Bitmap Books kindly sent me a copy of this, their newest publication. I've covered their books before and always been impressed with their quality, and this new effort is no exception. It's a lush piece of work, beautifully designed and lavishly produced. But I feel you can sense there's a "but" coming, other than the two I just issued in this sentence. Because this is the first book from Bitmap Books that I've had a fairly fundamental issue with. I hope you can forgive me, Nauties, because this one has activated me. Now, don't get me wrong - this is not me saying "this book is bad", because it absolutely isn't. It's as well-written and researched an effort as ever, with new interviews and extensive coverage for each of the fifty games - nothing is short-changed, nothing is glossed over. But the central premise, in my view - games that changed the world - is a little bit flakey.

It's all just a bit... grandiose, you know? Am I being unreasonable? I just don't really think any indie games have ever, well, changed the world. Now, let me be more charitable and take it to mean "changed the world of gaming", then perhaps I could be persuaded. But either way, I feel as though the selection here - which is absolutely a diverse, interesting spread of titles - is a little bit confusing. Thinking in terms of shifts to the gaming landscape, such as they are, I still look at some of the choices (and omissions) with something of a side-eye. Like... Enter the Gungeon? Did that really change the world of gaming by any reasonable standards? This isn't me saying it's a bad game (though I don't care for it), rather that it's pretty much a derivative of the also-included The Binding of Isaac, which actually did make absolutely seismic waves through the hobby and essentially spawned its own genre. I'm also perplexed by the relegation of Hollow Knight - a game which essentially formed the template for the next eight years of indie Metroidvanias - to the "honourable mentions" section of the book.

Again, am I being unreasonable? I don't think I am. Perhaps in focusing on this I'm missing the point. The introduction to the book suggests that it's about indie games that changed something "within the unique worlds they present"... but I'd argue that not nearly all of the included subjects present unique worlds to begin with. I'm being harsh, but it's provoked thought. Which is not a bad thing at all. What's more divisive in this hobby than "indies", anyway? Perhaps it's just me who is exhausted by the way the "indie" label seems to cover, essentially, a surplus of me-too titles these days. Many of the games covered in this book fall under that bracket as far as I'm concerned. But. BUT! I'm not reviewing the games. I'm reviewing the book.

So I'll make it clear, once again; this is another excellent book. One which happens to be about a topic that I have many negative thoughts about. They're neither here nor there, of course, but they do conflict with the whole idea behind it. To see a write-up of the Microsoft-backed Ori series, games I find actively disgusting to control, venerated as "one of the best feeling (...) Metroidvania duologies ever", I can't help but spit enormous globules of hate-black Gipp-bile into my own lap. But then I have to remind myself it's all a matter of opinion, isn't it. Kinda. I guess. It makes me wonder, though, if rather than the 50 Indies That Changed the World, this is more of a case of 50 Interviews We Could Get.

Okay, no, now I'm being unreasonable. It's out of my system. I'm fine. There's plenty of excellent stuff here. Profiles of games and their creators across a large selection of genres, with superb screens and some beautiful concept and promotional art throughout. Over 450 pages of gorgeousness spattered across strong writing with terrific new interviews that shed light on the methods behind each of the selections. It's great. I enjoyed reading it when I was able to stop my diseased Gamerbrain bellowing "Why is Disco Elysium in the Honourable Mentions and not the main list" out of my stupid, spittle-flecked mouth. It's the issue with any kind of list that purports to make a definitive statement about games media - the first response is to say "Well, that's wrong, because it doesn't exactly coincide with my opinions". If I could let go of that nonsense, I would have had a better time than the already lovely one that I did.

I suppose, ultimately, my concern is that presenting the list in this context feels a little like an unearned gravitas for many of the games included. It's a pretence that elevates them to a status that feels intellectually dishonest. They're great games, by and large. Exciting, enriching games - and this is exciting, enriching text. New and informative. I liked it a lot. But... the majority of these games simply didn't change the world. They didn't even change the genre. That is not to say they have no value! That is not to say they should not be written about! They should - in a different, less hifalutin context. A more relaxed presentation would have been precisely as enjoyable and would not have raised my eyebrows, nor would it my hackles.

So, again; tremendous book. Full of great stories. Full of great games. But so many indies get smoke blown up their arts that I'd have preferred a fresher take. Something more nuanced than "changed the world", because... that's become a cliché, you know? I shouldn't let presentation of what's otherwise thoroughly readable spur me on to diatribes like this, but here we are. This book's ace. I enjoyed it less than I had hoped. You probably won't have the same problem.

50 Indie Games That Changed the World is available directly from Bitmap Books. All images in this review taken from the preceding link.

• review
• indie
• books
• Stuart Gipp
• bitmap books