Innovation Goes Mainstream

One of the things that Indie games have been known for over the years is innovation. They have been the playground of experimental and niche, they've provided the nurturing of ideas that mainstream gaming was too busy to notice.

Over the last few years, perhaps starting with nintendo's focus on innovation with the release of the DS, innovation has become more and more mainstream. I remember well the Game Developer's Conference of two years ago where Nintendo was talking about the DS and touting a game called Nintendogs. Many gamers felt it was about time for Nintendo to sell its hardware business and focus on the software side. Mario would still be a bit seller on the Playstation and Xbox many people thought, noting that clearly Nintendo was past its prime and its far underpowered DS (when compared to the PSP) was further proof of the company's decline.

Fast forward a year and Nintendo was trying to convince people that the then called Revolution was really about a fundamental change in how games were being approached, making innovation, not graphics the focus. Meanwhile Microsoft touted themselves as Sundance for Indies (a title already and more aptly claimed by the IGF). Sony, seemed somewhat obvlivous to all of the movement, giving little more than lip-service to innovation.

With today's keynote, I think things have come to a tipping point. Sony, in their keynote, focused wholly on their new network, Home, which much like Second Life with a touch of the Sims, aims to make out-of-game activities into a game. They also announced a game called Little Big Planet. This new game takes the idea behind windows desktop toys one step further, giving players the ability to create fully physics based adventure platform worlds. The variety is limited only by players own design creativity. I was really impressed by the game like everyone else was, but what most impressed me was how Sony has focused on trying things that are new and different. Like Nintendo and Microsoft before them, Sony is feeling the value of innovation and is investing in it.

Of course the real question this website asks is "What does it mean for indie games?"

That's an interesting question. I've been increasingly concerned that indie developers are painting themselves into a corner. With the strength of the casual games market, many indies are wanting to claim themselves as either a part of casual games or not a part of it, despite the fact that most casual games are independent, irregardless of what they want to call themselves (if a developer wasn't paid by a publisher to make it, it's independent).

Some of this brings back the question of what independent games are. For my part I stick to the simple definition of people making the kinds of games that they want to make on their own terms. That could be a puzzle game or it could be a genre-busting game that is difficult to categorize.

As time has marched forward, many have classified indie games into an increasingly small category, which I think only damages the ability of the games to be noticed. People like to feel a sense of comfortable connection with the games they play. There is safety in groups and in familarity. As pieces of indie, such as easy to pick up or innovative, become mainstream, indie has had a bad habit of turning their back on the games that succeeded or that were made to succeed.

The inherent danger is in shrinking the definition of indepenent by eshewing those concepts that have turned successful. Steve Pavilina used to run all of the indie round tables at the GDC. He made puzzle games. If he were here today I believe he would not be considered indie because puzzle games have turned out to be a successful venture. If, with innovation becoming mainstream, innovation is also eschewed, I think it would be a step in the wrong direction for independent games.

Spread The Word:    Del.icio.us  |   Digg  |   Slashdot  |   Reddit

By: Russell Carroll
Posted: Tuesday March 06, 2007