open up the medium to a wider audience.

I think this is very true and the more experimental indie games are often based upon some classical gameplay like platformer and shoot em up (not just control-wise but core gameplay).

As for the 3d technology not being used, I think the problem is skill and knowledge. Now that many 3d engines are becoming free and with better tools this will hopefully change in the future. Right now it seems like most indie games are made in GameMaker or similar. While I think a lot of interesting games that can be (and are!) made in GM and similar, they are not going to explore 3D to any greater extent. It is also worth mentoning that pixel art (as seen in monaco) are much more simply to do than 3D and time-constraints are a very imporant factor. The dev that did Monaco has made 3d games (that where kinda close to not-game standards!), so I think it is not a skill problem for him at least.

I read his blog about the game and how he found it much easier to make Monaco and made it very fast (compared to time he spend on other games). Perhaps this prize will discourage him from making more experimental games?

[Michaël Samyn]

The dev that did Monaco has made 3d games (that where kinda close to not-game standards!)

Indeed. I really enjoyed Venture Arctic. But sadly his older games never got the recognition they deserved from the IGF (he did enter them every time!). I guess his current success with an easy-to-make game will teach him that 3D or original gameplay is not worth the effort. 

Hence my disappointment with IGF: they are discouraging innovation rather than encouraging and promoting it. There were really several great entries this year. A few of them even got nominated. But only two "easy" entries from my personal selection -Limbo and Heroes Of Newerth- got an award.

[zerojuan]

3d graphics require a lot of work. give us young kids some time and we'll catch up.

[Michaël Samyn]

Be creative and find ways of making it less work!

[God at play]

I think the IGF Nuovo award accomplishes exactly the task you seem to be desiring.

And I thought it was really fitting that the game that won Nuovo had the most banal and boring gameplay elements of any game entered.  The reason it won is because of everything else about the game - the "notgame" elements, as it were.  That's a pretty big win for "the medium" in my book.

I can see your frustration about Monaco winning, but I still think it has something really interesting to offer.  It's true that it focuses on a more pure, arcade-y experience.  I think in a way that's more valuable on its own than later Metal Gear Solid videogames, which have a very uncomfortable mix of elements.  MGS as a film, notgame, and arcade game would be pretty awesome, but they seem to be trying to pack it all together into one thing.  Not my cup of tea I guess.

[Thomas]

And I thought it was really fitting that the game that won Nuovo had the most banal and boring gameplay elements of any game entered.

What extra elements make it so interesting? I thought it was "just" a kind of platformer that used strange visuals to disorient the player?

[Michaël Samyn]

The Nuovo jury consisted mostly of hardcore "ludologists" (people who believe that the game mechanic should be the expressive part of a game and everything else is just eye candy). So I think they very much selected the finalists for their mechanics, actually.

[God at play]

I think that's true in terms of the Design and Seamus McNally categories, but Tuning winning Nuovo shows that this isn't true for the Nuovo category.

Tuning is essentially a boring platformer made exciting through its presentation and atmosphere.  Based on its mechanics alone, it was the worst Nuovo entry - in the developer's own words:

...the actual gameplay is basic to the extreme in contrast with the graphics.

So the reason it won is because the game had interesting elements that were not related to its mechanics.  When you actually play the game, it becomes pretty obvious that it's just a simple platformer.  It's crudely simple, actually.  You are a ball that needs to get to a switch with an arrow over it, and most levels consist of 10 jumps or less.  Presented normally, you could probably finish each level in 10-30 seconds.

But the actual experience of playing the game is completely different than a crudely simple platformer.  Some levels are mind-blowing when you actually play them; the game is simply about disorienting the player with visuals, but the way it does that is really stimulating.  I was excited playing it at the IGF Pavilion because of how different it felt to play the game compared to just seeing a video of it.  Not capturing the essence of its experience through other media was a clear sign to me that the experience had a purity to it.

I think the game with the most boring game mechanics winning Nuovo is a good sign.  That means the parts of the game the judges find interesting is not related to its game mechanics.  And that's exactly what the notgames project is trying to explore.

[Thomas]

God at play:
Thanks for the description! Will need to try it out when released!