The games industry is stifled by a culture of fear that prioritises algorithmic trends and market research over the creative conviction and personal taste required to produce genuine hits.
That was the conclusion of a workgroup hosted by developer and consultant Rami Ismail at the 2026 DevGAMM Madeira Games Summit, which took place in May. The Vlambeer co-founder’s workgroup – entitled “We’re moving fast and losing what made us good (creativity, craft & the future)” – called for the industry to reject risk-averse decision-making, asserting that the reflexive avoidance of failure has become a greater threat to success than the inherent uncertainty of creative work.
Ultimately, the group concluded that unique products are forged through internal coherence and disciplined validation, rather than “sanding down the edges” to appeal to everyone.
Rami Ismail at the Madeira Games Summit 2026 | Image credit: DevGAMM Madeira Games Summit
The workgroup consisted of an eclectic mix of creators, producers, communicators, publishers, and service providers, and the group’s goal was to discuss the pathways to reestablishing creativity as a central tenet of game development and game funding processes, with the idea that current incentives are misaligned with creativity.
Disproportionately successful titles such as Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, Peak, and Balatro were given as examples of games driven by personal conviction and individual taste that no market analysis would have predicted. Hence, the workgroup’s thesis was that the games industry creates its best works outside of market research – and that while data is a powerful tool, taste is what drives breakout hits.
This was contrasted against the reflexive need to “chase the algorithm” or “make games for everyone” – mechanisms aimed at reducing risk at the expense of creative conviction.
The pillars of creative game development
The workgroup highlighted four pillars that are key to a creatively centred game design approach. The first was creating coherence, which was defined as creating works that do not contradict their own thesis or goals. But forging games with internal consistency requires conviction, time, and continuous validation.
The second pillar was identifying weaknesses at a product, studio, and personnel level, while the third was selling the dream. The latter applies both internally and externally, and the group was in strong agreement that many creatives and leads – at both the AAA and independent level – are failing to sell the dream of the game through communication and motivation.
The fourth pillar, connecting the dots, involved connecting the disparate inputs and incentives into structures that allowed the other three pillars to succeed.
Key takeaways
One of the key points to emerge from the discussion was that stagnation is an unavoidable outcome of a fearful industry, and that creative conviction is required to maintain a studio or individual’s creative identity. However, picking a lane and excelling in it does not require a singular genre, theme, or even target demographic – although it does require knowing who you are and what you stand for.
Clair Obscur was given as an example of a game resulting from personal conviction and individual taste | Image credit: Sandfall Interactive/Kepler Interactive
The workgroup acknowledged that commercial success should be a goal for any commercially developed title, but argued that imposing additional arbitrary, non-creative pressures for success creates diluted work. The group also recognised that taste is important, but is inherently divisive – it necessarily involves distinguishing an “in-group” from an “out-group.” In other words, those that like something and those that do not.
Another key takeaway was how creative people often find it difficult to make tough decisions, including letting go of their games. Studios can spend tremendous resources seeking validation and chasing ideas that are not good, or that do not fit the current moment, rather than making a decisive choice early on. The group concluded that the only thing worse than making a wrong decision is making no decision when one is needed.
“Courage is a consistent factor of most hit titles”
In relation, the workgroup found that studios and individuals often do not ask for help when it’s needed, which could prevent avoidable mistakes and unlock further opportunities. The participants acknowledged that the games industry is a deeply interdisciplinary, innovative, and iterative field, and no one person or team holds all the answers.
Finally, the group believed that the most reliable indicator of success is community building, and that many so-called overnight hits from the past few years were built on carefully cultivated or existing communities on itch.io, Tumblr, or Reddit.
Bland games won’t sell
“Many of the more fearful reflexes of the industry aim to sand down the rough edges of creative work, creating homogenous and bland works that ‘check all the boxes’, but are nevertheless (or, consequently) insincere, uninspiring, and uninteresting,” concluded Ismail. “Courage is a consistent factor of most hit titles; in funding, in publishing, in marketing, and in investment.”
Although the group overwhelmingly agreed the above to be true, they rejected the idea of a return to toxic structures centred around a creative genius. In contrast, the group called for thoughtful leadership, early and disciplined validation, collaboration that covers weaknesses and blindspots, and a rejection of fearful decision-making.
Ismail gave the following summation: “The industry’s fear of risk is currently the largest risk it faces.”
