Games get a lot of things horribly wrong when it comes to mature, intellectual entertainment. There are varying degrees of shades out there, but for the most part, it’s a dead-zone that is doing more harm than good. Not really because of ill-intent, but due to the “simple” fact that creating meaningful experiences for adults is hard work and doesn’t come easy (takes a lifetime to master).

We’re going to dissect an old game from 2003 called Legacy of Kain: Defiance, due to it being re-released as a remaster as the writing of this article (in Mar 3, 2026), and perfectly illustrates the issues with the thematic and underlying systems. It may be a very old example, but as the focus today is on maturity that materializes in subject matter and execution (mainly in prose), it’s the perfect candidate to tear apart; and also, many of the modern titles suffer from the same old tropes.

In previous articles, we’ve been talking a lot about what mature games are made of (meaning, purpose, value, and so forth), mentioning several examples of themes like spiritualism, politics, or concrete examples from the author’s, but there was never a moment to actually catch it in the wild and examine it (in another title that is). That time has come, surprisingly.

The Shakespearean fever dream with too much materialism

One of the biggest crimes against humanity, in all that is saint (prose) is to completely disregard artisan expression when it comes to delivering a line; figuratively and literally. Take the following example from the script that was made for the scene above:

The Elder God (cyclo-tentacle):

Harvester of souls I created you, and to this function, my angel of death, you will return.

You are my reaper of souls. You have no other purpose, no higher destiny. Just this. I accept your call Raziel. Let go of these vain hopes. Relinquish your will, and feed.

[...]

The Elder God (cyclo-tentacle):

That phantom weapon you bear is a constant reminder, isn't it? The Sword is waiting for you out there somewhere, and you tarry so as not to meet it.

Raziel (blueman-dead):

I could not deny it. As long as I lingered here, defying my captor, I was able to postpone what I feared was my inevitable doom: to become the ravenous spirit imprisoned in the Reaver blade.

This goes on and on for a while, back and forth. The irony is that there’s always a faint glimpse of what this prose could be when it lands on those few nice words (not necessarily rhetorical flourish) both in the written and the delivery, but is forced into submission that breaks the flow of thought that is not meant to impress in such a clunky way.

Games in general have this massive issue of transforming subject matter into something more that isn’t adolescence: In a way, it doesn’t matter what the goals are, even though it’s really tiring to mostly see physical purpose on action (e.g. save the princess, capture that flag), but the way it is constructed; well illustrated in our example. It’s not just writing, but in the delivery and execution of all the things; which is why making good entertainment requires a multidisciplinary approach and a lot of experience.

The Kain series, much like a lot of let’s just call them “diamonds in the rough” are centered around the tangible: Like that powerful weapon the main character carries. It’s there, one can point at it, wield it, and apparently talk about it a lot. Which then moves the plot and the world forwards.

That is the first of many mistakes to be made, when it comes to meaningful experiences. Reason being simple: Generally, materialistic desires do not require too much thought and effort and usually are resembling childish behaviors; the “I want this and that too,” when two kids are fighting over something. Problem with that is, that it limits the boundaries where it can go: It’s all about possessing, and those usually don’t provide anything other than the satisfaction of owning something (money, cars, toys, etc.); it’s just an emotional attachment, opposed to an intellectual one. And as such, owning an object usually doesn’t create meaningful discourse around it, as it’s mostly there to portray power and prestigious state in the hierarchy. Obviously, owning Art is a different matter, but usually owning wealth or objects doesn’t inspire people to become teachers, or reach spiritualism; again there could be some rare exceptions, but those are in the very few. Humans, after all, mostly been driven by primitive desires (greed, lust, etc.), not high concepts of existence or fulfillment. You might want to pay Dante a visit for this one (Inferno).

However, centering around or even mentioning objects in narratives aren’t just the only problem here. The other one is the use of unnecessary rhetorical flourish. A huge downside of this Shakespearean fever dream approach is (not just in this game, but in general, often depicted in great works such as the famous/infamous Disco Elysium), that it just doesn’t stop, and goes on and on forever. Being able to explain one’s self in a multitude of ways, being expressive and highly creative in prose can become overbearing quickly if there’s no moment given to breathe.

From saying the state of being out loud, “You are my reaper of souls,” to manifesting one’s own actions “I accept your call Raziel,” all the way to this non-stop charade of words-on-top-of-words for the sake of shoving off ”Let go of these vain hopes. Relinquish your will, and feed,”. That’s the classic show and don’t tell, and be mindful of what you write, not for the sake of writing.

This is a problem, because it creates this uneasy state of belittling the audience by having to spell out what is exactly happening in front of them, opposed to natural language in communication, which also destroys any trace of the imagination left on the table. Paired with this non-stop barrage of exceptional wordiness for the sake of it. Do we need these? No, not really. All of these aren’t necessary for us to understand what’s going on, or if absolutely needed, there are numerous ways to not do it in such a forward way that takes the fun out of it. And that’s a problem, when you wish to target others outside adolescence. This is where finesse, the subtle notion of conveying information comes to play, which is highly situation dependent.

While it’s understandable that a more poetic approach was favored, it’s heavy handed and doesn’t convey the notion of thought provoking:

So instead of writing this:

I accept your call Raziel. Let go of these vain hopes. Relinquish your will, and feed.

We could be having something like this:

Most cunning... Now shush, bow and feast! Free thy soul.

Again, it’s not really the issue with rhetorical flourish or wordiness per se (the intent is noble and should be upheld), because that’s always welcomed to some extent (even more if it’s done extremely well), but the way it was done (in this particular example) and the recurring nature of it was just too overbearing to watch (the entire game is like over 6 hours of this): It’s not always needed to be shoehorned in every possible situation there is. Sometimes less is more. And then there are info dumps…

Why are we listening to this?

Most of the time comes a moment when information is itching to be shared to players. Even today, called lore, is pretty much favored among devs to be used as much as possible in all the wrong ways. In this example, the main character approaches a fresco of some sorts, and describes the events seen in the depiction. If we assume it was a technical limitation (say they couldn’t fit in more models, scenes, textures), explaining instead of showing, is fine. If it’s a budgeting and time issue (there was no time to animate, to create all the assets needed and script them), it’s also fine-ish. What’s not fine is treating it as a lore dump whilst the character just stands there.

We’ve discussed the issues of the way prose was portrayed before, but we didn’t discuss its execution. Even if we strip away substance, the information we’re about to perceive, static camerawork just doesn’t do justice to it. It’s understandable that there’s only so few ways of making the act of looking at a fresco appealing; like going up to it, touching it, having events around it like debris falling, paint becoming illuminated, some smoke coming out of the ground scaring the character, hearing voices, etc. But what isn’t that most of these events are almost indistinguishable from one another; like tuning into a TV show that’s designed to be understood no matter which episode you’re watching.

The issue with this is that:

• It takes the viewer out of immersion. Not the act of the “cutscene” itself per se, but the act of knowing that “we’ve approached a fresco, so now we’re going to see a short soliloquy of some sorts”

• It conditions the player with its monotone approach (e.g.: this is number 5 out of 62), and devalues its importance, which is why many just skip these events altogether, as there’s no rhyme or reason in differentiating, as it doesn’t provide a “new” experience that the player must explore each time. If it’s mundane, then it’s no better than everyday life. Doesn’t need to be all spectacle either, but be different enough to make it a slightly altered experience. That’s why recordings and letters are a poor use of explaining more of the world.

And if we combine this with the usual sense of “diamond in the rough” exposition, then we could get an amalgamation of the borderline nauseating. Works well in certain situations, but not all of them, which is where exactly the impactful begins.

More of the same just isn’t great

If something is bothersome, it’ll be skipped. Take that image above as an example: There’s an enemy to the right, and it’s being ignored and run passed. Reason being that the player doesn’t want to spend another 10 minutes clearing the area.

Was shocked to see that the majority of this game revolves around the same basic design principles: shoving the same group of enemies at the player, over and over again, creating this artificial bloat; even in situations it didn’t need it, but there was always physical space in the world to occupy. In a way that signals poor decision making, probably due to how production was handled (design and scheduling) and not necessarily because of its age, which then hammers down on the player experience.

The combat in the game is quite repetitive (due to the limited moveset), and if you’re throwing the same encounters at players, just to artificially pad the length of gameplay (to slow down progression), than the issue of boredom arises (although some games like the Diablo 2 managed to keep players engaged, even though they only primarily used the left mouse button and that’s it); especially when you give such powerful tools to players, such as flying or jumping high. Fighting the same can be fun for a couple of minutes, but shortly after if becomes a chore, a grind as they call it (an activity of no or questionable purpose for the sake of reaching something opposedly “greater”, often delayed, usually used as a gating mechanism to obtain unlockables at a slower pace).

This phenomenon is seen in modern design as well, because purpose is not easily constructed: You can’t just say “be interested” without the ability to ease the player in; with the assumption that the player is aware and willing to take part, if they don’t and the goal is to solely get from “A” to “B”, then there’s no amount of persuading that can help.

Market expectations

We all know that games, especially these days, are really not competing with each other, but for time in general; which includes everything under the Sun, from leisure to necessities. What mustn't be neglected, is how this relates to player expectations. Because long gone are the days of being able to half-arse design. It can work to some extent, but for the majority of the time, players will notice and voice their opinions, resulting in poor sales eventually.

Expectations can come in all shapes and forms. Primarily the result of wanting to get a truly wholesome experience from playing. And this is how we circle back to the good old universal, multidisciplinary approach in design, as everything the player “touches” and sees are interconnected. And if we can’t provide the solution they are looking for, yes it’s a problem solution as much as a technical one, then satisfaction won’t be achieved.

With a concrete example: If the game is not challenging, not exciting, has content that can’t be skipped because there’s no real compelling reason to stick around, then you get experiences like World of Warcraft (where very few play it for the lore, it’s more of a social experience than classic entertainment, although these days it’s slowly becoming an everything game with housing and pseudo pokemons). While it works, it essentially strips away the possibility of having a lasting impact. Not to mention that while it’s “expected” to have features X, Y and Z, those are there to be counted only (hoarded really), but not experienced; which is essentially saying that creating for the sake of creation. Then, just to be manifested in wasted production  efforts (again, just think how quickly WOW expansions are churned out, and it’s not just for the problem of it being an SaaS).

Context matters as much as the audience it hopes to reach. What shouldn’t be ignored is the fact which tools are we using for our purposes. There aren’t any rules to follow other than the one for the exceptional: Because it encourages us to learn and to explore. Otherwise we risk stagnation and inbred design and ideas; which is where gaming mostly is.

There's a big difference between product and problem obsession. One is a hotfix and the other one is a version update. While the first one fixes the seemingly burning issue, it doesn't fit into the context of why the issue was present in the first place. It doesn't provide answers beyond the immediate, nor offer solutions long term as it is situational by design; a one trick pony if you may.

That short term solution becomes a problem when new issues crop up, doesn't fit well because it's universal and not necessarily solves anything at all; kind of how treating the symptoms won't solve the underlying issues.

The road littered with nails

To illustrate the power of problem obsession we're going to imagine the following story:

There's a road high in the mountains where a person walks through every day. The road is not safe as it's littered with rusty nails and other sharp objects. The person also doesn't wear shoes, yet they walk the road each day, despite them getting sepsis from all the walking.

A product obsessed would look at this and say “Give the person some boots damn it!”. Which sounds amazing and reassuring—solving a clear problem, right?—because it can be immediately turned into a measurable outcome; countable in the dollars (1 person buying a pair equals X). Then if anyone looks at this, this could seem a lucrative business. But what happens when the boots souls erode away from all the rubbing of sharp bits. Do we issue more shoes? Great, more income! But what happens when nobody can afford a pair or want to afford one? That's where problem obsession comes to play.

Why are we in Kansas anyway?

If we ought to create something that lasts and provides true solutions to burning issue, we must start asking the questions that matter and point to the source, Why is this person wanting to walk this treacherous road in the first place? Perhaps, if we could find out what's on the other side, we could better understand their needs and motivations; and more importantly provide a solution which they wanted, because if we look at it, with or without shoes they're making that trip.

That's where the strength of finding the root cause lies, focusing on what truly matters. By being in the shoes of them, being obsessed in providing a solution, we can create a deeper connection between the subject and the remedy. Which in turn will last longer, be more durable than any other quick or easy fix to a seemingly burning issue. And if done well, so we'll in fact, it may cause prospects to defend it till the end, because nobody wants to lose something integral to them.

If it's burning then it's hot, real hot

Circling back to universal experiences, and creating impactful games here.

Usually, if there's a burning issue that the market hasn't solved yet, it signals a couple of things:

• Either too early to have a solution for

• Or has been ongoing for a while

First one is evident that the early bird catches the worm. The second one, however, much like gaming is with impactful experiences, gets complicated real fast.

If a problem hasn't been solved for this long, talking about decades here in gaming, then it means that the problem exists because the market hasn't found a solution for it. Either due to:

• Incompetence (possible but not 100% certain)

• Negligence (more likely)

• Or both (highly likely?)

• Or none of those

Sometimes the nature of complexity is to be blamed, not just the lack of will or expertise. People were smart in the past as well, and if a problem hasn't been solved yet, then there’s always a reason for that (either oversight, lack of knowledge, missing components, etc.).

This lack of ability to solve demands are pushing solutions to viral heights, Why do you think certain games go viral if they're not part of what AAA is doing for the most part (remakes, reboots, SaaS games like extraction shooters)?

Because Gollum, who was seeking the ring has found it and managed to take possession of it!

Just think about it: If we crave something for so long, and when something remotely resembling pops up in our view, we immediately leech onto it (knowing that anything closer won't come any time soon) because that objective we want is remotely represented in the thing we just found; and something is better than nothing, especially if all you find is emptiness.

Where impact comes alive

This is where the power of impactful games shine the most, as this is the very place where they can prove viability: fulfilling a natural crave that is integral to our living & being (meaning, purpose, and so forth, that provides comfort, belonging and fulfillment). This is why the parallel of a lifestyle was driven for these types of games, because their innate ability to reach people and solve issues most solutions fail to address. And because it’s hard to come by and produce, it’s that more vital to emphasize the severity of the situation: Seeing certain comets are one in a lifetime experiences, so we ought to make sure we catch the nearest one.

The time has come to debunk yet another myth about design, and examine the pitfalls that this approach normally entails. Much like the word “impact”, “universal designs” aren’t of the devil’s and something to be afraid of!

Back to basics

The terminology is often confused with using it in a context that doesn’t fit the criteria: Universal designs, in the correct context, are experiences that could be enjoyed by anyone, regardless of age, gender, background or anything in between. However, “universal” must not to be confused with the popular corporate approach of “widest possible market penetration tactics” that tries to aim for the broadest and the bland, losing identity and meaning along the way.

That approach usually hinges on data alone, like customer preferences and cultural taste, and completely disregards the interconnected relationships between the general “cause and effect”. Essentially arriving to the conclusion that adding popular culture references, excluding certain aspects of visual storytelling, or limiting subject matter ensuring low parental ratings is not the way to go: That’s not a design with organic sense, but with false intention to appeal; which, more often than not, is met with some forms of opposition.

What is it then?

Gaming has this negative connotation attached to it, that in general it has this “toxic masculinity” that permeates it to the core; seen in design themes in topics such as nudity and explicit content, violence, action, profanity, guns & war, and so forth. No surprise here, as historically games were driven by a male dominated industry. Which, sadly was for the worse and has cemented certain legacy incentives that to-this-day drive the industry by large and acts as a gating mechanism for certain experiences to thrive (alongside dictating what gets made or not).

Then there’s the issue with the pendulum swinging onto the other side, trying to compensate for the lack of experiences this ecosystem is providing, and disregarding the good things that could contribute to the equation: This is the territory of pure “gender” or “agenda” driven designs, without having a better term to describe this phenomenon, where say typically boys played with cars and girls with dolls. This approach is sterile, artificial in nature in an attempt to compartmentalize the human experience for those who can’t comprehend it otherwise.

May seem not so much of a big deal, but truth is that this is a fairly huge and important topic within behavioral and developmental psychology, where forcing certain behaviors or limiting them can severely damage people (crippling their personalities and causing trauma and coping mechanisms in the long run) and be the cause all of a variety of issues later that could manifest in relationships, work-life balance, handling stress, poor judgements, and so forth.

To be healthy, to live life to the fullest, one must have all at their disposal. That’s how we grow as a person, through our experiences (going out, meeting with people, eating icecream, driving a bike, etc.), so living in a coffin does the opposite of intended: Creates uncertainty, isolation and fear of the unknown.

It all boils down to understanding the fundamentals behind what makes an experience universal: emotional connection, empathy and limitless bounds. Might be surprising to hear, but everyone can experience (to a fairly large degree) the same emotions, as well as relate to others, because that’s what makes us human to a large extent; it is the core of what makes us who we are, imbued in the social fabric of our lives (which was already scientifically proven ages ago that caring for each other, socializing is what made Homo sapiens what they are today, and a huge part of that was relating to one another, that’s why people are so noisy about things). 

From a practical point of view, being universal means avoiding the extremes on both ends, where a superficial limit is imposed on the subject:

• Experiences are subjective, using stereotypes doesn’t paint the full picture (repressive approach)

• The hard limit of the “black & white” translates to designs that makes a world one dimensional (say a character can only feel anger)

Emotional connections come from understanding the intricate relationships between us and the rest of the world: If someone is rich and says “stop being poor” than it doesn’t solve the underlying issues of society, exploitation, mental & physical health, education, debt, abuse & domestic violence, differentiating circumstances and job skills, inflation, politics, segregation, wartime, and so forth.

A very simple example would be giving characters options to solve their problems other than by using brute force (the stereotypical masculine way): They can think about it, use tools, ask for instructions or make someone more competent to do the job. The experience immediately broadens as now not just monkeys can relate to the issue at hand, but those who act with more rationale; notice how age, gender or background didn’t play a role in any of this, that’s why it was a universal experience. This shouldn’t be confused with the mundane as said.

This goes way beyond “just giving more options” to choose from, rather accepting the fact that experiences, who we are, are influenced by the world around us, in a multitude of ways, that drives our everyday lives; from kindness to cruelty. It is seen in the language that we use, the clothes we wear, the way we think and make decisions, because nothing lives in isolation and everything has an influence on one another.

Don’t force it

It’s not easy to categorize what makes an experience universal as it can quickly fall into the rut of “using X and Y” and call it a day. Much how DEI is getting a bad reputation these days, often labelled as “woke”, as more often than not, subjects are just shoehorned into pre-existing situations, often trying to avoid everything that they’re supposed to fight against (which people find as an attack on themselves and their values), where they don’t belong by far as the foundations that they’re built upon aren’t there; so giving a character a different gender of ethnicity will not solve the underlying issues (people live under all sorts of circumstances).

What could help is to think of it from a third person’s view: What would someone else say about the experience? How would they perceive and relate to the subject at hand? Is it universally understandable without a barrier (like emotions or senses), or needs a very specific set of knowledge to understand; kind of how fandom operates in its own vacuum of space.

Time & space also plays a huge role in this, as most of the time people need to be guided in order to understand certain experiences. This is usually where a large chunk of mistakes are made in the first place: The assumption of knowing the unspoken. To some extent, using the right tools, one can guide anyone to be able to relate to something that they’re not familiar with.

The dilemma

The industry is plagued with this issue, which is why it needs to change. The problem with this statement is that it requires an entirely different mindset and approach that has to be built through experiences and dedication to the craft of honing one’s skill; which takes years and years to develop, so one just can’t start acting accordingly and expect good results immediately.

It’s also a complex subject, to know how others views experiences, as much as understanding the basics between the aforementioned “cause and effect”: What makes the world what it is, or why people act the way they do. It’s like seeing the attempts at wanting to create sprawling fantasy worlds, but fail to populate them in a meaningful way, which is often mistaken by either adding more stuff or faking it’s history (by adding more things to relate).

Most things in life are the consequence of being long in the making, and what may seem easy at first glance, might be the most difficult thing to replicate: That is to say that those had time to blend, to evolve into something completely different, and not just by mixing the ingredients and giving them a good shake (as certain causes and effects are the direct results of combinations to various degrees that came before). That’s where the difficulty comes from for being truly universal, as it’s fairly easy to get it wrong.

The answer can be rather lackluster and somewhat obvious: One just needs to move beyond their own confinements of comfort.

Explaining 

From a fairly young age it became apparent that what impact required— something to reach people beyond the immediate—meant to go over the expected and to work on it with full force.

Remember a lot of this, back in the days most spent behind a desk, that whenever a great piece of art was debated, whether it was literature, sculpting, painting, and so forth, there was always some sort of disconnect—between the art and the students—especially the more abstract the piece was.

One can easily objectify art if it's more of an illustration of the immediate (almost akin to a photograph, or 1:1 representation or with slight deviation from reality, if we solely), if we solely focus on the outcome opposed to technicality in execution (e.g. brush techniques, subtle lighting, delicate poses), but less so if it's more detached from what we see in real life (more abstract that is).

Pointing out that more often than not, meaning rose from having a long history of understanding of a particular situation or insider knowledge—like a feeling, emotion, event or lifestyle—which inherently brought the assumptions of relatability: As an example, if someone ever experienced depression than one could “theoretically” easily relate to a piece of art that depicted it—otherwise it became meaningless or challenging for the viewer to be easily understood.

And that is a problem, because (especially in a controlled environment like education, where everything needs to be churned out as fast as possible as there's no time for anything) it limits the options for something to become universally understandable. Obviously, this borders the question of Art itself, it being a tool for self-expression or a disposable one for the masses, maybe both?

Rather, exposes the notion that making art is as much as an expression of the self and everything around it as much as enjoyment for others; as we can find solace in creations made by others. Key differentiator being that not all art is created equally, and one’s passion—without the consideration of others—can be off putting for others; which is where often the term “niche” comes into play. We could note that sometimes having a narrow market share can be a good thing, as trend setters are still evergreen, but we’re putting those to the side for the sake of argument—as those out usually outliers and rare occurrences.

This is why one must look beyond the immediate and view it from the lens of an observer's: Which is what the foundation of something that's usually universally acceptable begins with. Obviously, there are exceptions to this rule, as technically anything can be elevated to such esteemed heights (if the institutes or circumstances are there to do so), but those usually come late, posthumously, maybe at a high price, or could mostly be cherished by a handful of few—say in art houses or in rare collectors’.

This approach slightly goes against the ethos of making art, but a necessary evil if we ought to make a living out of it.

Founding your voice

Does the process ever get easier? The answer is: No. It can take years just to recognize and differentiate one’s craft (becoming competent in describing and materializing one’s thoughts and ideas), let alone morph it into a sort of solid consistency that's more-or-less capable of being repeatable. It is almost always an arduous task, walking down the same lanes from conception to reality.

With time, some paths shorten, others disappear, while others elongate even—in pursuit of mastery. In a way the work is never done as they say, but that doesn't necessarily mean being unable to finish something. Rather, knowing when and how to stop and reach that desired outcome—which is something hopefully others can enjoy too.

Having a bird's eye view, or just putting something aside to come back with a fresh mindset is already a great leap forward in making sure that what we create isn't made in isolation of a void.

Reflecting

This topic has come to my attention as of late for various reasons, but primarily seeing how ideas out in the wild are rarely representative of this ethos (often causing failures by the end). And in fact embodied key differentiators between what my personal views were and how others saw theirs.

This matters because unfortunately everything needs to be compartmentalized up to a certain degree—be categorized for others to easily understand. Because that's the basic form of communication, which goes against the belief that half or no words can still carry meaning—guilty of this too. It can work, only if it's done exceptionally well. However, in general, its usefulness comes from needing to build and maintain an audience.

Might be the bitter salt of aging speaking here, but my tolerance has shown significant decline over the years, seeing all the same results over and over in pop-culture and adjacent media; the assumption is that it always was like this, but less observed.

What is striking every time is, the conviction of one’s belief of the immaculate: There's no such thing on its own, never was and never will be. Which is why, despite seeing signs of the questionable (in descriptors in works being examined at a particular time), the benefit of the doubt is always given. Only to go south right the moment where it's needed most not to falter; and getting technical where it shouldn't be. Always a puzzle as how having an interesting premise can be turned into mediocrity at best. If the energy is there to master something exciting, why not follow through with the same delicate approach?

A majority of what makes art repelling for me comes from this backwards notion of building: focusing on technicality, often measurable in the numbers: The “it has this feature” or “it represents this” or “moving from A to B”, but when anyone examines it closer, it simply becomes a set piece where events unfold—suppose that’s the burden of the materialistic world.

Some say this has something to do with talent, experience or skills. Up to a degree it is unfortunately true, as one can't fly on their own (like a bird) without wings and feathers. What isn't is the effort put into conditioning and mastery: Being open to explore, and rewriting the pathways of the mind to be as universal as it can be. Because without an open eye, one can't see much ahead.

Sometimes the smartest questions are the ones not asked!

It has yet to be discussed how impactful gaming, as a whole, would emerge within this venture. Today we are answering that burning question and exposing anything in between!

Where others stay put

The general flow of matters is that when a concept forms for a title and consequently a studio around it, there isn't much else for the future to look forward to*: Churning out single titles one after another, in hopes that it can be maintained ad infinitum.

Sometimes priorities can change and if revenue sources allow it, say we saw this with PocketPair (makers of Palworld) which now acts as an indie publisher, then the business can grow beyond the stage of its initial boundaries.

There's nothing wrong with this approach, as businesses “romantically” (maybe could be categorized as historically) started out as tiny solutions for an immediate problem; sometimes more of a solution for selfish reasons (somebody wanting to do something for their own amusement) or could’ve been intentional in solving a problem someone had come across (which then managed to grow in popularity and gain traction later on). However, that approach misses a key ingredient that can differentiate it from a typical studio (startup in this case): The greater goal of a mission.

*This becomes apparent when the company has no long-term goals, speaking of 10-15-20 years down the road. Investors, for the majority of the time, especially in later stages of a venture (up from series A) aren't really enthusiastic about that; as it signals incompetence or immaturity in envisioning a better future for the company. Imagine hopping into your car, driving onto the highway and having zero idea where you’d want to go. Works fine if you're on a vacation and wish to surprise yourself, to spice things up, but investors want to see clear, laid down tracks (a roadmap) which they can follow and accurately match their predictions with; because if say the gas runs out and there's no pump station around, or you never go anywhere just driven in circles, then that can become an issue. Stability is always preferred when money is on the line; unless you're in a casino gambling it away.

The larger ecosystem

From the very beginning, the goal wasn't “just” to make single titles, but to create a brand that could be at the forefront of this new wave (of culturally significant titles). But what are we even talking about here?

Every-major art movement had its roots in wanting to stray away from the current status-quo (some were more rebellious than others), and to find solace in something that's been missing; that was the whole point of it, to fill in a gap of opportunity. It has been said ad nauseam, at this point (especially for those who read through each previous article) that this venture is aiming for cultural/social significance. To reiterate in short: The kind that is meaningful, complex, transcends the medium and leaves forever lasting impression on people (encouraging them in all sorts of ways).

What hasn't been said, that this is something equally important for others: Making games isn't the point here, what is to find and provide what people have been looking for; absolutely different from the usual approach of making something cool for the sake of it.

That's what the mission part stands for and is all about: People are drawn to this, to the missing part in their lives that centers around depth, meaning, complexity and lasting experiences; that was the sole purpose of this video as well (to explain why making impactful games is such a great deal, and how the tide has turned in favor of them, in form of an audience that's waiting for their desires to be filled in).

And people are actively seeking out opportunities within that same realm. Has to be said, that the bond is so strong and developed, that it being devoid in today's societies, created this phenomenon that those who meet first time can immediately understand one another just by exchanging a few key words of ideas and concepts (almost as if they’d been best friends forever); essentially displaying their commitment and thoughts about this common cause or better liking (which if not understood, could be referred as to fandom, but in this case there's no one particular thing to rally behind, because it's more of a movement, well it is a movement).

In a way there's already a form of proto-ecosystem in place*, which grants a base for it to grow: The audience is there, sort of loosely banded together, they're just waiting for the opportunity to arise (any really); which was often mentioned as opening up the market for new audiences (like I'm that previously mentioned video).

*The beauty of it all comes from the fact that one needs not to build a community, in the strict sense of convincing others of a new thing to be worth more than what meets the eye (essentially building up something from ground zero, which could take ages to achieve), because that has been already taken care of; more or less. Why? Because the need is there (inherent in a way, so no education is required to understand the movement) and searching for meaning is universal, knows no boundaries (may it be political, geographic or diversity related, or whatever else one might think of) and can take any shape or form (as this movement not being bound to any particular genre or art form).

Branding

This is where the term social impact comes full circle: It's not just there to transform and be ever lasting, but to serve as the backbone of something greater, a force that pulls others in without question.

Because of its scarcity, the opportunity is there to take advantage of, because prospects are so deprived that they're willing to do anything to not just save it but see it flourish.

For this reason alone, the approach here is to establish a baseline of:

• Quality

• Execution

• And subject matter

Essentially operating as a “beacon of hope” in the video game industry; some might call this reaching a state of prestige.

Serving as a baseline for the movement is one part of it, via making games, the other is making sure that the future is also as bright as it can be. This is where branding comes into play, by leveraging its power to grow beyond the confinements of a single studio making games:

• It's there to raise awareness and grow the venture

• Serves as a nurturing ground for future talents and projects (as an institute and publisher)

• Acts as an organization for preserving progress

• And encourages adjacent industries under its belt, as the movement knows no boundaries

The work has been cut out, and will be a long one for sure, as these goals, alongside keeping the mission intact, are not easily reachable without the correct mindset and will. That is the biggest reason why very few have attempted this so far; not because it's impossible to achieve. However, one must look past certain aspects of business and need to think of this whole “mission thing” as an interconnected system, that needs a lot of moving parts in order to come to life.

Once it does, it can become a force to recon with. That's why placing an emphasis on the future, by elevating like-minded people, is at the center of this project. For the sole reason that founders live for only so long and the knowledge must be handed down to the next generation for it to survive. Or be in the awkward position where say Hayao Miyazaki is (Japanese animator and filmmaker) as the future of their business, the studio is at stake, as it remains to be seen if their son can live up to the expectations/legacy long term.

In previous articles we have demystified what social impact meant, we battled the gargantuan misconceptions of what meaningful games were, and how those could materialize in the wild. This time around, we’re taking actual samples from a concept that is at heart of this venture (for bringing games to a whole new level that is in the long term).

Has to be noted that it is by no means the final step, far from it, however one must start somewhere “safe” (in this case it being a vetted project) when investor relations are at an all time low for video game startups (the going from 0 to 1 kind), and you need not to alienate your allies if possible; in a race where there are no contestants really, so one has to be as calculated as possible (true artisan can only come afterwards).

All images are for illustration purposes, gathered from ArtStation.

Art by Yuhang

Setting

From a glance choosing “dwarves” as a set piece would sound like anyone’s stereotypical fantasy trope. But if we examine the reasoning behind it, which also ties into its storytelling and gameplay mechanics, we’ll find that: Stereotypes are usually what people associate when coming up with designs for the first time; as those are common knowledge.

In this case the association came from being a solo developer, which is very similar to what “dwarves” have been doing in late interpretations of popular media; as originally the world “dwarf” meant something akin to forest spirits and nobody could pin-point their exact functions or aesthetics in earliest of historical records (even the word itself is shrouded in mystery). For most of the time solo development is:

• Isolating

• Bone breaking

• Relentless

• Anxiety inducing and driving one into insanity

Which is an analogue to mining in the dark and cold/wet, alone, not seeing sunlight or the end of the tunnel; notice how we achieved relatively deep subtext just by describing the surroundings.

This is just one aspect to it, which is then provides the foundation for telling a story. On one part it is about the struggles of the character itself; which translates to years of grind to no end, akin to what my experiences were. On the other, it provides an opportunity to expand on the already established.

Reshaping

Art by Ricardo Lima

What that means is to have the opportunity to not just use a solo developers’ experience as a metaphor in the game (literally translating events into characters or occurrences), but to transform the whole notion of what “dwarves” are supposed to be: Cave dwelling beasts.

In this project, one of the goals for the settings were to abolish or at least re-think what this “historically” accepted pop culture piece has become, because the very notion of being one dimensional is embedded in their modern interpretation (as in being associated with one thing, like character traits of wanting to dig for valuable resources, or living in a very specific location).

Which is why the whole themed society has been abolished (mountains aren’t full-time living spaces anymore, just say mines or shrines and other important places like tombs or gathering halls) and switched to something that would better suit (the personal taste of the author, for wanting something different) the pursuit for spiritual enlightenment; which is at the center of the game/story.

The goal of the game is to experience the hardships of being a solo developer (not necessarily by literally translating the difficulty of it into 1:1 representation, like in a souls game, as this isn’t a hardcore title) and to reconcile with one’s self; and in the case of the story, to find answers to why the protagonists was banished into the mines first place.

Art by Florent Lebrun

Realization through one’s self (where spirituality comes into play)

At the beginning of the journey, the story starts at being captured and indentured for “life”. Which presents the opportunity to reconcile with one’s actions, to answer the questions of:

• What went wrong

• How things could’ve been done differently

• And what were the mistakes or misses in one’s perception (that led to the demise)

Each point can be then further explored throughout the game by presenting opportunities to shine light on each aspect of the character’s personality: Could be done via gameplay elements, narration, interaction with NPCs or the world itself.

This however only represents one side of the coin: Internal reasoning. Then must come the other aspect of the unfortunate circumstances that the situations unfolded in: The status of the character, the people around them and the world they lived in. As outsiders (players of a game) we must be “taught” of what the character is, where they come from and what emotions and thoughts they have; which comes at a price of time and exposure to such (in medias res).

By learning of the interconnected relationships of the “nation”, we are also presented with a unique opportunity to show an other side of “dwarves” that rarely seen or not exists at all: Their “human” nature. Because in a more realistic setting (as in not one dimensional), living beings have a sprawling culture, have needs of their own and colorful heritage from their past. By examining them, we can get a unique insight into their “new” (in this interpretation of what “dwarves” supposed to be) ways of thinking, and find answers as to what went wrong in the protagonists’ head.

Exploring spiritualism (can be as simple as (the materialistic) why do they hand a leaf next to their pantry, all the way to exploring (the metaphysical) greater questions of the meaning of life), being part of cultural customs (in the form of quests given by NPCs, like attending a ritual of the dead or celebration of summer solstice) or just exploring the fabric of society (the rules, the web and relationships between status and power) are all part of it; which is where it can and will diverge from the “usual” and offer a freedom to explore new territory (and not be the same as several iterations have come before).

Dramatically changing their lifestyle isn’t the only thing that the project is aiming at, as there were concepts for radically redesigning the looks and feels of the race: Not all of them look like the same, as variation can come in a lot of shapes and forms (which is something productions have had great issue with, because there’s only so much you can do with short people).

This is a wonderful tool if you wish to show different perspectives of different people, from which we can all learn and grow alongside the protagonist; if we ought to listen that is.

Art by One Pixel Brush

Politics

A more sinister reason for ending up in the mines as indenture comes from real life itself: More specifically the political climate of certain nations of today (combined with some historical ones). Have been mentioning this numerous times before that “There’s no such thing as a bad story, just poor storytelling,” which translates to the fact of taking inspiration from real life and incorporating it into any narrative.

The act of selfish interest, can be neatly represented in “caricatures” (or whatever form) of certain people or events even, which then can drive the story, give the player motivations to act upon. In this case it comes from corruption, deceit and power struggles, within the ranks of high society (nobles, military), but also a reflection of austerity, fear, negligence and exhaustion (in society in general); which all then explains the reasoning as to why events folded the way they did.

All of this is there to show what ignoring certain events can lead to (like watching elections go south and not opposing the forthcoming of extremists, who want to shape the world for themselves), and what deeply embedded society can become if there’s no hope in changing it (kind of how the Russian society operates at large).

Suffice to say that none of this is there to lecture, or educate in the sense of edtech, where you are literally sitting in a “class” to learn something; that’s not the approach we’re aiming for. This is the classic “show and don’t tell” territory, where you’ve to navigate through all of these difficult and challenging subjects (via expressive locations, music, carefully orchestrated narrative, etc.) without the listener ever noticing an “agenda”: Other than learning from your own mistakes, be open for change and the world around you.

Intentional or not, it is part of the fabric of the story. Which is where personal interpretations can come into play, where anyone can take and mold certain aspects into their own liking. Which is where true impact begins, as it encourages people to formulate new thoughts on an already existing subject; which is why the possibilities are endless. We ought to keep this in mind if we wish to make a difference in this world, for as little time we’ve left.

While this example was only the tip of the iceberg, it already showed a way towards that desired cultural/social impact the venture seeks to achieve long term.

If stacking mechanics and graphics no longer suffice then, What do we mean under “soul” or “meaning” that's been missing and been a differentiator for the next generation of gaming?

One aspect of this has to be told comes from “dedication” or “seriousness” to the craft. Which will sound ominous and something to stay away, but if you look art great artist of the past and present, you'd find a common dominator: Absolute focus on the best with next to no compromises; a high bar to meet.

Sophistication in intention and execution

Take movie making for example: It is as much as science as art. Have a look at this example of exposure control. It perfectly encapsulates the challenges of what makes something Mediocre to what we'd call Cinematic: The number of variables that make up the final product can be overwhelming, and doesn't necessarily come cheap when it comes to paying attention to the outcome or knowing your way around.

Or this about color pallets. How set design, lighting and color grading affects the mood and composition of each scene. Which in turn enhances storytelling (conveying deeper emotions) or straight up controls it.

This is where design, narrative-in-design for assets usually comes to play: Not just telling a story of a character (how they have an eye patch, and a missing arm, indicating a calamity in their past), but ensuring it ties into the world and the encompassing narrative of the whole game; to ensure immersion.

The big difference comes from knowing all of this in your arsenal: To have intentions for breaking the rules of cinema (as an example), not just for the sake of not wanting to follow rules. Because at that point comes the loss of meaning and everything becomes unintentional; a drift in the ocean of similarity.

This is a problem because to some degree you need to show focus, actual focus on the subject matter that you wish to present: Which is usually portrayed via close-ups or framing a scene (say two people standing on each side with a table in the middle). It communicates to the viewer what to focus on. Otherwise you'll end up with Avatar 3, with those massive sweeping shots you’ve no idea what to take out of, and ultimately losing interest in knowing more about it: There's no storytelling between shots, as it is up to your interpretation to what to take in, just showing it as is, kind of like in a documentary (but without a voice over), which defeats the purpose of filmmaking.

This is where the human touch plays a huge role: Creation comes from the amalgamation of all the things that make up a person (the experiences, the taste, the age, even the mood of the moment, and so forth), which are represented in the final product: If a person half pays attention and uses rough and broad strokes to paint (without much care), the final painting will look lackluster and signs of disinterest and lack of sophistication (in the sense of purpose) because there never was an intent to craft something to begin with (as each brush stroke has its place and meaning contributing to the final product). If there's no intent then everything becomes a reproduction of real life or imitation of others.

Tonality and the lack of it

Easiest example is choice of words: You can clearly distinguish someone who swears like a sailor a lot from someone who uses rhetorical flourish to express themselves: Let's say they're not angry, then it conveys a certain level of intelligence/formality in the ability to express themselves to others(not necessarily a reflection of their true intellect). This becomes a major problem when everything is stripped down to bare essentials and leaves a lot of information out of the picture (thus making it that much more difficult for others to relate and understand): If there's nothing to process, nothing to move us, then attention is not required at all so there's no point of wasting time here (which is why many tune out if they don't find something that satisfies their needs).

One of my more memorable examples comes from an old, if remembered correctly, Neocore game where a cinematic had the line of “nightly quest” in it. That was the point where it 100% became clear that they didn't even tried to create a sense of sophistication we’ve been talking about for the past few minutes.

By exactly communicating the goal of our journey (in that cinematic), we were essentially robbed from grasping (going through the notions of understanding why we're needing to go on this epic journey) the underlying core of it all. Which could’ve been told by a few establishing shots, or quick cuts and some more clever writing (that's not on the nose and guides people to the right mindset). Even by saying “the duty is what is there to be done” leaves a lot more on the table (for the imagination), because the player doesn't need to be pointed out exactly what needs to done (in a hand-holdy kind of way). Sort of here's where the classic “show and don't tell” advice for writers comes to play: Avoid info dumps and try to show it in action or through events, opposed to dry descriptions.

There's no need to know everything, even if it's critical for the narrative. People still use buses all day long, yet very few know how to change oil on those, or how it operates mechanically.

Subject matter mediocrity

Action heroes, monsters and beasts and aliens. Kind of sums up the spectrum of mainstream gaming these days: A tiny slice of the otherwise enormous cake.

Everything is so violent, centered around the extremes (the most powerful, the largest, the richest, etc.), when if we care to take a moment we discover that there's not only other things to explore but a variety to: Techno isn't the only music out there after all.

Games tend to fall into this category where everything revolves around the same X amount of themes. But where are the historical dramas, tellings of events of the past that defined us or were of great importance (making of first printing press, building the pyramids, discovering new flavors, etc.). The answer is nowhere because those are deemed boring: A subject is only boring if told poorly.

You can use a variety of tools to elevate subject matters that have been prevalent in other medium for a long time (staying with the example of cinema): Planning out shots (camera angle and distance), letting events fold out on their own (showing a scene), using lighting and set dressing, using well written dialogue or voice over, and so forth. Anyone can turn a seemingly dull experience if the care and effort to get there is present; if we can do it, so can anyone.

Target audience

An important distinction has to be said that this sophistication inherently isn't for everyone as it requires a certain level of attention and personal desire to take it all in. If the attention-span is 10 seconds, then chances are they're not the target audience (probably not the required age as well).

Execution with purpose

What sticks the longest are experiences that form a deeper connection within our brains; that’s just how life works. The longer the break between shallow impulses, the more likelihood of losing that experience, as there was nothing tangible for the mind to latch on to: We’re constantly bombarded with information on a daily basis, and emotional impulses aren’t worth the effort to remember fully or at all (as we go through those a lot just by living, and we’d get overwhelmed fairly quickly with garbage information, if we were to remember every mood change we had).

That’s why certain events get embedded into our minds, a traumatic event, a wedding, learning a new language, because always something important (in our lives at the moment of for the future) were involved or present at the time; living and breathing is second nature, not something to remember of (speaking of the superficial nature of focusing on the action side of things, as in doing something physically).

Examples can range from “showing communication types in certain situations” or “telling a cautionary tale” or “showing possibilities of resilience” and so forth; really nothing of rocket science, but there has to be a need for it to be sought after. In a more abstract way, even the fact of using certain colors, shapes and forms can be indicative of a meaning other than what is shown.

A lot of the time the magic happens outside of the confinements of the medium: Not knowing everything can fuel or interest to fill in the gaps, to know more of the subject.

Timing is key

A lot of the time there’s just simply no room for allowing outsiders to get into the spirit of the experience; this was shared a while ago where a content creator realized how much they’ve been missing out by rushing things in gaming (linked here).

Journalists are the prime example for this so observe in (take note devs!): They don’t care about the game they’re being presented, because they come across hundreds a day (in certain situations). They need time, they need to know why they should care: Fancy story about McGuffin or a lost kingdom will not suffice. Instead the craft to make it, the presentation, the attention to details, the mood, the visuals, come first, which then must be followed by substance and purpose if you wish to leave a mark. Otherwise they lose their interest as they move on to the next game.

In games that come by knowing how much to let players do their own adventures, figuring out what to do and how to do it; before falling on the wrong side of the horse. That’s why tutorials are ignored in general, especially if those are in the form of massive text blocks. Best experiences come from living through those, not by being told what and how to feel at any given point. Kind of like preparing for a lovely late night dinner: Lighting the candles, putting on some soothing music, and dimming the lights, then starting the course itself; not shoving everything into the blender and drinking it as smoothie.

While our lives are increasingly being forced into a faster pace, we ought to find solace in experiences that give us the time needed to fully embrace.

Market saturation

If you're all ears online, you can come across some fairly interesting content from people, dare to say “marketing research material”, that's beneficial for devs or anyone wanting to invest in gaming. Putting aside the fact that content creators are already capitalizing on Highguard’s launch of a disaster (linked here), but more importantly, seeing this insightful video about Steam releases of the first week of 2026 (linked here). Clearly showcasing that saturation mainly exists in volume, not in genre or quality; you are competing for time (taste if we look closer), regardless of the size of your game or the market segment you're hoping to target. Which is to say that you can analyze the market to bits, but that’s not the sole driving force in an industry that’s supposed to be creative.

This issue is more apparent when we talk about the underlying issues of the industry at bulk: The stacking of mechanics for example (as mentioned a lot of times already in previous articles). Let’s take how FPS games work: Technically there's nothing more you can do with them, apart from a few incremental adjustments. From a technical aspect, most functions like gameplay, controls, movement have already been covered through the decades. That's why it's difficult to make a competitive shooter (say Highguard), as everyone can just default to the oldies like CS2 if they wanted to scratch that itch (because these days you need that differentiator to pull people in); asking Why would anyone play that instead? Partially that's why Highguard is struggling (as you can shoot in it, but much like hundreds of other games before). Design limits aside, it only caters to those who’re perfectly content with that level of entertainment; which is a very narrow segment of the (much larger theoretical) market. This isn't unique to mechanics, it's in the design as well, like UI because there's only so many ways to convey certain information on screen.

The analogy is that gaming is as if book publishers suddenly wanted to compete with using different fonts, non-standard sizes, fancy 3D artwork on covers, and odd blocking for paragraphs and other gimmicks, instead of focusing on what mattered the most, the guts of the book: the story itself.

However, adding more story, or lore for the sake of it won't fix this issue if the underlying structure is flawed, as the fundamental problem comes from this inorganic, binary view of life that everything has to have a materialistic presence & purpose, and nothing can exist beyond our understanding; that's why organizing and labeling is so important for these types of people and is a massive oversight in gaming.

Like it or not, art has nothing to do with boundaries. Which is why you end up with most cars looking the same but with different coatings (simplifying it for the sake of the argument, excluding safety laws which are very much important and should be in place).

Exhibit A

A practical example would be the project under my supervision (for which the fundraising “campaign” is ongoing, if we can call networking on LinkedIn that). For starters, the setting already has an underlying tone that's a reflection of solo devs’ life, the hardships and isolation that comes with it (represented in a fantasy world with dwarves, caves; which is sort of a “happy” accident, long story,but the goal here is to shed a new light on them as well, from a different perspective, not the old dogma, so the opportunity presented itself) which drives the design, mixed with influences from the real world (like politics, historical events).

Second of all, and this is where the magic happens, the goal isn't to “kill that boss” (although there would be plenty of points-of-interests) or grind 100.000 claws. Not quite. The goal is for you to get lost in the world and forget everything. That's only possible if you design it that way (from a technical and design point) and emphasize interactions over trivial mechanics: You chat with people, find out more about them and yourself (changing your view of your actions in game, and hopefully in real life as well if it touches you, as the core of the narrative centers about knowing more of the people as mentioned, focusing on culture and spiritualism), you interact with them and the world around you, seeing the consequences of your and their actions as well. The focus is on the atmosphere that comes from these interconnected systems and relationships, otherwise not really measurable in numbers; this is where it gets abstract and often confusing for people to understand.

Don't get this wrong, this is incredibly difficult to pull off (requires great execution in all the disciplines and years of practice), otherwise it just defaults to a standard quest in WOW or any other MMORPG where it sort of becomes an obstruction for raiding.

Meaning, on one hand comes from care from the player, after the game managed to spark that very specific tone players so desperately desired; that essentially can be called the hook, buzz word in the business. The talking points mentioned in a previous post (subject matter, intonation, language, etc.) are missing in gaming at large to make this happen. It is foolish to expect that “saving someone from harm’s” or “chatting about love interests” can make a conversation or spark attention; too shallow a way of thinking.

One can quantify it as much as they want (doing this or explaining that), missing the point of what all of this is about: To have a soul, which comes from the amalgamation of all the ingredients, not the individual pieces lobbed together. More specifically the information, the message one wishes to convey, and how they're achieving that: That is the classic “show don't tell” approach. Not everything needs to be on the nose “look how angry I am”, or driven by numbers “he’s over 9000” as it sucks your imagination and interpretation dry from an otherwise beautiful equation; in the end it gets sterile on top of the poor subject material and execution. This is then further exacerbated by the disconnect between player actions and scripted events, design of the interface, controls, movement, AI, animation, etc.

Subtle differences, to further elaborate on what makes interactions memorable, are notoriously hard to pin down as they require a lot to come together. An example would be that in movies the shot (where the camera and the subject is), the background and foreground, the props, the lighting, the subject matter (say closeup on actor to show expression), pacing (both for action and camera movement), the scene itself (what is going to happen), who plays the role and how they look (as film heavily relies on visual, although sound is more important than that), how good is the wardrobe, the makeup, the emotional power of the scene (are we crying or talking to someone), and everything else not mentioned.

One can construct it mechanically, but always ending up close enough yet far away to make great films (games in this case), if one doesn’t have the right mindset on what to look for and how to express themselves other than what they’ve learnt in a book (or in most cases saw examples of in popular media and made it their own). Experimentation and breaking down barriers is what this is all about; supposed to be anyway.

Link to Summary presentation

Thesis statement: Video games and entertainment at large have no real cultural impact (going beyond fandom), are made on conveyor belts en masse and do not provide fulfillment beyond the superficial that only lasts as long as the experience. In the age of consumer empowerment, the rise of the conscious customer, this is unacceptable and actions must be taken to meet the new demands of the market; otherwise continue the downfall of the industry.

Note: We are examining this subject from the Problem, Customer and Brand angle, leaving Demo out as this is a pre-seed venture; although some materials do exist, say in the form of a prototype.

#1 What's wrong with video games, why is that a problem and why investing in the right place matters? [PROBLEM]

#1.1 The rise of the the conscious consumer

This has been a challenge for Marketing for the past decades as consumer habits radically transformed, as they became more selective and conscious with their decisions; also more difficult to reach via traditional advertising and psychological methods. The average percentage of tertiary education mapped onto the entire population world-wide has risen above 43% in 2024 according to the World Bank’s data (link to source); in some countries this percentage is even higher than 50%.

This increase of development in education has brought a new wave of challenges for advertising at large, as appealing to emotions to be transferable to actions are yielding ever more diminishing returns: People simply look past the old methods, which is why influencers and content creators are rising to the top. This trend is further compounded if we include the wide spread of knowledge and regulations available for the customer in this digital age: Every major purchase now is exceeded by extensive research, or the very least the word-of-mouth of others or trustworthy sources. And because gaming is a form of luxury goods, dismissing this new reality resulted in catastrophic failures on loss of returns and immediate studio closers.

This becomes an apparent issue as higher education usually forces, on one hand, the requirements for entertainment to rise up for the new challenge. If it's not met, then there's a higher chance of leaving it behind or passing it entirely; having to fail to have a grip on retention is a direct consequence of this trend.

Societal norms also shifted the past decades, as once again openness and progress has given a moment to breathe: From the freedom of expression, to acknowledging neglected groups of society, to advancement in education, technology, lawmaking and societal norms. To meet this new demand, an entirely different approach is needed within the gaming industry and entertainment as a whole; discussed further under the “Brand” section of the article.

#1.2 Entertainment and beyond 

The fundamental problem comes from understanding the source and function of entertainment: According to the Cambridge Dictionary, in this context, it refers to “amuse” and/or “think about”. Technically an activity for people to take back something in return whilst “participating”; whatever form it may take.

Similar to most things in life, entertainment is not a static phenomenon, rather an ever changing environment: Representative of a person’s ever current taste and state of mind. So what happens if the supply of such remains linear? Can come the issue of not finding the right option in order to relax, to entertain oneself. Sometimes this is represented in “growing up” and leaving certain aspects of life behind, whilst chasing new things on the horizon; Children love the sweet taste of things, however, growing older has the effect of seeking out more spicy adventures.

Which brings us to the problem of not being able to find something that satisfies this new wave of consumers. Generally, when this matter is brought up, the first thing that usually is to blame has nothing to do with quality or merit, rather the person themselves; often questioning their mental state such as being under depression. There’s this false assumption, rather vocal and outspoken among gamers, that if and if there’s this feeling that games no longer provide enough satisfaction, then the issue must be with the person in question and only them, not necessarily gaming as a whole; trends and predatory (monetary) exploitations are part of this narrative as well (as those force certain ill-design decisions such as creating inconvenience in favor of monetary resolvements).

This dismissive approach is not just detrimental, because it mostly assumes that the issue can only be one sided (often with a person’s mentality, rather than the product), but also forces people into submission by “recommending” methods to cope; like taking a break and going for a walk. But when everything is of the same flavor, or barely differentiated from one another, lacking substance for deeper engagement, then Why are we blaming those who want something different? Why the false accusations when people see what's possible yet missing? That is why supply in video games is nowhere near close to what traditional media has achieved, in terms of taste, quality and sophistication all in one bundle; certainly not in mainstream gaming that is.

And this affects those who’re looking for something but cannot find their “fix” (especially those with higher forms of needs, opposed to the cheap): It creates this uneasy environment, which affects one’s mental and physical health (mild cases can vary from anxiety, to digestive problems, all the way up to more serious clinical states like reflux, stomach ulcer or in extreme cases cancer; as long term stress has been documented to be clinically damaging to the body down to the cellular level, as we are constantly bombarded with anxiety inducing issues on a daily basis), in the process of not being able to find something suitable to fulfill their desire. It is an innate mechanism we all have, as we all seek to enjoy the gift that was given to us at birth, and as such demand to enjoy what little time we have. This is especially true in this day of age where time is a valuable commodity and everything is fighting for the consumer’s attention.

Unfortunately, gaming has not yet “risen up for the challenge” (as it was discussed in previous articles), as it is yet to reach those who wish to get more from games other than cheap thrills; which demand is rising as consumers are more educated than ever. That approach only works for the young in age (not exclusively limited to), but as time moves on, an increasing number of people are looking elsewhere, for more intellectually stimulating experiences; often opposing the corporate treadmill. Which lack of decent entertainment is becoming prevalent in large consumer catalogs such as Netflix's; because for some, finding a suitable movie is out of the question.

This vacuum becomes more pronounced with age, as recognition of patterns, gimmicks and tricks are revealed, and it becomes more challenging to find something new and inspiring. This is a major problem in mainstream gaming, in entertainment as a whole as well, because the more “abstract” a product is, the more effort it requires to produce, which is something studios and large corporations tend to neglect in favor of the cheap (primarily due to effort vs. returns); because aiming to entertain adolescence is more accessible when they don’t have the knowledge of how things work in life, haven’t seen all the tricks, thus they’re easier to manipulate (which also creates another problem of forcing them into this cycle of low effort and inadequate teaching). There are plenty more left of the table, which is why breakout games like Dispatch occurs.

Then there’s the issue with time: Video game publishers always tout that when pitching (especially calculating projected revenues) one should never compare their project in the league of similar AAA or viral success stories; as long as the means to compete aren't there. This assumption falls short when we look at the fact that all games are competing for the consumer's time (as mentioned before), whether it is accepted or not. That is why it is also crucial to keep that in mind when making games and taking care of that notorious issue with quality and execution. And as any time a game is forced to compete, a player will not hesitate to skip something if they see no value in trying.

That is why the goal here is to address this, be mindful of the possibilities and apply a much needed relief to a wound that has been left unattained for decades; as far as gaming is concerned.

#2 What are we building here and who’s it for? [CUSTOMER]

Adding to the previously explained customer profiles, providing transferable experiences in a changing environment is critical, especially if that is leading the future of progress. It is achievable by addressing the following:

• Recognition of the missing themes, merit, quality, etc.

• Addressing and adjusting target age group (e.g. taste/requirements) starting from beyond adolescence (although not exclusive)

• Subject matter and merit reaching beyond the superficial (take literature as an example)

• Execution and quality reaching above the mediocre, in sophistication, style and approach

• Reaching Social Impact that transcends beyond gaming (cultural significance, which does not equal to fandom, like cosplaying, rather reaches beyond to become of historical significance)

Sophistication is not solely originating from reaching higher education, but is a catalyst in today's society: It drives consumer habits and opens up new possibilities previously deemed not profitable; or was locked behind bars to gatekeep.

While gaming is viewed as a form of art, however, it is yet to achieve a status other forms of creative endeavors have achieved before: To become “fine art” in certain situations, a driving force for cultural significance and remembrance. This is important as it drives engagement and builds up “brand” recognition among its users.

The future is in these valuable experiences that have the power to transform the world around us. The scale might vary, but the purpose does not, as intellectual fulfillment is becoming the center piece on the stage.

The venture, independent from individual targets for IPs (even then not necessarily inclusive to those), aims to capitalize on this new trend that is more inclusive (as half of gamers are women, link to source by ESA), respects inclusivity (even outside of current gaming, to encourage them to join), and shifts the paradigm of the industry to better suit the current state of the market (which all considered is an irreversible trend). Age, sexual identity, social status or nationality does not play a role, as the experiences aimed at people are universal to human nature; opposed to the cultural niche that gaming is today.

Impactful experiences come from the variety of the spectrum of building blocks. Limiting those is the source of the issue that must be avoided. Suffice to say that this is a reference to artisan expression, subject matter and execution without the limits of the current economics of the industry. It is not a measurement of the cheap and the bland, aiming for the broadest, general audience possible; art and entertainment is highly dependent on personal taste after all. There is a reason why shifting to this new paradigm doesn’t come by simply following the above noted instructions, as a portion of the success hinges on reaching a certain threshold in quality and merit.

#3 Why this venture? [BRAND]

“One can clean their mouth with their hands or by using a towel,”

There’s this clear differentiator for sophistication that separates the two experiences mentioned in the above example. Neither is necessarily deemed good or right (some are defined within culture or personal preferences), however one is preferred over the other when refinement is a measurement of etiquette.

The viability of the solution (for the above mentioned Problem) comes from a number of factors:

• Technical limitations are no longer the bottleneck for gaming (generally speaking, within reasonable limits), and as a consequence artistic expression no longer is bound by the limits of early computing.

• Due to advancement in technology, there’s a clear diminishing return on progress: There’s a theoretical limit which prevents the continuous making of giant leaps that drove the industry for decades.

• Stacking mechanics and graphics no longer the source of awe, as now those have become expected and a standard across platforms; technical innovation is no longer a selling point (to a fair degree).

• Changes in demographics, the widening of the audience has already reached a tipping point: Players are searching for more. Catering to decades of legacy driven incentives is hindering progress and an industry wide gating mechanism is not helping that.

• Aforementioned change in the composition of the global society has reached an all time high, ready to be explored.

• Recurring breakout hits further reinforce the need for change, as the industry cannot deliver value en masse.

• The industry is currently in another massive reset, partially due to unsustainability (due to post Covid recession and continuous failures in high profile circles).

• Innovation is kept minimal, devoid of risk-taking, so does the flow of capital into the industry; mostly high profile studios can leverage additional resources.

• Games are more accessible than ever, thanks to the internet, social media and influencers.

• More and more gamers have voiced their opinions about the state of the industry, moreso the products that are being delivered (too early, broken and filled with micro-transactions).

• The ill-corporate mindset solely focuses on the same, risk avert investments, creating clones, remakes or reboots. Something gamers also argue about.

• There's a gap within gaming that's yet to be filled, to be the next step in evolution for gaming: to reach cultural relevance (fandom does not count as it is niche if projected onto society).

• Due to advancement in ease of access for making games, there's a growing need to create value and soul, as the market, such as Steam saw 20k releases in 2025.

• More and more outliers are popping up but don’t have the resources to make a difference.

The brand’s gaming arm is set to focus on the aforementioned “next step” for video games, reaching cultural relevance by making impactful products that transcend the boundaries of gaming. The gap exists, and hasn't been filled in, due to a number of factors such as:

• Requires a blend of artistic and technical mindset and everything in-between and beyond. In an industry that's mostly tech driven (“man-handled”), this sort of change is inconceivable.

• Multitude of disciplines are required as a precursor for such operations; rarity among developers to have them all (especially lifetime in the making), even more rare to be in key decision positions.

• Difficult and time consuming to create value at scale, which is why entertainment tends to fall back on the cheap.

• Different, non-binary mindset/execution is required (gaming is too technically rigid), has to originate from a more creative source as changing the thought process does not change the core of the mechanisms that drive the system.

• Gating mechanisms prevent meaningful progress (both financial and personnel), and change from outside rarely occurs (due to the costs involved).

• This level of artisan approach is alien for gaming for the most part.

• Gaming has been stuck in its own “cultural ghetto”, unable to grow past whilst focusing on action and leaving out everything else the world has to offer (often leaving themes and experiences on the table). Hence the failure of reaching cultural significance and the labeling from the general public of “solely enjoyable by kids”.

• Aiming for cultural impact hasn't been a priority, nor acknowledged of its importance.

• Certain design philosophies are driving mainstream gaming (often toxic masculinity).

• Sophistication of this magnitude is yet to arrive, and certain “gravitas” is lacking from productions (seriousness for themes and execution).

• Operational and cultural structures are broken and not suitable for these kinds of ventures.

• An entire new foundation for making games is required: The rise of the sole author, as historically speaking, games were the product of cooperative work, often losing identity in the process; which is now blending in the abundance of the cheap.

• Above all, comes the mindset that drives all of this that's unique to those in favor of traditional art. There's also a good reason why western animation is yet to be taken as seriously, as to say its Japan counterpart.

• Quality often lacks in certain departments where greatest impact could be achieved (such as the narrative), solely because it is not prioritized from the general, technical mindset.

• Teaching, or creating experiences that create discourses are not prioritized.

Then there are the factors that come from the personal experience and knowledge of the founder’s, that started outside of gaming and ended up there; essentially encompassing the entire arsenal required to make games (through personal hand-crafting as a solo developer) and more (like business or marketing). This unique blend of experience is used as a driving force for their seemingly endless artisan desires and high bar for taste.

Standing apart was always the staple of the founder’s work (partially comes from a different way of thinking), often daring to embark on projects nobody else would: Being experimental, realistic and staying true to their vision, often turning seemingly dull experiences into something worth exploring; as their sole belief lies in that good narratives come from good execution no matter the source (as what matters is the angle of approach and the delicate touch of sensibility). This unique approach also comes from a lifetime of experience and the many skills acquired or honed from the earliest of ages, giving them ample time to adjust and find their voice; this also includes facing the challenges and inherent circumstances that life presented and continue to do so.

The “value” in gaming for players is often restrained to tangible aspects of design as previously discussed (mechanics and graphics), however, the key differentiator comes in the form of meaning and narration, the story that is being told; the human side of things. That is what moves people, especially under these market conditions and industry maturity in technical execution, which is something also an uncomfortable truth many in the field do not wish to face or admit; or put the blame on something else for repeated failures.

The most striking difference is that very few developers would dare to tackle or be interested in turning deeper subjects into games such as the horrors of the Holocaust; using it as an extreme example, as subjects such as poverty, neglect, everyday life, and so forth, are also part of this. Generally for the reasoning that those are (deemed) uninteresting or way too serious for gaming; or have no place because of their “inherent” lack of value for entertainment (the amusing, thrill seeking kind that is assumed games can only have). The same can be said for the founder’s approach to creation, which originates from traditional techniques from literature, and is more focused on other aspects of enjoyment (opposed to pure action).

This industry wide isolation also played a factor in defining the outlines of the brand, making sure it occupies all spaces necessary, to provide a refuge for those who seek different experiences, as well as be a beacon of hope and a force to bring gaming to the next level: It is as important to game good games as to be beneficial for the industry and the world in the long term.

The Brand is there to define and forever change how people view gaming: It is there to show and be a staple of value that games can be much more than what society thinks and that they can provide an ever-lasting fulfillment for everyone involved. That is as much of a cause to fight for as to keep creativity and artisan expression alive.

If you look around the video game industry, chances are you heard people saying the following:

• Funding from conception is dead 

• You can’t do anything with an idea 

• You need traction and a good MVP to get anywhere 

Creative industry or not, it’s rather dismissive to lump every notion of a new project into the same category of “The idealistic fool” without thinking or asking questions about its merit to exist.

Bob isn’t your rich uncle from the US

Much like the notion of “Social Impact” (discussed in this previous article), there’s this repulsive stigma against startups that mostly exist on paper or in very early stages like a prototype (certainly not meeting the strict requirements of a vertical slice or MVP). However, the question we should be asking instead would be, Why are we talking about this in such a way that implies the nature of nepotism and easy going? Carelessness, in the sense that if you’ve the connections then uncle Bob will give you anything you want, regardless if it's a good or bad idea: Essentially saying “No need to prove anything for me, my sweet child,” That way of thinking stems from the incorrect assumption of what a “concept stage startup” actually means.

To put it bluntly, the case cannot be further from the truth, as this fairy tale does not exist at all (apart from the very few you hear, from a friend of a friend’s, from the circle of a millionaire’s seen in a movie from the 90s). Expecting zero due diligence when money is involved, usually a lot of it, just reeks of incompetence and ignorance from those who outright oppose the notion of pre-seed ventures (the notorious part of going from 0 to 1); which is the focus of this article.

Start from the top: So what is conviction?

In the world of venture capital, pre-seed is the birth-ground-of-it-all, because everything needs to start from somewhere. However, this fertile soil has an inherent, glaring aspect to it: Often there’s nothing to show as businesses have reached not a single milestone. So if there isn’t a product, or the first lines never been written down, then How can someone want to invest in what’s essential just an idea? (not existing on paper) The answer is conviction: The belief of the founders’ that they will deliver and carry on with the business far into the future; not some backroom project for the weekend. And that requires a lot of due diligence to get enough information about; to convince the right cause of all of this.

The power of belief is twofold:

• First it establishes the baseline of dedication towards an investor, who asks questions such as: “How much are they willing to sacrifice?” “What is the limit?” “How long have they been dreaming about this” and so forth. The importance of this lies in the fact of separating the dream from the impulse. Which in turn have far reaching implications.

• Second of all, it draws a clear line behind personalities apt for business: Ones who can solve issues and can handle the immense stress and personal sacrifices needed to run a startup. Which entirely hinges on their immediate performance (as there’s nothing else the venture can rely upon at that point, like previous income from sales) in navigating between perils and running the shop up to specs. If these aren’t aligned, then better not to spend anything at all.

So as you can see, those are very important when judging the viability of a business, because ideas and products aside, the people are the driving force of any operation; without them nothing happens really. And if they can’t do it, then all will fall apart; that’s why certain ventures fail as founders exit the first moment they realize they’re not the ones cut out for the job (or fall victim to internal struggles within the team).

Creativity and business (has to go hand in hand)

In the world of venture capital, ideas exist, but not on a napkin, rather in a well defined document called “a business plan”. Usually it is there to define all aspects of a business, way before spending anything or laying down the first brick. It usually includes a lot of things, such as key aspects like:

•  Executive summary

•  Business description

•  Management and organization strategy

•  Market research

•  Product and services

•  Competitive analysis

•  Operating plan

•  Financial plans and projections

•  And the list goes on and on if needed

Ideally it is a document that can be 50-60 pages or more, well into the hundreds if it’s required. When money is involved you don’t skim on the details, as everyone wants to know everything, right down to the tiniest of screws, to make sure that $500 million investment goes to the right place; just imagine how stingy banks are when asked for loans for your next car to be purchased (they require a lot of paperwork prior often driving you nuts if you’re not in the exact position to be in).

Essentially saying that “impact assessment” is a major part of these business plans, where the future owners lay down the foundations, assess all aspects of operation (and the effects for the future), all of which must be evidence based or not exist at all (rendering the business invalid); obviously, we must exclude impulse driven investments, as these aren’t part of this discussion, like chasing the latest hot commodity on the market.

It also has to be said that making games, well any creative venture comes with the caveat of needing to think business at one point, if aiming for commercial success is on the list. That means that similar efforts and care has to go into planning the “ugly” part of the equation (the business part that is) as much as making it (the art part); one cannot exist without the other. 

The irrational-rationale

Different stages of venture capital (from pre-seed, to seed, series A to whatever else, at later stages) bring their own level of anxiety; some are more, while others are lesser. However, the further down we go, the “easier” it becomes; solely based on the concept of prior work, because at later periods in time, a mature business have a lot more at their disposal to rely on and say “we’ve proof that your money is save with us”. This translates to the fact that in the earliest of stages a lot is on the line, and founders are usually on the edge of insanity: Because they want to make their business come alive, as well as most terrified (if circumstances don’t align and they’ve to ask for external help) for not succeeding; which puts a lot of pressure on them. 

Consequently saying that when someone wishes to tackle this whole “wanting to make games” (or any other type of venture, regardless the industry), then there’s a good chance (if they’ve all the data to back it up, and have the right mentality) that they’re not bluffing: Which is something very different from someone writing down an idea on paper, opposed to be someone with full dedication and plans to make it so. Missing that kind of chance is just a slap in the face of progress, all that should encompass what creativity is all about: The freedom of expression, where the soul of it all originates from. If that’s not present, then you end up with products that are made on a conveyor belt; which sort of summarizes the state of the industry at large.

What about viability?

There’s this false assumption that you can only test a project if it’s in a state of near completion; where this craze for MVP or traction comes from (generalizing here, because in some cases hard investment returns demand such an approach). But if we look back at some of the Kickstarter campaigns of the ages, we’ll find that some of the time there wasn’t anything but a few pretty pictures, maybe some gifs or some video footage somewhere in the background; certainly not something people could put their hands on right away to see it for themselves. 

Just think of how Star Citizen made its rounds: There was no demo people could play, it was purely “sold on the base of an idea of a concept of a game”; which is still under development with no end in sight. That just proves that due diligence had nothing to do with the success of the game, nor did the developers themselves do their share of work in judging how much it will cost and how long it will take. If Chris Robers were to have gone to a publisher, he would’ve been laughed at in the face straight away (with what he had at the time, and what he hoped to achieve).

All in all, it is a matter of approach and care, because if you look behind the curtain, there are plenty of methods to assess, the check if that particular idea is good enough to tackle or not. Some parts of it rely on the intangible (like taste), while others are measurable by the senses. It has to be said that you never solely rely on any of these, but in conjunction with one another, to create this web of interconnecting solutions that mitigate the risks to a tolerable level; zero is unattainable, only occurs at the stage of an MVP (which is why it’s preferred these days, a guaranteed return on investments).

• Developer knowledge: Expertise as well as experience from previous releases is crucial for making judgements of what could be or not. It is however not the hammer that makes the final call. It is a tool to assess the capabilities of how it would and should come together. As those with this in hand know that certain decisions can lead to certain outcomes. Prior knowledge also helps in seeing what others cannot (speaking of the average person who has no developer experience; and fears when they see something mid progress); think of it knowing what colors you’d get if you mix blue and red together.

• Other forms of media: A handy tool to test certain parts of the concept for the fraction of the time and money. This can range to board games, to comics, short films, mockups and test scenes, and so forth. Even the act of asking someone, like an artist, to scribble up a concept can turn the tides.

• Social media and discussion forums: Interacting and acquiring data from the future target audience is key. This doesn’t necessarily mean that one has to show the game or the concept to them (or to discuss), but be an active participant within, to see what their tastes are and their needs. Noting that matching those 100% usually ends up in the category of “I’ve seen this”, as interest usually goes towards that is new (and not experienced before, hence the novelty cannot be constructed just like that).

• Social presence: In this day of age, devs must have an account on most prominent spaces, in order to have a chance of discovery. Which perfectly presents the opportunity to show your project to the world, and get real feedback on it. This can be Facebook, Reddit, Youtube, TikTok, or whatever you can imagine, as long as you can reach anyone within your target audience.

• Prototyping and vigorous testing: Another fantastic tool is to simply test some of the features in reality (actually playing it). There’s no better way to hammer out the inconsistency that arrives from the unknown. If it doesn’t work in that phase, then it’s guaranteed to fail by the end (with a lot of polish).

• Market research: Knowing your audience is one thing, but how is everyone else doing is another. Not for the sake of copying, but to understand the stage you’re hoping to participate in. Highlighting the fact that this is important, much like any subject you learn in your life, that first you need to understand the basics in order to deviate from them later if deemed fit (in the name of progress, because rules are meant to be broken, and only act as a guidance when starting out)

• Product, execution and a lot of questions: If something is not clear, then a question should be asked (from the source of the idea) that how XY would be implemented. That can give anyone a better understanding of their skills, abilities and plans for the future. If they cannot answer those or with not great clarity then there’s a chance of failure.

• Game design document (the thorough kind): It stems from the understanding of laying down everything prior, to avoid instances of scope creep, and to know the boundaries of the venture. That includes everything from art to mechanics, to plans for marketing.

• Team assessment & discourses: More eyes on the project, means different angles of the same thing. Simple team discussions from you to the old (in development space) can also help decide the validity of a project.

There’s probably more on the side of ideation, or perhaps experimentation, but hoping that these gave you a quick overview of how one can test the viability of “just” an idea, way before spending a lot of money on something that wouldn’t work; so next time if someone say “ideas” cannot be tested, you can easily contradict them with a lot of examples. If someone were to apply all of those, then when arriving at a conclusion would come at a much greater ease; essentially limiting the risks involved. Again, you can never eliminate all uncertainty, but you can definitely tackle the unknown if you choose so. It’s just way harder than betting on something that’s already winning.

In a way it is appalling to have this discussion, as the industry just simply doesn’t care about any of this. Not because it should, but because of the abundance and position key decision makers are in: They’re controlling the supply, and as such have the power to do whatever they desire.

 How come there's all this noise about the Future Of Video Games yet we rarely see anything but the familiar? It would be all too simple to just point fingers at legacy driven incentives, which is a dominant force within the industry, however, a less known factor is also at play: Authorship, more specifically the source of it.

Money can't buy this

Will be using a famous example from Hollywood in the form of movie production: Take a look at the difference in execution between how New Line Cinema and Amazon Prime Video did their version of movie magic (referring here to J.R.R. Tolkien's work, in the form of the Lord Of The Rings (LOTR) and Rings Of Power TV show): One awed while the other left fans cold. But it's not like either of those productions didn't have the necessary resources to make something marketable; in fact Amazon even had more at their disposal (speaking of the first season), as the original LOTR movies were made for around $280 million while Amazon's for around $1 billion for 2 seasons; so comparatively Rings Of Power had even more money to spend (if we don't count acquiring the rights for the IP for around $250 million).

Thus one can ask the obvious question, Where did all that money go?

Japanese traditional woodblock printing

This might seem like a sharp turn, a segue into something completely unrelated, but it'll make more sense in just a moment.

There's this famous traditional print-maker named David Bull (as in the field of hand carving), a Canadian living in Asakusa (in Tokyo, Japan), and have been making woodblock prints for decades now (you can read more about them on www.woodblock.com). In a way he's responsible for spreading the word more, sort of revitalizing (in a way) an already dying profession within Western communities; as they were responsible for some of the most thought out art pieces in recent memory (like their reproduction of the famous The Great Wave off Kanagawa, or their Ukiyo-e Heroes series).

However, due to the decaying nature of the craft (the entire ecosystem is on its last leg from supply chain issues for quality paper, to labor shortage in carvers and printers, to loss of knowledge on how to make good prints and tools), also Mr. Bull often notes the difference between their expertise and the ones from the old days.

The difference, as they usually point it out in one of their streams on Twitch (yes, you heard it right, they're in their 70s and still streaming their work online, especially to preserve for future generations) is that they never “officially” learned their craft (they weren't an apprentice, although were given insights, lectures here and there from professionals when he nagged them enough), and most of what they know was acquired through trial and error and researching ancient techniques (the printing business over there was very isolated at the time).

This also led to saying, showing examples of how it is supposed to look like if prints were made by traditional craftsmen. Suffice to say that Mr. Bull’s expertise is also very high in quality, however, as they said, they cannot ever begin to compete with someone (from back in the old days) who carved woodblocks all day and night from a very young age; it was their only identity and purpose in life (so to speak). That's why, some of the line work, at closer inspection, are almost impossible to replicate in such fine detail (not just microscopical, but flow, technique and taste), unless someone has the knowledge and vigorous mechanical training of a lifetime.

This story is a bit of an extreme example, but it perfectly showcases the issue with Amazon's approach: In fact highlights the problem as to why gaming has been stuck in a rut, and why Social Impact is something that's not going to happen industry wide if we don't act upon it with a careful approach.

Money can't buy talent (and taste)

With all the money in the world, the issue with Rings Of Power came from the simple fact that the underlying foundation for the production just wasn't there. It wasn't that they didn't hire talented people, or didn't have enough money to pay them; far from it as we discussed. The crux of the issue came in the form of Tolkien's body of work: More specifically the time it took to get there.

In order to reach levels of Social Impact (the future gaming should be aiming for), the source material has to be genuine, and must come from a source of “authorship” (the experiences and skills of a person, may that be in one cohesive form like a complete story, or an impulse to create something with one’s already existing skill-set & taste). Tolkien spent decades working on his stories, several more honing their skills (say in linguistics), while Amazon only gave a budget and a time-frame to essentially create a franchise out of thin air; there were no prior cohesive works for the series they could just simply adapt to screen (in the form of published books), rather they pieced together their own version as best they could.

And this is the biggest reason why gaming hasn't moved a bit since the arrival of decent graphics and mechanics: There's just no real room for expansion anymore, as progress is now rather incremental, opposed to giant leaps that would’ve fueled sales further on. And for this the industry is as much as responsible as a whole, as individuals “directing” it. Change henceforth will be much more horizontal than vertical, as we are approaching this theoretical limit of technicality.

Imprint on the market

By gating the industry for far too long, even in the advent of easier production tools and methodologies, the video game industry failed to open up for creatives to find their way into AAA: To this day, major productions are mostly driven by profit, legacy practices and perceived value (chasing numbers and metrics, and everything in between), opposed to opening it up to artists. What's worse is that the latter you cannot buy nor replicate faithfully, as you simply cannot mimic one’s upbringing at a board meeting; that comes from age, experience and differentiating circumstances.

That is the de facto reason why the corporate approach never works as it's putting all their money in the wrong basket, leaving a distaste by the end for the consumer. The issue isn't with capital, rather the way it's used: To this day there aren't institutional funnels finding the next generation of talent; people who come from all sorts of backgrounds all wanting to tell their story. As a result, uniqueness quickly falls apart, if the source is mostly driven by wages and the same cultural and institutional heritage video games currently have. That is the reason why incentives such as having a Social Impact bears more weight, as it not just aims to create an entirely new line of products, but seeks to establish a new system underneath it, to fuel future generations to come.

That is the secret sauce, and also the reason why it hasn't been done at scale before: It requires an entirely different mindset as well as greater efforts in establishing it (and the loss of gating mechanisms). And it's not that aiming for Social Impact (as written in this previous article) is something intangible, not measurable in Return On Investment. Take the UN’s Playing for the planet’s alliance initiative and their latest scientific findings that gaming and higher concepts (Social Impact) can and will materialize in the world for example (linked here).

The only downside to this is that because of the decades of this one dimensional flow, a significant trust needs to be earned, alongside processes laid down, to prevent the industry to default back to its original state: As while the beauty of Social Impact comes from reaching new heights and a larger audience (beyond adolescence), not providing continuously the means for it to thrive (the actual position for breakthroughs to happen, going from 0 to 1) is setting it up for failure if key decision-makers do not favor this approach; hard to imagine they'll ever do on their own.

Watershed moment

While the power for this initiative to change for the better has the momentum to break through barriers, albeit with hesitation of falling back on itself, it's worth to note that even one breakthrough can be enough of a catalyst for others (from the outside) to join: Sort of how capital sees an opportunity (when proving viability at a sufficient enough scale) and tries to gain an advantage early on. In this case that could only happen securely if the first breakout were to also establish (some time in the near future) a blueprint of preserving and celebrating “authorship” of the individual. Without the means to show how to raise or bring to spotlight the future of the industry, it's a lost cause, in a world where innovation is eclipsed by mindless copycats and doers (without the part that would make most sense, the thinking that is).

Good games comes from good writing (more like the attitude that comes with it)

Writing is often something brushed off as banal, only the act of writing down thoughts, dialogue and settings, or getting from A to B. Far from that. It is a tool mastered through decades of experience of the world, where a collection of numerous disciplines collide in favor of one grand purpose: to entertain. But what does this have to do with gaming, which is an audio-visual form of media. A lot actually.

You see, writing (the mentality) comes from the innate desire to create, to express one’s self and imagination. But that, much like everything in life, comes at a price of learning and refinement; and as the imaginary often have connections to audio-visual experiences from the past, the gap between literature and gaming becomes that more narrow, overlapping more like.

Good writing comes from good observation, practice, experimentation and pushing of boundaries; as much as experiences and circumstances of the individual. If those all, yes all of those, aren't present, then the outcome will potentially suffer as a result. Unfortunately, a multidisciplinary background, the interest in all the things in life, is a hard requirement for this to work (not limited to writing), because: Good dialogue comes from flow, pacing and relatability (to the subject and the words spoken), action comes from the “cinematic” where shots and scenes are laid out in three dimensions and usually follow certain conventions (akin to cinema, which can be studied, although rules are always there to be broken) to convey space and meaning as well as be a vehicle for events, then good personalities come from the observation of psychology and human behavior, relationships that move the world around, and so forth. Think of it as an interconnected web, where one has to know how music is made in order to write about it well; if you don't know what the dance moves are, what kind of emotions they provoke whilst practicing them, then the final result will be a pale comparison opposed to the real deal (that's why you can often tell if a story is written by someone close relatable to the subject, often showing details that only “insiders” know about, because sharing something from the outside is different from within).

Even the knowledge of how cars works, or pottery is made, or how to webpages, and so forth, are all contributors to the final picture (you never know what and how something can influence the outcome, even an life-altering event or a discussion can make a huge difference), that makes up this whole persona of the “author”; speaking of broad terms where someone genuinely believes and acts upon from innate desire, not for the sake of becoming someone important for the history books to remember (in this case the selfish desire to quench one’s thirst must come first before the aim for commercial success, although the latter is helpful to avoid starvation).

That is why, in a nutshell, it is vital to think of making games as an organic system, opposed to a stacking of individual parts and hoping for the best. Meaningful progress will never come otherwise, just this sterile increase in the mechanical; a far cry from the true craft of art (gaming supposed to be). This is also the reason why investors should approach this with an open mindset, as discussed in the previous article. 

The moment there’s an agenda that sounds like something originating from a press release from the United Nations’ or some rich millionaire’s dream wanting to end world hunger or cure cancer, interest chills quickly as those are usually deemed a waste of time and money, often too difficult and bothersome to spend efforts on; even if the scope is more localized, like solving segregation in rural communities, or abolishing detrimental traditions. However, the question remains: Are mission driven causes a dead canary in the mines or there’s more to it that meets the eye?

In the name of the farmers’

From an investment point-of-view, anything that isn’t clear straight away (in terms of Return Of Investments, also known as ROI) are a massive red flag to any worthy individual or entity (Liquidity Provider, LP) when it comes to funding. The more diluted the pitch about any given venture, the greater the risk becomes of losing interest from potential business partners. This can of course vary to some degree, based on the experience or operating field of any given LPs, but generally is a strong deterrent, because of the “unknown” nature of such ambitions.

Picture this: You read the news about farmers quitting, you see the protests opposing large supermarkets and their practices (pushing predatory prices to kill their competition, which are small sales or markets), you experience the value & price proposition in your own food to decline that regular produces taste nothing, not healthy or not ethically sourced (by any stretch of the imagination), leaving you dissatisfied by the end. Which then slowly pushes you to the edge of action as you come to your senses, if it is something that you are sensible of, then you might think: We need to do something about this before it's too late! The recognition of such patterns is just the very beginning of a long and arduous process, what isn’t how we approach fixing it if we take matters into our own hands; as great matters of life usually don’t correct themselves on their own, rather, we must go out of our ways to act upon.

Going on from the example above, if some thinks that they need to save the future of the small farmer’s, fixing the issues within their own community that these occurrences are a direct result of (such as rise of unemployment, domestic violence, etc., which can devastate rural communities), they will be immediately hit with the reality of reaching out for support, as LPs would look at this and say: Individuals vs. Well Oiled Machines. There’s no way in hell that anyone would prefer the first option, because small farmers don’t have the distribution network, the logistics to ship on scale, the force to bring in masses, and the stability to provide on time 24/7 (as crops can fail due to a poor season, animals can die of sudden diseases or outbreaks, and so forth; which all can be mitigated if you’ve hundreds of suppliers, which you also “almost” directly control). While LPs may say it’s an honorable cause, they'd also prefer not to lose money on their investments, because of the inherited risks of such proposals. But what if there’s more to this than just seeing inefficiency and out-of-touch reality?

This argument about wastage changes fairly quickly if we look at the broad picture as well as dive a bit deeper of current market trends and micro economics:

• Consumer habits have drastically changed the past decades or so as people are no longer blindly trusting a product or brand, and have become more educated and aware of what they choose to consume or to buy; they go online, read reviews, look at recommendations from trusted sources, ask on about a forum, and so forth (which is also something gamers do before buying anything, hence come the role of influencers). This is why labels such as “organic” or “ethically sourced” (say for eggs) came to be to oppose not just the issues with health and quality (and the handling of livestock) but to bring a form of change for the future (say environmental or economical).

• Modernization and organization of a typical farmer’s market has the ability to revitalize a dying community, drive (associated) businesses, investments and future generations (and educational institutes, such as tertiary diplomas in agricultural science related fields), albeit in incremental steps: As quality first brings in the “innovators” (from the 5 Adopter Category used in marketing, saying earliest of people who take swing at things), then as word spreads other farmers join, which then drives the market’s expansion (which effects the local municipal’s income, drives local tools and hardware sales for the gear used at the market and on fields, and so forth) and builds up trust and source of stable income, which then can drive career paths and investments within those areas (either from loans from banks, or grants from the government). All in all, resulting in an increasingly profitable ecosystem if handled well because of the cascading effect it can have.

• Money usually flows where money is. That is to say that if the market starts to become profitable once again, it could drive other crafts into the same venue as well; say a baker suddenly starts to sell their produce as they see a good cause to participate. Which effect than could drive interest outside of the local community (in the form of commuters or regional buyers).

Does this mean that there wouldn’t be any challenges to overcome? Definitely not, however, it is also worth to note, that seemingly the concept of revitalizing and as such saving local farmers can and should worth some investor’s time; if they’re equipped to look more into the future and not bog down on quick returns, which is the bulk of today’s sentiment. All of this resulting in greater returns in the long term.

But what does this have to do with gaming?

The way we operate

If someone were to look around gaming these days, they’d see the following:

• Massive layoffs to no end

• Studio closers

• Failed launches and flops

• Union busting and poor working conditions (like crunching)

• Drying out resources

• Lack of innovation

• Race to the bottom in terms of wages, studio & industry culture

• General ignorance to the state of it all from the industry

These are the symptoms of an industry that is far from being healthy, and mostly operated by greed, and decades of ill practices (both business and community); often resulting in lasting traumas. Which in turn drives this almost cyclic round of events that money usually follows and quickly drops if expectations do not meet reality; causing a large portion of it to crash, as there’s nothing to dampen these fluctuations. Causing recurring disruptions, such as the current “hard reset”, which equally affects everyone in the industry (either indirect or direct, and exacerbates industry consolidation leading to be more prone for disruptions as the market & industry crashes each time), which further cements the notion that working in the video game industry is akin to winning the lottery whilst being in the gallows; stability is almost non-existent, a difficult reality many has to face and suffer if they choose to work in this field. All could be banished into the past “simply” by introducing a common goal, a mission to drive positive change and actually act upon it with greater force than what previously was attempted; almost sounds all too good to be true.

The power that comes from directives, such as making games that have a Social Impact (as described in this previous article: [LINK]), isn’t just measurable in direct sales, but in secondary effects on the industry itself, which can become apparent in: improving working conditions, increase of income stability (driving education and further investments, and in opening of new studios), preservation of knowledge & talent for future developers (by keeping institutional knowledge more intact), and the increase of perception of quality (as gamers see the increasing decay of AAA) and overall opinion of the industry (from players and from society in general). That is why, using cars as an illustrative example, it’s useful to have decent suspension, because if you drive all day long on dirt roads with lots of potholes, chances are that sooner or later you are going to damage your spine (from all the hard impacts on the chassis).

The Dark Matter

There is this mysterious phenomenon in astronomy that’s called “Dark Matter”; a form of gravitational force we yet to fully understand. It’s powerful enough to seemingly dampen the expansion of the universe; which is continuously expanding. Without it, we’d live in a different universe, a much darker one (literally).

This same force is almost as powerful as what’s motivating players today: value proposition, often in the form of lasting entertainment. Which often translates to experiences that last, by going beyond the frivolous (above a certain age where pure emotional impact no longer suffices). Its importance lies in the fact that this mindset drives communities and sales. If we look around we see countless examples of this, the latest one being the release of Splitgate 2. It had a staggering $100 million investment at its disposal, yet failed to deliver on all fronts, and now is limping with minimal community support (which is an issue when the game is built on live service and there's nobody to play against).

Failure is no longer measurable in “were those mechanics good enough” or “were those graphics top notch” (although many still argue that often a failed launch is due to inadequate advertising, which could be a contributing factor, but usually that’s not the sole reason, which also can be countered by a staged approach to getting the word out as soon as day 1 of development), rather in “did playing this worth my time by giving me the experience I’m seeking knowing or not”. That doesn’t come from the immediate, rather the hidden: “Was there something beyond a mindless activity that grabbed one’s attention?”, or “Was there something compelling that told a story worth telling”, etc. Key word here being “narrative”, the “story” that one can experience and make for themselves; something transformative and lasting.

Let the gates be open

Having a goal or a mission in an economy (an institutional force that’s driving game development in this context) such as this one, that was built on the structural, opposed to the artisan is a cause worth fighting for. The reason why gaming is still just a microcosm of general interest can also be traced back to the fact that games, the majority of it (let’s be honest here) are not made by artists, rather those who value the scientific approach; for better or worse.

In itself this wouldn’t be an issue, if the sentiment behind making games were to be freely available to all walks of life; not speaking of tools (as technically everyone these days can make a game), rather execution from the source of the artist in major productions. Apart from the very few, most of the time key decision-makers don’t necessarily come from the natural arts. Which is why we yet to see famous examples that are repeatedly told and expanded upon, as there isn’t room for such people in this environment to thrive; those games usually survive in the depths of indie budgets.

However, the key to progress, to achieve that desired goal of Social Impact, requires the break from this stigma in this industry; which is strongly upheld by its participants. Without it, we will never see talent rise to the top and creations that break away from the scientific (the rigid, the bland and the calculated) and venture into the unknown, the unfamiliar and the strange (collectively gating artisan expression).

Imagine if all art had this same, often clinical approach (of what makes fun, like “numbers going up” and participating in unglamorous and repetitive tasks), we’d be stuck in the stone ages. Because without innovation in the field of expression of the imaginary, we limit ourselves that lies ahead, and we’d never progress as a species. Gaming has long past the technical hurdles it once had, and now we must reconcile with the changing of times that perhaps maybe it’s time to give control to those who’d like to drive into a different state of being.

This all matters as such approaches, such thinking has already reached its limits: Games have stopped this seemingly endless trajectory of expansion and innovation sooner than expected and began to slow down already (which is apparent in plateauing revenues on PCs and consoles in general, and and also signaling a decrease in intentions for future investments), because when your target audience is mainly kids and young adults, there’s a limit to how quickly you can acquire them and for how long (at the rate of generational shifts and birth rates); often being driven by trends that the industry simply cannot predict (as adolescence often creates its own craze which then business tries to capitalize on).

Thus when someone sees a mission or a statement regarding a common goal, one should consider the consequences of such a directive not clear at first glance, because more often than not those are far greater and outweigh any risks that might arise from the observation of the immediate. People (usually) don’t want to change the world for the better on their own, unless they see no other way and feel compelled, or more importantly forced to act upon, fearing that change might not happen otherwise; something small and almost "insignificant" to ponder about for the future.

It’s like a Pavlovian response that’s driving the video game industry, because the moment someone mentions “merit”, “value” or “impact” eyes are being rolled and discussions are being neglected. But where does this deeply rooted phenomenon come from, what can we do about it and why is it so important to focus on henceforth?

Games are solely meant to be fun

There’s this common misconception that games can only be fun and nothing else, because the moment you inject something outside of this biosphere, all gets tainted and loses its original intent: To entertain. However, if we look a bit-more closer (specifically referring here to a description under “entertain” in a Cambridge dictionary), we find that “entertain” also carries the meaning of “think about” which translates to, and to quote “To hold in your mind or to be willing to consider or accept”.

The above is already something that pokes fun at this rigid statement of games solely equal to fun classification. The interesting part comes from how games already tried to bridge the gap by widening its perception and the themes used in gaming: Just think about titles that tackled emotionally expressive subjects, explored sorrow, hardship, or loss (but that’s just the beginning).

Another aspect is the driving force behind the developer side of things, because let’s be honest, for the longest, the majority of games came from the imaginary, not necessarily from the reflection of life itself (as a way of pure escapism, handpicking abstraction, not a manifestation of facing the truth); thus being lighthearted, or more often than not, an abstraction or a slice of a very specific aspect of living (like first person shooters on a “mission”, or fantasy characters playing a “role”). This approach, dare to say mentality, is something that also shaped the perception of gaming throughout the decades, and was the leading cause of labels from the public (who didn’t play games) such as “childplay” or “made for kids”.

However, as mentioned above, being entertained in a visceral way (focused on mostly action and short emotional bursts) isn’t the sole option when it comes to having fun; far from that. This is nothing new, as there are countless examples from the past (in cinema, literature, music or even traditional art like paintings or sculptures) that showed another aspect of intellectual fulfillment (another word not to be afraid of). And not just the sake of it, but to enrich and build upon the previous.

Gaming, for the majority of the time, was still too focused on the emotional impact, opposed to providing substance that can last longer; the situation is especially terrifying in the mobile space, where exploiting the psyche is the standard, to ensure highest profit margins (like using the fear of missing out). We see this time and time again, where say the narration, the story that each experience is trying to tell us, is often measured by this objective lens of number-crunching, where story equals hopping between physical locations (going from “A” to “B”) or the size of its spectacle; which is why Hollywood is filled with blockbusters all trying to destroy the universe, because there isn’t any higher stake than that (eerily reminiscent of the infamous scope creep).

Then there’s the aspect of repetitive exposure that drives isolation: Plenty of studies highlighted how people can shy away from facing certain aspects of life, say environmental or political issues (which often embodies in lack of taking action), when they’re constantly being bombarded with information; and more often than not those carry a negative connotation, so it’s natural that people want to protect themselves from harm, and would rather shove their heads into the ground (obviously, there are exceptions to this rule, because sometimes it can be a free choice of will not to partake).

All of this should not signal the end, far from it, because it is not impossible or even unheard of to break through this rigid system gaming has evolved in.

The changing of times

For the longest, gaming was viewed as an anomaly, a sub-culture often enjoyed by a niche group of people with a specific kind of taste (especially when it was new and very expensive); often people loved to call them “nerds” or other derogatory titles. And to be said, even just a few years ago, before the boom of accessibility (both in tools to make games, such as visual scripting, and the widening of the audience), the “Kingdom of Gaming” was held tight with egos the size of mountains, carefully gatekeeping and polishing their own armor of knighthood while the peasantry roamed free and enjoyed the blessings of their masters; still are but increasingly weakening.

However, the advancement in technology and production, going from text games to 2D, later 3D with increasingly better graphics and quality, meant that more games reached those who were skeptical of this whole thing with computers; so the demographics started to change at a rapid pace, which was also a key ingredient large corporations wanted to take advantage of (and they did just that).

This meant that arriving to today, games are a well known aspect of life, ranging from the young to the old; as the average age of players are 30 and above. What is surprising is how little the overall perception has changed, because still, the majority of games are stuck inside that bubble of comfort; for better or worse. It's no longer about serving niche interests, especially not catering to solely one gender (as half of gamers are women), but to cater to others’ as well as yours’; however that part is mostly neglected because of the nature of convenience, lack of intent, or any other hidden motivations (like character, as in personality traits or just access to funding/networking).

There’s this fundamental disconnect that innovation isn’t needed in this regard, and the same content pipeline of the ages could be utilized over and over without consequences. That it is only a matter of marketing, getting the reach of new players, that’s holding the industry back; that is the notorious discoverability (while it plays a role in today’s issues, not the sole contributor, far from it, but that has been pointed out by many before). That is why it’s most striking to see that while there were fundamental changes in the composition of the audience (from age, to gender, to social status), no industry wide efforts were seen to capitalize on this; beyond “using” the Hollywood method of focus group testing, essentially saying that making sure everything is as generalized as possible for widest of covering.

And this is where the crux of the problem lies: Imagine if books were only accessible for the niche and never evolved to something everyone can enjoy; providing the same five flavours under a different paint doesn’t translate to accessibility. And it’s not that games cannot provide to everyone’s flavor either, yet this aspect of design is poorly neglected. On one hand, the industry is in a rot because it failed to address the elephant in the room, that in order to mature as a whole, a different set of approach is needed for making games; not just creating more binary genres (mixing two or more existing together, or coming up with new schemes), rather to understand the needs of those who are left behind, and not (gate)keeping gaming from progress in the form of neglecting a much needed structural reset.

You see this in attempts to pivot, say to name an example, the creation of eco-conscious games (doing something to prevent ecological collapse, or experience the far future of total fallout as a warning), where people can address the issues modern day present; sort of providing escapism for those affected, or wanting to address their concerns in one way or another.

A larger audience comes with the caveat of catering to the uncomfortable realization that what has worked before, is not the end; hence the explosion of cozy games, because players want more. However, the trend is that none of this matters, as change in this realm will mostly come from outside of the industry; certainly not from a major player at the top (that’s the reason why gamers tout the coming of indie games, falsely, but that’s another topic for another time).

An acquired taste

To act upon and change the perception of the meaningful, we need to have a closer look on some of the aspects that created those barriers in the first place. Like tackling a sensitive topic, as in anything that someone doesn’t like to face head on, first needs to be understood where it came from. It could be:

• Innate. Certain people have certain preferences born with (some with great tolerance for neglect), which if not desired to be changed, could seal any attempt to removing it (if deemed necessary).

• Taught. Parenting, education, social stature or circumstances often can come with this perplexing outcome of pushing you away, opposed to embracing it all. Not just to oppose the status-quo (for the sake of it), but often the way, the unnatural demanding way alongside it (aka. You’ve to accept this whether you want it or can understand it).

• Experienced. Some of the time people can go through certain life events that could either end up in a form of trauma, or be strong enough to become a deterrent for life. This, in combination of the continuous bombardment of information, say from media outlets, can further reinforce the notion of keeping one’s self in a safe place.

All the above can perpetually keep the gates shut. So-o, How can we change that? Using the eco-anxiety as an example, it’s one thing to say that something doesn’t affect you, a whole other if we look at the greater picture. Most of the time people don’t care about the things they don’t have power over or feel the consequences on themselves. To a certain, selfish degree it is a universal truth, however, most of the time we feel it on ourselves, just not consciously. When weather becomes extreme, and houses are torn apart in countries not accustomed to, action is taken. But when prices go up due to drought, very little happens, yet it still affects everyone.

All of this doesn’t stop at the surface either: say domestic violence can shape culture and society, rendering social gatherings awkward, communications stilted, values shifted or any number of ill effects one can think of. It can also manifest in the psychological (depression, anxiety in mild cases and others), and ultimately causing physical illness from reflux (constant stomach ache) to others like cancer (as constant stress is a major contributor). Whether we like it or not, circling back to the bogeyman metaphor, some things in life exist beyond our bubble of influence and understanding, and shouldn’t be dismissed on the basis of unfamiliarity.

How can we act upon that? A good way would be to approach the entire problem of neglect from a different angle, almost always, direct confrontation will never lead to anywhere constructive; this is where creativity can shine. Believe it or not, everything comes down to execution once again: Easing the player in with a tasteful approach and showing instead of telling. You’d be surprised how quickly perceptions can change, if the issue isn’t tackled head on from the same direction it is being neglected; that’s why influencers have a powerful grip on people, because they’ve the power to break down those barriers, essentially offering zero resistance for new ideas to flourish (for better or worse). This is why, normally, it takes a lot of effort to change someone’s perception of a certain aspect of their life, because of the associated, often complex “relationships” that play a role in said formulated opinion.

The power in social impact

Similar to literature, consumed entertainment has the ability to change how we think, and has the strength to leave a lasting impression. Yet gaming positioned itself far away from any of that, demonizing any attempt changing it, partially because of the aforementioned knee-jerk response of the lackluster and not fun in this case, and for the very reasons that it is yet to happen at scale.

Why is this important anyway? Changing how we think, provoking critical thinking is key to a healthy life; especially avoiding the position of being cornered into something we don’t understand and need. Not just for the sake of being different, or appealing for a (seemingly) niche audience, but to tackle a deeper aspect of our everyday life: Solving problems and making decisions that benefit us (and hopefully others as well) should be a natural occurrence (to avoid manipulation). In this day of age, where information is increasingly orchestrated by a small group of circles, it is vital for anyone to stay relevant and up to date with how the world operates, what the underlying mechanisms are and how we can make sense of it. Because, most of the time people either don’t have the time and space, or lived a life of the “sheltered” where it didn’t become apparent what the striking issue was; that’s why, as an example, certain health conditions need external intervention, with the aid of a third party other than ourselves and close relatives.

The beauty of this is that social impact doesn’t necessarily need to be colossal, or “the ultimate” in order to have an effect; in fact so much so that it could be seamlessly integrated into almost anything. And once again, traditional forms of media already proved that this isn’t just a fairy tale and could work with fairly high efficiency. Why do you think children's literature exists in the first place? Classically, to not just entertain, but to teach, to warn, to enlight; technically that is the basis of all old stories and myths, not solely written for children, but to remind us of the past. All of these require very little effort, and mainly hinge on the intent to implement them. And it’s not that any of these need to be direct (“this is the moral of the story”), in fact could be and should be applied more nuanced, often in subtext: An alley depicting poverty, where people walk by and are ignored, up until a point where someone “special” comes in and helps them out (like bringing food, clothes, etc.) and they all have a chat along side; a gentle reminder that austerity doesn’t render people evil or monstrous universally, and that in fact personal circumstances are at play also, not just ignorance on their part.

This is the part that is missing from games, and holds the key for the future. Not another clone, or a remake, or a never-before-seen mix of two or more genres: it’s all about intent and value, and how we present them. A low hanging fruit ripe for the taking, but it seems that jumping on that boat is unacceptable, as the industry is perfectly fine with swimming in the swamp of ages and surviving on the ease of disposable content; at the expense of innovation and progress.

Having an impact also means that in the smallest of interactions in life, a great difference could be made, if we’re willing to go there. A kind gesture when needed, even just a restraint of keeping those boiling tensions locked, or willingness to listen to other’s opinions with more flexibility, are all positive signs of which impact is all about. And that is the reason why it is so damn important to focus on, especially in this day of age; not just the state of the world, but the increasing isolation we are facing as a species in the age of the internet.

Uncharted territory

A big part of exploration isn’t just to leave an impact, but to tackle subjects currently not present or mainstream in gaming: Could you imagine a game made about the Holocaust, or the horrible events happening in Ukraine, or tackling historical events well in the past about how Stonehenge was made, or bringing attention to everyday’s (life, marriage, work, etc.), or to show ideas, teach people, or explore everything else that’s out there? If not, then you should be. Because as much as those five flavours are sufficient, seemingly, breaking down boundaries and exploring the unknown is where the excitement begins and should be to focus on; that’s why breakout games in narratives hit so hard, as they oppose the status-que of the “action heavy”. Because we moved past the pursuit of tech, as we’ve reached a pivotal moment in history, where artisan expression should be reigning free.