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: ...I see it perfectly fine that a indie game can be developed for example within EA, as long as it is a small team working on a project for which they have full creative control over up to the point of completion. ...
avatar
Trilarion: Which is not likely though, that EA would allow its parts such freedom. At least they will decide about the budget and the time frame and if the project is undertaken at all which is already a selection process. Maybe therefore such indies would turn out more boring than average. We could call them "corporate indies". :)
Likelihood is not got anything to do with a definition, it most encompass all possibilities, or there is mess if by some chance it does happen. Granted that it is unlikely it will happen with EA, but then EA is not the only company other there. Just because it is very unlikely to happen there do not mean it will not happen elsewhere, and therefore it is a moot point, really.

The point being still, the focus on whether a game is indie or not should depend on the production of the game, not on the developers.
avatar
amok: which can happen inside a company... The Cave, for example, was developed solely by Ron Gilbert, he had full creative control over his project during the process, however it was created within Double Fine> to repeat my previous post - "A game that is both (a) developed to completion without any publisher or licensor interference, and (b) created by a single developer or a small team." . This can, and have been, taking place within larger corporations.
Sega was in control, even if they allowed him creative freedom.

Anyway this debate is silly and holds no interest for me any more. Call whatever you want independent.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Anyway this debate is silly and holds no interest for me any more. Call whatever you want independent.
And I will...

and as you will also...

since there is no definite definition on what an indie game is ;)
avatar
amok: ... Likelihood is not got anything to do with a definition ...
Did you know that I agree with your definition? I also agree with this. But likelihood is connected with practical relevance. I therefore find the definition has little practical relevance for big publishers since probably there aren't going to do it anyway. In most cases it's small companies, so we can add this notion with some caution and the broader definition in mind.

Maybe indie is just not a clearly defined thing. Everybody understands something else and in the end the real differences are quite small. Like a form or art or a brand label that deliberately tries to distinguish itself. There often appears to be more difference than there really is.
avatar
HiPhish: Aquaria had me swim around for an hour through empty sea, maybe it gets better later, but I've never been a fan of "it gets good after X time", if it isn't fun in the first few minutes it better be *really* worth it (like a strategy game).
Aquaria is a very hit or miss game. You either find it beautiful and amazing and enjoy just exploring the world or ... well,you don't. It does have a good presentation tho :-P

avatar
HiPhish: Presentation does matter as well.
Indeed, and Atom Zombie Smasher has an amazing presentation - it's a top-down game with very 'far away' zoom level, people do look like dots from that distance. And it uses colored lights to clearly distinguish friends and foes - any 'realistic' presentation would make the game way too chaotic. The simplistic presentation helps with orientation, which is essential to you success - sometimes less is more
avatar
amok: ... Likelihood is not got anything to do with a definition ...
avatar
Trilarion: Did you know that I agree with your definition? I also agree with this. But likelihood is connected with practical relevance. I therefore find the definition has little practical relevance for big publishers since probably there aren't going to do it anyway. In most cases it's small companies, so we can add this notion with some caution and the broader definition in mind.

Maybe indie is just not a clearly defined thing. Everybody understands something else and in the end the real differences are quite small. Like a form or art or a brand label that deliberately tries to distinguish itself. There often appears to be more difference than there really is.
Indeed there is :)
avatar
Fenixp: Indeed, and Atom Zombie Smasher has an amazing presentation - it's a top-down game with very 'far away' zoom level, people do look like dots from that distance. And it uses colored lights to clearly distinguish friends and foes - any 'realistic' presentation would make the game way too chaotic. The simplistic presentation helps with orientation, which is essential to you success - sometimes less is more
I liked the 50s vibe, that was cool, but I found the main game about yellow dowts and pink dots to be rather meh. I guess it's a combination of my personal taste, the gameplay and the pink dots VS yellow dots. However, you can't tell that using some vaguely human-shaped sprites and some screaming and munching sounds would have hurt the game. It doesn't take much, you just need to ignite the player's imagination. Little things like a zombie massacre sounding different from zombies just marching on their own already add a lot to the experience. There is a reason why picking up a leather armour sounds different from a plate armour in a role playing game. Does it add anything to the game itself? Not really, but it adds to the feeling.
avatar
HiPhish: Yes, mostly puzzle platformers because I thought I would be getting something original. Also played World of Goo because everyone said how great it was. Eh. Multiwinia? Who can get excited about shapes? Osmos was interesting for a while, but it's a game about bubbles, come on. Machnarium was cute, but once you beat it you've seen everything. Atom Zombie Smasher, even more shapes, yay! Bit Trip series, brightly flashing shapes. In Cave Story I couldn't even figure out what to do because I didn't want to talk to those stupid dogs. Crayon Physics looks cute but that's all there is to it. Gish was unplayable with that physics engine. I'm really just ging through my Humble Bundle account because i even forgot most of those games existed. Aquaria is described as a metroid clone, but do you know what Metroid had? Enemies. From the first screen.
So, you disliked a bunch of very good games for some completely random (not to say ludicrous) reasons. It's ok. But that's nothing more than just personal preferences. It doesn't however demonstrate in any way that indie developers are creative bankrupts, indie games are junk food and suck, or anything like that.

PS. Aquaria is not a Metroid clone, it's a metroidvania (Metroid+Castlevania), subgenre of side-scrollers. Some metroidvanias are combat-centered, while some are more exploration focused like Aquaria. It's not reasonable to blame exploration-centered games for their lack of combat (or vice versa).
You know, there is exploration and then there is chaining a dozen giany empty area bubbles together. The graphics are gorgeous, but where is the *game*? See, there is things I don't like, like sports games or space games, but I would never say that sports or space games are bad. It's easy to see where the *game* is in those and what people like about them, even though I don't share their taste. The reason I don't like the games I mentioned is precisely because i *do* like puzzles and platforming and whatever genres they mix in, it's just that there is no meat to any of it. It's like the reason people enjoy those games is just because they are "indy". I mean, what else is there to enjpy about Braid? Seriously, I played through the entire thing and the only thing I liked were the backgrounds, and even that novelty wore off quickly.
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.
Post edited February 19, 2013 by Leroux
avatar
StingingVelvet: Anyway this debate is silly and holds no interest for me any more. Call whatever you want independent.
avatar
amok: And I will...

and as you will also...

since there is no definite definition on what an indie game is ;)
Actually there is a clear definition and it's not our problem that you fail to grasp it. Indie means independent and by definition, if you have a boss of some kind then you are NOT independent. If a developer has a publisher that calls the shots then it's not indie even if the publisher has given the dev full creative freedom because freedom that has been given to you can also be taken away and the dev does not have the freedom NOT to make the game ergo they don't have total freedom and ergo they are NOT indie. A true indie dev have the freedom to walk away from making a game whenever they want and a dev with a publisher don't. Being indie like StingingVelvet says comes down to control and who calls the shots - a true indie team can do whatever they want including walking away from the game.
avatar
amok: And I will...

and as you will also...

since there is no definite definition on what an indie game is ;)
avatar
jepsen1977: Actually there is a clear definition and it's not our problem that you fail to grasp it. Indie means independent and by definition, if you have a boss of some kind then you are NOT independent. If a developer has a publisher that calls the shots then it's not indie even if the publisher has given the dev full creative freedom because freedom that has been given to you can also be taken away and the dev does not have the freedom NOT to make the game ergo they don't have total freedom and ergo they are NOT indie. A true indie dev have the freedom to walk away from making a game whenever they want and a dev with a publisher don't. Being indie like StingingVelvet says comes down to control and who calls the shots - a true indie team can do whatever they want including walking away from the game.
Yes, it is your clear definition...
It sis not my problem that you fail to grasp that there are others.
I think that the game is what counts with regards to what you like. I dont judge games I like based on whether they are indie or not. I judge the game based on whether I like it. Its usually in the middle with what I like-half are indie and the other half are not.

If you classify games as indie as being games with crappy graphics then I guess that would mean Age of Decadence and Dead State arent indie when they really are.

Im a big fan of the eschalon series and while they are an independent company, I find them to be more modernized with regards to graphics.

Some of the games that have really bad graphics are hard for MOST people to get into but that doesnt mean some people cant get into them. I think alot of it has to do with graphics because most people I've talked to tell me that the new ps3 game is awesome when in reality they are just getting the game for the graphics. They usually can talk about the graphics to the point of no end, but thats about it.
avatar
jepsen1977: Actually there is a clear definition and it's not our problem that you fail to grasp it. Indie means independent and by definition, if you have a boss of some kind then you are NOT independent. If a developer has a publisher that calls the shots then it's not indie even if the publisher has given the dev full creative freedom because freedom that has been given to you can also be taken away and the dev does not have the freedom NOT to make the game ergo they don't have total freedom and ergo they are NOT indie. A true indie dev have the freedom to walk away from making a game whenever they want and a dev with a publisher don't. Being indie like StingingVelvet says comes down to control and who calls the shots - a true indie team can do whatever they want including walking away from the game.
avatar
amok: Yes, it is your clear definition...
It sis not my problem that you fail to grasp that there are others.
To me a tomato is the brown crust on top of pie. Can't tell me I am wrong, we all have our own definitions.
avatar
amok: Yes, it is your clear definition...
It sis not my problem that you fail to grasp that there are others.
avatar
StingingVelvet: To me a tomato is the brown crust on top of pie. Can't tell me I am wrong, we all have our own definitions.
that's silly and you know it. I am going to call you a silly man. You are a silly man.

All I was saying is that there are different ways on seeing what is independent, and I am saying that the focus should be on whether the game process have been independent, not focusing on who is making the game. Guess I am completely wrong as you are seeing tomato pies, it really made me change my mind..


silly man.