When the Dear Esther, Proteus, Gone Home debates started. I initially thought 'to each their own, and what business do some gamers have telling others what is and isn't a game. whoever loved em was of little consequence to me anyways.
Then I started getting into arguements with friends, and I see its not just about the cultural wars of hardcore vs indie casual tastes.
Its also about mechanical things like failure states, risk and reward which telltale/Quantic dream games, Stanley Parable actually have explicitly as opposed to Gone Home and Dear Esther. I laughed when I browsed about dear esther, thinking it was some Half-Life lost coast level that forgot to add the zombies. I also laughed when I first saw the steam tags for 'walking simulator' thinking some devs might feel insulted, and then being reminded, its your wallet. Dont you want an accurate description of what youre buying?
So I get whats causing the intellectual stir now.
From games with too much movie and not enough gameplay, from social media cash-for-points builders. Some among us nostalgic are feeling that the definition of a video game is being diluted by all sorts of outside interests, that the popularity of indie successes arent just seen by us in the community, but cynical people in entertainment who arent as aware and might think they don't have to invest as much in good production value and programming, when an hour to two hour title with very implicit mechanics is making waves.
Now I've got mixed feelings about this whole debate. I dont want more exclusionism in the community, but I wouldnt want any broken commerical scamware in the future to hide behind the idea of being unconventional and indie. That would hurt all of us.
What are you guys thoughts? Could use some perspective on this.