Both will need patches to work right.

normally i would say AAA>>>>>>>>> indies but then Journey come to my mind...

I'd say AAA : from Last of us I got a scenario, characters, very fine art work, acting, stress, and a few times some kind of magic happened. I didn't want to die not because it's painfull to try again but because... I didn't want to die. I felt some kind of connection with the game.

Indie games are mostly focused on having a good idea that makes the game fun or new. Even if it's fresh and has some infinite replay value, I have never felt any deep feeling in any indie game I played.

But what I'd really like to see is more B games. Not the AAA 3 years mega production based on a license that tend to take no risk, nor something I feel I'd could code myself in 3 months and forget after 2 weeks. Something more focused on design, meaning, story. For me that's something we got on playstation 1 (and PC games from the same period), and died with PS360 generation. For me current examples of B game would be sega's valkyria chronicle or Yakuza.

Tons of indie games suck, just like tons of AAA suck. For every tlou, there are ten bad triple a games. For every Journey though, there are thousands of bad indie games.

If I was forced to play a random game from either, I'd go with AAA every day of the week.

I think I'm gonna go with AAA. I've played a lot of indies and smaller titles from major studios (probably 200 on 360 alone) and some were great. Some sucked. They provide interesting premises in short bites like Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons or Braid but they just don't satisfy the itch like a really good AAA can. Indie games are like a *censored* or a freaky massage with a little *censored* and *censored* *censored* which is awesome but a good triple A game is like a good ol' hardcore *censored*

*user has been moderated for being too damn freaky in this post*

Indie, Binding of Isaac and Hotline Miami were my favorites games of last year

To be honest, I prefer games published by bigger companies to indies. I'm not even sure what AAA means though, is Yakuza AAA? Who knows, but I'm including them.

Also, I don't know that you can call Journey indie when it had full backing by Sony, the development time was changed from the originally planned one year to three years, and the team from 9 people to 18.

Both have their hits and misses. There are a lot more indie games. Indie games are a lot more confined in their focus, so if you find the ones that fit your taste then they are better. However tons of them aren't all that good to begin with and from the rest, most won't fit your taste. Pick up an AAA game in your general area of interest and you'll likely find something to like. With indie games it's much more hit and miss.

My recent experiences:

Thomas was alone, loved it
Rain, Cool mechanics, gets repetitive soon
Contrast: Cool mechanics, gets repetitive soon
Brothers, Tale of two sons, good for 1 quick playthrough
KSP, very addictive
FTL, average
Hotline Miami, hate it
Mirrormoon EP, interesting yet boring
Antichamber, fantastic

Certainly my completion rate with AAA games is much, much higher.

in general i've been digging the indie scene moreso than AAA lately.

i've just grown tired of games that take control away from me to show me a cut-scene too frequently.  i think jonathan blow put it best when he made this:

An occasional game that uses this design is great.  ..but now that just about every fucking AAA game uses this design i've just lost all of my interest in these games.

I used to believe that indie games carried as much weight as a AAA game because "fun" can't be measured in poly counts and project budgets. A 500 mb game could easily be as fun and replayable as a fall blockbuster.

Over the last few years I learned that most gamers don't agree. Indie games are a nice bonus to a console of choice, but never a reason to own one. a AAA game with a 90+meta is worth several indie games of a similar score.