INDEPENDANTS VS.THE INDUSTRY

aka: HAN SOLO VS. THE EMPIRE

recently i've been venturing into the world of independant falsh games on the internet and it's raised a few issues in my mind concerning industry based game design vs small independently designed games.

current game design appears to be following the same patterns as other mass produced media outlets, like music for example, where the small independent releases often have more character and heart injected into by it's (occasionally sole) creator as opposed to the big budget productions designed around reaching numerous targets that often end up diluting or entirely stripping a game of any creative or enjoyable integrity. industry based design has a lot of imposing factors surrounding it: working to deadlines, publishing within a highly competitive (and flooded) market, working to meet varying expectations of numerous stakeholders (particularly when licenses are involved). from my observations this has really lessened the quality of the "big budget blockbuster" games that appear so popular today. most releases seem to be carbon copies of the last successful game that came before it, with very little alteration to the formula and as such i take very little interest in them.

independent games on the other hand are often designed around a solid core gameplay idea that is distilled throughout production rather diffused as often happens in industry based productions. independent games more often have a sense of auteur ship, wherein the stylistic choices of one key developer shine through in the gameplay and presentation of the game, akin to the way film directors develop a style that permeates their entire body of work and becomes a draw card for audience. independent games, especially those developed by a single person, can be seen to have a similar style of auteur ship that is rarely found in industry games, in part due to the sheer number of people that work in the production as well as the broadening of design elements in order to attract a wider audience. exceptions to this rule exist, a key example i have in mind is the series of games with director Fumito Ueda at the helm: "ico", "shadow of the colossus", and "the last guardian". while being big budget games developed by large teams of people, the team is always working to one well defined and agreed upon design concept headed by an extremely visionary director capable of keeping all aspects coherent. these games are stylised so well and achieve their intent by creating visceral and palpable experiences and emotions within the game worlds. the narrative strength of each game is drawn more from the character interactions and protagonists actions rather than the more commonly seen hard coded cut scene made to drive story forward between short bouts of uninspired gameplay.

so called art games of this type: designed by solitary persons, and made to fly in the face of everything the industry produces, really show the potential of the interactive media medium, by making the player invested in the game as an actor, rather than vicariously viewing events of a narrative, as one would do when watching a film. they are the real cutting edge of game design, free from the hard coded expectations of big-budget-blockbuster-next-gen-nerd-gasm productions, so often summarised as cutting edge graphics, 10+ gameplay hours, some semblance of narrative (rarely deeper than a die hard narrative), a predictable challenge curve that holds the hand of the player, stacked on re-playability to artificially lengthen the longevity of a game, expansive environments, realism, and more often than not: violence violence violence. these ideals, for some reason or other, appear to have become the pinnacle of game design, and the mass market cannot seem to get enough of it, often paying for the same game 2 or 3 times over in the form of cheap, uninspired cash-in sequels.

independent game developers, on the other hand are in a position where they can challenge all of the above conceptions of game design and aim to create something truly different. free from any restraints and with such a vast array of resources at their disposal, this is where the frontiers of game design are being explored. games that challenge the very idea of what a "computer game" is, for example "cave" (game download: http://users.design.ucla.edu/~chippermonky/cave/ ) (developer interview: http://www.bitmob.com/articles/interview-with-cave-developer-peter-lu ), which is not so much a sit-down-and-play game that will bring you hours of entertainment, but rather an exploration of themes and game design concepts, explored through the medium of interactive multimedia.

what's drawn me to this discussion is the experience i've thus far had in our studio environment working within a (although small) group of developers, creating a game based on a (somewhat dearly held) concept of my own. of course it has been largely interesting to see my concept develop under the influence of others, yet i cannot help but feel some dissatisfaction at my loss of control over aspects of the game. naturally i understand the pros of working within a group: distribution of tasks and responsibilities, accumulated skill base, advancement via discussion. however i am beginning to feel more and more that if i am to ever emerge myself in game development as a career, i will want to do so via the independent route. perhaps i'm just a control freak at heart?