I appreciate where you're coming from, but I think independent games aren't very different from big and medium-budget titles -- there are great ones, there are good ones, and there are a bunch of bad ones.

I think a healthy video game diet should consist of big-budget blockbusters, mid-range titles, and small, independent games.

On a personal note, I find myself being drawn more and more toward indie games. As a group they are refreshing, especially in an industry so focused on "AAA" experiences, bloated advertising budgets, and overproduced games.

Tastes differ. I grew bored of World of goo before the end while Fez kept me interested with its level design. (yes puzzles were repetitive)

I also grew bored of Bioshock Infinite's repetitive gameplay before the end, luckily the promise of an interesting ending kept me going. In contrast Tokyo jungle kept me going for 30 hours although that is just as repetitive.
There is as much bias towards flashy AAA titles as there is to artsy indie games.

I don't care much for indie games, cept for a select few. Its not like they are innovative or anything. If anything, they just rehash old games and call it their own. 

Japanese indies can be pretty good though, I'll give them that.

I agree. Also I didn't play Fez, but the Cave is very funny. Being funny is somehow different to being boring like claimed in the OP.

As Sturgeon's Law states - "ninety percent of everything is crap". But, when it comes to indie games, I'd say way more than 90% is crap, due to sheer amount of games out there that are indie.

On the other hand, if only small teams (like Limbo, Mark of the Ninja or Machinarium devs) are taken into account, I'd say that good/bad games ratio may be even better when compared to AAA devs.

I live and play with a bunch of indie game devs; Felt the same as you before I was exposed to their world. Now I completely disagree.

For example, Samurai Gunn is more fun to play with 4 players (local co-op) than most AAA fps games imho. There's a wealth of creativity out there.

I have a similar issue with indie games. Sure, I've played some amazing ones and have ended up spending more time playing those than big budget games, but I find the majority of them beyond terrible.

A whole lot of them seem to go for either 8-bit or 16-bit graphics which I find really annoying. If graphics never really mattered, we could have kept using our Nes and we would all have been fine. Graphics are not everything, but there are a big part of the evolution of gaming.

Many of them go for a silly concept so that jokes can compensate for lack of budget. It's like in every other trailer I watch on Steam, there's silly dialogue, silly narration and wacky things happening left and right. If everyone goes for the lolz, it stops being funny. As in, "Oh nos, the princess is in danger! Better get some sleep first before I go on my quest, lolz" -_-

The dialogues are usually bad, the voice acting is even worse and the cutscenes are usually one or two pictures with some dramatic music. The music most of the time is nothing to write home about. And don't get me started on the infuriating controls.

Having said that, I could make a huge list of great indie games that I've enjoyed so far; just getting fed up with the majority of them.

I used to be like that, and then I played Journey and the other indie stuff on PSN. I find I like them now. Of course not all of them, but some of them produce very good content. I still prefer AAA games, but the indie touch is good for me every now and again.

I agree completely. Some of them are original, unique and interesting: Defense Grid, Limbo, Braid, World of Goo.

Far too many of them are either dull platformers with tired gimmicks or one-trick ponies that are too weird to enjoy for very long.

True.

Some people seem to love these indie games just because they are "indie". I have fallen to that overhyping indie "gems"-trap far too many times to buy any more of those titles.