@CoolCamel616 @Kevin-V @captainMorgann1 If you think these are barely games, then it’s only because traditionally we have a very narrow and rigid idea of what a game should be. Far too many people would say that the sole purpose of games is to entertain, or to be an escape of some kind. Compare that to any other medium out there, and you’ll see how much that viewpoint stifles the potential of games. Film (and not just movies) is used to entertain and to be a means of escape, but it’s also used to persuade, to inform, to document, to be abstract, to be taken literally and sometimes just to evoke empathy or understanding. Film covers movies, TV shows, documentaries, the news, advertisements, museum tours, home videos, art pieces and everything else. Games might not be suitable for all these purposes, but they might also be suitable for a whole load of things we haven’t even thought about yet.

I’m a big fan of Louis Theroux’s older documentaries and one of the things I love about them is how good they are at putting across the motivations and thoughts of someone who might initially appear to be a complete nutcase. Even if you don’t agree with the subject’s way of thinking, sometimes you can at least leave with a better level of understanding. Games have the potential to do this really well. They can put you in someone else’s shoes, arguably better than any other medium. You can become the person, whoever it may be, and do the things they do. Rather than just watch or read about it.

You might argue that the lives of a call centre worker, a cart stand owner or someone who is transgender isn’t interesting enough to portray in a game. That’s fair enough. I’ve played two of these games and I thought they were worth my time, but that’s up to you. However, I will disagree with you when you say that they’re not being innovative. In terms of the gameplay, you’re correct. There are tons of big budget companies out there that are dedicated to nailing down these aspects of gaming. These games’ innovation lies in the fact that they’re broadening the definition of what a game can be. They’re not fun in the traditional sense. They’re crafted to make parallels between the player’s experience and the protagonist’s experience; when the protagonist is frustrated, so is the player. I’d argue that they all do this in a way that can only be done with a game; with interaction. In my opinion it’s far more exciting to drop the traditional definition of a game, and instead try and think of games as being a medium just like any other. Just like any other medium it has its strengths and weaknesses. Games are more interactive than anything else, and as long as developers (indie or not) keep using this strength to do new things then I’m happy. I’m sorry to hear that you’re not.