Gamers like to fight. We like to fight over which game is the best (or worst), and which company is the worst (or most worstest). We like to fight about shit that is so stupid and inconsequential that we don't even know what we're fighting over but keep fighting anyway out of sheer habit. But it seems like almost everyone on every gaming forum on the intertubes can agree on a few things. Namely, that the oversequelization and increasing homogenization of games sucks, and that the big corporate publishers are shitheads. (Electronic Arts? More like Evil Assholes!)

And while the increasingly online nature of gaming over the past generation has given those shithead publishers more ways than ever to fuck with us through paid DLC and the like, it has also given us more ways than ever to fight back. Like by supporting developers who forego big, corporate, shithead publishers. Because for the first time ever, a developer doesn't need to have or be a publisher in order to get his game on a console.

It also means that we can vote more directly with our wallets against homogenization and sequels out the yin yang. Even an idiot can see that these trends, deleterious though they are, are just manifestations of the natural risk aversion that comes from the explosive growth of budgets required to make today's AAA(A) games. If you've ever lamented that AA games are going the way of the dodo, or that survival horror and stealth games and tactical shooters are vanishing as all games blend into an amorphous action-adventure blob with focus group-approved levels of RPG elements... thanks to indie games, your salvation may be at hand.

But over the last day I have seen you - yes, YOU! - hurl more vitriol at indie games for being "not real" games than I have seen over the last few years combined. So please 'splain it to me, Lucy. What is driving the insane hatred of this single bright spot in the benighted gaming landscape? Is it that these games don't have enough graphics? Does it give you a sad to know that a game probably cost under 7 digits (and definitely cost under 8) to make? Do you wrongly believe that they are "not real"? (They do exist, I assure you.) Or is it something else entirely? Just what, dear reader, puts such sand in your vagina about indie games?

I like them, but I like balance. A good combination of both groups (the other being the so called "AAA") is good.

No issue from me. Transistor looks great and many of these games have interesting game play or visual styles so happy for diversity.

My guess is when people look at a gaming library they view indie titles like side dishes and AAA as the entree. So, fine with them complimenting it, but they first want that AAA gaming experience.

Good heavens, Badger, you know how to put together an amusing OP.

I'm warming to indie games more and more as time goes by.  They fill gaps in a console's library that just can't be filled by full price retail release anymore; while most publishers still seem to be avoiding a gated pricing model.

In fact, indie games are (almost) replacing the AA games of the past.  Maybe not quite there yet; but equally when you've got something like Fantavision as a full price launch title for PS2, you can see where indies can come in to offer a similar experience at a more reasonable price.; as a game like that just wouldn't really get made anymore.

And aside from a very select number of AAA franchises - mostly from Japan - the AA "mid-tier" market has always been where my heart has been in gaming.

Though admittedly, I do like some of the more ambitious indie projects.; rather than 2D platformer with a twist # 369.

Let's be honest here, nobody hates sequels. They just hate sequels to franchises they don't play. It's not about originality, it's about "why aren't you making games for me". I buy consoles mainly for sequels. I bough my Wii U so I could play New Mario and new Smash. I'd kill someone for a Mega Man Legends 3. I <3 sequels. Just not Call of Duty sequels. I don't like that franchise so fuck them.

I also like big budget games. With lots of explosions and shiny graphics and cutscenes and the works. I like the kind of polish that huge budgets buy (except for Bethesda). I like when my friends play the same games so we can talk about how mind blowingly awesome they are.

Noone has a problem with indie games. I like them well enough, but they're not why I buy a console. They're good to have, but they're not a substitute for sequels. Especially not those juicy big budget sequels.

Nothing wrong with wanting your big, sexy AAA games, too. It's just that as they become more and more complex and expensive to make, we find ourselves waiting half a decade or more for games like BioShock Infinite. Compare that to games like FF6, which took just one year to make. Yesterday's AAA games are today's indies! (Or vice versa, whatever.)

Because Sony has them also apparently they're only worth 2-5 dollars each or something like that.

I loved the first two Assassin's Creed games and liked Brotherhood quite a bit. At that point, though, I was already getting the feeling they were starting to milk the series and guess what: I was right! Since then, my interest has died, when the series had the potential to become one of my favorite games series, just because they pushed too many games in too short time frame with too few new features. I certainly don't mind sequels but when it's obvious they're not focusing on quality... Yeah, that's when sequels get bad. I get why you like Mario, I heard they're pretty much all great. Unfortunately that's not the case with most franchises.

I'm going on the assumption that the sequels are good.

Because they're cheaply made, boring, outdated drivel.

I'd rather spend my money on proper games.