This has been reflected in the tactics used by the creative industries as they attempt to prolong the lifecycles of their products. While serialised mediums like TV, comics and manga have faired better- their formats able to 'ride the tide' of the zeitgeist with each increment- other mediums like film and games have faired much, much worse. Instead, these other mediums, in a makeshift attempt to "serialise" their own release, leverage frequent broadcasting of trailers, trailers of trailers, announcements, and announcements of announcements to keep their titles in the minds of the public. It's frightening how effective these materials have become-- it often feels as though the public are more entertained by a good teaser (and the concept of the product that it provides) rather than the finished product itself.
It is inadequate for a title to remain just a title; it must become an ongoing event.
While one could understandably take issue with the overbearing marketing strategies, I myself am more concerned with the harm inflicted directly on the industry by this ludicrous consumer paradigm. The blistering pace of consumption has shortened the attention span of the market to the point where longer games don't even have enough time to afford completion before they are ejected from the limelight.
This is not speculation on my behalf. If we look at games like Octopath Traveller we can already see theses effects in play. Hyped for a year and a half before release, it is has been less than three months since it was published. Yet discussion of the game has already been relegated to the outer fringes of the internet. While this isn't inherently bad as the game may have fallen short of expectations (what games even meet expectation these days anyway?). The issue arises with the fact that the brief attention it received post-release was not even long enough for the public to finish its storyline.
We had piles and piles and piles of reviews and discussions to browse through but how many of them actually finished the game? Can we not even offer the material that level of respect before casting our judgement and moving on?
◇◆◇
I attended my first ever convention this month. It was a games convention, and I was there for business. I was finally stepping out of the bedroom and making an effort to interact with the industry I claim to be a part of. Immediately I was caught off-guard by the sheer size of the event-- while I had glanced at numbers and stats online they failed to conjure anything close to the actual scale of this mammoth nightmare of a convention centre.
I was there to speak to other indie developers in the hopes that they could provide me with some insight into how and where I should be heading (until now this was something I'd left to impulse). I wasn't expecting many there as the indie section was not much more than a tiny morsel tucked into the corner on the floor plan I was given. Fortunately this space was more in line with a football pitch than a morsel thanks to the grand scale of the building.
Perhaps it was naive of me to assume, but I had vibrant fantasies of this space oozing with experimentation: an abundance of novel and inventive concepts, ideas too bizarre and avant-guard for the mainstream. Naturally, I was disappointed to find it filled with an immense superficiality with titles pandering only to immediate, surface-level appeals and flavours of the week, all while flagrantly imitating other more beloved, more successful games.
Everything felt the same. Looking back I find that most of the games have blurred together into a mild, inoffensive blob (how rich of me to say, having release zero games). Nothing really felt new or interesting. Nothing felt authentic either. The only titles that felt like they were really pushing the envelope were those built for VR but the innovations of those games are really only breakthroughs in user interaction rather than a broader innovation in mechanics or narrative.
I refuse to believe that the developers there were lacking the talent or creativity to pursue something greater. This shameless chase for 15 seconds of fame felt like an act of survival rather than a concious decision.
Now people were quick to blame market saturation for the current state of affairs and I'm inclined to agree. However I feel like saturation should result in increased eccentricity rather than increased homogeneity. Yes, sure, you should be able to pitch your game succinctly in a way that is intriguing and easily understood but it often felt like that was the be all and end all for many of the games there. In an ideal world you would want developers to be able to make whatever they want, carving out a unique corner for themselves instead of catering to ineffectual mainstream inclinations.
It felt like the developers were locked in their own crooked version of The Prisoners' Dilemma, where everyone has to pander if only because everyone else is doing the same.
The whole event felt rather deflating. If we're not seeing innovation within the independent space then where are we going to find it?
◇◆◇
I promise that I won't do any more whinging, at least for a while.
And to close-off in absolute shamelessness, let me self-advertise my work-in-progress, The Valentine Watch. Please support its development!!!!!
