Fatale

Michael: I don’t have anything against you, personally. Also, I’m not bringing any specific criticisms against Fatale up here, or even giving it specific mention, because that would be entirely unfair – I don’t actually own Fatale, so going after it specifically would make no sense. However, I do own The Path, and that gave me a rather strong sense for the kinds of games that you make. Seeing Seth’s comments on Fatale, combined with the screenshot at the top of the page, strengthened that perception of what you do with your game. And if you really want specific criticisms, well… I actually did give a few (not directly related to the games themselves, but more to the way they are sold), but if you want a solid run-down then I should probably be more thorough. Be ready, because I’m going to explain this from the start.

Basically, at some point (and a rather recent one, when media attacks on video games started exploding), a lot of gamers started craving acceptance for the medium. “This doesn’t happen with art, like paintings and books and film!” they said. “If only everyone could realize video games were art, then this would never happen!” Ignore the fact that popular mediums like film still deal with that, or that comic books got over the public stigma of “they cause violence” without ever being publicly accepted as an art form… but I digress. Gamers wanted to prove games are art.

So, how do they prove something like that? Simple: find games that are art. Problem being, of course, that the argument gamers are trying to put forth is that ALL games are art, so trying to find a few specific examples of “games as art” actually would push their idea of the medium back, limiting the games that qualify as art to a select few. Other problem being that gamers are not always entirely intelligent, and they sort of flailed around for a while claiming that anything unique in any sense is the best example of an video game that’s art. Good example:

“Okami, now there’s a game that’s art!”

“Why?”

“Graphics are cool.”

“And… the rest?”

“Oh, it’s a Zelda clone… but look at those graphics, it’s like a painting!”

“So basically, it’s art because it has graphics you like.”

“Yes.”

Now, here’s where things get fun, because at some point some developers (I think it started with freeware devs, really) saw a bunch of people saying “we need to find a game that’s art!” and they said “hey guys, we’re making games that are art!” Since gamers are so utterly starving to find art in their medium, they hear that and they see a product that’s different from the rest and they say “finally, no one can deny that this is art!” And since it’s now their de-facto definition of games as art, they are likely to both buy the game (if it’s for sale) and tell absolutely everyone they know about it every time the “games as art” discussion comes up. Free sales, free marketing.

This is, of course, where Tale of Tales comes in, because Tale of Tales does this. Do they do it intentionally? I don’t know. But whether or not they do, selling their games on the basis that they are art is selling them on the desperation and ignorance of gamers who are willing to grasp at anything even art-esque as validation for the medium, and that’s a big part of what I have a problem with. There are other developers who make artistic games and sell them without declaring them to be art. David Cage has never said that Heavy Rain is art, though it’s certainly pushing the boundaries of what a “game” is and delving into the realm of interactive fiction – there is no game over and you do not win, it is simply telling a story. Fumito Ueda never once claimed Shadow of the Colossus to be an artistic achievement, though it’s one of the most powerful examples of emotional manipulation in ANY medium and it provokes thought like few other games can. Tale of Tales could simply make surrealist and somewhat abstract games that are rife with metaphor and strong themes, and then sell them on the basis that that’s what they are… but what they seem to be marketing them with is the fact that they are art, and that’s the first problem I have with them.

The second’s where I can go into The Path more specifically: it was crap by every objective measure available. By “objective measures”, I mean technical ones. It ran poorly given what it was. It was glitchy and felt unfinished. There was an UNBELIEVABLE amount of load times. The controls, even given the excuse of “well, they were meant to add to the experience”, seemed to have the bare minimum amount of thought and effort put into them. Basically, it felt like something that had been roughly tossed together. This is a problem I’ve had with more than a few indie games, but The Path had these issues to an even greater extreme than I’m used to. If you’re making an artistic painting, you don’t accidentally rip a hole in the canvas and decide not to fix it. If you’re making an artistic film, you don’t forget the lens cap on and decide “screw it, it’s good enough”. If you’re making an artistic game, you still have an obligation to at least make sure it’s a sound piece of software that actually works.

And then comes number three: everything OTHER than the “artsy stuff”. The Path seemed to be focused more on metaphor, general symbolism, and the themes it was trying to put forward more than anything else, which is okay, but it didn’t feel like they bothered too much with anything else. The visuals were really bland and repetitive, and a ton of the variety that they did achieve just seems to have been filters. Other than that, it’s a really hideous low-resolution road that looks like it’s been vomited down a path, a lot of extremely bland terrain, and lots of really, really similar trees, with only the unique spots really offering anything else (and even those often failing to really offer much in the way of visual stimulation). And then the sound… well, I THINK I remember heavy breathing in the house, and aside from that I remember nothing, which is definitely not a good sign. I can appreciate that these aren’t the most important parts of the experience, but even then they shouldn’t be neglected. Seth mentioned The Void, I gave it a look, and it seems like the perfect example. It’s apparently focused pretty strongly around life and death and the narrative that it’s trying to put forward, but it still has a stunning presentation and style (both in terms of the visuals and the sound), to the point where even if you removed all the “artsy” stuff outside of that I’d still want to play the game just for the experience of the world they’ve created. Tale of Tales simply fails here. I would never play a game for the experience of a bland road, a repetitive forest, and a mediocre house.

And that brings me to the last thing, that being the parts that actually try to be art. Problem number one: they try to be. Really hard. And you can tell. A pretty large part of the enjoyment of a lot of art comes out of the illusion that the creator wasn’t trying – that he made something and then voila, art. But when I played The Path, I got the constant sense that the game was really trying hard to be art. Does that mean that it’s not art? Trying and succeeding is hardly rare. It does, however, make it feel extremely pretentious, which vastly lowered my ability to enjoy it. Eventually I pushed through that and dug into what it actually had to offer. Seemed like… an extended metaphor of life, of growing into adulthood, toss in some trauma and rape and sex and maybe a bit of death and blah blah blah. It felt like the game thought that the fact that it didn’t say things explicitly made it really deep and complex, but the fact is that it just felt really… shallow to me. Shallow, simple, and on every level (the artistic one especially, which is a surprise because the actual gameplay is utterly terrible and almost unbearable) extremely boring. It didn’t make me think. It didn’t make me feel. Even people who did feel things with it always seemed to feel discomfort if anything, and little else (I certainly felt discomfort, but mostly from the realization that I was still playing the game). It just… even as art, there just wasn’t very much to it, and what it did offer simply wasn’t very interesting.

Now, obviously, all those things on their own should only be enough to kind of bother me a little, make me dislike the game and company and maybe tell others to buy it. Certainly not enough to lead into a 1500+ word essay about how terrible it is. But you need to consider all of it together. The Path is without question the worst game I own (fairly difficult, since we’re talking about a collection that numbers in the hundreds – even on Steam alone, I’ve got about 80) and certainly one of the worst I’ve played (again fairly difficult, because now we’re dipping into thousands), and I see the “art games” label as something that they used as an excuse to be able to make and sell it. I don’t think it could have competed as a product without it. I don’t think it could have existed without it. More importantly, I think if gamers themselves had already accepted that games are art, I think that something like The Path would have fallen flat on its face. And really, that’s about it. It doesn’t deserve to be successful, and the reason that it is just seems to be proof that gamers aren’t really ready to accept the video game medium as an art medium themselves, which is going to make it pretty hard for them to convince others that it is one.

Though you still have to admit, the term “art game” is a misnomer. I agree with what Jon said, it’s a very clever marketing ploy. And completely unnecessary. Something becomes a work of art through its own means. Not necessarily because someones says it is.

Perhaps if Tales of Tales had more faith in their games and made an effort to make them stand alone on their own terms rather than using the blanket excuse of “it’s art, you don’t understand it,” people would be able to criticize it on its own terms.

sorcerian, we agree there’s a problem, but not on the cause. Things shouldn’t be immune from criticism because they’re “art games”. But they should be criticized as art, not as games.

!!!!Danger, games as art debate present!!!!

Woah, this thread exploded!

**Not an indie game, but if you want an art game, go play Mother 3.**

I fully agree with this. Mother 3 is one of the highest examples of games as art out there right now. Machinarium, in the little time I’ve spent with it, holds a pretty lofty position for me, too.

I think, if Anarkex won’t feel picked on, the argument that the strength of games as a medium is how well oiled their mechanics are is pretty much contrary to my own view, and probably a lot of people who haven’t been with games their whole lives, but it’s something that’s easily understood with a little context–games are made primarily by programmers. (I can just *hear* all of you gasping right now.) Not writers. Not artists. Not architects or sculptors. Games usually incorporate some synthesis of arts, but they’re typically given a low preference, if they’re even valued at all.

This is backwards! Ideally, developers mesh narrative, aesthetics and mechanics together in ways that make sense, and work, as a whole. Give me a game with an interesting, well written script or an arresting visual style over something that’s mechanically fun but otherwise uninspired any day.

**Are you trying to say the way we criticize games isn’t adequate?**

Yeah, basically. Games are usually judged by “fun,” which always means mechanical fun. Which is fine, for games going for that sort of thing, but not so good when a game’s strong points are its aesthetics or narrative or something. It’s probably more useful to judge something like Fatale as an, I don’t know, rendered art installation than pick it apart looking for mechanical fun.

I guess some of the fun poking vitriol rubbed me the wrong way, because it always seems that people who are enthusiastic about video games are the last to see the potentials of games as a medium, or how frankly easy it is to achieve those possibilities.

Jon: I have nothing to add except to say your posts here are great. That was a brilliant piece of gaming folklore and I’m with you 95%. The other five percent is in my deciding that I actually liked The Path, after giving it some thought. Your criticisms are pretty accurate, but the work put into the game seemed to primarily be in aesthetics and mood. Tale of Tales strike me as sculptors working with games, and the common criticisms come from those expecting them to be engineers or writers. I think Michaël’s comments here reflect that. Arguably more work could be done, but that’s forgivable without a big budget.

(Plus, hey, Takayoshi Sato!)

A knawed knee mouse, I’m convinced that you haven’t read everything I’ve said here today. Chances are you read the first three sentences of my second post and just “decided” you disagree with me.

I have taken great pains to be as clear as possible. I clarify just about everything I say, as I realize an opinion like mine might be a little unpopular. I have cited examples for every claim I make. And yet, you come here and, without any attempt to rebut any of my cases, you out and say

>This is backwards!

Well, shucks, brother. As much as you’ve given your little “with all due respect”s, I can’t help but feel a little put out. Nice to know my views are “easily understood with a little context”, though. I just wish the context you’d chosen was the things I’ve said already, so I wouldn’t try to say them again.

>Games are usually judged by “fun,” which always means mechanical fun. Which is fine, for games going for that sort of thing, but not so good when a game’s strong points are its aesthetics or narrative or something. It’s probably more useful to judge something like Fatale as an, I don’t know, rendered art installation than pick it apart looking for mechanical fun.

I have explained ad nauseum that what makes a game truly great is not the same as what makes a book or movie great. I have also explained that what is “art” is only what is “great”, as great as it can get. What makes a game great is what makes a game more than a movie (more than a medium, as well): interactivity, depth, and challenge. The rest of it, the aesthetics, they are valuable, but here is the kicker.

A game with exceptional depth and shitty aesthetics can still be appreciated by anyone, but a game with shitty mechanics and excellent graphics, plot, sound, etc. can only be enjoyed by people willing to play through an awful game to enjoy its aesthetics. This is to say, that I can ignore a bad plot in a game, skipping all the dialog. I can ignore the music, by playing the game muted. Even shitty graphics have a very negligible effect on the experience (as we’ve said before, DOS-based roguelikes basically have NO GRAPHICS AT ALL). All of these things I can completely disregard and still enjoy the game. But I can’t for the life of me play a game and ignore its mechanics, because the game is the world I have entered into, and its mechanics are the laws by which I and everything around me operates. Under all the smoke and mirrors, the mechanics ARE the game. Can’t you realize that if all of the skins in *Fatale* were swapped out with shit from Team Fortress 2, it would still be the same shit?

So you can go ahead, man, and take the chess set and listen to the sound of the pieces clack against the board, and admire the shape of the pieces, and the great themes of kings and queens and soldiers riding into battle, but you still won’t be appreciating the game. And you would never figure out how little it really matters if it’s “art” or “culturally legitimate” or a “medium” (which, BTW, it’s totally not a medium). At the risk of destroying my entire argument for the sake of an ending phrase you have no chance of understanding: fun is more important than that.

As a few parting notes: Believe it or not, I do like the Mother series. However, it’s a case of a series of games that I can just barely tolerate for the sake of their stories, and I’d trade them all in a heartbeat to be able to read some of Itoi’s written works.

As for Machinarium, I just finished it the other day. Damn good game, four stars. But it supports my argument so well! There’s no agenda in Machinarium! There’s nothing to interpret, there are no messages from the author to me. Hell, there’s only barely a plot! And it’s an excellent adventure game BECAUSE it doesn’t do any of those things! Fucking Telltale games can make a story and have funny dialog and cute music and shit, but they’ll never come close to Machinarium because they’ll never move past “which random fucking item goes to which random fucking character to get me the shit I want”.

Anyway, this is a ridiculously long post already, so I’m done here. If you still don’t get what I’m saying, at this point, you probably never will. That goes for pretty much everyone else, too.

All in all, I believe the whole experience would have been better off if you conveyed it all strictly through narrative.

The thing I haven’t explained yet is our frustration with the fact that none of our friends play games. We can’t make them see what we find interesting about them. And, frankly, we do understand their objections. So, to a large extent, we’re trying to make games for them, for people who, basically, don’t like playing games (at last not the games that are currently on offer). As such, I feel that, perhaps, we’re trying to open up the medium to a new audience.

We started this project (7 years ago) with the idea that gamers would never be interested in what we do. We just wanted to use the medium and try to address another audience, an audience of people who don’t play games yet. But as it turned out, lots of gamers did show an interest in our work. So slowly, we are trying to incorporate them into the kind of audience we imagine our games for. I don’t think we need to give them more gameplay though. There’s already plenty of that around. But many gamers have broader interests than just gameplay. Some of them like music, or paintings. Or types of interactive projects that are not games.

When we call our work art, it’s not to put it above anything else. It’s simply to point out our intentions. We don’t like calling our work “art game”. Just art is sufficient. Good art or bad art? That’s up to the viewer.

Thank you, lemeza, for the criticism. I agree. We should stay away from gameplay as much as we can. That doesn’t mean we should only work with static narrative, though. I think there’s an enormous amount of things that can be done with interaction that is not structured as gameplay.

The big difference between our designs and those of others, as I see it, is that almost everything in them is voluntary. I’m starting to think that this may be a bad design decision. It requires too much effort from the player. It’s fine to do this in an art gallery where people expect to be confused and are amused by that. But when you want to reach a broader audience (and we do), you have to do a bit more work as a designer, I think. I think we will try and do just that in a future piece.

Wow, 64 is more damning than anything else in this thread. If you don’t like interactivity, then you have no reason to be making interactive works.

I guess there’s some confusion here as to whether “gameplay” refers to interactivity in general or a sort of entertainment-focused structured interactivity, but it’s pretty clear that Michaël Samyn is more confused by this than anyone else here–he’s using “game” in both senses.

(“gameplay”, btw, is simply what one does with games. If you don’t want to call what’s going on Fatale gameplay, then you don’t want to call it a game.)

I’m really glad Derek posted this here. By introducing the community to less-game-like interactive work, it has the potential to swing the pendulum in a more complex direction and to make us look past gamey-games. This could inspire developers to create new and interesting stuff. Isn’t that a good thing? What if games are just the tip of the iceberg?

The whole point of a curated blog is that you get exposed to stuff you don’t necessarily like, or at least wouldn’t have pursued information about on your own. If all the genes are too similar all you get is incest; it’s bad for genetics.

Lastly, it seems most of you dissenters view game design as mostly a science, which is quite different than art. Everyone coming from the “games must be fun, games must have a challenge/goal, etc” perspective should either learn to adopt a different perspective when approaching an artistic work, or at least be aware that you’re coming from a different perspective and not let that bias your judgment of the work artistically.

Let me put it another way: Improving a game through playtesting is a matter of science, not art. Improving a game through better expression of life’s experiences is a matter of art, not science. (Obviously there’s overlap, but I’m making a point.)

Don’t bash their art when you’re trying to bash their science. ToT is trying to express emotions and a message, so bashing its reward systems misses the point. Try to search for meaning instead of pleasure.

But that doesn’t change the fact that you will still encounter it. I mean, I didn’t want to play it for the gameplay. However, the gameplay was there and was in the way. Blowing out all those candles seemed like chore. Something I had to do to get the narrative part of the game flowing again.

Believe me, all those other elements you’ve listed. You’re great at those. However, the gameplay you put inbetween in order to reach those things is very weak, extremely tedious and doesn’t seem to serve much of a point.

Tale of Tales might be a newcomer to the erotic click adventure scene, however the production values for their newest game, Fatale, are high compared to others in the 3D erotic click adventure genre. There are shortcomings though, as Fatale’s execution lacks punch. Firstly, the story pacing is poor compared to it’s inspiration, Flimsy Dress Turbo v1.4, with even poorer character empathy and development. The visuals are bland and environments rather dull compared to last weeks reviewed copy of Macho Elves In Bear Forest. The gameplay is also rather weak and simple, and quite tedious, even for an erotic click adventure with an extended length 40 minutes of gameplay time. This is for too long for the payoff scene. This would be excusable if Tale Of Tales would take the time to develop all elements of the game more, such as in more refined games, like in the Leisure Suit Larry series. Overall, elements ion Fatale are a bit underwhelming and the payoff, not so great.

We give this mediocre erotic clicker a 2 out 5 Stars – TITSource Review

Instead of impersonating me, you should take my critique to heart. I suggest you copy some gameplay elements from predecessor erotic games. Like, stacking and rotating John heads, which are then sliced from the puzzle board, revealing Salome’s naughty bits.

Sincerely,
Nobody2
TITSource Editor

>If you play Fatale for the gameplay only, you will indeed be bitterly disappointed. Much like if you play it for the sound only. Etc.

I have to say this totally makes sense, but take it to its logical conclusion. If someone says “I would have liked/found meaning in interactive work X, but really annoying sounds got in the way and didn’t seem to serve any purpose”, no serious artist would just dismiss that with “sound is only one part of a whole that consists of equally important parts”. If anything, it only makes the presence of something annoying even worse to hear that it it’s presence isn’t even particularly important.

An artist would have to either defend the presence of the sounds, admit that the sounds were a mistake, or hold their peace.

“We charge money for our work out of principle, to offer the audience a chance to support the artists whose work they enjoy and to get people used to a new economy without publishers or galleries.”

@Michaël Samyn: You are, i take it, aware of the “pay what you want” system, which is basically designed to allow your users that exact type of freedom you argue about? While i would never argue against your freedom to choose whatever payment method you want to use, that’s up to you of course, i would just like to make sure you’re using the right arguments yourself ;)

after reading this entire comment thread i have one point:

early on in the conversation someone quoted michael saying something like ‘gameplay is just one aspect among many’, and then proceeded to say that michael should trust gameplay more and not hate on it

i just want to point out that thinking that something is just one aspect among many isn’t equivalent to hating it. if you don’t think something is the ‘best’ part of games, that doesn’t mean you don’t like that part. as an analogy, if you don’t see whites as the ‘best’ race, that doesn’t mean you hate whites, it just means you think they’re equal to the others. similarly, thinking the other elements of a game are just as important as gameplay doesn’t mean you hate gameplay, it just means you don’t worship it, it just means you don’t see it as the only thing you should focus on, or as the only way possible you can do anything artistic with a game

relatedly, people who think okami is great art because of the visuals and not because of the gameplay or the story are absolutely right: okami had amazing visuals and okay-ish gameplay and a pretty poor story. that’s just as good as having amazing gameplay and okay-ish story and poor visuals, and that’s just as good as having amazing story and poor gameplay and okay-ish visuals.

the ‘art’ part of a game can be anywhere. it can be in the visuals, in the writing, in the gameplay, in the music, in the setting, in the characters, or even in other things like the box art (guardian legend) or the control scheme or the monster designs or anywhere else. it doesn’t have to be only in the gameplay. and saying that doesn’t mean you hate gameplay.

Also, you really need to think about your advertising. On that page, you mention seasoned gamers, whom really should be completely out of the question for a game like this.

You also say to think of it as a role playing game, which is a huge misnomer, considering what RPG actually means as far as games go.

Here, think about the opposite for a second. Imagine if someone were to make a game with a deep combat engine that had movement canceling and various hard to execute jump techniques that only hardcore gamers would find and then marketed it as a game not meant for gamers but instead for the casual crowd?

You’d most likely end up frustrating those who’d end up playing it simply due to the fact that it was marketed towards the wrong demographic.

I see the same thing happening here. My advice is just to stick to what you’re good at.

Unless you really want to attract the hardcore gamer crowd, but then you’d have to work on gameplay, which again is out of the question.

yes, but that wasn’t my point. I didn’t say that it wasn’t possible for a seasoned gamer to enjoy it, just that it’s ill advised to market it to that demographic. or try to include gameplay aspects to the game when obviously it’s not their forté.

the focus should be more on those looking for something different in general rather than gamers, I think they’d be more successful if they took that approach in marketing their works.

That sounds like a good idea to me. And no, don’t abandon Steam. I don’t mean anything that drastic. But the idea you suggested sounds good.

er, I meant seasoned gamers not hardcore. heh my bad

Really need to sit down and take in all knee jerky in this thread, however @thexders comment about Fatale being a ‘cop out’ is interesting in so far as, are not game designs which echo ye olde “get from A to arbitrary B; usually to collect a star or flag” a similar ‘cop out’ as well?

I don’t think it’s fair to criticise Tale of Tales while being hypocritical about the dearth of ideas in your own game designs. Just as Greenaway rants on about the death of narrative in films, and how that is possibly one of the best things to happen to the medium it seems games are going through much the same thing.

[ Insert “Greenaway makes boring films comment here” ]

To which I would say, take a step back and think about what we’re really working with, or towards. The game-iness is nothing but a construct to keep a player close, to close the loop of interaction, however indie games tend to hew to this bare bones approach quite conservatively whether due to ability or being unable to see any further out of the box.

Perhaps when we throw away the maze, the mouse will run away but well let’s see it, let’s do it instead of building the same fucking maze with different shades of pixel graphics.?

— Chuan

I think if you play Ico again, you will notice that it’s actually full of “experiential” art-game techniques – ie getting the player to perform particular actions, not for “gameplay” purposes, but more in order to create a certain kind of feeling in the player from performing these actions.

Pushing boxes, pulling levers, getting from point a to point b… they are used as a very basic structure to build the experience on. Most of the “gameplay” is actually not challenging at all. The combat, for instance, really offers no challenge. It is, for the most part, a game that simply involves looking carefully at everything.

I think the mistake we made with Fatale (and did not make with The Path) was to give all the responsibility to the player. As such, it’s been a good experiment.

I feel you need to play Fatale for 1-2 hours to really experience it, but we don’t force the player to commit so much time. It is entirely possible to complete the task in the game in 20 minutes. If you play this fast however, you will have missed everything. But I understand that it is an urge that is hard to resist. And we don’t exactly tell you that completing the game task is not the point of Fatale. I think we need to communicate such things better if we want to reach a wider audience (preferably through design, and not through instructive text).

The thing I enjoyed most about Ico was standing still, holding hands with Yorda and looking at the leaves on the trees moving in the wind. :)
The second best thing was to leave her alone and see what she would do. And call her once in a while. Aah. Good times. :)

Michael Samyn: Being completely serious here, I find your description of your favorite parts of Ico very interesting. As you probably could guess, my favorite things about Ico were the puzzles that took simple actions like crossing a gap and developed them into elaborate challenges, and the unbelievable feeling of power when you get the Queen’s Sword and fight the final boss. Just about anyone on this site would say that both of our opinions are valid; I could argue this, but it’s actually irrelevant. What you should take away from this is that Ico was able to satisfy each of us in different ways.

Paul Eres: Why shouldn’t I expect quality of Ico’s level from indie devs? I’m not talking about graphically, I mean overall. We should not pull punches when criticizing indie games just because “give me a break, it was only made by one guy, ice cream sundaes all around”. First of all, indie games are not limited by marketing trends. They don’t need to find publishers. Hell, half the time they don’t even ask for any money. We should expect quality indie games simply because no stupid old man in a suit is censoring or thumbs-downing the dev’s ideas because the demographic isn’t profitable.

There is another reason why criticism of indie games should be precise and harsh: unlike commercial game developers, an indie dev such as Michael Samyn right here is very likely to actually hear you, and listen.

I welcome criticism, especially when it is precise -otherwise I would not be participating in this thread.

But I think you are overestimating the power of independent development, Anarkex. There’s two things that commercial companies have in abundance that we don’t: time and money. Whether or not there’s a “stupid old man” involved in the process is a minor detail compared to this. I am familiar with the romantic notion of the indie developer making his genius work at night after his day job. A while this may be the reality of many -I have no idea- it certainly is not ours.

Making games is incredibly difficult. It takes a lot of time to get everything working and to fine-tune the design. I’m not even talking about graphics (which I admit demand a lot more time when you choose to work with realtime 3D like we do). As a result we can’t afford to have a day job. We live for our work, day and night, 24/7. And still we don’t even come close the kinds of resources that huge companies like Sony (the makers of the admired Ico and Shadow) have laying around.

That is not to say that I don’t admire Fumito Ueda for his persistence to make his work within such a mega-corporation. But I do think we need to cut indie developers some slack. Hey, if we can’t charge AAA prices, don’t expect AAA quality, ok?

That being said, I agree that we should be critical of independent game design. The current climate of continuous back patting is not really helping the medium move forward. But the criticism needs to be reasonable. And comparing an independent developer to Sony is not reasonable.