HOLY SHIT another topic 7 Force is likely to agree with me on! It's gamerpocalpyse! I like a good indie game, Shoot 1 up on XBLIG is one of the freshest most rewarding and more so FUN Shmups I've played and has a leg up on the shovelware Dreamcast shmups (YEAH I SAID IT) in that it actually tires something new. But you go on XBLIG and...it's just one shitty game after another and another and another and another and another. 99% of these games suck. I bring this up here becasue On another board I was talking about a completely unrelated topic and brought up new Dreamcast games and how, I just don't like most of them. Aside from Last Hope, and Dux and because I love Turrican so much Gunlord I was sick of all these me too shmups popping up on Dreamcast that are nothing more than Homages to much better games. Then somebody chimes in with this bit of broken logic. I'm not a programer I'm not a designer. Indie games are not magical pieces of code immune from Criticism if anything indies need to be criticized how else will those people get better at their craft if people aren't critical of them. Right? I love indies I love GOOD Indies a well funded indie like Journey on PS3 can push forward new Ideas. Or Battle Block Theater on XBLA can refine old concepts. But yeah.... Why shouldn't be we critical of indies? They won't save gaming but they sure can make it more interesting if there's some GODDAMN QA going on.
Most indie games are severely overrated, Super Meat Boy for example plays like a slightly improved Flash game, Fez just sucks and Phil Fish is an asshole and Braid is pretentious while being generally mediocre as far as gameplay is concerned. Then there's the flood of third-rate garbage that all seem to have the stupid fake 8-bit graphic style, and are mostly crap platformers, twin stick shooters or puzzle games. Oh, and don't forget zombies and/or WACKY humor everywhere. "Well YOU do better!" is a terrible argument that's barely above "Your MOM!" too. People actually paid money so someone could make this piece of shit...sigh.
I kinda like the faux 8-bit style (must be my age ) but it has to be done right, super meat boy I loved but it was more like 8-bit that would only work in HD then there's Retro City Rampage that just nails the style but is just too "busy" with all the references and stuff.
Most games that try to do the 8-bit style do it really shittily so the games don't look anything like real 8-bit games, like that Fist of Awesome monstrosity. Here's a rare example of a game that does the 8-bit style well, making an effort to actually stay within the graphical limitations of an 8-bit system:
SHOCKER INCOMING! I agree with you on all levels. I'm not 100% against 8-bit style games IF THEY ARE DONE RIGHT, like say Shovel Knight which looks awesome. But yeah FEZ is Shit, Super Meat Boy is shit. I don't hate Braid and it does try to do something new with the 2d Platformed but....not a fan. There are WAY more refined Indie games in the Playstation store than there are on XBLIG. XBOX Indie games are the modern Version of making a game for your Apple IIe sticking it in a plastic bag and putting it on the bulletin board at a software store. Then again that's KIND of what the Ouya is...and it'll be hard to pick out the good from the shit on that thing too.... EEP. maybe you're right about the Ouya too. I would be pretty happy if somebody could make a perfect no bullshit no gimmicks straight forward 16 bit style homage to sonic. Starring a teddy bear. because 10 year old me designed that game and I never could find anyone to make it with me.
You can't compare the PSN store to XBLIG, to get your game on there requires some kind of curating process (AFAIK), while XBLIG will accept pretty much anything that won't literally make your console explode. That's the problem with both XBLIG and Ouya: some kind of barrier for entry is a good thing so people don't flood the stores with "My First Gaem v.0.001 Alpha" titles they crapped out in Unity.
Maybe the definition of Indie games needs to change. Indies are professional games of decent quiality made with out a big name publisher. Amateur games are shit people crapped out in Unity as you said. Your issue with the OUYA makes more sense when one realizes, it's going to be pretty hard to pick out the good games from the shit ones. I don't know how Fez passed the requirements to get on XBLA. The game really is SHIT. Looked great in screen shots, then you play it and..... actually calling it shit is an insult to shit, at least shit has it's uses. But if you REALLY want to see a case for QA as a requrment for XBLA/OUYA publishing. Try Lets get Fiscal on XBLIG.... the game is unplayable after Stage 3....because you can't beat Stage 3 because the stage 3 boss keeps refilling his life meter.
The problem with this definition is that it'd exclude a ton of games people have usually considered "indie", such as Braid (published by Microsoft), Bastion (Warner Bros.), Journey (Sony), Fez (MS)...
This is true. There is always the good old definition of no labels at all, Just GOOD GAMES and BAD GAMES.
Whats funny for me is how blurred the definition of indie is. Indie comes from independent, that means no publishers or any big companies were involved, nor big budgets but as the cases of Journey and Braid show thats not the case How about just calling them B games? just like there are B movies that are good but not "that good"
This is essentially the stupid ass argument that anyone uses when they are offended that someone is trashing their beloved *anything*. "Oh, it sucks, huh? Well I bet you couldn't do better." "This game is really crappy? Well what have you made?" You can't criticize it unless you've done it, apparently. Too bad people that say things like that are morons. As if something doesn't deserve to be judged because you don't do the same thing. Also, I am a developer, and feel no more qualified to judge games myself. Maybe if it was just judging the technical aspects, but that is way behind in importance to judging the game overall & how much fun it can actually provide, so I would see a gamer who plays a wide variety of games to be more qualified in criticizing. QFT
So, where do I begin? The definition of "indie" is so ambiguous, that it isn't funny at all. As someone who has transitioned from bored hobbyist (games not sold for profit) to profitable hobbyist/indie indie (made a nice profit there) to more of a "mainstream" indie (recently attained authorized developer status for the Nintendo Wii U[SUP]TM[/SUP] console and Nintendo 3DS[SUP]TM[/SUP] system), I have a nice view of the situation. Unfortunately, no one knows exactly what "indie" means. The most common definition thrown around is a developer without a publisher. That is a decent description, but then you start clumping people in the XBLIG section with those on the XBLA, and most of them should not be mentioned in the same sentence. XBLIG did give a lot of people the chance to (legitimately) develop on a home console, but the system was so poorly managed (i.e. not managed or monitored at all) that the crap on there gives everyone a bad name. As far as criticism goes, I don't know about any of you, but I see a hell of a lot more criticism for indie games (especially from smaller studios) than for AAA games. People seem to get it in their heads that indie studios have the same amount of budget and developers to throw at a project as a large studio. Sure, a lot of people yell just to hear themselves, but few actually know what it takes to see a game through from start to finish.
I was tempted to use my favorite new come back "I've been playing games since you were in your dad's sac." or some varient there of. Best thing about being older you can say things like that. Anyone that grew up in the 8-bit era and has the classics memorized could probably teach these young uns a thing or two about competent level design. I hate AAA games. for the simple fact you get something unique for once like Assassin's Creed, enjoy it then blink and it's a tired yearly franchise. AAA games in a nutshell. Then people get sick of them, egotistical publisher says USED GAMES FAULT...and yeah WHOLE different thread topic. I'd rather play an indie game made with love with time put in to it than a tried old AAA game. Indie games or Amateur games or whatever we want to call them they can be as good or better than an AAA game good games are good games. Using Doujin games as an example but look at games like Mega Mari, Crimzon Clover, Blood over, Half the Touhou games those games are of high quality and as good as better of what a professional studio can output. I have other games in mind but their names escape me.
The reason I like the Humble Bundle is that it packs together a handful of (usually) good indie games, and lets you donate some money to charity. The games are old, but they are generally good games that still hold up well after a few years. What makes a game indie? Sometimes, a major publisher jumps on a game after it is mostly done. I mean, thatgamecompany secured a three-game publishing deal with Sony only after Sony was impressed with a flash game named flOw. I don't know how much money, creative or technical input Sony had on Journey or Flower, but now thatgamecompany is not under contract with Sony anymore & have probably made enough money to fund whatever kind of game they want, so who knows what they'll do. I don't think their relationship with Sony precludes them or their games from being indie (but it really is a case by case thing & either side is very arguable). "Indie" refers more of a behind the scenes process of making a game. Where are you getting your money from? Who is giving you creative input? Sometimes only a game's director can know for sure... Katamari Damacy was kind of an indie style game from a major developer. They had a (relatively) tiny budget (if you can call $1 Million tiny, but it is peanuts compared to Tekken) & the game's lead (Keita Takahashi) ignored input from the Namco corporate office. I don't know if I agree that indie games get more criticism than AAA titles. I hear people complaining about all kinds of games all the time.
I've given up all hope of trying to define games as indie or not. I just like to think of games in terms of 'good' or 'not good'. But yes, a lot of 'indie' games these days just capitalize on a quick gimmick or wacky theme to draw you in and then it's not even an enjoyable game. So, in that case, I guess they indie, but they are also bad.
Have heard the same thing, only it's usually said by artists or illustrators ("You can't criticize my artwork if you are not an artist") which is really silly. It's another way of saying "only shower me with praise". Notice that no one says "stop praising my artwork, you are not an artist and therefore you are not qualified to praise it correctly". Maybe at some point people will get nostalgic about early polygon graphics from the 32 bit era. Modern indie games with high resolutions but low polygon stylized characters. Oniken looks great, really looks the part. Anybody liked the animation in Scott Pilgrim or in Wizorb? It was credited to Paul Robertson, who also did a bit of animation for a Disney series called Gravity Falls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nDzu3iLQG8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Voza0PKOU3s Indie and B-movie are not equivalent definitions. The definition of B-movie has changed trough the years, and it's more a description of content (mostly exploitation films, movies that do not aim intentionally as "artistic" in any sense, or in the past westerns, horror or sci-fi, for example) than a description of the production process. Also, some indie games can be as good as releases from established publishers sometimes.
Personally I like the Indie game movement since it have created some really great games. But for every great game there are many that isn't good. Indie should as in movie industry stand for Independent, not connected to large corporation, self funded. It shouldn't state if a game is good or bad. Quality of game isn't connected to if it's a indie or AAA title. There are a lot of bad AAA title. If a Indie game is bad then it should get constructive criticism from it's customers, since is the only way for developers to learn by their mistakes. I have notice this too. But I think that it's the end consumer of game/movie/art that should criticize. Game's is about fun and entertainment. Is it a good game if only a small group likes it from it's artistic aspects rather than it's entertainment value?
Yes! Everyone deserves a voice. I think the videogame media has historically been a little too "buddy buddy" with the videogame industry. I don't really trust most reviews, because I feel like the videogame journalists have a completely different perspective than I do. Maybe I just generally like off-beat games though. That said, people shouldn't get upset if "frakkerd00d469" is bashing their game on some Internet forum with bad grammar and incoherent sentences. People are smart enough to tell the difference between fanboys and cogent ideas. Criticism generally isn't really supposed to declare a game "good" or "bad". Criticism is supposed to describe the game & let the reader decide. It's OK to rely on number reviews if you find a writer you generally agree with, and that's fine, but I've read some reviews throughout the years where I think to myself "wow, this is a game I want to play", then at the bottom of the review, the game gets a low number rating (and vice versa). Yes. You're never going to please everyone. I don't want to play the videogame equivalent of Bad Boys II or those live action Transformers movies. They're media designed for the lowest common denominator, with little to no dialog, just so it can play well internationally, and flashy explosions to distract from the lack of quality cinematography. I understand sometimes you have to make a blockbuster to fund the Oscar films, but not every videogame has to be for everybody. I think that's the core of indie media - if you put enough passion into something, people will like it, even if you don't have the most funding, polished production or focus group research data.
