The core market? Hmm....No, I don't think so.

What I ment was...If indie developers can make more money off of their games, they can afford to make bigger budget games, since their games, (I assume), don't cost much to develop. If an indie dev had enough money, they could open up an independent studio. Assuming they keep making enough money, those studios could eventually become brand new 3rd party publishers/developers. Which is why I say that those indies devs could the future of this industry.

Now, all of that can happen to an indie dev only if 3 conditions are met.

1. If Indie devs actually want to become big developers one day.
2. if indie devs make enough money to stay in business
3. If indie devs make enough money to pay bills/employees, etc.

2 out of those 3 will not be easy. But with the talent that most indie developers nowadays have, I have no doubt that they can make great games...Now will their games make them enough money ? I dunno. That's up to them.

If indies devs can successfully do everything I mentiond above, then they are the future. If not, then the gaming industry is doomed.

No, what's intellectually lazy is to attempt to belittle and act like this non-existent group doesn't exist and try to dismiss this ongoing argument they put forth. Storytelling and its place and growing prominence in gaming has become a large point of contention for many and I see it brought up all the time on these forums, in various threads extending years past. This sentiment is nothing new, and it is widespread. There's more than a few members who consider any game that doesn't constantly have you pushing a joystick and hitting a button every second the power is on is to be viewed as the antithesis of what gaming should be. I'm completely open to discussing, but I have no trouble dismissing those who don't appear to be willing to discuss themselves, yet only dismiss as they often do when a game such as 1886 arises that satiates their particular biases.

I don't discount their position if they take a stand and elaborate on it, but I'm opposed to it based on lack of any real substantial evidence, and 1886 does not exemplify nor support their argument that narrative has no place. Why? Because (granted I've yet to play this game) having read and watched numerous video reviews, I see nothing here that would suggest The Order's committed any crime more grievous than what many other cinematically focused games have that have came before it (David Cage's titles, BY2S being two examples) that have accrued higher acclaim across the board, yet seemingly don't afford nearly as much agency to the player that I'm seeing in gameplay clips when viewed comparatively.

So that being in mind, why is it "laughable" to believe the fault lies in the execution and not the formula, when, as I've pointed out, it's been done better before, even when that formula is comprised of not much more than walking around sets and doing QTE actions? Or watching a 3/4 hour cutscene in MGS4 for how many minutes of actual gameplay?

Not to kiss (too much) ass Speak, but so many times when I read your comments they come off like a breath of fresh, objective, sensible air in a sea of biases and people clinging to limited ideals towards what constitutes gaming that can (and should) be pushed and broadened upon, with no fear considering the scale of the sea this industry encompasses.

Many replies in this thread are blatant examples of people mistakenly laying the fault for a poor game on the formula and philosophy of its inherent design, not the execution where any poor game's fault should be placed. So many want to fault storytelling here? Throughout the years I've seen just as many gameplay focused games that were downright awful as I have cinematic focused ones, and the fault invariably almost always resides in the competency of the execution of things such as balance (MGS 4), implementation and utilization of mechanics incorporated into play (Metroid Prime), and a plethora of other factors at play.

So why aren't we all harping how platforming doesn't work with gaming because Puppeteer is a mediocre platformer at best dressed up in marvelous presentation? There must be something wrong with platformers, guys!

That people can just fail to take all of these into account, point and scream, "See? Narrative has no place in gaming!!" because one title hits that does not strike that right note is not only intellectually lazy, disingenuous, and nothing but the greatest degree of confirmation bias, it represents and advocates the type of myopic and closed-minded attitude that will inevitably lead to stagnation and discourage growth and experimentation within an industry that not only desperately needs it, but also holds much promise and untapped potential.

I adore storytelling in my games, in fact some of my most cherished gaming memories since I began are those that took effort in putting focus and some priority in emphasizing them while keeping gameplay just as important. I hope it continues, and that these "gamers" who can't see two feet past what they've always known and has been drilled into their heads for all these years, can one day eventually come to realize that the execution is where credit lay, and also where fault ultimately lies....and not necessarily in the fundamental core design philosophy of which it exists, especially when in the past it has been proven that it can not only work, but can excel when done right.