Indies really are the way to go for both customers and developers if they want a better, more ethical and respectful environment. It is a risky career path, but given how many major publishers treat the developers under them, it's not like sticking with mainstream would lead to a comfortable stable livelihood either.
Baldur's Gate 3 really put me in a dilemma, but I think I'll ultimately buy it because I want to support Larian Studios more than I want to avoid Wizards of the Coast. I wouldn't trust Wizards enough to get One D&D and the likely tabletop lootbox hell they are scheming, but BG 3 is delivering a good product that deserves support. Though buying the Divinity games is an alternative if you don't want WotC to get any money.
I once heard "when you vote with your wallet, people with more money get more votes", and that really helped me internalize how unlikely it is to expect occasional boycott to beat executives investing millions in marketing to lure entire audiences of well-off customers might not even be informed of the issues going behind the scenes. You can boycott for your moral satisfaction, but to enact actual change, it isn't enough.
That's the issue with how combat oriented D&D is. While there is a wide assortment of abilities between classes and their roles in combat, a lot of non-combat situations are reduced to just roling high on a skill check, not many choices and approaches to be made. There might be the odd utility spell, but even that isn't a choice for martial classes. Because of that, Bards dominate non-combat encounters, with Jack of all Trades and Expertise.
He definitely wants his games to be movies without having much of an idea how to direct a movie, but they still have more of an unique identity than a lot of games out there.
Omori. Finally understanding what is it that the protagonist has been trying to repress so hard and coming to terms with that. That game took some ideas that are pretty much a cliche in surreal RPG circles, yet the build up and execution around them is masterful. The art and music do a lot to fully convey all the emotions involved. By the end of it all I could feel the entirety of it, and it was overwhelming. I could understand why that affected the protagonist and everyone around him so much.
@Rodsterlings_cig If the Switch 2 turns out to be backwards compatible, buying a Switch 1 now only to buy a Switch 2 later would be a waste. It's better to wait for the announcement before making that decision.
The general anti-war and anti-imperialist themes as well as the deconstruction of the military action hero that simply charges guns blazing are definitely well done. While I don't think their metafictional message is quite as refined and well directed, it was sure impactful regardless.
Games in crowdfunding tend to undershoot the actual development costs as a goal and often end up needing extra funding from investors and publishers, I hope they keep exceeding their goal so that they have as much as they actually need.
SPOILERS, since there are people who haven't played it yet in this thread.
It seems relevant to consider that Konrad, which is the creator stand-in, is ultimately dead, and Walker, the player, is hallucinating an argument with him, where Walker must admit that he was responsible for everything that transpired. The ultimate conclusion of the game is the developer is basically saying "you did all this yourself, I'm not even here". While the shock of internalizing all that transpired and the player's role in it might shock some people into looking at these games beyond just the action and thrills, what it doesn't do is to guide them to question the premises, framing and conclusions of a game like this. The truth is that the players only have done that which the developers have enabled them to do, and this is especially important to consider when it comes to games that do try to make the player feel heroic for war crimes and historical revisionism. The creators are alive and present,
I definitely can't equate "Do you feel like a hero?" with being mindful about entertainment, especially not in its harsher version "You are here because you wanted to be something you are not". Unlike the video, I don't think we can gloss over that in the same scene the player is told "None of this would have happened if you just stopped". Applied broadly, it seems like what the studio suggests, is that people stop engaging with war shooters entirely. That indulging in this military fantasy at all is inherently reprehensible. That, like Walker, seeking someone to blame for the moral failings of such a story is an excuse to protect your own ego.
But usually, there are people who are responsible for the moral failings of military propaganda.
Considering it again, if the goal was to get the player to reflect critically about the sort of game they are participating of, then maybe laying on so thick on how the player, and solely the player, is at fault for pushing it to the end, is if anything counterproductive to that. Players of war shooters seeking a heroic fantasy don't exist in isolation, they exist in a culture that glorifies war and violence, with many parties that profit over it and/or want to incentive it.
To borrow the metaphor, "Walker" really did follow "Konrad's" orders, every step of the way. The author may be absent but the constraints of the story and gameplay are already set, the player can't truly break free without disengaging, and they can't evaluate critically without being engaged.
But the confrontation with Konrad, considering his and Walker's state, really suggests that they believe the issue is all in the players' agency and mindset, rather than the lack of a broader understanding. It claims that the player is at fault for "wanting to be a hero", no comment as to why they believe this is what a hero ought to be like, and what led them to believe that.