OK. I'm not talking about you (necessarily). It's just a thought that I've had for a while: A lot of indie developers make these games that are super fancy and "elegant" because that's what they think indie is supposed to be about. The term "art game" or the phrase "it's not a game, it's an experience" makes me wonder if these developers realize that some people's negative reaction might just be because the game is not fun, or engaging. I'm not suggesting that every game should be fun, or just a rogue-like top-down shooter, but I disagree with the mentality of "if it's not 'artsy', it's not worth it". I believe that some games should be considered art, like Gone Home. But I also believe that some game should just be fun, like the newly released High Hell and there's space for both of these types, it just depends on what kind of game you want to make. This got started as an argument I had with a colleague about how art games try to be smart and how often that gets in the way of an enjoyable experience, so I would love to hear your opinion on this: Are indie game supposed to shoot for the moon in terms of narrative and "artsyness", or are they supposed to be entertaining and just fun?