“A field that once prized creativity and novelty...”

I don’t have statistics at the ready, but by my reckoning, most early games were copies of one another. For every classic game we care to think of, there were dozens of forgotten clones. It is difficult to subscribe to the idea that at one point the industry was much more creative than it is now.

“...a medium that once spun off whole new genres practically every year...”

I suppose it’s possible there really are this many genres if one defines them in a narrow and pedantic way, but that seems too small-minded for the grandiose phraseology here. In any case, how many new genres of any other medium are “spun off” every year?

“Today, Myst, Civilization, or Sim City would never get funded.”

I am not intricately familiar with the details of how these games got off the ground, but I feel that contrasting today’s publishers with the publishers of yesteryear reveals more similarities than not: in either time period, they were risk-averse and uninterested in new ideas. For example, it’s well-known that Will Wright was unable to sell his SimCity to existing publishers at the time, who rejected the idea of an "un-winnable" game. So it holds no weight to use the game as an example of a contrast in attitudes over time.

“...where people can experiment [...] on quirky, offbeat, innovative games...”

The notion that an innovative game is also one that is quirky or offbeat is resentful to me, and I hope others. This is a purely invented conflation, one that damages real progress because people start to regard any game that is quirky or offbeat as innovative. In truth, there is no reason a game can’t be innovative while eschewing the over-lauded qualities of quirkiness and off-beatitude.

“The large publishers’ desperate quest to reduce risk paradoxically makes it harder for them to find the best-sellers they need.”

Actually, the “desperate quest” is called a strategy, and it works almost disappointingly well from a business standpoint: ask Mr. Kotick of Activision, or look at their quarterly results for the past ten years. There is no evidence I am aware of that suggests otherwise.

“Today, most games are developed in massive sweatshops by hundreds of people over three years or more.”

As before, I don’t have data readily available, but this statement strikes me as an emotional accusation that is not exactly borne out by the true state of things. It may describe some Electronic Arts projects or a few massively multiplayer online games. But to boldly state that "most" games are developed this way plays with the truth in a rather elastic way.

“Many publishers even eschew the whole concept of a "game designer," preferring to let control of a project reside in a manager or programmer.”

I'm unfamiliar with the situation of a publisher avoiding or rejecting the concept of a "game designer”; in any case, this seems to be an issue of job titles and nothing more. Sometimes a game designer is also a manager; Sid Meier, creator of the unfundable Civilization, was also a programmer.

“To create a compelling, innovative, and interesting game, someone needs to hold the creative vision.”

I disagree that this is absolutely needed. For example, Valve’s Half-Life and Half-Life 2 were created without any single designated vision-keeper, something they famously refer to as their “cabal” system. While the manifesto’s author and I may disagree on whether or not the Half-Life games are compelling, innovative and interesting, no-one can deny the potential for an ideal game created by this methodology.

“Every other artform is aristocratic. The Great Artist creates, the passive audience consumes. Books, film, TV, even music are all peculiarly antiquated media in this democratic age.”

This is patently untrue, and anyone who has been to a book reading or a musical concert would know this. Conversation and interaction between the artist and the audience is as old as art itself. I doubt many people would agree that any of the media mentioned– books, films, or music– are antiquated, let alone “peculiarly” so.

“We believe that gamers are smart. We believe that gamers, given the tools to find the kinds of games they like, will make intelligent decisions.”

This is a reasonable proposition, which if true would mean that means millions of gamers genuinely enjoy first-person-shooters on their consoles – or they wouldn’t consistently spend fifty to sixty dollars on these titles when they are released. Because we trust that they are smart, we must understand that “dumb" marketers or cowardly publishers aren’t the sole reason these games sell so well. We must acknowledge that these gamers do have the tools they need to find the games they like, and indeed have already found them.

Again, I’ll say I do not disagree with the general idea that the game industry should innovate more. However, if we do need to make this point, we should do so in a way that is logically sound. If there’s anything overproduced by the game industry, it’s unconsidered rants.