Indie Games completely overrated?

Is it just me or is anyone else seeing that this invasions of indie games is just stirring up WAY too many "amazingly inventive and refreshing" type comments? indie games topping all the best games lists. At the moment that Spelunky and Don't starve are the "Best games". Spekunky is 9 out of 10.. thats on par with Metal Gear Solid 4, snake eater, Zelda majora's mask, mario 64, the last of us, bioshock infinite etc... are they serious? a sidescroller with old style graphics? they're just blowing these things completely out of proportion. They're 6's at best

Indie games are usually developed by less then 5 people, so they are rated on a different scale then AAA tiles. Plus there are may indie game I have enjoyed more then all the AAA games you listed combined

@tobougg: Many are, yes.

You can't compare the scores those games are given with AAA games. It's not even remotely close. No, I do not think they're overrated, in fact they're underrated. They should be dominating the market because those games usually have a lot more creativity and innovation that big budget games which for the most part are being a bit of a rehash. This trend will not go away, and in fact is growing. This is great for our industry, because it's expanding the market in ways not possible before. Alright, so maybe you're more into high production values and the technical aspect of games, while others might look for more creativity in their video games. Two different markets.

This is wrong and you sound like you are just repeating the same thing that everyone else says. Indies are not more innovative. So many indie games are copies with a small change or a catch to make them seem different. Spelunky, Binding of Isaac, FTL, etc all demonstrate the problem with indies. They make a game where it's easy to be defeated so that you have to start all over from the beginning and play the whole thing over. That way you have to keep playing the game. So innovative.

People also have misconceptions when they hear indie. Indie doesn't mean two guys in a garage making a game. They just don't have an official publisher. There are a ton of former devs from big companies making "indie" games. That term hardly even means what it used to.

So you guys are on the indie defence bandwagon. Saying Games like spelunky etc are innovative. To be honest i think they're just almost carbon copies of games we playted for years on the SNES and Sega Megadrive. How can you compare Spelunky to a game that is very original (same score) as Dark Souls for instance? and you can't say they're on a different level of ratings etc. they are not. If you go on metacritic, and go by the scores, it says to buy Spelunky, instead of Dark souls... they're saying Spelunky is even more worth buying that Assassins Creed 4 which took 900 people to make (i don't like the game but i can see the detail gone into it). Speluky is better apparently than Gran Turismo 6... 1200 cars, near realistic graphics, 14 tracks etc. Countless modes and online play... makes zero sense. Sure it's a fun game. But not more fun than games i was playing 15 years ago.

I think the "Indie scene" is extremely overvalued, but I can also see its worth. It allows for unique ideas that can't normally be put in a more mainstream release. But on the whole, the majority of Indie games are just reskins of old ideas. Not necessarily bad but not as innovative as some think.

yeah exactly. tell me what everyone means when they say unique ideas? and innovation? im not seeing it. As i said, i've had a SNES, Megadrive and and N64, and i've seen all these games before. I'd consider Conker's bad fur day and Donkey kong 64 to be 2x as innovative as Spelunky and that heap of rubbish don't starve? by the way, is A tale of 2 brothers considered to be indie? that blows alot of them out of the water, and it ony got an 8

Spelunky isn't the only indie game on the market, I'm not sure why you continue to mention it. You cannot rate something that is compared to its genre/system/design. That's like saying "Well bf4 is miles better on the pc than the ps3, so let's give the ps3 version a 4." You compare bf4 for the ps3 versus other ps3 AAA shooters, not its pc counterpart, unless it's a really bad port or version plagued by technical issues.

Another great example, since you did mention it... Do you believe handheld games should also score 4's and 5's simply because they are handheld games?

By your scary ratings system, the indie scene would not exist. You are essentially saying that most indie games should simply score lowly because the people making them don't have the million dollar budget that big publishers have.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/killzone-shadow-fall Apparently a game about making flowers is the best and highest rated game in the world at the moment (the list on the right)... seriously

Flower is a fantastic game that was completely unique when it came out and still is. Perhaps you don't see it that way, but others do. Just move on and don't pay attention to reviews. The only true opinion that actually matters is your own.

It just depends on what game you're talking about. A lot of the crap that gets shoveled onto PSN or XBL is not worth the price tag (unless the price tag is: free), and a lot of times when I buy the more highly praised titles I end up wanting my money back. In a lot of ways the indie scene in gaming has come to mirror the indie scene in movies - a place where snobs and self-assumed artists go to jerk each other off, while everyone else is standing around trying to figure out what the big deal is.

On the other hand there are games like Path of Exile that is miles better than shitty, shitty Diablo 3, and it's legitimately free. I'm also really wanting to play the new campaign for Shadowrun Returns, a small indie title that is waaay better than the misguided Shadowrun retail release that came out a few years ago on the 360.

It'd be great if we could get more level headed reviews of indie games, but it's like everyone's got their film-snob hat on. I find the ones I enjoy the most aren't endlessly praised for innovation and usually score between about 7-8. When they score higher than that, it's like going to a 4 star movie anymore - I know I'm not going to like it, so I just avoid it.

All of them are overrated.

The majority are very simplistic,really short and boring games.Not to mention all those "artsy" crap that don't even have gameplay.

As with all things, it comes down to the individual title. Indie simply means independant. I.E. they are not in conventional dealings with a publisher. EPIC is technically an independant studio. As is Double Fine now that they've gone all Kickstarter and aren't clawing to get their games published anymore.

Many games that fall under the INDIE heading are fantastic, others are not. Just depends on the individual title to earn it's place in the pantheon of games that are begging for your attention, time, and dollars. If you find them fun, then they deserve their accolades. And even if you don't find them fun, that's doesn't make them overrated. It may just mean they don't appeal to you.

And for the record, Don't Starve is pretty great. Been playing it since it's first Early Access version on Steam.

We need to get rid of the numeric system for reviews. A simple "Tumb up - Meh - Thumb down" system would prevent all these arguments "game X has the same score as game Y"

Nah, i've loved, Thomas Was Alone, Don't Starve, Hotline Miami amongst others. I'm going to play Sounds Shapes once i get chance in a couple of hours :)

They fill an area of the market well in the up to £10 range, tend to offer more fun per pound to me despite lacking replay-ability often which is important as i'll probably never have the cash to buy every game i once so that tends to define my purchases. They're usually more unique and interesting too, many AAA titles you go in and get pretty much exactly what you expect. Being surprised is refreshing these days in gaming.

IMO yes. I also think a lot of people praise the people making them a little too much. They make what they can with as little money as possible, a low budget high income model. I don't think every indie developer out there is as "passionate" as they wanna seem, they just have a different model of profit. I also believe a lot of people play indie games because of hipsteria, rather than nostalgia/passion. I wanna try out Wasteland 2, because it's down my alley, not because of genre or popularity on kickstarter.

We still aren't at a point where people can simply have preferences. You like indie games, I do not. Therefore you suffer from "hipsteria" or you are just hopping on the "indie defense bandwagon". Incredibly sad and narrow minded. As ZZombie mentioned, I'd look at it on a game by game basis rather trying to make sweeping statements about ALL indie games. Funny thing is the same people making these sweeping statements about indie games, would be the same people to rush to and criticize a thread that makes sweeping statements about ALL mainstream games and make pretty much the same argument, that you need to look at them on an individual game by game basis.

Take the plank out of your own eye, before pointing out the speck in your brothers.

@CoquiNegro: I like the Indie Scene when it does present new ideas (haven't played Flower but I'm sure it's good) but people act like every Indie game coming out is something that's never been seen before.

I can see the value in it, but people overblow its greatness.

Overvalued was a good word. I agree with the general sentiment that these games are mostly re-skinned retro games.

Spelunky was cool, but I never felt compelled to buy it. I'm sure I played Hotline Miami and Retro City Rampage when it was called Grand Theft Auto (1, 2, and London). Terraria was just a 2D Minecraft, and Don't Starve is another take on the same game. Mutant Mudds was a little similar to oh, I don't know, 100 or so 16-bit platforming games. So is Fez, albeit with rotating levels. So for me, the "indie" games are an extension of games I played when I was younger.

They're still fun, but I do not think they're the salvation of modern gaming, as many people seem to be thinking.

I guess if you're younger and haven't played a lot of SNES and PS1 games, these games can seem fresh to you, and a welcome departure from the countless FPS'es and brown and gray graphics. Um, except Spelunky, there's a lot of brown there :)

@Grieverr: Actually hotline Miami looks amazing. It's not an open world game, it's a top down action, arcade- esque game. As I understand it, you and enemies die in one hit so the goal is to find a method of attack that allows you to kill all the guys in a level without getting hit yourself. Game sounds awesome.

@turtlethetaffer: If you're a PSN subscriber, it was free. Not sure if it still is, but check it out.

I played it, but didn't enjoy it. I played the first few levels and wasn't drawn to it. But again, it's just personal preference.

@Grieverr: I didn't like Hotline Miami much at all either. A little too unforgiving for my liking.

I would say they are overrated when many use them as a way to bash AAA games. I would say that the best innovation are still coming from the AAA games but most of these innovation are tiny things that are hard to see.

i'm not even sure where to start here.

for one thing, the label of "indie games" is about as pointless as the label of "indie music." it encompasses tons of different genres and creators, so writing that they are all overrated says more about the author than the games. are there crappy independent games? sure. there are crappy boxed games sold for $60 too. and there are great ones for each. and there are even more falling somewhere in between.

also, they're not all 2D because, again, being indie says nothing about how a game plays. it certainly doesn't mean it's more simple. baldur's gate 2 is 2D and mass effect 2 is 3D, but the gameplay of BG2 is not more simple than ME2. in the same way, braid is not more simple than portal. and who is to say that simple is bad anyway? oftentimes, simplicity is exactly what a game needs.

as for "old style graphics," i'll take LIMBO over call of duty any day. everyday shooter, nelson tethers, and tons of others look great too. and yes, there are great looking blockbuster games as well.

anyway, lots of assumptions.

They cannot be held to the same standards, so a 9/10 for an indie game does not imply the same quality would be found in a full release that earns a 9/10.

Can you elaborate, please? I'd love to see an example of an innovation presented by one of these indie games.

To be fair, I don't think we've seen innovation since Gears of War. Not in the graphics or anything, but that "stop and pop" and the dudebros did not become mainstream until then. They also popularized the Horde type of game. I'm sure other games did it before (like Winback for stop and pop), but Gears really propelled that.

CoD popularized leveling up and perks in multiplayer games. And believe me, I'm not a fan of the series, but you have to give them credit.

I can't think of any features introduced or made mainstream by any modern indie game.

@SEANMCAD: I'm not familiar with any of the games you listed, so I can't make any comments. A quick search leads me to think you play a lot of PC games that are pretty large in scope and are open. So I can see why things like terraforming and day/night cycles can be important.

@Grieverr:

That is my biggest point. The indie scene is so large in scope that not everyone will get to play games that a truly innovative, because they only focus on the ones that are being given the attention. Oddly enough, most of the games Seanmcad mentioned are exactly that obscure, but highly innovative.

I also think people are taking it to literal. I believe when most people say indie games are innovative, they mean compared to AAA games, which is the complete and absolute truth. The creativity is way better, but this also has to do with them being able to take risks where AAA games need to generate large revenues due to their budgets. Playing it safer is easier.

@Grieverr: Yeah I should get a PS3 soon...

I think. It's not to say there aren't any good indie games but they seem to get too much praise.

Nope, i probably have around 300 hours of playtime in spelunky right now and could easily go on replaying the game for years to come...and at 1/4 the price of many AAA games that give me MAYBE 10 ish hours of quite often less engaging/fun gameplay....

Indie Devs have more room to make something new and fresh not just rinse and repeat the same formula over and over again (Capcom with Street Fighter 4, or EA with all their BS, or Ubisoft with AC.) Most 3rd party devs suck.

I support Indie Devs cause they are the future, being one myself I suppose I have a bit of a bias...but oh well.

Yes it is just you, because yes some indie games are on par with the best of the AAA world.

Because gaming isent always about graphics, story or what else AAA has to offer, sometimes you just want to sit down and turn of the brain and play a game that doesn't demand anything but skill

And thats what indie games provide and what some AAA games have forgot that pure gameplay like in Risk of Rain, Tower of Guns, Binding of Isaac, super meat boy, Asteria and a lot of other games.

I just enjoy games whether a small independent team worked on them or a team of 600 worked on them, were most of my favorite games last year developed by smaller independent studios? Yes, but there was also TLOU which deserved all the praise it got and was a block buster title.

If a game is amazingly fun and addictive like Spelunky why would you not praise it? Personally I can justify giving Spelunky a 9; MGS4 on the other hand... now that breaches 6.0 territory for me.

Hell when I look back on this generation and do a top 10 for it, I can already think of a few indie titles that breach that top 10 (Super Meat Boy, and Hotline Miami).

With all the "alienating" stuff of some well known games, yeah...somehow at some point perhaps indie games become overrated I think.

Indie games don't earn the innovative or better than a big company's label just for the fact of being indie. The idea of making a video game independently, without any studio's support or help is to be your own boss. You make your own rules when it comes to the content of the game (still abide by laws of publishing though) deadlines, make every single decision concerning the project and team and that applies to all "indie" jobs out there.

Both games can be great and terrible. Of course it's easier to make a video game through a big company because of the resources but having all the requirements necessary doesn't mean a game will turn out great. Maybe it's not great on paper, maybe something went wrong with the execution.

I find most of them pretty crappy to be honest, don't really bother buying any now though.

You've got to keep in mind that a lot of these Indie titles can't be compared to AAA games, they're working with a much smaller pool of resources. While this does inhibit overall quality of a game in terms of graphics or animation, it forces innovation to be at the top of the list. The fact is 90% of all AAA titles are happy sticking to pre-existing gameplay mechanics (e.g. the CoD franchise) since they have a lot more to lose when they innovate.

The fact is without an Indie gaming community our gameplay experiences would be a lot staler. Also worth noting that most Indie games need to go an extra mile in cultivating a fan base since they usually come from studios that are yet to make a name for themselves, so it's actually a good thing that gamespot's putting the best indie games under the spotlight.

@tobougg: You're looking at the scoring system the wrong way. Just because a game received a 9/10 like another game of high caliber doesn't mean that the game is "comparable." Yes, Spelunky received a 9/10. That's because Spelunky is worth scoring 9/10, not because it's comparable to the experience of BioShock Infinite or Mario 64.

They are separate experiences and are scored separately.

Not all innovation is bombastic. Most of the time innovation are tiny small and hard to notice. I am still more impressed by the AAA and AA games with the tiny things they do and most will not notice them. While there are some indie games that does one thing different and does a song and dance for that.

I find the refinement of ideal more important than having new ideals when it comes to innovation.

Innovation is just a buzz word and is almost none-existing in the gaming world and no Indie games haven't brought anything new to the table, what they have done is go back to the core elements back from the arcade-days and consoles days