While there are many fantastic games that emphasize artistry, one wonders if such games would be as heavily lauded if it weren’t for a critical bias.
If a game does not put me to sleep then it is worth playing whether its an "Arty" indie title or a AAA blockbuster mainstream game. Critics have no influence on whether I will like the game or not. Most of the time if the "Arty" game is highly rated by critics is because the game is fun to play on top of being "Arty". Being "Arty" alone is not enough to get universal acclaim.
ABSOLUTELY YES, at least IMO. Games like journey and flower are hard to even classify as games. (I just pick those because they are so admired and are perfect examples) They are essentially just an interactive painting, even to the point of the creators claiming them as just that. The craziest part is I don't know anyone who actually played and liked any game like these. (there are clearly plenty of them) Maybe I am just missing the appeal (I have tried them) and would love someone to explain the appeal. I just feel there is no goal, no REAL story, very little gameplay, NO variance in gameplay, and only an hour long. Just not sure if this is really what people want out of "games."
Interactive painting that's a good description. I however enjoyed those games. Indie games like the aforementioned remind me of old school DVDs that came with dumb lil games on Em Lol Edit: In terms of of gameplay I should clarify
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.