The first review I linked, by the way, is a perfect example of disgustingly smarmy new games journlolism fagotry, complete with painfully jarring attempts at profundity and retarded italicizations. The last few paragraphs in particular have to be read to be believed:
Andrew wrote:I’ve seen Canabalt labelled as one of 2009’s “indie darlings.” The criticism that naturally follows such attention has focused on its lack of producing an experience of any significance; it’s too short. Aside from the initial novelty, there is no reason a person needs to pick this game up more than once. They would be wrong. There is a reason.
Canabalt is a game of the simplest philosophy, hearkening back to the days where “High Score” actually meant something. Success is easily quantified. There is no secret there: to go farther, you must get better at the game. Anyone can grasp this concept. The failure condition is equally simple: you die. But even here the game has something to say, because you don’t just fall into a chasm. You hit the brick wall of your skill level. Canabalt wants you to do better.
With enough patience, Canabalt can last forever. And you want it to last forever. As long as that character is running across the screen, you are alive. You go on because you must.
Or you die.
Completely ignorant of the fact that we already have about 20,000 other games that subscribe to this philosophy, and which were not made for deaf and dumb quadriplegics to boot.
