[WIP] Artistic Bankrupcy in the Modern Games Industry
WORK IN PROGRESS
2026-08-09
My Personal Issues with the Games Industry
In the previous blog I mentioned that I have issues with the Game's Industry, well here is what I think.
The issues mostly have to do with the AAA games industry, but I also have issues about particular
groups of individuals as well, or behavious I find fairly repulsive.
Disclaimer:
Firstly, as always, this blog is simply my opinion. That means my views on this subject can change.
It means that I must necessarily admit that I am a product of my environment and time around me.
My opinions are also likely more nuanced than I can put to paper. I may make clarifications in the future.
Let's get on with it.
Games are Art
It's debatable and subjective. If you don't think games are classified as art, then this topic may not be of interest to you.
You can either skip this blog, or you can keep reading and maybe my words will convince you otherwise.
Additionally, if you do not care about games as art, and only care about it as a product to produce money
for yourself or others, then this article is not for you.
The crux of my arguments are mostly that games are art but greed and corporations incidentally
are counter-intuitive to this ideal.
When I talk about 'artistry' I am talking about games as art.
I am NOT necessarily talking strictly about the visual art, music, writing or game design individually BUT
as a composite of ALL of these factors, more or less.
Elegance, and mastery of these attributes all together is what makes a game a piece of art.
Artistic Bankruptcy and Inelegance
The main arguments in this blog are about
"Artistic Bankruptcy".
A game can be very monetarily successful, or even critically successful, but that has no bearing
on it's artistry. An artistically beautiful game is something creative, appealing and inspiring.
It's something to be praised and admired.
"Elegance" is a subjective term that I use to represent how I feel about the beauty in games.
If something is elegant, that means I think it is highly interesting or novel and is masterful
and without 'fat'.
A game can still be good and artistically beautiful even if it's not 'elegant'.
Some games, as a matter of fact, cannot ever really 'be elegant', like Dwarf Fortress or Brigade E5, because
they are too complex and have a lot of features. They could not be concise.
For games like Dwarf Fortress they still have a high about of artistic beauty, and it is in fact
a
literal piece of art on display.
Greed
Coveting money dilutes the artistry of games. If the shareholders care too much about making money,
then anything that does not significantly contribute to producing money is vestigial to them.
In fact, if a feature is simply "fun and cool" but does not show any significant promise to
increasing profit, then it is not important to focus on it.
A game must have a minimum level of fun, of course, but after a certain point adding more features has diminishing returns
Shareholders
The issue with the Greed of Corporations is that they are beholden to shareholders.
Shareholders couldn't care less about the artistry and fun of games. It is a money making scheme for them.
If they had to choose between making a piece of art that makes a fair amount of money and
making a slop game that makes millions of dollars, then the choice should be obvious.
Anything that does not directly have a part in making more money is vestigial to them.
The artisty of games is incidental to them. There is a minimum level of artistry they must
appeal to, but there is discretion to it. The artistry is there simply to make money and not for its own sake.
Shareholders care too much about money at the detriment of the artistry.
Lack of Risk
Shareholders also act in a 'Shareholder Democracy' meaning that it is hard for risky ideas to go into motion.
It is wise for a shareholder to act 'defensively' and not take any risks.
This lack of risk is why modern AAA games feel so boring. They are too scared to do something new
because, maybe, their audience will reject it. Modern AAA games have budgets in the millions,
so of course they would not want to risk all that money with the potential to fail. Would you?
Call of Duty: Black Ops: Cold War costed 700 Million dollars
to make!
Acknowledgement and refuting a Counter Point:
I am aware that it is a strategy for corporations to bank on a few small titles that
make the majority of money, while some titles make none.
Devolver Digital used this strategy.
In any case, Devolver Digital is an Indie
Publisher, and most corporations I have in mind don't do this (e.g., Bethesda, Ubisoft).
Additionally, it would be exciting if more publishers did this strategy! I would encourage it.
The "Mainstream"-ification of everything
For something to be Mainstream means that it follows, or reflects the prevailing appeals of society.
That is to say that something mainstream tries to make everyone happy.
The problem is that this leads to the problem of appealing to the "Lowest Common Denominator".
Any concepts that cannot be understood within a few minutes by a layman are discarded.
This kicks out players who desire a more stimulating, complex, or thoughtful game.
These players will never be catered to and must flee to somewhere else.
Are we okay with the dilution of our games and tightening the sophistication of game systems?
Do we want games that never go beyond a level of water-deep complexity?
I find modern AAA games so unappealing because they are ankle deep in terms of complexity which
makes them understimulating which makes them boring.
When a game doesn't present a fair challenge that one must overcome, then it just feels like going through the motions.
I like to learn and get better as I play games. Just doing stuff for the sake of doing it is boring.
Lack of Novelty and Derivative Games
I think it's artistically bankrupt to simply chase trends. It is WISE if you want to make money, but once again
it is at the risk of the art.
Game Clones
The criticism is subtle. A game clone itself is not artistically bankrupt.
If a "Clone" of a game has novel and interesting (together) features then it is more than simply a clone.
It's a sliding scale. There is no shame in taking features from another game and making your own spin on it.
But, I would say it is very artistically bankrupt to simply chase trends and
make games that are highly derivative of other games.
Let's say that a Clone is a game that is highly derivative of another game or genre of games,
we will call a highly derivative games with very few new features a 'Copy' or even a 'Rip off'.
Copies/Rip-offs are shameless and highly inelegant. It does not show mastery, but of riding the coat-tails
of others.
A simple, direct copy of another game can never be elegant. It is artistically bankrupt.
The problem with simple copying is that it lacks creativity, which is a lack of artistry.
Indie Games
I adore Indie Games and their Developers. They have an incentive to try new and novel ideas because they don't (typically)
have the budget to rival the AAA games industry and instead of competing against attributes of flashy graphics
and high budget spectacles, they try to fill the gaps and niches where AAA doesn't wish to tread.
They also tend to have an interest in games as art themselves.
A lot of Indie Game Developers make games that they themselves would want to play.
Defining "Indie Dev"
Some companies are strictly "Indie" development studios, but whenever I talk about Indie Development studios I
am talking about lower budget studios with smaller teams. The underdogs of game development.
Sandfall Interactive is a game development studio that made Expedition 33, but the team is so massive and
their funding is so massive, that they don't follow the typical qualities that I find desirable in Indie Game studios.
This is not because I despise them for these features (among other features).
So, there is not really a word for the type of Indie Game Developers I am talking about, but know that when I talk about
Indie Game Developers/Studios that I am talking about small teams with small budgets.
I am not discouraging Sandfall Interactive or any other studio. If they want to be called an Indie Dev studio they are free to do so,
but the typical expectation of an Indie Dev studio is a studio that has smaller budgets, smaller teams.
Examples of Artistic Beauty:
Emergent Game Design
Emergent game design is beautiful, and also maybe elegant too a lot of the time?
In Spelunky there are so many system that interact with eachother and cause 'Rube Goldberg Machine' levels of interactivity.
You throw a rock and it knocks out a caveman, but you're a person to! The rock comes back and it hits you and knocks you out!
In the future you go to the ice caves, everything is slippery, even your rock! You drop it and it slides, you run to get it
but it's on a bounce pad! You drop to get it but fall, and you're knocked out and now you're unconscious body slides around.
Oh no! You slide onto the bounce pad and the rock falls on your head... repeatedly... and you are stunlocked until the rock
bashes you skull over and over until you die.
Examples of Artistic Bankruptcy
Clones that are highly derivative
As mentioned before game clones that are simple copies, especially ones that are trend-chasing the trend of the week are artistically bankrupt.
They have no creative ideas of their own so they resort to plagarising others.
They are parasites that latch on to the coat tails of the more successful.
Go Back to Blog Index: Click Here!