Euphoria14 said:
Keep hating while continuing to misuse the term "indie". |
The indie games that are associated with the current "boom" are just that though; amateurish and below industry standards.
Euphoria14 said:
Keep hating while continuing to misuse the term "indie". |
The indie games that are associated with the current "boom" are just that though; amateurish and below industry standards.
curl-6 said:
But they don't make "indie games" as in those college-project abortions that flood download services like XLBA, PSN, and eshop. |
So define an "indie" game. Because I can clearly see from this thread there are at least 5 different ideas of what an indie game is, and everyone is arguing about their own definition.
Does an independent game studio make indie games? Indie is NOT a game genre, it was a term coined to describe a particular type of game developer.
Technically Valve are the largest indie developer in the world. So Half Life 2 is an indie game. They make what they want how they want under their own terms.
It was coined from the PS2 era, whereby it got to the point that developers could not afford to make their games themselves anymore and it was practically a requirement that you had to get a publisher in order to be able to get your product to market.
Digital Delivery removed this barrier and indie is the result of developers suddenly being able to self publish again.
On the lower end of the market, it has also enabled individuals to be able to make and release their own software. But really, "indie" was about removing the barrier of needing a publisher to get a game out the window and having to bend to that publishers whims on everything from the design of the game to the physical attributes of the character.
The "college project abortion" stuff you refer to, is actually the "Home Brew" scene, they are amateurs creating games as a hobby, digital delivery has allowed them to legally release their products to try and make some money out of them. Because hell, who on earth has a right to have a stab at making a game for their own enjoyment?
The last time so many low quality games were on the market was followed by a big and destructive crash of the whole industry. There needs to be more quality assurance by Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft or the same will happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983
etking said: The last time so many low quality games were on the market was followed by a big and destructive crash of the whole industry. There needs to be more quality assurance by Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft or the same will happen again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983 |
Hugely flawed argument, those poor quality games were that era's AAA games. Also note it's the North American Video Game crash. The scene in Europe was very strong, and far more "indie" than the US market ever was. Games were made for home computers programmed by a single person in his bedroom and published on cassette tapes costing a few quid each. That market was bouyant and remained a key part of Europe really (migrating from the ZX Spectrum and C64 etc in the 80s to the Amiga and Atari home computers in the early to mid 90s) until the PlayStation took over.
Incidentally this is why Nintendo historically has never seen as much success in Europe too, they never had a monopoly in the 80s.
curl-6 said:
The indie games that are associated with the current "boom" are just that though; amateurish and below industry standards. |
So don't buy the bad ones and only support the good. Problem solved.
Don't just lump them all together and think EShop title for $5 = trash.
What are the standards anyways? Wiimusic? Nintendo land? Carnival games? WiiPlay? Quantum Theory? Spending millions?
Im genuinely curious since you seem to be the one wih the answers.
iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.
Currently playing:
Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)
I think console and PC gamers have more discerning tastes than mobile gamers.
Yes, you do get the dime a dozen generic indie platformers, but they don't become enormous commercial successes like Candy Crush and its 5000 clones.
Plus the big budget titles will always exist, and large sections of the media exist to look through the indie games and highlight the hidden gems.
Indie is the only thing that can save this horrible FPS gaming market we have today.
Hey don't click here ! It's creepy !!
I want a PlayStation All-Stars Sequel ! Come on Sony, stop making too many shooters !
I'll make a better signature when I'll have time to do it...
fps_d0minat0r said:
So you agree with me that varity can exist among AAA games. I do have a valid point. The valid point is before we used to get upto 3 AAA PS3 games, now we get 1 AAA and 1 indie.... you still havent disproved that. |
I dont even know where to start. I didnt bring up "budget" you were the first one to use that word and discuss the production cost of games. I responded to your post about low budget =/= diversity which is completely ricidulous and unfounded. diversity is simply variety IE: getting 3 genres of games regardless of their status as indie rather than 2.
Variety does exist amongst AAA games the problem is youre argueing as if we used to get 3 AAA games a month prior to the "indie boom" and thats simply not true. We are simply getting MORE GAMES youre not gettign less of the AAA youre still getting MORE OF THOSE TOO
@ the bolded yes i did matter of factly disprove that. I listed to you all the games that could be considered "AAA" and the amount that plus subsribers received in the 3 years prior to the "indie boom" is less than what has been offered since on the PS3 which is a fact and the quality of the aforementioned games, one could argue has also gone up as well. Do the math, we had less AAA boxed retail games in 3 years prior to the boom than the single year following. So take the total, divide by 36 months do the same for the last year, divide by 12 months and just step away fromt he computer.
At this point I dont even think you understand what youre complaining about anymore. It like the south park episode "they took r jubs!" you have this strawman fear that "Indie games" have ruined your big name retail PSPlus allocation when It is factually not true and actually the opposite based on the ACTUAL GAMES I HAVE LISTED AND POINTED OUT TO YOU OVER THE LIFESPAN OF PLAYSTATION PLUS.
steverhcp02 said:
I dont even know where to start. I didnt bring up "budget" you were the first one to use that word and discuss the production cost of games. I responded to your post about low budget =/= diversity which is completely ricidulous and unfounded. diversity is simply variety IE: getting 3 genres of games regardless of their status as indie rather than 2.
Variety does exist amongst AAA games the problem is youre argueing as if we used to get 3 AAA games a month prior to the "indie boom" and thats simply not true. We are simply getting MORE GAMES youre not gettign less of the AAA youre still getting MORE OF THOSE TOO
@ the bolded yes i did matter of factly disprove that. I listed to you all the games that could be considered "AAA" and the amount that plus subsribers received in the 3 years prior to the "indie boom" is less than what has been offered since on the PS3 which is a fact and the quality of the aforementioned games, one could argue has also gone up as well. Do the math, we had less AAA boxed retail games in 3 years prior to the boom than the single year following. So take the total, divide by 36 months do the same for the last year, divide by 12 months and just step away fromt he computer. At this point I dont even think you understand what youre complaining about anymore. It like the south park episode "they took r jubs!" you have this strawman fear that "Indie games" have ruined your big name retail PSPlus allocation when It is factually not true and actually the opposite based on the ACTUAL GAMES I HAVE LISTED AND POINTED OUT TO YOU OVER THE LIFESPAN OF PLAYSTATION PLUS. |
I never said we are not getting more games now.
Im just saying we are getting more indies now.
I agree that they cant give out AAA's on PS4 right now, but why is the PS3 lineup going downhill because of indies on PS4?
And now that PS+ is compulsory on PS4 and theres people paying for it who were not on PS3, theres no logical argument to suggest that there has to be a trade off, because theres been no trade off for Sony, they are actually gaining more than ever from PS+ now.
I know the games you pointed out, and thats why im dissapointed to see a game like vessel on PS3. If it were not for the games you pointed out (which I already know of and have anyway), it wouldnt be that disappointed, because I wouldnt even have PS+ then.