It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
amok: All I was saying is that there are different ways on seeing what is independent,
I do not think there are different ways of defining "independent developer." I think that is pretty set-in-stone English definition shit.

What I will concede is that the term "indie" could, colloquially, mean something else to certain others, yourself included, and at that point it's semantics and I don't care.
avatar
amok: All I was saying is that there are different ways on seeing what is independent,
avatar
StingingVelvet: I do not think there are different ways of defining "independent developer." I think that is pretty set-in-stone English definition shit.

What I will concede is that the term "indie" could, colloquially, mean something else to certain others, yourself included, and at that point it's semantics and I don't care.
part of the problem is that there is no definition saying that an indie game have to be made by an independent developer.

I am going to do a horrible copy-pasta from Craig Stern now:

"5) “An indie game is any game made by an indie developer, and an indie developer is any developer that is independently owned and operated.”

This definition has two parts and a world of problems. For one thing, it’s massively over-inclusive. Infinity Ward, for example, wasn’t owned by Activision until after it shipped Call of Duty back in 2003. Under this definition, Infinity Ward was an indie studio back when it developed CoD because it was independently owned and operated, thereby making Call of Duty an indie game.

In case that doesn’t give you pause, here are some other studios that are independently owned and operated: Ubisoft, Epic, Valve, and Bethesda. These companies are so big that they publish other studios’ games, own the distribution platforms other studios use to publish games, and/or flat-out own other studios. Calling them indie is like calling Exxon Mobil Corp. a gas station.

There are still more problems with this definition. Regardless of whether “independently owned and operated” is a sufficient criterion for indie (it isn’t), one cannot consistently, sensibly determine whether a game is indie by reference to its studio. Many independently-owned studios take different tacks with each game. One game might be a contract job for a publisher or another studio, while the next game might be their own independent work.

Suppose for a moment that Fictitious Studios–an independently owned and operated game developer–takes on a job from EA creating a first-person shooter. The game is called Modern Duty: Call of Warface: The Gunnining. It’s derivative tripe, sure, but they need to keep the lights on and the air conditioners running. EA gives Fictitious millions of dollars, Fictitious hires a huge team, and they begin to build the game under EA’s close supervision.

EA Marketing interferes constantly during development. Game mechanics are cut to add new graphical flourishes; whole sections of the game have to be remade every few weeks to add in cut scenes at EA’s whim. Finally, the exhausted studio launches the game. They’re not happy with it, but that job allowed them to survive while they plan their next project: a platformer with a time/physics gimmick and black silhouette graphics, with a central metaphor about the alienation of man in modern society.

Two questions: (1) Is this studio indie? (2) If so, does that make Modern Duty: Call of Warface: The Gunnining indie? If you answered “yes” to both of these questions, congratulate yourself: you just killed indie games."



Sorry for that - but it is one of the reasons why I feel your very straight forward definition do not work for me.
And feel free to skip all this, but do admit that the tomato thing was silly...
avatar
Leroux: To be fair, Aquaria does start kind of slow, and even though it fits with the story, I can see why it would turn off some people. The first time I played it, I didn't get very far before losing interest, it's only when I came back to it several months later that I realized how much fun the game can actually be.

Still, as buktu pointed out, most of what you're criticizing about the games you played is extremely subjective. You're putting too much emphasis on your personal preferences and experiences, making a lot of assumptions about other people. Just because you discovered that most indie games you've played were not for you doesn't mean that the games are not enjoyable in general and that people who claim they like them are hypocrites.
I'd kill... KILL I SAY, to see Aquaria on here.
avatar
amok: Suppose for a moment that Fictitious Studios–an independently owned and operated game developer–takes on a job from EA creating a first-person shooter.
Then it wouldn't be independent anymore, they would be doing contract work for a big publisher. Also you listed Bethesda, who are owned and controlled by Zenimax, and Ubisoft, who are a corporation with shareholders.

I don't think you're getting what independent means.
avatar
HiPhish: Honestly, I don't see much difference between the modern AAA games and those indy/garage games. They are the same except for the budget.

AAA games try to impress players with high-end graphics, indy games try to impress players with unique (i.e. done a million times already) artstyles. AAA games use quick-time events and mini games to compensate for lackluster gameplay, indy games use puzzle gimmicks to compensate for lackluster gameplay. AAA games shove awful stories written by Hollywood rejects down your throat, indy games shove pretentious stories written by literature class rejects down our throat. AAA games are ten hour short cutscene marathons, indy games are five hour short puzzle marathons. AAA games require no skill to beat enemies, indy games require no brains to solve the puzzles. AAA games waste your time pointlessly by having you walk from A to B without anything happening, indy games waste your time pointlessly by having you walk from A to B without anything happening because the stupid physics engine makes you drop that stupid block for the fiftyth time.

I culd go on forever, but my point is that "indy" games are not really any different than AAA games. AAA developers are making games for an inbred industry where they try to impress each other instead of making an actually good game that's supposed to sell well. Indy developers have their own inbred industry. As far as i am concerned they are both creatively bankrupt.

I don't care about art styles, stories or mechanics, all i want is games with good "meat", something to sink my teeth into. I don't care who made it and when and whether they are owned by a publisher or not. Almost all of the games on GoG are entirely new to me, finding out about GoG after coming from playing AAA and indy games is like coming from eating junk food to a first class restaurant. I can't even believe what waste I was playing. Of course there are exceptions, there are exceptions to everything, but this is not the case of "95% of everything sucks", but rather "99.99% of it sucks".

Also, a note to all who think that characters like Super Meat Boy or the Braid guy are popular: They are not. The only reason you know about them is because you know those games. If something is truly popular it goes beyond its medium. Even If you've never seen Star Wars you know who Darth Vader is, but does anyone outside of Star Wars fans know who Boba Fett is? Even if you've never seen Indiana Jones you know that scene with the boulder, but no one knows about Indy's son from the new movie (I can't even remember his name), even though he was a main character.
In that case the only games that are popular are Mario, Sonic, Donkey Kong, Tomb Raider (Lara Croft, Halo (Master Chief) and maybe Ryu or Crash Bandicoot?
avatar
HiPhish: Honestly, I don't see much difference between the modern AAA games and those indy/garage games. They are the same except for the budget.

AAA games try to impress players with high-end graphics, indy games try to impress players with unique (i.e. done a million times already) artstyles. AAA games use quick-time events and mini games to compensate for lackluster gameplay, indy games use puzzle gimmicks to compensate for lackluster gameplay. AAA games shove awful stories written by Hollywood rejects down your throat, indy games shove pretentious stories written by literature class rejects down our throat. AAA games are ten hour short cutscene marathons, indy games are five hour short puzzle marathons. AAA games require no skill to beat enemies, indy games require no brains to solve the puzzles. AAA games waste your time pointlessly by having you walk from A to B without anything happening, indy games waste your time pointlessly by having you walk from A to B without anything happening because the stupid physics engine makes you drop that stupid block for the fiftyth time.

I culd go on forever, but my point is that "indy" games are not really any different than AAA games. AAA developers are making games for an inbred industry where they try to impress each other instead of making an actually good game that's supposed to sell well. Indy developers have their own inbred industry. As far as i am concerned they are both creatively bankrupt.

I don't care about art styles, stories or mechanics, all i want is games with good "meat", something to sink my teeth into. I don't care who made it and when and whether they are owned by a publisher or not. Almost all of the games on GoG are entirely new to me, finding out about GoG after coming from playing AAA and indy games is like coming from eating junk food to a first class restaurant. I can't even believe what waste I was playing. Of course there are exceptions, there are exceptions to everything, but this is not the case of "95% of everything sucks", but rather "99.99% of it sucks".

Also, a note to all who think that characters like Super Meat Boy or the Braid guy are popular: They are not. The only reason you know about them is because you know those games. If something is truly popular it goes beyond its medium. Even If you've never seen Star Wars you know who Darth Vader is, but does anyone outside of Star Wars fans know who Boba Fett is? Even if you've never seen Indiana Jones you know that scene with the boulder, but no one knows about Indy's son from the new movie (I can't even remember his name), even though he was a main character.
avatar
McDon: In that case the only games that are popular are Mario, Sonic, Donkey Kong, Tomb Raider (Lara Croft, Halo (Master Chief) and maybe Ryu or Crash Bandicoot?
Which Ryu? I know at least 3 in gaming.
avatar
McDon: In that case the only games that are popular are Mario, Sonic, Donkey Kong, Tomb Raider (Lara Croft, Halo (Master Chief) and maybe Ryu or Crash Bandicoot?
avatar
Elmofongo: Which Ryu? I know at least 3 in gaming.
The Street fighter 2 one, seems to be well known in pop culture in US.
avatar
fortune_p_dawg: I'd kill... KILL I SAY, to see Aquaria on here.
It sure would be nice, especially since you can't even get it through the developer's own site anymore.
avatar
amok: Suppose for a moment that Fictitious Studios–an independently owned and operated game developer–takes on a job from EA creating a first-person shooter.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Then it wouldn't be independent anymore, they would be doing contract work for a big publisher. Also you listed Bethesda, who are owned and controlled by Zenimax, and Ubisoft, who are a corporation with shareholders.

I don't think you're getting what independent means.
hah - I knew that from the long post, this is the only thing you would highlight and ignore everything else. I agree that this was not the best example, but I don't think you're getting what the rest means.
avatar
McDon: In that case the only games that are popular are Mario, Sonic, Donkey Kong, Tomb Raider (Lara Croft, Halo (Master Chief) and maybe Ryu or Crash Bandicoot?
Yes, pretty much. Add a few and take Crash Bandicot away.