[meheleventyone]

The author is an indie game dev so I'm pretty sure they're aware of the segment and whilst it doesn't mention indie games until the footnotes I think he intends the critique to extend to that space as well. At least that was my reading of the whole thing from the perspective of being a game developer myself. Although I also know the broader context from the discussions on gamedev twitter over the past week or so. The footnote:

"One thing I really don’t like about the general direction of “indie” games is that they seem more concerned with aesthetics. It’s often aesthetic progressivism mixed with design orthodoxy. A beautiful hand-drawn art style for a puzzle platformer less complicated than Mario."

This cultural stagnation is also pretty clear across pretty much the whole landscape from fashion to games. We're looping through the same few decades of nostalgia creating more of the same with small variations. IMO it's just a result of the commodification of creativity.

[ajmurmann]

> The author is an indie game dev

I wonder if this where the different perspective comes from. As a consumer I don't care very much if 95% of what the industry producers it's boring, not innovative or otherwise bad as long as there are enough games that fill my needs. Right now there is a unbelievable amount of games being released. As an adult with a job who has a variety of interests, I can't even play a fraction of the games I'm very interested in.

[meheleventyone]

Part of the whole reason for the homogenization that comes with commodification is the goal of delivering something that maximizes the reach of the product. So you get these intense markets full of choice that is appealing broadly to consumers if not very differentiated. Hence things like competition based on aesthetics, branding and fandom versus core product differences. In games this leads there to be a niche for some innovation but it's not a very sustainable one for the developers and the market as a whole is oriented against it. Which is obviously okay for the average individual consumer but not necessarily great or health for the medium itself.

So in a long winded way I agree this is something that you'll care more about the more you care about the practice of game design itself.

[iterati]

My ever growing Steam wishlist with titles under $20 agrees with you.

[cableshaft]

We're visual creatures. Aesthetics sells games.

Games without good visuals/design can sell, but there's not a ton of games out there with ugly/sloppy graphics that become hits (they do exist, sometimes it's kind of the point of the game).

So if you don't place a high priority on aesthetics, you're taking a risk in your game not finding an audience. And I'm saying this as someone who designs games with a mechanics-first mindset.

The board game industry is very aware of this, and very few publishers skimp on game aesthetics nowadays.

When there's hundreds of thousands of both great and aesthetically pleasing games out there people could be playing, why should they waste time playing a game that doesn't look good to them?

[meheleventyone]

You're arguing against something that hasn't been said. Nothing in that statement says that aesthetic progressivism is a bad thing just that privileging it over design progressivism is. In particular you should look at the authors game Cantata because it's ludicrously obvious that they care about aesthetics.