Monday, March 30, 2009
What Do Indies Have to Rant About?
GDC has had game developer rants in the past. This year, they had an "indie game maker rant." This has been reported on in a couple of different places, including Destructoid, The Escapist, and TIGSource. Scorpia's provided her own secondhand commentary, though I suspect her condemnation is probably more due to the journalistic bias of the report she referenced than what actually transpired. Apparently, some journalists find a woman talking about how games should teach girls to masturbate FAR more interesting to report on than ... you know... real issues 'n stuff.
Since I wasn't there, I can't really comment on the rant, either, but I will ask: What do indies REALLY have to rant about?
I mean, okay, people love a good rant. Me too. I've gone off on similar subjects - like what really qualifies a game as "indie," or whether or not games are "art." I think there's a time and place. And I figure an hour at GDC is probably an appropriate time and place.
But if I might venture a personal opinion (what? Me? On my blog? Perish the thought!) - it is this:
An indie is a living embodiment of a rant against the status quo.
It's best to shout this out loud in your best rock-and-roll, screw-you voice.
Let's face it, the reason there are indie games at all - being made or played - is because players and game makers alike are not being adequately served by the industry. The "establishment" has failed us. As the establishment grows bigger and more dominant, its failure becomes more epic - and the more indies must appear in response. As Princess Leia said, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Although I think indies probably have more in common with Firefly's "Browncoats" than Star Wars' rebels. It's not a case of the indies trying to bring down the system, so much as the indies wanting the system to either cooperate or get the hell out of their way so they can do their own thing.
And that's what indies do. Or are supposed to do, anyway, in my idealized worldview. Instead of just whining and complaining about how things suck, they roll up their sleeves and get to work doing something about it. Their work is the greatest rant they could make.
And while money and fame doesn't usually follow such a path, there's no better way to give the finger to the industry that sucks than to bypass it, do your own thing, and then be very successful at it. And that's been happening. It has happened enough times by now that the industry - which once shunned and mocked indies and talked about how it would no longer be possible to "Blair Witch" the business in an era of big-money-dominated game making - is now embracing the indies and trying to make nice.
And that is why the whole idea of an "indie game maker rant" sounds a little superfluous to me. Again - I do it myself, and I don't begrudge the chance for the indies to express themselves in front of an audience that included industry-types and journalists. It's a good venue. But by my thinking - and even though it's still unclear to me exactly what transpired during his presentation - Petri Purho's capstone "rant" was the best of them all. While it sounds like it may have been staged, his "rant" was to make an indie game in the five minutes allotted. Whether he intended it this way or not, I think it provided an excellent commentary on the entire event.
Sure, there's plenty of room for indies to rant. Occasionally. But really - the verbal rants are just for show. Mostly, it's a bunch of hifalutin BS. Making and releasing a game is the best rant an indie gamer can make.
Labels: Indie Evangelism
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 5:59 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Well, you could say that the bunny-touch game demonstrates that it's tough to be indie on platforms other than the PC because a big controlling hand says what you can and can't distribute. More valid subject for indie ranting than a lot of it, no? :)
Sheesh, there you go, taking the air out of my rant again... ;)
Yeah, you can generalize it into a few interesting topics of debate. The console guys as gatekeepers opens up a big ol' can of words. Because it's not just a business model, it's a liability issue too.
Yeah, you can generalize it into a few interesting topics of debate. The console guys as gatekeepers opens up a big ol' can of words. Because it's not just a business model, it's a liability issue too.
I ended up posting over at Scorpia's, so I'll leave my thoughts on her concerns in that forum. :)
I made it to that rant, and my impression after sitting through it was that it was a pretty low-key thing, considering. I don't think people were taking themselves as seriously as the destructoid one makes it seem. I kinda figured, if this is the best we have to rant about, awesome.
I had a discussion on your post's topic later on - I pretty much said yeah, I don't think there is a lot to complain about. When you go indie, you're essentially saying f-off to the status quo, and you're pushing your own way forward. It's hard to have a legitimate beef when you're the captain of your own ship in this way - at least, for me right now, it is.
I made it to that rant, and my impression after sitting through it was that it was a pretty low-key thing, considering. I don't think people were taking themselves as seriously as the destructoid one makes it seem. I kinda figured, if this is the best we have to rant about, awesome.
I had a discussion on your post's topic later on - I pretty much said yeah, I don't think there is a lot to complain about. When you go indie, you're essentially saying f-off to the status quo, and you're pushing your own way forward. It's hard to have a legitimate beef when you're the captain of your own ship in this way - at least, for me right now, it is.
I can't really agree with your odd distillation of what 'indie' developers are... I'm absolutely sure I'm not alone in writing games because I enjoy it, not because the 'establishment' has failed me.
Also while I do not object to the idea that it has failed some people, to say that all indies feel that way is very presumptuous and ignores the myriad reasons someone could get into development that don't correspond to your statement.
You're a smart guy, and I love reading your blog; however, I don't like the idea that people who see this and don't know better will assume that you're right. I don't want to be painted as a rebel with a questionable cause solely because you feel the entirety of indie development shares your militant view of the rest of the industry.
Also while I do not object to the idea that it has failed some people, to say that all indies feel that way is very presumptuous and ignores the myriad reasons someone could get into development that don't correspond to your statement.
You're a smart guy, and I love reading your blog; however, I don't like the idea that people who see this and don't know better will assume that you're right. I don't want to be painted as a rebel with a questionable cause solely because you feel the entirety of indie development shares your militant view of the rest of the industry.
@MacGuffin - I'm glad it was that low-key, and that it was just the Destructoid report that made it sound... weirder... than it really was.
And sure - things are not easy when you are an indie. I'd love for the world to change and make my life easier. I'd love for piracy to go away. I'd love for the press to reform itself. I'd love for the consoles manufactures to make things easier and more profitable for small shops to release games for their platforms. I'd love for a better way to reach customers.
But I think the "Captain of the Ship" analogy fits really well. You can rant at the weather, and it feels good sometimes. But ultimately, that's out of your control, so you've got to use what is in your control to roll with it.
@KP - If you write games strictly for your own enjoyment, with no intention of distributing them, then I'd agree with your assertion. And the awesome thing about indies, as you point out, is that they are so incredibly varied that it's impossible to make any kind of generalization that sticks 100%.
I think that's awesome. Even though it means I'm wrong 100% of the time. :)
But while I agree that there are exceptions, I'd have to ask you: How does the mainstream games industry help you get your games to the players? Why can't your players pick up your games at Best Buy or Wal*Mart? Why don't you have a publishing deal right now that allows you to make games full time? Why are these indie developers (probably) better off selling games via their own and affiliate sites and doing their own marketing than getting EA or Ubisoft to sell their games for them?
It's because that industry - which was once all but the final word in connecting game makers to game players - is failing to meet all of our needs / wants. Sure - maybe those needs and wants may be unreasonable. And nobody can be all things to all people. But bottom line - it does not work for us.
Maybe saying, "It's failed us" sounds too strong, and I should soft-shoe by simply saying, "It is inadequate and fails to meet all the needs of the people it is supposed to serve." Fine.
We can say it's unfair to say, "This equipment fails" when it comes with a warning label that reads, "This product is sold As Is and may not be suitable for all purposes." Sure. But I mince words too much as it is.
An indie game maker doesn't sit around waiting for the great middleman of the mainstream games industry to cater to his needs and the needs of his or her audience. It doesn't work for them for whatever reason. So the indie bypasses (or at least is willing to bypass) all that, and forges their own path as best as possible.
But it's not really about spiting The Man. Well, it usually isn't (I hedge to accommodate that fringe percentage... ). I know for me, it's not. It's about doing your own thing. The Man - the establishment - doesn't even matter.
And sure - things are not easy when you are an indie. I'd love for the world to change and make my life easier. I'd love for piracy to go away. I'd love for the press to reform itself. I'd love for the consoles manufactures to make things easier and more profitable for small shops to release games for their platforms. I'd love for a better way to reach customers.
But I think the "Captain of the Ship" analogy fits really well. You can rant at the weather, and it feels good sometimes. But ultimately, that's out of your control, so you've got to use what is in your control to roll with it.
@KP - If you write games strictly for your own enjoyment, with no intention of distributing them, then I'd agree with your assertion. And the awesome thing about indies, as you point out, is that they are so incredibly varied that it's impossible to make any kind of generalization that sticks 100%.
I think that's awesome. Even though it means I'm wrong 100% of the time. :)
But while I agree that there are exceptions, I'd have to ask you: How does the mainstream games industry help you get your games to the players? Why can't your players pick up your games at Best Buy or Wal*Mart? Why don't you have a publishing deal right now that allows you to make games full time? Why are these indie developers (probably) better off selling games via their own and affiliate sites and doing their own marketing than getting EA or Ubisoft to sell their games for them?
It's because that industry - which was once all but the final word in connecting game makers to game players - is failing to meet all of our needs / wants. Sure - maybe those needs and wants may be unreasonable. And nobody can be all things to all people. But bottom line - it does not work for us.
Maybe saying, "It's failed us" sounds too strong, and I should soft-shoe by simply saying, "It is inadequate and fails to meet all the needs of the people it is supposed to serve." Fine.
We can say it's unfair to say, "This equipment fails" when it comes with a warning label that reads, "This product is sold As Is and may not be suitable for all purposes." Sure. But I mince words too much as it is.
An indie game maker doesn't sit around waiting for the great middleman of the mainstream games industry to cater to his needs and the needs of his or her audience. It doesn't work for them for whatever reason. So the indie bypasses (or at least is willing to bypass) all that, and forges their own path as best as possible.
But it's not really about spiting The Man. Well, it usually isn't (I hedge to accommodate that fringe percentage... ). I know for me, it's not. It's about doing your own thing. The Man - the establishment - doesn't even matter.
With all the fuzzy definitions of independent games floating around, I am pleased to see your unique statement, “an indie is a living embodiment of a rant against the status quo.” It captures an important part of the indie dev’s psyche. However, I would like to examine this statement and follow its many paths and implications. I will accept for the moment that an indie is a rant against the current system; a sort of punk rock artist of the video game world. They rebel, as you say, because “players and game makers alike are not being adequately served by the industry.” In this way, indies are inherently commercial failures, because whatever they make is unappreciated by the larger gaming community. However, some games do bypass the system and achieve success, effectively “giving the finger” to the industry. But what happens now, as companies begin to sense opportunity in these independent developers? Are the students behind Narbacular Drop sellouts because they sold their idea to Valve and created Portal, one of the most popular games of 2008? I do not really think they bypassed the system, but rather joined it, albeit making a profound impact. Are World of Goo and Braid, winners of IGF awards one and two years ago respectively, now mainstream, as they were both nominated for Game Developer’s Choice awards this year? Just as Fox Searchlight now produces movies like Juno and Little Miss Sunshine, two films that replicate an indie-like feel, so too will major game studios emulate the style of independent developers. The trend has already begun, with games like Henry Hatsworth, a title fully backed and conceived by Electronic Arts, with a quirky sense of humor and a unique gameplay mechanic. After all, indies used to be synonymous with casual games, until the industry realized that they could be monetized, and now Pogo.com, another EA entity, is the biggest player in the casual market. Because indie developers are successfully changing the “establishment,” independent games as we know them will eventually be folded into the mainstream, and the game makers will either have to find something new to rant about, or risk becoming obsolete.
"Inherently Commercial Failures" assumes that success or failure is dictated by the standards of "The Establishment." True, indies often thrive in niches left fallow by the mainstream publishers, because those genres / game types don't offer an attractive return on the kind of investment that could be achieved making the next shoot-em-up.
But you are right - what's currently indie may end up being folded into mainstream. Hey, look at the history of rock music. :)
But I'm not a "rebel without a cause" kinda purist who thinks we need to be indie for indie's sake. I LOVE that indies can - and do - move the mainstream industry. I mean, I'm as much a "sellout" as anybody else --- I've been in the belly of the beast myself, even recently.
For me, it's about the GAMES, not who is producing them. You'll note I've abused quite a number of electrons in my meaningless posts devoted to mainstream games - especially some of the weird and quirky RPGs that catch my attention (like the Persona series).
The point for me - the ENTIRE point - is this: The whole mainstream games industry - that we as customers tend to view as the be-all, end-all source of games - is and should be commoditized. It should be simply one (significant) vehicle for getting games from creators to their audience. But it should not be king.
The rise of the indie movement (and the formerly-indie category of casual gaming) has helped do just that.
Post a Comment
But you are right - what's currently indie may end up being folded into mainstream. Hey, look at the history of rock music. :)
But I'm not a "rebel without a cause" kinda purist who thinks we need to be indie for indie's sake. I LOVE that indies can - and do - move the mainstream industry. I mean, I'm as much a "sellout" as anybody else --- I've been in the belly of the beast myself, even recently.
For me, it's about the GAMES, not who is producing them. You'll note I've abused quite a number of electrons in my meaningless posts devoted to mainstream games - especially some of the weird and quirky RPGs that catch my attention (like the Persona series).
The point for me - the ENTIRE point - is this: The whole mainstream games industry - that we as customers tend to view as the be-all, end-all source of games - is and should be commoditized. It should be simply one (significant) vehicle for getting games from creators to their audience. But it should not be king.
The rise of the indie movement (and the formerly-indie category of casual gaming) has helped do just that.
Links to this post:
<< Home
