Indie Games aren't Allowed in Gaming??

#1 Posted by Nanook52 (10 posts) -

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/29/why-do-so-many-people-hate-indie-games?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook

lets debate about the indie games in the gaming community. are they too cheap for..uhhh....what??

#2 Edited by Jacanuk (4330 posts) -

I was almost about to reply to the topic but then i saw what the video was.

And self promotion of your youtube videos are not allowed so sorry no bite this time.

#3 Posted by Nanook52 (10 posts) -

@Jacanuk: even if no one made a video about this topic yet and is a really important topic? D:

Damn.

#4 Posted by Minishdriveby (9841 posts) -

People may be upset with the recent prominence, popularity, and marketing of "indie" games in the industry, especially in the console market, because new hardware just came out and there's nothing pushing the limits of the new hardware. Instead Sony and Microsoft are marketing these smaller experiences to fill the longer and larger gap between blockbusters. It's understandable why people are upset about smaller games that only take a handful of people to craft, especially at this point in time.

#5 Posted by Nanook52 (10 posts) -
#6 Posted by Planeforger (15632 posts) -

Honestly, I'd blame a lot of the hate on pure ignorance.

Sure, most indie games are terrible - just like how most PS2 games were terrible. When anyone can make a game, most of them will not be great...but that isn't the end of the argument, since truly great indie games (offering unique experiences) are coming out at least once a week nowadays. The output of excellent indie games completely eclipses the output of excellent AAA titles; and I'd say that their quality is on par as well.

Even so, many people still ignore the huge number of great indie games. Possibly because they play on consoles, and don't see most of the best indie titles. Possibly because they have some sort of cognitive bias that (incorrectly) associates expensive graphics and a high retail price with quality. But mostly because I think they just don't know enough about indie gaming.

#7 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16716 posts) -

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

#8 Edited by mgools (898 posts) -

Only liked one indie game ever. Not sure why the craze. I keep seeing games like Flower being higher rated than games like Assassins Creed Black Flag, and have to wonder what the deal is. Game is fine for a low budget game, but no where near large budget games.

#9 Posted by c_rakestraw (14615 posts) -

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

This about sums it all up.

#10 Posted by platinumking320 (666 posts) -

I dunno. I guess I wouldn't be so quick to draw the cultural contrast though it often seems like we know what indie and AAA have to offer. Y know the perception, That AAA means ONLY core games and indie ONLY means lighter, casual, alternative, artsy 2D.

Its just a label of how things are funded. When Wing Commander, and Super Mario were corporate, DOOM was indie. Hell, Hard Reset and Wrack are indie. At the rate AAA is going I wouldn't be surprised if more kitschy, rebellious hardcore 3D action shit in gaming's future, ended up debuting on indie storefronts.

#11 Posted by ShepardCommandr (2571 posts) -

It's simple.I'd rather thin my backlog of actual good games instead of playing something with NES graphics coded by some hipster in his mom's basement.

#12 Posted by HandsomeTrot (10 posts) -

But its not always some crappy old-graphic style game, it depends on the dev team and the amount of work they have placed in it.

Usually was sceptic about indie games, but after looking at some new releases like The Banner Saga, Forest and Starpoint Gemini 2. Things have changed

#13 Posted by Jacanuk (4330 posts) -

People may be upset with the recent prominence, popularity, and marketing of "indie" games in the industry, especially in the console market, because new hardware just came out and there's nothing pushing the limits of the new hardware. Instead Sony and Microsoft are marketing these smaller experiences to fill the longer and larger gap between blockbusters. It's understandable why people are upset about smaller games that only take a handful of people to craft, especially at this point in time.

I dont see how that is understandable? after all isn't those the same people who go on and on about how gameplay is important and its all about that, and some of those indie games are some of the best gameplay experiences out there.

I think people bitch because people just love to bitch and if its not indie games its something else. But to be honest with the recent influx of horrible minecraft clone games, "ludom dare" 8-bit games i can't blame someone for wanting a much more clean indie game library and not like now filled with horrible games that remind you more of a scam than a actual game.

#14 Posted by Minishdriveby (9841 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@Minishdriveby said:

People may be upset with the recent prominence, popularity, and marketing of "indie" games in the industry, especially in the console market, because new hardware just came out and there's nothing pushing the limits of the new hardware. Instead Sony and Microsoft are marketing these smaller experiences to fill the longer and larger gap between blockbusters. It's understandable why people are upset about smaller games that only take a handful of people to craft, especially at this point in time.

I dont see how that is understandable? after all isn't those the same people who go on and on about how gameplay is important and its all about that, and some of those indie games are some of the best gameplay experiences out there.

I think people bitch because people just love to bitch and if its not indie games its something else. But to be honest with the recent influx of horrible minecraft clone games, "ludom dare" 8-bit games i can't blame someone for wanting a much more clean indie game library and not like now filled with horrible games that remind you more of a scam than a actual game.

People can be contradictory. They say gameplay is the only thing that matters, but when they buy a $400-$500 console, they expect to have new games that use the hardware to its advantage. People get caught up in the spectacle of the next generation with dreams of playing prettier games. It is one of the reasons people scorned the Wii and called it a last generation console. It one of the reason why so many graphical comparison threads exist to try and prove which console has superior hardware. What's the point of buying a new machine for $400 when 80% of the releases are capable of being played on the PS3, 360, or this crappy $275 laptop that I'm typing this response out on at the moment?

Ludum Dare is a great developer jam which often times puts out very interesting titles, or gives developers ideas to expand on their original concept into a more fleshed out experience.

#15 Edited by wiouds (5121 posts) -

I would say indie games are. They are flooding the market. Also, it seem some gamers want indie games so badly they are forgive the flaws, or force themselves to overlook the flaws that they would attack a AAA for having when scaled.

If I understand the US gaming crash, The crash happen because of a flood of indie games and the lack of way to tell them apart. It is understandable that company will try to filter out what they see as bad games.

#16 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

write this in gold.

#17 Edited by wiouds (5121 posts) -

@geniobastardo said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

write this in gold.

Too bad it seem that some thinks that indie games are great until proven not to be that good while AAA are horrible until proven not to be that bad.

#18 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@geniobastardo said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

write this in gold.

Too bad it seem that some thinks that indie games are great until proven not to be that good while AAA are horrible until proven not to be that bad.

some think that cakes are good until they actually eat it and some think that eggs are bad until they eat it.

is that what you're trying to say?

#19 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (15978 posts) -

@wiouds said:

I would say indie games are. They are flooding the market. Also, it seem some gamers want indie games so badly they are forgive the flaws, or force themselves to overlook the flaws that they would attack a AAA for having when scaled.

If I understand the US gaming crash, The crash happen because of a flood of indie games and the lack of way to tell them apart. It is understandable that company will try to filter out what they see as bad games.

The crash was probably due to a saturation of both games and hardware. I recall too many different consoles were being sold. Computers were relatively unscathed though. My first computer was the Commodore C64. It survived the crash only to be superseded by the Amiga.

#20 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16716 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@geniobastardo said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

write this in gold.

Too bad it seem that some thinks that indie games are great until proven not to be that good while AAA are horrible until proven not to be that bad.

some think that cakes are good until they actually eat it and some think that eggs are bad until they eat it.

is that what you're trying to say?

I think what he's saying is that people tend to place too much value on indie games. I'd have to agree with that... For instance, Journey won all kinds of awards and it's not a bad game, not by any means, but it's like what...? 3 hours of not terribly special gameplay? I get it's more about the "experience" but you can only play through something like it so many times before it gets stale. Not only that, but many indie games are just mash ups of old ideas and, while, again, not bad by any stretch of the imagination, people act like it's God's gift to gaming.

That being said, I have really really enjoyed several indie games. But I don't think a game is going to be good just because it's indie, which seems to be the attitude a lot of people take.

#21 Edited by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

@geniobastardo said:

@wiouds said:

@geniobastardo said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

write this in gold.

Too bad it seem that some thinks that indie games are great until proven not to be that good while AAA are horrible until proven not to be that bad.

some think that cakes are good until they actually eat it and some think that eggs are bad until they eat it.

is that what you're trying to say?

I think what he's saying is that people tend to place too much value on indie games. I'd have to agree with that... For instance, Journey won all kinds of awards and it's not a bad game, not by any means, but it's like what...? 3 hours of not terribly special gameplay? I get it's more about the "experience" but you can only play through something like it so many times before it gets stale. Not only that, but many indie games are just mash ups of old ideas and, while, again, not bad by any stretch of the imagination, people act like it's God's gift to gaming.

That being said, I have really really enjoyed several indie games. But I don't think a game is going to be good just because it's indie, which seems to be the attitude a lot of people take.

People tend to exaggerate everything that they go through. Yeah, Indie games are good and great and all but they're something I would NEVER like to see dominate this industry. AAA games are the real deal when it comes to, but the problem with them is that they are too often ripoffs or have unoriginal ideas behind them. A balance between these two is exactly what we need. If only people knew....

#22 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16716 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer said:

@geniobastardo said:

@wiouds said:

@geniobastardo said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

write this in gold.

Too bad it seem that some thinks that indie games are great until proven not to be that good while AAA are horrible until proven not to be that bad.

some think that cakes are good until they actually eat it and some think that eggs are bad until they eat it.

is that what you're trying to say?

I think what he's saying is that people tend to place too much value on indie games. I'd have to agree with that... For instance, Journey won all kinds of awards and it's not a bad game, not by any means, but it's like what...? 3 hours of not terribly special gameplay? I get it's more about the "experience" but you can only play through something like it so many times before it gets stale. Not only that, but many indie games are just mash ups of old ideas and, while, again, not bad by any stretch of the imagination, people act like it's God's gift to gaming.

That being said, I have really really enjoyed several indie games. But I don't think a game is going to be good just because it's indie, which seems to be the attitude a lot of people take.

People tend to exaggerate everything that they go through. Yeah, Indie games are good and great and all but they're something I would NEVER like to see dominate this industry. AAA games are the real deal when it comes to, but the problem with them is that they are too often ripoffs or have unoriginal ideas behind them. A balance between these two is exactly what we need. If only people knew....

I wholeheartedly agree. A balance between the two is what would be best for everyone. If AAA games were willing to take more risks that'd be great, but I think the industry is fine with the big releases and the smaller ones.

#23 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

@geniobastardo said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@geniobastardo said:

@wiouds said:

@geniobastardo said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

write this in gold.

Too bad it seem that some thinks that indie games are great until proven not to be that good while AAA are horrible until proven not to be that bad.

some think that cakes are good until they actually eat it and some think that eggs are bad until they eat it.

is that what you're trying to say?

I think what he's saying is that people tend to place too much value on indie games. I'd have to agree with that... For instance, Journey won all kinds of awards and it's not a bad game, not by any means, but it's like what...? 3 hours of not terribly special gameplay? I get it's more about the "experience" but you can only play through something like it so many times before it gets stale. Not only that, but many indie games are just mash ups of old ideas and, while, again, not bad by any stretch of the imagination, people act like it's God's gift to gaming.

That being said, I have really really enjoyed several indie games. But I don't think a game is going to be good just because it's indie, which seems to be the attitude a lot of people take.

People tend to exaggerate everything that they go through. Yeah, Indie games are good and great and all but they're something I would NEVER like to see dominate this industry. AAA games are the real deal when it comes to, but the problem with them is that they are too often ripoffs or have unoriginal ideas behind them. A balance between these two is exactly what we need. If only people knew....

I wholeheartedly agree. A balance between the two is what would be best for everyone. If AAA games were willing to take more risks that'd be great, but I think the industry is fine with the big releases and the smaller ones.

The problem with AAA is that they just can't simply take risks. There's a lot of hype involved, then marketing then the budget, all of that combined puts a hell lot of stress on the devs and force them to NOT take risks. That's what happened with Watch_Dogs, people went in expecting something entirely new but Ubisoft gave them something which had the same old formula. That's why a "balance' is the best thing to stick with.

#24 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16716 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer said:

@geniobastardo said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@geniobastardo said:

@wiouds said:

@geniobastardo said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

write this in gold.

Too bad it seem that some thinks that indie games are great until proven not to be that good while AAA are horrible until proven not to be that bad.

some think that cakes are good until they actually eat it and some think that eggs are bad until they eat it.

is that what you're trying to say?

I think what he's saying is that people tend to place too much value on indie games. I'd have to agree with that... For instance, Journey won all kinds of awards and it's not a bad game, not by any means, but it's like what...? 3 hours of not terribly special gameplay? I get it's more about the "experience" but you can only play through something like it so many times before it gets stale. Not only that, but many indie games are just mash ups of old ideas and, while, again, not bad by any stretch of the imagination, people act like it's God's gift to gaming.

That being said, I have really really enjoyed several indie games. But I don't think a game is going to be good just because it's indie, which seems to be the attitude a lot of people take.

People tend to exaggerate everything that they go through. Yeah, Indie games are good and great and all but they're something I would NEVER like to see dominate this industry. AAA games are the real deal when it comes to, but the problem with them is that they are too often ripoffs or have unoriginal ideas behind them. A balance between these two is exactly what we need. If only people knew....

I wholeheartedly agree. A balance between the two is what would be best for everyone. If AAA games were willing to take more risks that'd be great, but I think the industry is fine with the big releases and the smaller ones.

The problem with AAA is that they just can't simply take risks. There's a lot of hype involved, then marketing then the budget, all of that combined puts a hell lot of stress on the devs and force them to NOT take risks. That's what happened with Watch_Dogs, people went in expecting something entirely new but Ubisoft gave them something which had the same old formula. That's why a "balance' is the best thing to stick with.

Well of course. People want big budget so they can feel that they're getting the most of their system, but at the same time budgets only keep increasing, but the price of games aren't. Which means that as games get bigger and bigger, companies need to sell more and more and they do that by appealing to what they now is a formula for success. At least with Indie games the creators can do more of what they want since the budget tends to be small. That and they make different games than the more mainstream ones... I don't view it as innovative necessarily but just adding more variety to what you can play (although like both big games and small games, some are truly innovative).

#25 Posted by Nanook52 (10 posts) -

reading some of your guy's post really makes me understand more about the situation at hand. As a concerned Gamer i couldnt really grasp the whole big deal here but it seems that the main reason that indie games are being frowned upon is because they are being made more then actual retail games themselves for next gen consoles. and because most of them really are just clones of minecraft and such that annoys the shit out of me, i can see where some people would get upset about them.

#26 Posted by wiouds (5121 posts) -

@wiouds said:

I would say indie games are. They are flooding the market. Also, it seem some gamers want indie games so badly they are forgive the flaws, or force themselves to overlook the flaws that they would attack a AAA for having when scaled.

If I understand the US gaming crash, The crash happen because of a flood of indie games and the lack of way to tell them apart. It is understandable that company will try to filter out what they see as bad games.

The crash was probably due to a saturation of both games and hardware. I recall too many different consoles were being sold. Computers were relatively unscathed though. My first computer was the Commodore C64. It survived the crash only to be superseded by the Amiga.

That is why I had one of the main problem is no way to tell them apart. The lack of being able to tell which games was good and which as bad. Any one buy too many bad games and they will quit. buying games. From what I understand Nintendo was able to step in because they had some level of standers.

@geniobastardo said:

@wiouds said:

@geniobastardo said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

write this in gold.

Too bad it seem that some thinks that indie games are great until proven not to be that good while AAA are horrible until proven not to be that bad.

some think that cakes are good until they actually eat it and some think that eggs are bad until they eat it.

is that what you're trying to say?

I think what he's saying is that people tend to place too much value on indie games. I'd have to agree with that... For instance, Journey won all kinds of awards and it's not a bad game, not by any means, but it's like what...? 3 hours of not terribly special gameplay? I get it's more about the "experience" but you can only play through something like it so many times before it gets stale. Not only that, but many indie games are just mash ups of old ideas and, while, again, not bad by any stretch of the imagination, people act like it's God's gift to gaming.

That being said, I have really really enjoyed several indie games. But I don't think a game is going to be good just because it's indie, which seems to be the attitude a lot of people take.

That is right. For some seem that AAA games needs to claw and drag just to get a few words that are not negative. While for indie games the same people seem to cushion everything wrong with the game with nice words.

AAA gamers are improving. Most of the time they are tiny thing that are complex to talk about. Even when I try to talk about this something comes up and scream that it it not true and refuse to let go of the ideal that AAA games are doing anything but reusing old ideals.

#27 Posted by The_Last_Ride (71220 posts) -

indie games are indeed games, MS fanboys tend to say they don't count or ignorant fanboys in general

#28 Posted by Archangel3371 (15486 posts) -

I don't hate indie gaming myself. I realise that it has it's place but indie games don't really interest me at all, I'm way more interested in the AAA games. Sometimes there is the rare indie game that I do enjoy, Minecraft was one and No Man's Sky looks to be another.

#29 Edited by mastermetal777 (1244 posts) -

I enjoy indie games a lot. Mostly because I just wanna play a game regardless of labels. If it's a good game, does it really matter if it's indie or AAA?

#30 Posted by Notorious1234NA (526 posts) -

@mastermetal777: I think what ppl here ignore is that most indie games suck. Name 5 good indie games on ps4 right now that has critical acclaim or at least a B lulz

#31 Posted by Minishdriveby (9841 posts) -

@mastermetal777: I think what ppl here ignore is that most indie games suck. Name 5 good indie games on ps4 right now that has critical acclaim or at least a B lulz

Transistor
Fez
Towerfall Ascension
SteamWorld Dig
Rogue Legacy


The problem with the new consoles is that they have a backwater digital distribution program where all your digital downloads that you bought on the PS3 are not even available for purchase on updated hardware. It's counterproductive to the digital movement. If these systems allowed you to play games that were released in previous years on the store front this number would be much much higher, instead we're waiting for re-releases of digital games! If you were to ask me to name 5 indie games that released on the pc to critical acclaim and a metacritic score of an 80% or higher I could give you a spread sheet. Unfortunately, consoles are just now trying to hop on board a cruise that has long since set course for sea, leaving them to flounder behind in dinghies waiting for ports.

#32 Posted by Jacanuk (4330 posts) -

@mastermetal777: I think what ppl here ignore is that most indie games suck. Name 5 good indie games on ps4 right now that has critical acclaim or at least a B lulz

Just 5?

Octodad, Transistor, Fez, Binding of isaac , Abe's Oddysee

And most indie games doesnt suck, they are actually quite good in some cases, indie games pretty much revived the adventure game scene.

#33 Edited by mastermetal777 (1244 posts) -

@notorious1234na: Yeah, and what you seem to ignore is that it's only your opinion that they suck. If you don't like indie games, that's fine, but plenty of people enjoy them, myself included.

#34 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11563 posts) -

Who Exactly has indie games ? If anyone hates indie game, I genuinely want to pick your brain and try to understand exactly whats wrong with you ?

#35 Edited by wiouds (5121 posts) -

@notorious1234na said:

@mastermetal777: I think what ppl here ignore is that most indie games suck. Name 5 good indie games on ps4 right now that has critical acclaim or at least a B lulz

You will get five names. Every time you try to talk indie games then someone will just a list of indie games at you.

I bet if you challenge them to name a number of improvements in AAA games and they must talk about at least one more current CoD game then I bet a large number would come back with the statement "AAA just reuse ideals" or "AAA games play is safe and does the same thing." They repeat the myth so much that the think it will become true or the heard it some much that they believe it.

#36 Posted by Jacanuk (4330 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@notorious1234na said:

@mastermetal777: I think what ppl here ignore is that most indie games suck. Name 5 good indie games on ps4 right now that has critical acclaim or at least a B lulz

You will get five names. Every time you try to talk indie games then someone will just a list of indie games at you.

I bet if you challenge them to name a number of improvements in AAA games and they must talk about at least one more current CoD game then I bet a large number would come back with the statement "AAA just reuse ideals" or "AAA games play is safe and does the same thing." They repeat the myth so much that the think it will become true or the heard it some much that they believe it.

I know you have some kind of strange aversion against indie games.

But i'm interesting in what AAA games you think have moved the gaming industry forward in the last 10 years. Since half-life 2 and GTA III

#37 Posted by wiouds (5121 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@wiouds said:

@notorious1234na said:

@mastermetal777: I think what ppl here ignore is that most indie games suck. Name 5 good indie games on ps4 right now that has critical acclaim or at least a B lulz

You will get five names. Every time you try to talk indie games then someone will just a list of indie games at you.

I bet if you challenge them to name a number of improvements in AAA games and they must talk about at least one more current CoD game then I bet a large number would come back with the statement "AAA just reuse ideals" or "AAA games play is safe and does the same thing." They repeat the myth so much that the think it will become true or the heard it some much that they believe it.

I know you have some kind of strange aversion against indie games.

But i'm interesting in what AAA games you think have moved the gaming industry forward in the last 10 years. Since half-life 2 and GTA III

It is true I do not enjoy that many indie games. My real problems is with how some gamers believe indie games are the only good games and the myth about AAA games.

A list too long to write and the reason are more in the details. It is different than what indie games does, hard to see, and even harder to write about. There is a reason I will never play half-life 2 again.

#38 Edited by Notorious1234NA (526 posts) -

Lol denial so sad so sad can't handle truth which is most indie games suck ass trolol

Don't be but hurt over the fact you enjoy playing casual pass the time games that have low replay value and probably won't even play the game past 4 months much less more than the 5 hrs it takes to beat it.

#39 Edited by Minishdriveby (9841 posts) -

@notorious1234na: I know you're trying to make a scene, but I'll continue to indulge you. I just finished luftrausers which is basically a game where you play the same level over and over again. I played the game for 16 hours. This is just one example of many. They have replay-ability and often times they rely on that aspect to make the game last longer than 5-10 hours.

It's not really denial when I met your challenge criteria.

#40 Posted by Nanook52 (10 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: that would be at least 75% of gamers today. better ger more scalpels.

#41 Edited by Notorious1234NA (526 posts) -

@Minishdriveby: Denial lol its the truth people here are recommending RPGs you can beat in 5 hrs. Are youkidding me????? Then you guys have the gall to say it took much effort to develop LMFAO a 5 hr fucking RPG ok lol

You know the reviews on web are funny. A 20min-3hr game like Ground Zeroes can get so much flak. A 5hr indie game gets all the praise. People all of sudden forgot about SNES games that are literally a thousand times smaller in file size, but offer infinite replay value. However, your finite RPG games are 9s. Hypocritical bias at its finest. If these indie games came out on SNES decades ago, compared to competition none of these games would be granted 9s simply because a 5hr or 10hr game can't compete with games that offer 50-90hrs gameplay + replay value.

#42 Posted by loafofgame (523 posts) -
@nanook52 said:

@Lulu_Lulu: that would be at least 75% of gamers today. better ger more scalpels.

Care to back up that statement? If that is the case, then I don't understand why indie games are doing relatively well and why they're getting so much attention.

People on the internet see widely diverging and contradicting trends and there is always a significant amount of people to support or prove their point. If you're convinced of something you tend to focus on the people who confirm your suspicions. Most of the comments are severe generalisations (and they're often not even meant to be that general), and while people often claim to understand that they're dealing with limited personal experiences, they can't help but base their own generalisations on such comments and see trends in them.

I would take this:

Some Indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful. Some non indie games are really great, some are really good, most are awful.

And add: Some people don't believe this, some people think it shouldn't be like that, most people accept it as something that pretty much applies to all entertainment and art (not as an actual fact, but as a personal experience). And it seems to be the first two groups where people draw their conclusions from and base their convictions on. This is, of course, my personal experience.

#43 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11563 posts) -

@Nanook52

I misspelt Hate as Has.... My bad.

#44 Posted by Minishdriveby (9841 posts) -

@Minishdriveby: Denial lol its the truth people here are recommending RPGs you can beat in 5 hrs. Are youkidding me????? Then you guys have the gall to say it took much effort to develop LMFAO a 5 hr fucking RPG ok lol

You know the reviews on web are funny. A 20min-3hr game like Ground Zeroes can get so much flak. A 5hr indie game gets all the praise. People all of sudden forgot about SNES games that are literally a thousand times smaller in file size, but offer infinite replay value. However, your finite RPG games are 9s. Hypocritical bias at its finest. If these indie games came out on SNES decades ago, compared to competition none of these games would be granted 9s simply because a 5hr or 10hr game can't compete with games that offer 50-90hrs gameplay + replay value.

I don't think it's arguable the amount of effort it takes to budget a game, seek funds for a game, make a game, publish a game, and market a game with a skeleton crew, so unless you have some independent development experience, I would not talk about the lack of effort a person made in their livelihood. It should be noted that I don't recall anyone bringing up the amount of effort it took other than yourself.

I think the only RPG people recommended are Transistor, an action RPG, which met your criteria of critical claim and has an average score of a B. Your argument of a 5-10 hour game not being able to compete with a 50-90 hours game is flawed. It makes the assumption that something that is longer is inherently better. Often times these longer games are muddled with backtracking, grinding, or pacing issues, for example Bravely Default, a JRPG that released this year is reminiscent of classic SNES era JRPGS; however, Bravely Default's length comes from the second half where you have to repeat the first half multiple times. Over the years, games have done away with the needless padding, creating a more refined experience. I don't mind a 5 hour game if it's a good game. I'd prefer it over something like Bravely Default which had the potential to be so much more than a unnecessarily long game.

As for Ground Zeroes, I cannot comment on it. I have not played it. I'm not really interested in the MGS series after the fourth game. It doesn't have to do with the length of the game although I could understand the response of the general public (I had a couple facebook statuses from non-forum-going friends who were pissed that it was only 3 hours) being upset at paying a premium for a game. Monetary value could color people's perception on a game. As a person who tries to stay on a rather small budget, I try to buy games as cheap as possible. I'm looking for something that has neat ideas more so than length now a days.

#45 Posted by donalddoda22 (2 posts) -

@Minishdriveby:

Don't even care that this is old. Indie Game = I can't figure out 3d Sketch up.... which is free...... it includes its own tutorial on how to do 3d design it took my dad Age:54 3 days to learn, it took him 2 days to make a full 3d scale model of our house, he's a boiler mechanic.

So just because indie game developers are lazy libertarians who don't wanna work I'm supposed to say "Naw graphics mean nothing in 2015 its all about 2d scrollers!" Fuck that raise your standards, their was a time when graphics, game mechanics, good story, and characters that stay with you where not only okay to ask for, but expected, that time was called the 90's.

I understand most indie games have 90's graphics, but understand those games where great in their time, because they where the pinnacle of their possible graphics combined with all the other core features a "GAMER" (not some nurse playing candy crush on her phone, or some loathsome half-adult who plays Minecraft) looks for.

Addictinggames.com is full of flash games, not something you play and talk to others about, games you play when your bored in a computer lab, these are not GAMES their the anecdotes of games at best, their that pong game at the loading screen of a REAL GAME.The fact that anyone would pay ANYTHING for these games is ludicrous. All it does is cause game companies to get lazy and contract out their work to other lazy so called artist, that are really just whiny liberals who will claim that ANYTHING is art so long as it comes from Hea----Fart. Fuck that Leonardo Da Vinci was an artist, Kazushige Nojima was an artist.

These so called "Devs" of indie games are nothing but wastes of air that have nothing and I mean nothing to contribute to this industry, and by the way the very premise that portal was even a acceptable puzzle game proves the direction that these companies are going, less active listening to the players and more money for their fat ass lazy pockets, Good Day!

(P.S. Sorry if you though portal was a "Good" puzzle game, i don't mean to offend the mentally retarded.)

#46 Posted by M31R3 (15 posts) -

I wouldn't use my PS Vita if it wasn't for indie games. Hotline Miami and especially Guacamelee are my favorites.

#47 Edited by Jimmy_Russell (667 posts) -

Indie games are lazy half-assed garbage. There's not much more to discuss. n00bs need to learn how to make good games.

#48 Posted by Senor_Kami (8380 posts) -

I love indie games that aren't on the dime-a-dozen 2D platformer with pixel art or gameplay based around avoid/only touching certain colors or lighting bandwagon. I loved my time with Path of Exile. Banished and Endless Legend are two of my favorite games. Both are made by small teams or a single person but they're on par with big games.

I hate that other stuff. I like my indie games like a good indie movie or indie music album where the quality is on par with a major release. The herp derp pixel art and internet meme indie shit turns me off completely. It's played out. More of them come out now than back in the 80s and 90s when pixel art was the only possible art style for a game.

#49 Posted by pook99 (76 posts) -

@Minishdriveby: Denial lol its the truth people here are recommending RPGs you can beat in 5 hrs. Are youkidding me????? Then you guys have the gall to say it took much effort to develop LMFAO a 5 hr fucking RPG ok lol

You know the reviews on web are funny. A 20min-3hr game like Ground Zeroes can get so much flak. A 5hr indie game gets all the praise. People all of sudden forgot about SNES games that are literally a thousand times smaller in file size, but offer infinite replay value. However, your finite RPG games are 9s. Hypocritical bias at its finest. If these indie games came out on SNES decades ago, compared to competition none of these games would be granted 9s simply because a 5hr or 10hr game can't compete with games that offer 50-90hrs gameplay + replay value.

1st off the assertion that indie rpgs are all short is foolish and completely ignorant, the fact that you would say it simply proves you do not know what you are talking about, go ahead and beat torchlight 2 or van helsing in 5 hours and then get back to me.

the other thing you are not taking into account is the price vs. value factor. There was an old indie RPG called Breath of death 7, it was a parody game and it was only a few hours long, however the game cost a dollar. Now I do not remember exactly how long it was, but even if it was 3-4 hours long, than that is a good value, can you think of anything else which can give you several hours of entertainment for such a low price?