Indie | Void of Reason
Jim Sterling is totally wrong, but we should think about what he said. It’s important. It’s a vocalisation – if not an entirely eloquent one – of the problem that a lot of players have with what they see as the typical “indie game”. Sterling calls The Path, seemingly his enemy number one, “pretentious”, “contradictory” and “unbearably dull” without pausing for breath. Maybe he’s right in some respects. It’s certainly easy to see why many would consider it pretentious. Though I’m not sure where he’s coming from with the second of those bugbears, the third could be true as well. Extended play can be dull as all hell, but as I outlined recently on another site, this doesn’t have to be a bad thing.
For those lost, here’s the offending article. If you haven’t already, read through it all; it’s a doozy. Our buddy Jim seems to be genuinely offended by these unnecessarily esoteric and intolerably arty-farty works. The word “bullshit” crops up three times, and “pretentious” no less than nine. To surmise his points, he believes that games including The Path (pictured right), The Marriage and The Void are, well, “totally fucking stupid“. His emphasis, not mine.
Sterling seems to argue from the premise that games should be a) straightforward and b) fun. The first point is drawn out into several paragraphs and by the time we reach the second it’s far overcooked. Citing a lack of direction in The Void, his King of Spades, he ponders; “Why can’t its characters speak plainly? Why does it want to introduce new gameplay ideas 
without giving us some sort of tangible idea about how the new ideas work?” I’ve just started playing The Void, and I had the same reaction. That initial rage, however, eventually subsides into a kind of blissful confusion. Ice Pick Lodge want us to stagger through perplexed and fascinated by the world and the mechanic and the abstract dialogue. Though discussing its more accidental deployment Pathologic, Lewis outlined this design virtue beautifully. It’s not deliberate in the way Sterling would have us believe. His impression was, to extrapolate a little, that this was done just because. It’s not designed to evoke emotions or inspire marvel, but to out-indie the next bunch of developers “living hand to mouth… working on their “art” in a basement somewhere in a bad part of town.”
At first, this made me sigh. Then it made me think. Maybe, just maybe, I’ve been guilty of this. I’m not a developer – plonk some code in front of my face and I wouldn’t have the first clue what to do with it – but I am a writer, a writer who has scribbled a lot of pretentious thoughts on a lot of pretentious games in the past year. David Jaffe would despise me. Sometimes, I have over-analysed. Sometimes it has probably been to look cool or, yes, feel self-important. What I’ve noticed, though, is that my thoughts and words have become more coherent, incisive and just plain right over that period. This also needs to happen to gaming and games writing in general. None of us are the finished article, least of all myself, but it’s part of the process that will eventually deliver more criticism and – far more importantly – more video games of substance.
[Continues...]
Pages: 1 2
I don’t agree entirely with Sterling but I don’t agree with you either or lewis for that matter(as he well knows)
But what i can say quite confidently is that most…actually no, all of these so called ‘art’ games are absolute shite and very, very pretentious.
I’m college and university educated in the arts so this isn’t coming from some strong in the arm but thick in the head yokel either. I have a deep understanding and appreciation for art on a multitude of levels.
I’m all for supporting the indie scene as well which pumps out some absolute gems every so often but I object against this view that indie games should be unquestionably supported and lauded just because they are ‘trying’ and the fact they are, well, ‘indie’.
Shite is still shite no matter how much pseudo-philosophy you carve into it.
I feel I’m on the same terms as J.D.
As someone who studied Art both in education and out I can appreciate a lot of the meanings and emotions. However having played The Path and such other indie “art” games, they are indeed pretentious and pompous.
The meaning of an art game is almost as pretentious as declaring that you made one. Art is anything that creates and emotional response and/or connection to the piece, The path didn’t create any emotion in me other than anger at how pointless it felt. Whereas something like Judith by Terry Cavanagh scared the crap out of me and made me feel uncomfortable, that is closer to art in my mind.
An indie dev declaring something as an art game is ludicrous, art is decided by the viewer not the artist.
I kinda feel like you’re both missing the point as to why Sterling’s piece was a hideous slice of bullshit. Of *course* you’re allowed to dislike The Path, think it felt empty, think it was unartistic or devoid of a deeper meaning: like you say, Dan, art is decided by the viewer. Personally I thought The Path was a fascinating and sometimes beautiful piece of work that, yes, occasionally felt a little strained in its presentation. That you disagree is fine.
What Sterling is arguing, though, is that games should stop trying to make artistic waves. That’s all I can read into it. He doesn’t like the sort of thing this field has delivered so far, therefore it should stop. He also equates “indie” with “pretentious”, which is ludicrous. At a guess, I’d say a good 90 per cent of indie games have no inclination to be considered artistic whatsoever.
J.D.: “I object against this view that indie games should be unquestionably supported and lauded just because they are ‘trying’ and the fact they are, well, ‘indie’.” – Yeah, so do I. So does everyone sensible. I kinda feel like there are more people rallying against this viewpoint than actually putting it forward, though. I’ve yet to meet anyone who thinks indie games should get an easier ride in the press, but I’ve met tonnes who shout in disagreement.
But Lewis, You are exactly one of these people who I perceive as wanting to give indie games an easy ride. Maybe thats not how it is but you sure do give that impression to me.
I quite enjoyed his article to be honest, I found its frankness refreshing. I don’t agree with everything he was saying but my own views on gaming lean more towards his.
I probably sound biased towards indie games, specifically this particular kind, but I wouldn’t be much of an section editor if I didn’t stand up for them occasionally ;)
And I wasn’t arguing that The Path shouldn’t be criticised just because they’re trying, but I think their honesty and noble intentions deserve at least some credit. What they’re doing is interesting, even if only to a few, and I think that merits at least more than just a kind of cursory dumping on or dismissal. I don’t take much issue with what Sterling said, I disagree but he’s entitled to his opinion. The way he said it, however, was actually pretty offensive. If you’re going to dislike The Path or The Void, criticise them properly, don’t just say they’re a load of pretentious shite etc., you know what I mean?
JD: The last three indie games I’ve reviewed on this site have received 6, 5 and 3 out of 10 respectively.
I think I’m more likely to give a game an easy ride if it goes out of its way to try to innovate, or impress me on something other than a purely aesthetic level. So yeah, while The Path was deeply flawed, I gave it a good review because it still fascinated me endlessly. If a mainstream developer were to make something like that, though, I’d probably be even more impressed. I guess the reason people think indies get an easy ride from a certain branch of games criticism is because it’s only the indies doing the sort of thing that branch is into.
Not that I’m grouping myself with that branch, but you get what I mean, I presume.
‘If a mainstream developer were to make something like that, though, I’d probably be even more impressed.’
I wouldn’t be.
If Bioware turned round and went ‘Well were taking a totally different approach for Mass Effect 3, basically you play Shepard alone in a forest, he might get raped at some point but were going to be all ambiguous about it because we cant really think of a good enough excuse for why that needs to happen. Then you find a pink elephant with a top hat on that, like, represents…something profound and that. Then if you pull its tail it vomits a clone of Shepard out which means you just entered the twilight zone of pretentious bollocks…please leave a message after the beep!’
I think I’d slit my wrists.
Oh, you… ;-)
[...] It’s an interesting one, let down by some major design flaws but, as an experience, it’s definitely something that feels unique. It’s an acquired taste if there ever was one, but it’s about as close as we’re ever going to get to seeing some of the design ideologies – creating action without guns and atmosphere without shock horror – explored in low-profile indie games attempted in a mainstream Western release. Shattered Memories evoked some of the same feelings of dread I got from Pathologic, for instance, but even then they’re both so unique it feels wrong to try and group them together. Jim Sterling would almost definitely hate it. [...]