A long time video game artist made a blog post about his view on making video games for a living as an indie creator. This blog post is an interesting read as it gives a sight into the mind of a relatively successful game developer. In this post the author discusses what type of games he believes are most successful and allow him to continue making games. These games are those that are built around reaching the widest possible audience with a minimal impact on those who play it. On the other side of the spectrum, the author states that the games that are designed with a specific audience and have a large impact on that audience, are not as successful as the previously discussed form of game.
I do have some things to say in response to this post as I do not quite agree with everything the author has to say. It does make sense that game developers must make games that have the widest appeal in order to reach the largest audience so that they can pay the bills in order to continue making games. This is kind of a shame as games are a way for the creator and the viewer to really link on a level that is not achievable in other forms of art. That being said, making games that are mainstream, is kind of like making a fast food hamburger. Everyone can eat and enjoy this kind of food, both young and old, rich or poor, and there is nothing wrong with this but it is still a fast food burger. However, the games that are purchased years and years after their release are those that push the envelope and invite difference. Candy Crush makes millions of dollars a month and is played by millions of players around the world everyday, however it really is not leaving an impact on the industry or the people playing it, other than the transfer of money. Whereas, games like Doom (1993) that are willing to try something drastically different which might not sit well with the average person, are the games that will be played for many years to come and change the face of the industry. I feel that many game developers might be held back from trying to push against boundaries in order to support their bottom line, and this is something that game developers should be more willing to attempt.
https://blog.adamatomic.com/post/57579873388/making-art-for-a-living
I do have some things to say in response to this post as I do not quite agree with everything the author has to say. It does make sense that game developers must make games that have the widest appeal in order to reach the largest audience so that they can pay the bills in order to continue making games. This is kind of a shame as games are a way for the creator and the viewer to really link on a level that is not achievable in other forms of art. That being said, making games that are mainstream, is kind of like making a fast food hamburger. Everyone can eat and enjoy this kind of food, both young and old, rich or poor, and there is nothing wrong with this but it is still a fast food burger. However, the games that are purchased years and years after their release are those that push the envelope and invite difference. Candy Crush makes millions of dollars a month and is played by millions of players around the world everyday, however it really is not leaving an impact on the industry or the people playing it, other than the transfer of money. Whereas, games like Doom (1993) that are willing to try something drastically different which might not sit well with the average person, are the games that will be played for many years to come and change the face of the industry. I feel that many game developers might be held back from trying to push against boundaries in order to support their bottom line, and this is something that game developers should be more willing to attempt.
https://blog.adamatomic.com/post/57579873388/making-art-for-a-living
Comments
Post a Comment