Support NeoGAF

[Nymphae]

I've played a bunch of indie games. 95% of the time, they're nothing more than good, creative ideas.

I'll take 60 hours of the beautiful piracy of Assassin's Creed 4 over the clunky controls and trite story of Gone Home.

I feel exactly the opposite. Shit like AC4 is starting to wear on me incredibly fucking fast. The main story content is nothing special at all, and the mission types & collectables are gameplay we've seen driven into the ground over and over again. Where are the new ideas? I haven't went back to the game in over a month because I just see a big checklist of things I need to do, often literally, before I can even move forward with the story. I got to a main mission that required me to upgrade my ship. I spent HOURS collecting random shit, getting money to buy upgrades, etc. then would go back to the mission start after upgrading the most important parts of my ship, and it would tell me I hadn't upgraded enough yet. Ugghh. Just tell me what the fuck I need to buy to finish your stupid game and I'll buy it. Anyway, my point is, AAA games are a fucking slog nowadays. There's some great stuff in AC 4 but the overall structure and quality/creativity of the content isn't there for me.


Contrast this to the great experiences I've been having with indie titles lately: Outlast, The Swapper, Valdis Story, DayZ, Olli Olli, Nidhogg, FTL, Hotline Miami, Rogue Legacy, The Stanley Parable, Gunpoint, Super Hexagon, and more I'm probably forgetting.

Each one of those is a fantastic title that I likely would have paid full price for in previous generations, and I have been far more inclined to play these than the rote and often broken (BF4) experiences I'm getting in "AAA" titles that cost substantially more.

 

[FriedConsole]

Decided to cut that insanely long post from a few pages back and just turned it into an opinion piece. You can read it here:
http://indiegameenthusiast.blogspot.com/2014/02/ramblings-why-im-indie-gamer.html
I think I outline my opinion well. It's not that AAA is bad and indies are always great. It's that indies can explore themes and offer diverse original experiences that big budget mainstream AAA can't or won't

I don't understand somebody who will refer to themselves as a "indie gamer". I get some people want to be part of a subculture because it feels good to be a member of a tribe but it seems kind of unnecessarily dividing. I would never refer to myself even as a "gamer" as that connotates that I am part of the "gamer" subculture of people who some haven't played a game in years. I just play a lot of indie and AAA games. But hey whatever floats your boat as it doesn't bother me.

 

[More_Badass]

Saw this on Reddit, thought it was kind of relevant to the thread
Seems like a good representation of the uniformed impression of indie games

 

[More_Badass]

I don't understand somebody who will refer to themselves as a "indie gamer". I get some people want to be part of a subculture because it feels good to be a member of a tribe but it seems kind of unnecessarily dividing. I would never refer to myself even as a "gamer" as that connotates that I am part of the "gamer" subculture of people who some haven't played a game in years. I just play a lot of indie and AAA games. But hey whatever floats your boat as it doesn't bother me.

Mainly because I couldn't think of a better title

 

[cartman414]

Wasn't W101 Platinum's most expensive game ever? But if that's the case, why are people saying the middle ground is dead? What about games like Bayonetta 2 and Project X? Portal 2?

Also, The Last Guardian will be AAA when it comes out right?

I just think we should judge games on their merit, not their budget.

I think it's budget + hype that plays into exposure, which more often than not, ends up as perceptual quality by the public at large.

 

[FriedConsole]

Saw this on Reddit, thought it was kind of funny and relevant to the thread

You might be on PC and have a different opinion but on consoles this isn't too far off. I remember Donkey Kong 92' was the only puzzle platformer and greeted the indie surge of puzzle platformers but now I can't play another one. The roguelikes are the new puzzle platformers. Not tired of them yet but will be. Indies don't seem to be the bastion of creative thinking when there seems to be a lot of following what is popular.

 

[Barry Burton]

Lately it's become more and more that way, for me. In general, the batting average of the indie games I've played over the last few years has been higher than the "AAA" games I have played. As "AAA" games have become more and more risk-averse while indie games are becoming deeper and deeper experiences, I've come to favor the latter more and more.

 

[More_Badass]

You might be on PC and have a different opinion but on consoles this isn't too far off. I remember Donkey Kong 92' was the only puzzle platformer and greeted the indie surge of puzzle platformers but now I can't play another one. The roguelikes are the new puzzle platformers. Not tired of them yet but will be. Indies don't seem to be the bastion of creative thinking when there seems to be a lot of following what is popular.

Yeah PC has more diversity in terms of indies than consoles. What's popular gets the most exposure, but there are lot of original non-roguelike, non-puzzle platforming indies

 

[Opiate]

This.

I've played a bunch of indie games. 95% of the time, they're nothing more than good, creative ideas.

I'll take 60 hours of the beautiful piracy of Assassin's Creed 4 over the clunky controls and trite story of Gone Home.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your analysis (or your preference,) but to hear something referred to as "nothing more than good, creative ideas" in a dismissive way is so bizarre to me.

 

[Mavromatis]

As a PC gamer who played many games during 90s I can clearly say that indie games are great for the diversity and all that consolidation of gaming studios created most of the times, repetitive, boring games with lots of marketing effort to sell it yet not enough creativity in it. It also created some big and fun franchises but the bad drowns the good in this case.

So I agree with Toma and I hope that rest of the GAF tries more indie games to discover what is good about PCs and homebrewing on consoles so that we can get the game that creates instead of the game that we keep on buying every cycle.

 

[Opiate]

Dark Souls is the GOTG for probably thousands of people, and it is definitely a mid-range game.

This is true, but is an exception.

Or, put differently, people seem to agree near unanimously that Dark Souls is an exceptionally good, unusual game. If step 1 in having a highly successful mid range game is "make one of the most loved games of the generation," then by definition very few developers and publishers will meet that criteria.

This is all less true on PC, where there are lots of highly successful, mid range products.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Agreed. It is just tribalism. I don't see why people need to identify themselves as an "indie gamer". The whole making fun of "casuals" is replaced by immature people making fun of people who play AAA games. As if playing one type of game makes you a more intelligent person.

I like indie games with gameplay (Spelunky and Hot Line Miami was on my top 10 last year). I am not into interactive art experiences or "it is not supposed to be fun" games but if I put that into a forum you get "you don't get it". Like I am a total dumbass. Do I need to show these people test scores as proof of intelligence?

What "forums" are you talking about? Because I've expressed my personal dislike for most "interactive fiction" ("games" with barely any gameplay, especially stuff like Dear Esther) many times in several indie threads here, and I've never received any such comment. There's another usual poster in these threads that is the exact opposite of me, and we cordially agree to disagree.

This.

I've played a bunch of indie games. 95% of the time, they're nothing more than good, creative ideas.

I'll take 60 hours of the beautiful piracy of Assassin's Creed 4 over the clunky controls and trite story of Gone Home.

I'll take the 100+ hours of perfect platforming and risk calculation of Spelunky over the the trite gameplay of Aliens: Colonial Marines. See? We can do this all day.

 

[DedValve]

RE4 is better than any indie game ever made.

Edit: RE4 is better than any indie game that I have ever played.

To be fair RE4 is better than any game period.

Spoiler

Except maybe Vanquish and Bayonetta.

No Mans Sky is easily my most anticipated game ever (besides Bayonetta 2 and Vanquish 2 with the atmosphere of classic RE games and PsychoBreak). There was a thread not so long ago (this week I believe) about adventuring games, MY GOD the amount of free indie games that look so amazing. There was one in particular, a space game called Space Engine.

I haven't downloaded it yet but I'll try later tonight and see how that goes, seems too good to be true.

 

[conman]

Saw this on Reddit, thought it was kind of relevant to the thread
Seems like a good representation of the uniformed impression of indie games

Bad argument. It's like someone who prefers dogs to cats saying that cats are smelly, hairy creatures, too. You may as well just say, "All games are derivative, predictable crap. Yet we all love to spend money on them." But what does that prove?

 

[More_Badass]

Because those are the games the press consistently pushes. And even you, to an extent, with that Tower of Guns recommendation you keep bringing up (although I will repeat, it does actually look like a solid game, it just suffers from indie-itis by pushing Steampunk, Old-School Gaming, and Roguelike/Procedurally-Generated Content, much like Eldritch, a game I get some enjoyment from, pushes the Cthulhu/Old-School/Rougelike buttons).

There is a lot of me-too stuff that gets the most attention. The sheer amount of first-person roguelikes is getting a bit tiring just like the whole 8-bit platformer thing did, and the Minecraft-likes did, and so on. Indie gaming is incredibly varied, but usually the word only gets used to describe whatever lo-fi trend is happening at the moment. For every unique experience like Hotline Miami, there are ten Old-School Roguelikes (that don't actually have much to do with Roguelikes) that are shitting up the attention cycle.

I mostly play on PC, and while I grew up with consoles as well, my favorite games are mostly PC games, so that skews my take on this a bit. Even my favorite games that go through publishers mostly had pretty small budgets. System Shock 2, various 4X/strategy games, lots of RPGs, etc.

Anyway, my point was not that Dark Souls should be the goal for mid-range games, just that eschewing bombast, celebrity voice acting, and expensively animated scripted sequences doesn't mean a developer can't compete for GOTY awards.

Well actually my go-to game to name is Distance. Arcade acrobatic racing, 3D, no roguelike elements or any of those other elements. It's just a game that don't usually fit that mold that some people try to generalize for indie games

But I agree that roguelike games or games that have rogue elements are very prevalent today

 

[Opiate]

I would agree that the PC landscape is more varied, and would argue this is inherent to how each platform is structured.

The PC is an open platform, which allows by design low barriers to entry. Anyone can make a game for the PC, which means that anyone can make terrible games for the PC. That has obvious disadvantages, but also means the platform is likely to find more diamonds in the rough; unusual, unique games that strike a new chord. Like Minecraft.

The consoles are by design intended to include a filtering process. This has obvious, important advantages (it makes it much simpler for typical consumers to find quality products), but also makes it less likely that a unique, different, new type of game will make it through that filter. Such games are likely get caught in the filter along with the crap, because you can't tell the difference between "good, just very different" and "this is just crap" until the game actually gets in player's hands.

 

[cartman414]

Oh believe me, we know there are a million times more bad Indies than bad AAA games, just purely because of the total numbers.Sorry to say, but you are completely missing the point of the thread if you say "indie>AAA" in any context is a ridiculous claim.

How about by ratio?

 

[Five]

You might be on PC and have a different opinion but on consoles this isn't too far off. I remember Donkey Kong 92' was the only puzzle platformer and greeted the indie surge of puzzle platformers but now I can't play another one. The roguelikes are the new puzzle platformers. Not tired of them yet but will be. Indies don't seem to be the bastion of creative thinking when there seems to be a lot of following what is popular.

Delusions of grandeur. You know how people think they could be the next JK Rowling or Stephanie Meyer, so they write fan fiction or fantasy clones? It's the same thing happening here. "Oh man, I loved game X, but it would have been totally better with feature Y and I'm sure everyone who played X will agree with me and pay me millions like X got if I make the new game with Y."

I say this as someone who has had these delusions. I say this as someone who is currently working on a Roguelike platformer that's equal parts Donkey Kong Country and Dark Souls. I say this as someone who's sitting in his office chair for his day job, browsing NeoGAF and doing concept art in PhotoShop instead of getting actual work done.

Yeah, there's a lot of innovation in indie games. But there's a whole lot more me-too. I'm part of the problem.

 

[More_Badass]

How about by ratio?

lol
That's true.

 

[Odrion]

There are as many bad indie games as bad AAA games

HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHA. Try an infinitely more amount of bad indie games than there are bad AAA games.

 

[KojiKnight]

HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHA. Try an infinitely more amount of bad indie games than there are bad AAA games.

This, though it's obvious why AAA games require a lot more time and effort.

That said, the best indie games tend to be gimmicky games that are rather short and sweet... Longer indie titles tend (but not always) seem to wear out their welcomes faster than AAA... Indie titles also don't tend to have big storied narratives (though to be fair, a lot of AAA games don't either, but even more since in the indie case).

They really are completely different beasts and fit the axiom of apples and oranges very well... Like comparing a student film to a summer blockbuster.

 

[hypostatic]

I'll take the 100+ hours of perfect platforming and risk calculation of Spelunky over the the trite gameplay of Aliens: Colonial Marines. See? We can do this all day.

Yes! That's what makes them opinions. And, of course, you've picked on Aliens knowing full well that it is universally recognized as a bad game. Doesn't help your argument.

My original comment came off much more arrogant than I had intended, and I should have probably reread it before submitting. My point is that I much prefer the polish and length of a AAA title over an indie game that exists because it is an innovative/creative product that a large publisher won't bother with. There's often a good reason why they won't — probably because their target audience (me?) isn't all that interested.

Yes, the AC games are almost-insultingly iterative, but they are, to me, a whole lot of fun. I much prefer that type of fun. Having said that I adore games like Hotline Miami and FTL, but I can live a very happy gaming life without them.

Notwithstanding all of the above, Torchlight franchise > Diablo franchise.

 

[FriedConsole]

That said, the best indie games tend to be gimmicky games that are rather short and sweet... Longer indie titles tend (but not always) seem to wear out their welcomes faster than AAA... Indie titles also don't tend to have big storied narratives (though to be fair, a lot of AAA games don't either, but even more since in the indie case).

Yeah the most touted indie games are games that are more fun to talk about than to play. A lot of the enjoyment is derived from talking about the games and how they make people feel. Ideally a person should spend more time talking about the game than playing it so it needs to be short. A good indie game seems to be vague in message so people can read whatever they want into it.

 

[More_Badass]

Yeah the most touted indie games are games that are more fun to talk about than to play. A lot of the enjoyment is derived from talking about the games and how they make people feel. Ideally a person should spend more time talking about the game than playing it so it needs to be short. A good indie game seems to be vague in message so people can read whatever they want into it.

Or they could just be good games. Like Nitronic Rush or Spelunky or Tower of Guns. No messages there, and certainly not short. All gameplay

 

[Servbot24]

Gameplay > "Cinematic Experiences"

Which usually results in Indie > AAA, with several exceptions.

Yeah the most touted indie games are games that are more fun to talk about than to play. A lot of the enjoyment is derived from talking about the games and how they make people feel. Ideally a person should spend more time talking about the game than playing it so it needs to be short. A good indie game seems to be vague in message so people can read whatever they want into it.

You're obviously playing the wrong games. Velocity, Guacamelee, Braid, OlliOlli, Spelunky, etc, etc

 

[Vlade]

People say "indie gamer" because indie games are clearly different than other games, and also people don't like publishers if they have any opinion of them at all.

Who cares about the ratio? I don't reach into a hat and purchase whatever I pull out, I listen to a community and find games that give me experiences I want.
As for what is greater; if I, just as a stupid hypothetical situation, could only play games with budgets above 2M USD or below, I would choose below. I'd rather have both, but I think part of this discussion is around the idea of relative meaningfulness of these segments.

 

[More_Badass]

God, debating arguing with people on Reddit is pointless and an exercise in frustration. I need to stick to the intelligent discussion here

ThePain
Indie Games in Concept- Doing what AAA companies are afraid to do due to the monetary risk involved with risk taking!
Indie Games in Reality- Roguelike / minecraft clone / DayZ clone / Old tired out 2D scrollers that were boring and done to death in 1996 / Dwarf Fortress clone with pretty graphics. Bonus points! Add "Zombies" to any of the things above and you've now covered every single title in steam greenlight!

Bronxsta
Distance, Cloudbuilt, Overgrowth, Apotheon, Tower of Guns, Stasis, Don't Starve, Door Kickers, XenoRaptor, Path of Shadows, Cuphead, SCALE, Cornerstone, Thumper, Deadlock, Wings of Saint Nazaire, SkyRogue, The Stomping Land, The Forest, Stranded Deep, NaissanceE, Drifter, Darkest Dungeon, Promised Land, Routine, Quadrant, Eidolon, Strike Vector, Collateral, Krautscape, Reset

ThePain
See this guy knows what's up... or at least I believe that's why he posted a giant list of shitty knock-offs of other games.

Bronxsta
"shitty knock-offs of other games?"
Those are all examples of indies games that aren't "roguelike / minecraft clone / DayZ clone / Old tired out 2D scrollers that were boring and done to death in 1996 / Dwarf Fortress clone with pretty graphics."
Except Tower of Guns, that's an old school quadruple jumping FPS with roguelike elements.
Distance? Acrobatic arcade racer in open futuristic environments
Cloudbuilt? Freeform rocket-propelled 3D platformer
Stasis? Ridley Scott-esque isometric sci-fi adventure game
etc.

ThePain
Distance - Wipeout
Cloudbuilt - Extremely generic 3D platformer. Prince of Persia, Tomb Raider, Crash Bandicoot, you name it. Just giving it a "cyber punk" skin doesn't mean you've created a brand new game.
Stasis... isometric sci-fi adventure game
Um... the 80s and 90s called, they want 1/2 their PC games back. Oh lets see, Alien shooter, Shadowgrounds.....

Look, the answers you're giving tell me you're either rather young, or you really didn't get in to gaming until very recently. Everything you listed is a very obvious clone of an older game. It's nothing new. It's not unique, it's not original. These are just reskins. Just because you reskin earthbound or ninja gaiden or Harvest moon doesn't mean you've actually created a brand new game.
You may as well start arguing that popcap games are the pinnacle of creativity at this point.
Not all of us started gaming on the 360, trotting out old game remakes doesn't cut it. We need more original games (The Stanley Parable, Natural Selection, DayZ, Minecraft) not remakes of remakes of remakes.

Bronxsta
Distance is actually nothing like Wipeout at all

"It's nothing new. It's not unique, it's not original. These are just reskins."
And this applies to every single one of those games there? Reskins? Really? You obviously have no idea or information about the gameplay, visuals, themes, and narrative of those games.

And so your definition of what constitutes an old, non-unique, unoriginal reskin is simply having similar gameplay? This can apply to any game in any genre. Prince of Persia is just a 3D platformer with a fantasy skin and time rewind gimmick.

 

[Wolff]

Ubisoft has gone back to the mid-range well. Gunslinger, Blood Dragon, and Might and Magic X all fit the bill.

I hope it is successful for them, so other publishers get on board. I don't think there is a good future in these studio-killing, make or break releases.

Yeah you're right here. Those were really good ones and i hope they continue with it and others get on board too.

I was going to say not all indies are retro style games, but then I read the rest of your post

Have you seen Distance, Tower of Guns, Cloudbuilt, Stasis, Overgrowth, etc.?

Sure. I'm interested in some of those and others.

 

[Dire]

God, debating arguing with people on Reddit is pointless and an exercise in frustration. I need to stick to the intelligent discussion here

I think the biggest irony with how washed out AAA experiences have become and the increasing level of dissatisfaction is that in many ways AAA games were ostensibly exactly what players asked for. Look at reviews for classical games or modern games Ninja Gaiden, Dark Souls, etc and you'll find hoards of people complaining about the difficulty, others complaining about the lack of story, and others critiquing the repetition - I mean all you do is kill something, then move on and kill something else!

So enter Assassin's Creed and you have a game easy enough for a well trained monkey to beat it, a story that's shoved down your throat from the first moment you turn on the game, and oh you want variety - we have kill missions, follow people around and listen to them missions, naval escort missions, treasure hunts, piracy missions, etc, etc. It's just what you asked for!

I hate how abused that Henry Ford quote is but one has to admit that he did put it well: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they'd have told me faster horses." When players in general don't really understand what they want or even truly enjoy about games, discussing gaming with them is going to be about as fruitful as beating your head against a brick wall.

 

[manueldelalas]

I don't get this thread, to me there are good games and bad games; but everything black or white, AAA vs indies is just generalizing to the extreme.

In my opinion if you are going to spend more than US$30 on a game, it should be a game that you at least know about; so I will spend $40 or $60 in a new Mario, Zelda, Tomb Raider, Dark Souls, etc game but never for a new IP; unless it is hyped to the extreme as a must buy by every forum and publication. That's just common sense.

Last year i bought:
- Spelunky: huge mistake, I knew I hated random levels and this didn't change my mind, lazy design... That damn GAF hype...
- Papers please: neat idea, ultimately boring
- McPixel: awesome, a parody of old point and click games, take it as a parody.
- Gunpoint: awesome, very focused stealth game.
- Rogue Legacy: Another with random levels, absolutely awful!
- Thomas was Alone: A bad game with a great narrator, helps that it's short
- Botanicula: Short, fun, nothing special
- Limbo: Short, fun, nothing special
- Brothers: fun 2 hour game, first game my kids watched and were interested in. It's fun because you can interact a lot with the enviroment and the game invites you to explore and try stuff. What's bad is that you cannot backtrack.
- Guacamelee: incredible
- Toki Tori GBC: Average puzzle game, like the old Crazy Castle games
- Toki Tori PC: Much better than the GBC game, but not that good.
- Toki Tori 2+: Very good game, stages are interconnected now
- Zack Zero: meh, not bad though
- VVVVVV: good, not that great
- Cave Story + (3DS): incredible
- Super Meat Boy: Didn't enjoy this, fun if you are a masochist, very slippery...
- Valdis Story: Metroidvania, very disappointing IMO, GAF hype strikes again...
- Trine 2: (is this indie?) Good game, awesome graphics
- Frogatto & Friends: Awful platformer.
- Steamworld Dig: A surprise, great game; the digging part (70% of the game) is boring, but there are individual puzzle stages that are awesome. This game has incredible gameplay and I hope they make a full metroidvania out of this.
- Pixeljunk Eden: wtf am i doing? Just awful
- Treasure Adventure game: Good Metroidvania
- La Mulana: Very good, difficult
- Volgarr: Didn't like this, not a fun of double jump in this type of games...
- Hotline Miami: Good game, a lot of fun; it's not the best stealth game ever that some say though.

Is Mark of the Ninja considered indie? It's a Microsoft game, but it's incredible (came in the Humble indie sale).

I've bought a lot more, and played some other I don't remember, but you'll notice all those games listed (most of them) are very highly regarded on GAF and all other sites. It seems to me that people forgive A LOT in indie games, and those are measured with a different stick than games that have a proper publisher. Also, there is A LOT of crap in the indie scene, so if you just randomly buy indie games, you'll end up with mostly crap.

People advocating for indie games are damaging that industry, because they are so desperate to prove that indie games are better or equal than AAA, that when people trust them and buy those games, they end disappointed.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your analysis (or your preference,) but to hear something referred to as "nothing more than good, creative ideas" in a dismissive way is so bizarre to me.

That and Gone Home is an indie title, but it's not like every indie is like Gone Home.

 

[Toma]

People advocating for indie games are damaging that industry.

You destroyed your whole argument with that one sentence.

 

[Yuterald]

I don't necessarily like the term "Indie". I feel like it was a word that was popularized during the Xbox 360 Live Arcade-era with games like Braid and Super Meat Boy. It seems like it became a brand/label at some point and certain expectations/criteria were unofficially established amongst the "community". Whether that's the focus on pixel art, "gimmicks", 2D platforming, or "Metroid-vania"-like elements, there's a general consensus that's been established and a market has inadvertently been created for games that hit these bullet points, so to speak.

I feel like people will also decide whether or not a game is "indie" depending on the size/experience of the team. Well, then why weren't most games during the NES-era considered "indie"? It's because people were just fucking making games and not necessarily thinking about "where they fit it" or "what they're categorized" as. Most games from that era were developed my small, inexperienced groups of people. So, why can't we just say that a small team developed the game instead of branding it with a label and segregating it from the rest? Well, it's too late for that now, because as I said, it's become a marketing angle (see Indie stores/sections on PSN/Steam, etc.) and up and coming developers can find their audience more easily now if they label themselves as "indie".

You know, it's really just about being an "underdog". "Indie" devs just don't have the resources to compete against established, "AAA" studios...and there's nothing wrong with that. You have to start somewhere. You know, I feel like I've been supporting the underdog/non-"AAA" titles since the PS2 days, but I didn't go around saying "I'm a small/mid sized game team" supporter or anything like that. I just fucking bought/played the games because they looked cool/interesting to me.

 

[JavyOO7]

Indie games are wonderful. The guys making Rogue Legacy, Gone Home, and BIT.TRIP RUNNER 2 for instance hit big time home runs last year and I hope they continue hitting these home runs in the future.

 

[More_Badass]

I don't get this thread, to me there are good games and bad games; but everything black or white, AAA vs indies is just generalizing to the extreme.

In my opinion if you are going to spend more than US$30 on a game, it should be a game that you at least know about; so I will spend $40 or $60 in a new Mario, Zelda, Tomb Raider, Dark Souls, etc game but never for a new IP; unless it is hyped to the extreme as a must buy by every forum and publication. That's just common sense.

People advocating for indie games are damaging that industry, because they are so desperate to prove that indie games are better or equal than AAA, that when people trust them and buy those games, they end disappointed.

I'll be frank. That's some f$@ked up logic. One, price paid for a game has no correlation with quality and enjoyment. I've bought game for $2, $5, $10 that I've enjoyed equally or more so than games that were $40, $60 dollars

And honestly I don't think you read the OP or the other opinions here. No one's saying that AAA sucks, or that they're bad and all indies are good. They're different and can deliver experiences that big budget mainstream game can't.

Just because a game isn't known doesn't mean it's shitty. Media attention doesn't equate to quality, nor does lack of attention mean a game is crap. That's the whole point here and of the Indie threads. That there are dozens of great fun experiences that sink into obscurity and never get the attention they deserve. We're not saying every indies is a masterpiece and AAA is crap. All we're saying is that these are great experiences that should be played because there're good games.

There's more diversity and originality in indies, and they can tackle ideas and explore themes that AAA can't or won't, without compromise. Yes in that way, in terms of the wealth of different experiences and the unfettered freedom to create, yes indie games are better than AAA.

If advocating for that is damaging gaming, then I'm sorry but I hope I break the industry
---
Btw...
If you don't like random levels, then why would you even get Spelunky and Rogue Legacy in the first place, regardless of game impressions? That's like if I hated stealth but got MotN anyway. Randomization is the core of those games, so if you don't like that, you'd never enjoy those games, even if they are considered fantastic by others

And I have never ever heard of Hotline Miami described as a stealth game. If you're approaching the game that way, you might not be getting the full experience

 

[More_Badass]

I don't necessarily like the term "Indie". I feel like it was a word that was popularized during the Xbox 360 Live Arcade-era with games like Braid and Super Meat Boy. It seems like it became a brand/label at some point and certain expectations/criteria were unofficially established amongst the "community". Whether that's the focus on pixel art, "gimmicks", 2D platforming, or "Metroid-vania"-like elements, there's a general consensus that's been established and a market has inadvertently been created for games that hit these bullet points, so to speak.

I feel like people will also decide whether or not a game is "indie" depending on the size/experience of the team. Well, then why weren't most games during the NES-era considered "indie"? It's because people were just fucking making games and not necessarily thinking about "where they fit it" or "what they're categorized" as. Most games from that era were developed my small, inexperienced groups of people. So, why can't we just say that a small team developed the game instead of branding it with a label and segregating it from the rest? Well, it's too late for that now, because as I said, it's become a marketing angle (see Indie stores/sections on PSN/Steam, etc.) and up and coming developers can find their audience more easily now if they label themselves as "indie".

You know, it's really just about being an "underdog". "Indie" devs just don't have the resources to compete against established, "AAA" studios...and there's nothing wrong with that. You have to start somewhere. You know, I feel like I've been supporting the underdog/non-"AAA" titles since the PS2 days, but I didn't go around saying "I'm a small/mid sized game team" supporter or anything like that. I just fucking bought/played the games because they looked cool/interesting to me.

Exactly that's what we're saying. That Indie > AAA title was just a way to get people interested in the thread. Our point is that indies deserve attention because they're cool/interesting games that don't get the exposure they should or get dismissed outright for being "indie".

 

[Toma]

I'll be frank. That's some f$@ked up logic. One, price paid for a game has no correlation with quality and enjoyment. I've bought game for $2, $5, $10 that I've enjoyed equally or more so than games that were $40, $60 dollars

I cant get over the fact that he honestly believes that someone standing in for something would be damaging it. Thats so... backwards.

 

[inner-G]

For me, retro games do what indies do better than indies.

 

[More_Badass]

For me, retro games do what indies do better than indies.

Which is? And not all indies are retro style games. Many actually have quite modern visuals and gameplay and other unique art styles

 

[Glass Shark]

I hardly play any AAA games these days, and there are a lot of indie titles I love... that said, I am getting really tired of pixel art, unless it's done particularly well.

 

[inm8num2]

There are great, good, okay, bad, and shitty indie games.

There are great, good, okay, bad, and shitty AAA games.

How the best of the best stack up against one another is heavily subjective.

 

[More_Badass]

I hardly play any AAA games these days, and there are a lot of indie titles I love... that said, I am getting really tired of pixel art, unless it's done particularly well.

There are many indies that are not pixel art. My go-to suggestions to check out are Distance, Cloudbuilt, Tower of Guns, and Ovegrowth, but there are dozens and dozens more

 

[Weltall Zero]

Yes! That's what makes them opinions. And, of course, you've picked on Aliens knowing full well that it is universally recognized as a bad game. Doesn't help your argument.

That is entirely my argument. You picked an indie game in a style a lot of people dislike, myself included; that is to say, interactive fiction, and then proceeded to use its lack of gameplay against the entire indie spectrum.
Of course, it might just be that you're not aware of other styles of indie games (namely, those that do precisely the opposite, i.e. focus on pure gameplay), but then again, is my argument the one that suffers in that light?

My original comment came off much more arrogant than I had intended, and I should have probably reread it before submitting. My point is that I much prefer the polish and length of a AAA title over an indie game that exists because it is an innovative/creative product that a large publisher won't bother with. There's often a good reason why they won't — probably because their target audience (me?) isn't all that interested.

My point however is that "polish and length" are very subjective metrics when games like Spelunky have given me hundreds of hours of gameplay time over several years, each one much more enjoyable than any AAA game, and where some accomplishments can be done by a number of people in the single digits in the entire world.

Yes, the AC games are almost-insultingly iterative, but they are, to me, a whole lot of fun. I much prefer that type of fun. Having said that I adore games like Hotline Miami and FTL, but I can live a very happy gaming life without them.

Of course; you can't miss something you don't know about. Are you aware of any indie title besides those that make the headlines? For that matter, how many out of the ones that do? How would you even know what you're missing?

Let me put it another way. You can live a "very happy gaming life" with a NES if you don't know anything else; I know because I've done it, for years. But having the choice between that and the full spectrum of games we've had for the last 30 years (including the NES!), why would you want to limit yourself?

Notwithstanding all of the above, Torchlight franchise > Diablo franchise.

And yet how many people are aware of Torchlight's existence versus those that know Diablo? And of those, how many have played it?

 

[More_Badass]

New Distance trailer
So when someone says indies can't be more than boring retro 20 pixel art puzzle platformers, you can show them this

 

[Derrick01]

Ubisoft has gone back to the mid-range well. Gunslinger, Blood Dragon, and Might and Magic X all fit the bill.

I hope it is successful for them, so other publishers get on board. I don't think there is a good future in these studio-killing, make or break releases.

Those don't feel like mid range games to me, they feel like shorter AAA games with the same or similar dumbed down gameplay (talking about Far Cry and CoJ here). I miss the ambition many of the real mid range games used to have, games that would usually result in not looking all that good or being really janky but would impress in other areas. I look at something like Alpha Protocol as a rare example of that from last gen, but I don't know what the budget was for it. It was a really mishandled game so it could have been classified as AAA from Sega for all I know.

 

[More_Badass]

NeonXSZ is another good example of the diversity and quality that indies can accomplish. The game is a mix of Descent + Diablo, in a procedural open world
Site | GAF thread

 

[conman]

oops. wrong thread.

 

[ThePlayerofGames]

The majority of indie games are digital.

I don't buy digital.

Until indies start catering to me, they won't get my money.

 

[Koren]

The majority of indie games are digital.

I don't buy digital.

I'm leaning toward this, too, but I try to make some exceptions for indies (I'll never buy digital for a high-budget game, though, except for very special cases like Animal Crossing that require playing a couple of minutes a day)

One more reason why I love seeing a tier with a physical disc for crowdfunding indies. If the game is really promising, I can spend 50$ or more just to get the game physical.


I'd like to see more often compilation of sucessful indies on a disc. I'd probably pay easily the price of an AAA game for a disc with four or five well-received games on it, or a dozen or so lesser-known but still decent-to-good ones.

 

[AwShucks]

Good games > Bad games

AAA or indie does not matter. There are thousands of awful indie games and thousands of awful AAA games. I have just as much fun with Infamous SS or Dead Space or God of War as I do with The Walking Dead or Velocity 2x or Everyday Shooter.