Notch: EA methodically destroying gaming

[adriane23]

happydolphin said:

adriane23 said:

The definition of an Indie anything isn't concrete/specific enough to be a real definition. All of the examples of what makes an indie game can be associated with several games that don't carry that label. And who decides what size a company has to be to still be considered Indie? It's too vague a definition.

All CAPS means yelling, italisizing means to add emphasis. I thought you were being a dick when you used all caps, so I took your post the wrong way.

I'm following the thread just fine, but I know you didn't mean that. Your feelings were just hurt. Heres a kitten, feel better?

@italics. I agree with you.

For everything else, you're kind of missing the point. The idea is that indie developers aren't bound by business conquest as badly because they are usually led by folks with less means who really just want to bring something unique and new (kind of like emerging artists versus big labels).

Sure, there are always exceptions to the rules both ways, but ultimately, a gaming giant like EA "packaging" indie games makes it all too commercial once again, and just feels really out of place.

So the sentiment can't be too hard to understand.

I'm not missing the point at all. The point that people are trying to make about indie games is pointless because they're no different from any other game.

"As badly...." Up to interpretation.

"Usually" Open to exceptions with said exceptions subject to interpretation.

"Really just want to" If you have to first figure out an author's intent before giving the lable, then the label has no meaning. Who decides on the author's intent. If a rep from TreyArch said they "really wanted to" bring something unique and new to gaming, are they on their to becoming indie? Shigeru Miyamoto really wanted to bring something unique and new with Mario and Zelda, does his intent make those games indie?