Intentional Inaccessibility

Robin Poe got a lot of attention on Twitter today because of their hot take against "quality of life features". I can't say I agree with Robin's opinion, but I highly respect his philosophy and believe most of the negative reactions are from a place of ignorance. So, I want to break down what I think Robin is trying to say and give my own thoughts.

The real beauty of indie games compared to AAA is the raw freedom we creators have. Whereas the latest (insert mega-franchise here) game's primary goal is to earn its owner billions of dollars, that doesn't have to be the goal of indies. Most of us will never make anywhere close to a liveable income from creating games. But yet, here we are, still creating games. Why?

For me, it's the drive to make people feel emotions. There are games that have touched me in ways that no other media could hope to do. Games are such a unique medium, and I don't think they have been fully explored as a storytelling platform. Others make games with ideas nobody has ever seen before and find their motivation in experimenting with abstract ideas, unafraid of failure. Others, like Robin Poe and Stardew Valley's ConcernedApe, want to create their own perfect version of (what they believe is) the perfect game.

When creating your perfect game, you have to make the choice between your vision and the players' enjoyment. In my game, A Guide to Life, you begin the game by living just another day in the protagonist's life. There's no magic, no major events, and no excitement. This will almost certainly bore some percentage of players and make them drop the game. However, for the players that find enjoyment in that, the slow build-up will only enhance their feelings in the second act as they begin to explore the character's psyche. I am okay with losing players to the intro if it means that the people I'm making the game for have a more enjoyable experience.

I don't think Stardew Valley is this type of game, but I can guess Robin's Sheep Lad is. From the beginning, Stardew Valley's relaxed nature has felt designed to bring as many people to the genre as possible. Stardew Valley's wiki is often brought up in this conversation, but I don't believe reliance on that is the goal. Stardew Valley is a world you experience, not a game you complete. A playthrough where you marry the town drunk and only fish as a career is just as valid as a playthrough where you date half the town and farm iridium-quality Ancient Fruit Wine in your cellar. In both of these playthroughs, you may encounter different events, find different items, and accomplish different goals, but each of those playthroughs are uniquely yours. You get to live in the world however you want, and the game responds to that. It's a lot like Animal Crossing in that way, providing the player with nearly endless content, but giving them no expectation to experience it all.

There is no issue with either of these approaches. The goal of a game like Robin's or mine is to give people the same emotions and love for ideas that our favorite creative works gave us. Those feelings are so specific that we have to be willing to sacrifice accessibility in favor of a better experience for those that our games resonate with. Stardew Valley is a comfy game that wears its inspiration on its sleeve, but its design inherently can't give players a highly tailored experience. The game isn't just ConcernedApe's; it's also the player's.

So enjoy playing Stardew Valley. It's one of my favorite games of all time. And look forward to playing Sheep Lad when it comes out. Maybe I'll feel the same way about that game as Robin feels about Zelda II. Each creator has a goal in mind and either has or is creating a game specifically designed to accomplish that goal, no matter how broad or niche it may be. Games can be for everyone, and games can be for a small handful of people. There's no blanket philosophy that applies to every game, and you, the audience, shouldn't have the guts to tell a creator what their goal should or shouldn't be.