Indie developers drop the 'i-bomb'
by John Bardinelli 
{ Mar 6th 2007 at 12:46PM }
Monday afternoon brought a pack of indie gaming stars out of their dark workspaces and into the spotlight of the Independent Games Summit. Kyle Gabler (Tower of Goo), Jenova Chen (flOw), Jonathan Blow, and several others were on hand to discuss the role innovation plays in independent game development. The overused "i" word has become a cliché in recent years with commercial developers using it to mask the ugly symptoms of sequelitis. But with smaller dev teams and less emphasis on making money, indie developers actually can focus on creating interesting content and stretching the boundaries of gaming conventions.As Gabler points out, computing power will continue to progress over the next several decades and exceed our ability to use it. Instead of inventing new gimmicks to distract us, games must focus on the one thing that doesn't change: human emotion. That's the reason Final Fantasy VII will make you cry (if you're a wimp), Beyond Good and Evil will make you hate Big Brother, and Tetris will lead to the development of an odd proclivity for stacking objects.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
NintendoFanbot @ Mar 6th 2007 1:02PM
I think uHAUL should sue Apple.
This joke was done for an emotional response.
REUYL @ Mar 6th 2007 1:21PM
Human emotion in games? Wow, Nintendo is screwed.
A person @ Mar 6th 2007 1:45PM
Should be drop, not dromp.
Aex @ Mar 6th 2007 1:31PM
"Instead of inventing new gimmicks to distract us, games must focus on the one thing that doesn't change: human emotion."
I thought I was the only one who didn't see the wiimote as that much of an innovation. I guess I was wrong.
Dan @ Mar 6th 2007 1:43PM
It depends on how you look at it... a lot of what is classed as innovation, is only so because it hasn't been seen before in the gaming industry... that doesn't mean that the ideas weren't stolen from somewhere else, i.e. theater, literature, television, film.
Motion sensing controllers are new, for gaming... but the technology isn't new by any stretch of the imagination.
As for stuff like flow, innovation my ass, I've already got hundreds of interactive screen savers on my PC, thank you very much.
NintendoFanbot @ Mar 6th 2007 3:26PM
Would someone please kill me?
NintendoFanbot @ Mar 6th 2007 3:40PM
LOL someone took my name.
No.
Rubang B @ Mar 6th 2007 4:46PM
It's too late Fanbot. Your wish is my command. Now I must kill you.
Rubang B @ Mar 6th 2007 4:59PM
Tetris is one of the best games ever made, big ups to my dog Alexey Pajitnov, but like... there's no emotion there. They were inanimate tetrads, or tetriminoes, if you will. The emotion was in Dr. Mario, where you knew you were killing viruses to save humanity. The stakes were raised.
I haven't played either Tower of Goo or flOw, but do they have any emotion?
sheppy @ Mar 6th 2007 5:34PM
Personally, I feel in order to cultivate an emotional response, the naratives need to become stronger. Likewise, soundtracks needs to come back in the form of music scores rather than listened tracks. I don't feel the way to attach emotions to a game is through simplistic gameplay.
After all, nobody felt anything but ripped off after watching White Chicks. Why should the same route suddenly turn a different result in the gaming industry?
You want an emotional response, give us stronger naratives, characters that go beyond the "hey, it's that guy" factors, and for god's sake... take notes of Gears Of Wars script and avoid that path at all cost. That game had far too many "game over, man... game over" style moments.
Burnt Meatloaf @ Mar 7th 2007 5:16AM
Emotional response is why:
1) People buy a Gamecube repackaged in a shiny new box
2) People buy a brand new iPod when their old one breaks within the warranty period
3) Say, "I WANT THAT," when they see a funny ad for a game, without seeing any gameplay footage.
4) Yell at each other like idiots in forums.
Screw human emotion. It f****s everything up.
Innovation is simply change, not improvement. Less innovation, more intuition, please.