Click here for the video
Ok, where do I start... After watching the video, I concluded that Mr. Jonathan Blow has a fundamental misunderstanding of what games are supposed to be about.
-He loathes the mechanic-based division of genres, forgetting that games are games because they're interactive, and interactivity is represented by the mechanic of the game RTS/TBS/FPS/Adventure/Banana. As shown by our very own poll and from my own experience and conversations, I'd say players still give the theme (sci-fi, fantasy, historical etc.) an important factor in the selection of games that they intend to purchase or play. His point in discussing this is lost, because he himself when talking about a challenge-based ideal of a game he puts the focus on mechanics (the mechanic of a puzzle and how the player is supposed to solve it).
-A lot of the stuff from the first point ^ is just the reiteration of what the
Quantic Dream guys said before. It's very sad because that was a warcry against mainstream publishers; a kind of threat that if they don't adopt Quantic's story-based approach, the gaming industry will be swallowed by the infinite monotony that is the curious communist habit of
jumping on mushrooms while smoking grass; shooting nazi zombies in the balls, even though that has no effect; jumping in a chasm in an adventure game where that is the only possible way to die and more!
Frankly I like diversity. I don't like when someone tells someone else how to make their games, especially since all these "mainstream" publishers always do stuff in their own way and have their own separate target audiences. Many experiments are done by the big guys. Everything id has done since Quake III Arena is an experiment. Ubisoft is an experimental publisher. Among their latest experiments are Rayman Origins, From Dust, Driver: San Francisco, Splinter Cell: Conviction etc. The only difference is that they usually charge you 60 $ for a game. The big scene in my opinion is pretty creative, enough to prevent the indie scene from taking most of the laurels.
-Associating his own game Braid with Counter-Strike, calling them challenging (even though CS is multiplayer) and models on which all future games should be based. Mr. Jonathan Blow doesn't see one very important thing. Challenge in games is very important, it is essential for it to be -a- game. Problem - people don't always have 15 hours to complete your insane puzzles just to find out what this game is all about storywise. A lot of people can find only that one day in six months to relax at home, not shave in the morning (beard or legs: choose your destiny) and forget about work.
These people would prefer you not make their lives more complicated than it is, give them a logical story to follow, some eye-candy and polygons to headshot.
-Criticising the Japs. It is a
trend? An unfortunate one. I was one of its supporters some time ago, until I looked into it and saw what kind of games they make there and don't reach our shores. Also I'm not sure what Jonathan Blow means by Japanese games when he says they lead you by the hand. I think he speaks of Zelda, but Zelda is just one franchise, what's the point on generalizing?
There's more to tell, like how a lot of the ones who criticize mainstream publishers for their short games, including some Abandonia residents, never do finish the games they start; or how Braid is the victim of glitch-puzzles (aka solving a puzzle in a way considered a bug or glitch in normal games), but I'm getting bored so I'll stop here.
What say you about mainstream vs indie? Is mainstream a true illness? Or is indie just an attempt by the developers to find their niche?