I would say a new IP, whether indie or retail, is inherently ambitious.

Now, when that IP is milked to oblivion (see Call of Duty, Battlefield),each iterations is less ambitious than most indies.

I think, the biggest difference between indie game and aaa game is the marketing and the box, but the game itself doesnt necessary feel bad in comparison, it can even feel better.

Totally agree. High-profile retail games generally have more ambition in terms of size and budget, but it's not like a big war chest and a legion of programmers is necessary for an ambitious game, particularly a creatively ambitious game. Ideas and mechanics will always trump production values, and it's the former where many small-scale, low-budget games make a name for themselves.

I see alot of people are defing ambitios as spending lots of money on AAA graphics. 

If you define it as new gameplay experiences then indie games are far more ambitious.

Downside being indie games are cheaper and quicker to make thus there is a lot of dross from people trying to make a quick buck that drags down the good stuff, but you should not let that tar your view of all indie games.

For example Transistor being released tomorrow should not just be ignored because its indie.

No i saw Rime artworks and informations ( but not sure if it's an indie or not since it's funded in millions by Sony), and i wanted to create this thread. I think Deadly Premonition is also an indie, whereas it's the best game of it's year.

But you dont ask to the question, you take the best retail game, but the best retail game is also deeper thant most of retail games, does that make these other retail games non ambitious or bad ? No. I'd take the example of ace atorney , most of us think it's one of the best game ever, though, it could be an indie, it's just a visual novel ( well especially now that it's digital, the difference is hard to see, except it's not made by an indie)

Ambition? No. As Zarx explained, the financial risk carried with an AAA title means that most of those games are automatically less ambitious as they pander to sensibilities which a publisher knows will do well. Whereas an 'indie' game can do whatever the hell they want, mostly.

Production values? Absolutely. Retail games nearly across the board have better quality assets etc. than indie games, bar a few exceptions like say, Star Citizen. There are a few 'indie' games out there that could go toe-to-toe with lower tier retail titles, for example I think Hover: Revolt of Gamers looks very good.

Depth and length? I think that's debatable. These factors aren't in any way tied to production values, so I believe you can get as much content (if not more) out of certain indie games than you could out of your average retail release. It just depends on the game. Something like Thomas Was Alone obviously has less content than Terraria. But there are plenty of indie games out there with a wealth of content.

I think you address an important point with some of your replies in this thread though.  Downloadable title =/= indie.  Something like Resogun; Super Stardust Delta; Journey; Rime etc. are titles which don't see retail release, but are very much not indie games.  They're funded by a publisher (in this case, Sony) and I have no doubt they have pretty sizeable development budgets behind them.

Kresnik : exactly, as vita owners, we know the limit is sometimes hard to see with so much downloadable titles, Tearaway could be an indie game if it was not funded by Sony and in box, but it's very low budget though, still, it has a box because they changed their mind and decided to give it a retail release. It is ambitious in some things of course, like the innovation, use of the console and art design, but technically, it's not so much.

at the opposite, Rime will be seen as a little non ambitious indie game just because it's a downloadable title only, whereas the budget is much bigger than Tearaway ( 3 millions when they asked to microsoft to fund it ), that's the consequences of the "indie hate" that became a " downloadable titles hate".

It's a bit like Titanfall, made by an indie by definition and funded by a big name.

RoiStoppable : I agree, this is what whe should all do, take the games for what they are and judge them as game and not as "indies" ( well of course, the price is important, like MGS Ground 0, the price can change the opinion), you understood my point about the indies hate making people blind to some excellent games because they are digital ( which i can understand, i was like that few years ago, then i took some games like Mark Of The Ninja, Shadow Complex, Guacamelee, etc. ( yes i love Metroid like ) and began to see these games could be as good as retail games)

What I think is that people keeps making the same mistake that thinking indie = XBLA/PSN/Steam digital only game.

Which is not.

An indie game can be a retail game as well.

Wright : True, most people are like " digital game ?  I prefer ambitious retail game "

What indie retail games do you know except Minecraft ?

Minecraft only made it to retail because it already made good money.

You cant look down on indies because some games stay digital only. Many decent indi games can stand toe to toe with any retail game.