We get to come at this from various directions but stick with it for a while and most of my reasoning should become apparent.
Whenever various game awards shows turn into a debacle and whenever the issue of "originality" comes up we get people saying "if only there was something like the Oscars but for games". There may or may not be some truth to this but here it will be held that such a thing is at best a forest for the trees affair more likely that the Oscars are an effect and not a cause.
For those not familiar with the arrangement when it comes to films there is one awards ceremony that eclipses all others known informally as the Oscars. Many or indeed most of the winners are comprised of the more interesting films which are typically shot at a far lower budget than what most people think of when they talk of Hollywood films industry. Film studios have long backed such projects too (and though some might like to believe profitability is in question it is not such a clear cut issue). Some might argue it is a case of entertainers entertaining their ilk (see also jam sessions (music and the likes of skateboarding), trick shots, the aristocrats and so forth) but for the purposes of this it will be held as largely immaterial. Such arrangements are also great feeders for those on the way up (Troma films and Roger Corman being great examples).
The definition of Indy games might also want to come up. It is quite fluid but more importantly one of the more accepted definitions of games made in basements and fueled by [insert local equivalent of ramen noodles, pot noodles, hot pot, nasi goreng....] might be as wrong as saying B movies are like that and for the exact same reasons (budgets still somewhat north of a year's salary, teams of many and sales in line with many others).
Variously every single game company has courted these sorts of developers over the last few years (Sony's recent e3 showing being one of the more memorable, a lot of what Microsoft did on the 360 with XBLA, Nintendo having the DS for it* and to a lesser extent people holding up the Wii as a system for it) and at least as far as the UK Amiga era games industry it was that in a microcosm.
*and with that base of developers evaporating/not committing as much as Android and co rise up it leaves some feeling a bit uneasy.
To that end indy games, as they are presently defined/defined somewhat up above, are they the equivalent of Oscar bait?
Whenever various game awards shows turn into a debacle and whenever the issue of "originality" comes up we get people saying "if only there was something like the Oscars but for games". There may or may not be some truth to this but here it will be held that such a thing is at best a forest for the trees affair more likely that the Oscars are an effect and not a cause.
For those not familiar with the arrangement when it comes to films there is one awards ceremony that eclipses all others known informally as the Oscars. Many or indeed most of the winners are comprised of the more interesting films which are typically shot at a far lower budget than what most people think of when they talk of Hollywood films industry. Film studios have long backed such projects too (and though some might like to believe profitability is in question it is not such a clear cut issue). Some might argue it is a case of entertainers entertaining their ilk (see also jam sessions (music and the likes of skateboarding), trick shots, the aristocrats and so forth) but for the purposes of this it will be held as largely immaterial. Such arrangements are also great feeders for those on the way up (Troma films and Roger Corman being great examples).
The definition of Indy games might also want to come up. It is quite fluid but more importantly one of the more accepted definitions of games made in basements and fueled by [insert local equivalent of ramen noodles, pot noodles, hot pot, nasi goreng....] might be as wrong as saying B movies are like that and for the exact same reasons (budgets still somewhat north of a year's salary, teams of many and sales in line with many others).
Variously every single game company has courted these sorts of developers over the last few years (Sony's recent e3 showing being one of the more memorable, a lot of what Microsoft did on the 360 with XBLA, Nintendo having the DS for it* and to a lesser extent people holding up the Wii as a system for it) and at least as far as the UK Amiga era games industry it was that in a microcosm.
*and with that base of developers evaporating/not committing as much as Android and co rise up it leaves some feeling a bit uneasy.
To that end indy games, as they are presently defined/defined somewhat up above, are they the equivalent of Oscar bait?
