There was a moment, not too long ago, when Shawn Layden —the former Sony Interactive Entertainment boss— lamented the death of the AA game and warned that thr loss of it was a threat to video games as a whole. You know, the kind of insider observation that might have been dismissed as industry jargon, but it revealed something profound about what we’ve lost. In a medium where Grand Theft Auto 6 will cost more than most nations’ annual budgets and The Elder Scrolls 6 represents a cultural event so massive it literally cannot afford to surprise anyone, we’ve systematically eliminated the space where games could be both ambitious and genuinely risky. We’ve made a space where chances are impossible and careful calculation is the mantra.

This isn’t just about budget categories or marketing strategies. It’s about the creative soul of the medium itself, of gaming itself. When every game must either scrape by on pennies or justify hundreds of millions —if not a fucking lot more— in investment, we lose something essential: the middle space where true innovation thrives. We lose what cinema has always called b-movies, and what gaming desperately needs to call b-games.

The b-movie ecosystem wasn’t just about individual creativity; it was a risk distribution system. A dozen weird horror films could subsidize one breakthrough. Failure was not just tolerated but expected, which paradoxically made genuine success even more likely. Studios could afford to let filmmakers chase impossible dreams because the dreams were cheap enough to abandon.

Gaming has lost this entirely. We’ve created a barbell economy where everything is either a passion project made for nothing but pocket lint, blood, sweat and tears, or a multi-million corporate investment too big to fail. There’s no space for that productive middle ground where ambition meets constraint in generative, magical ways.

The distinction matters because it reveals different creative possibilities. Life is Strange could afford to create a detailed, explorable world with branching narrative consequences that responded to player choices in mechanically complex ways. It could be both emotionally sincere and systematically ambitious in ways that pure indie development often can’t sustain.

B-games are comfortable with what we might call “productive failure” —the kind of rough edges and overreach that creates genuine character. They’re games that dare to be “too much”: too sincere, too violent, too strange, too ambitious for their own fucking good. And in that overreach, they often land somewhere genuinely interesting.

Definitions

B-movies originally refered to those low-budget commerical films made to fill out a double feature. These films were not intended to be neither prestige projects or box office hits, but rather inexpensive and quick genre pieces that could posed little to no financial risk. 

Over time the term has taken on a life on its own in cultural and critical discourse. B-movies have become a space of creative experimentation and risktaking, where directors, actors, writers etc. can cut their teeth and develop their style, or even an aesthetic to chase for its own worth. 

Key characteristics

• Low to mid-tier budgets
• Genre-driven storytelling
• Creative freedom
• Technical or narrative roughness
• Cult followings
• Training grounds

What’s remarkable is how these innovations remain unmatched by modern AAA productions. Thief‘s approach to stealth —considering surface materials, sound propagation, light sources, guard psychology— creates a genuine simulation that contemporary games approximate but rarely equal —and if they do manage to reach those lofty heights; they're lauded as masterpieces. The rope arrows that let you modify architecture, the moss arrows that change acoustic properties, the way shadows behave like actual shadows rather than cosmetic effects: these represent mechanical authenticity that smooth, expensive games can’t replicate because they’re designed for broader appeal rather than systemic depth. The lowest common denominator.

GreedFall tackles colonialism with more nuance than most AAA studios would ever dare attempt. It’s not a perfect treatment —the game… ehm…“stumbles” in places— but it’s a genuine attempt to grapple with cultural encounter, exploitation, and the ethics of expansion. That kind of thematic complexity could only emerge from a development context where creators could pursue personal vision without focus-group approval.

These games exist because Spiders operates in that b-game sweet spot where they can take massive creative risks precisely because they’re not trying to please everyone. They can make deeply weird sci-fi RPGs about Mars colonies or fantasy adventures that actually engage with the ethics of colonization. Their “failures” teach us more about the medium’s possibilities than many more polished successes.

Life is Strange: Sincerity as Radically Punk

In a gaming landscape increasingly dominated by irony, cynicism, and market-tested relatability, Dontnod’s Life is Strange achieved something quite revolutionary: it was completely and utterly sincere about a teenage experience, and that of a young girl to top it all off. The game refused to condescend to its subject matter or treat adolescent concerns as trivial drama.

The episodic structure was crucial here —it gave the narrative space to breathe and to develop in ways that neither traditional indie games nor AAA productions could sustain. Each episode could end on genuine cliffhangers because they had the budget for substantial voice acting and production values, but they weren’t constrained by having to deliver any immediate gratification or maintain engagement metrics across a single massive experience.

Life is Strange proved there was a massive audience hungry for games that took emotional storytelling seriously. It opened doors for everything from Firewatch (2016) to Night in the Woods, demonstrating that sincerity could be commercially viable in ways the industry hadn’t realized. Because the commercial analyses do not understand art, they understand sellable metrics and trends.

But the success paradox struck hard. Life is Strange 2 (2018) and True Colors (2021) feel more professionally competent but less emotionally desperate. They’re trying to recapture the magic rather than discover it. When the original became a franchise, that creative urgency that drove the original got replaced by brand management and expectations, it had to sell. Bigger budgets aren’t always the solution, and expensive doesn’t necessary mean better.

Consider Shadow Warrior (2013) as an example of what b-games uniquely enable. Flying Wild Hog took some deeply problematic source material —the original Shadow Warrior was essentially unplayable as sincere entertainment by 2013— and "rehabilitated" it through the kind of cultural complexity that could only exist in the creative middle ground. They couldn’t ignore the racist legacy, but they also couldn’t sanitize it completely. Instead, they threaded this incredible needle, creating something simultaneously throwback and deconstruction, juvenile and thoughtful. It did everything right, that Duke Nukem Forever (2011) did wrong —and in less than 14 years.

This kind of cultural rehabilitation could never happen in pure indie development (insufficient resources) or AAA production (too risky from a PR or marketing perspective). It required the specific creative conditions that b-games provide.

This isn’t a criticism of The Witcher 3, which is an amazing game in and of it self —it’s an observation about how success systematically eliminates the creative conditions that made the success possible in the first place. CD Projekt Red learned to give players what they wanted instead of surprising them with what they didn’t know they needed.

The same pattern appears everywhere. Dragon Age: Origins (2009) was an uncompromising tactical RPG that could permanently kill party members and force difficult moral choices. Dragon Age 2 (2011), despite being rushed and rough, took wild creative risks with its “decade in one city” structure and genuinely consequential companion relationships. By Inquisition (2014), everything had been smoothed out into familiar open-world comfort food —technically impressive but creatively conservative.

Should Grand Theft Auto 6 fail, it could very well bring down the whole industry... The stakes riding upon one single AAA-game in these days is really that massive.

The Critical Discourse Problem

Part of what enables this creative flattening is the collapse of serious game criticism. Gaming discourse has been reduced to what are essentially “toaster reviews” —consumer guidance that functions as part of games’ marketing strategies rather than critical evaluation of their artistic merits and of the message.

When Deadly Premonition (2010) or Alpha Protocol (2010) get dismissed as “janky” rather than recognized as genuine artistic attempts that achieve something meaningful —despite their flaws— we lose the vocabulary for understanding productive failure. The discourse has no framework for appreciating games that succeed artistically while failing commercially, or that innovate mechanically while struggling technically.

This critical poverty both reflects and reinforces the industry’s commercial reductionism. Without critics who can articulate what makes b-games valuable beyond their entertainment function, these works become vulnerable to dismissal as merely flawed products., a waste of time and resources. The review culture’s obsession with numerical scores and technical polish actively punishes the kind of interesting failure that b-games represent.

Film criticism had decades to develop vocabularies for understanding experimental work, for appreciating movies that succeeded artistically despite commercial failure or technical limitations. Gaming jumped straight from enthusiast press to algorithmic SEO optimization without ever developing that critical middle ground. And in short, this keeps propping up the wobbly tower that is the AAA-segment of gaming.

Why This Matters for Games as Art

B-games represent gaming’s best argument for cultural legitimacy precisely because they demonstrate that the medium can produce personal artistic statements while remaining commercially viable. They prove that games don’t have to choose between artistic integrity and market success —that there is sustainable space for work that’s both creatively uncompromising and financially successful. As long as you can leave behind the fool's notion of perpetual economic growth and that success only equals making all the money, instead of turning a profit.

They preserve formal experimentation in a landscape increasingly dominated by "proven" formulas. They create cultural breathing room outside algorithmic recommendation systems. They maintain spaces for discovery and cult appreciation that resist the “everyone must play this” mentality that flattens cultural conversation, that turns everything into a MCU goop of commercial blandness.

Most importantly, they keep alive the possibility that gaming can be more than efficiency optimization and dopamine delivery systems. B-games show us games as poetry, as ritual, as conversation. They remind us that the medium’s potential extends far beyond what focus groups and market research can imagine. They remind us that games are art.

When Pathologic (2005) creates genuinely hostile experiences that challenge player comfort, when Disco Elysium (2019) requires actual reading comprehension and philosophical engagement, when Control turns architecture itself into narrative device —these aren’t commercial mistakes to be corrected. They’re proof that gaming can support the full spectrum of human expression.

Newsletter

Hi,

If you enjoyed this reflection on b-games and the future of video games, please subscribe to the newsletter and get updated on further content and other recommended articles, brief reflections, and some video essays

Sincerely,
Thomas