ghettoglamour said:
Because, if we take the same game, without changing losing its quality. It's clear that:
15h > 5h
nice 3d graphics > simple 2d graphics
good story with full voice acting > simple story with text
deep gameplay > limited gameplay
And like I said, I don't think that in this day and age an indie game with limited budget is able to deliver the same package as a big budget publisher funded AAA.
Just take your favorite indie, imagine it would be remade with a 50 million budget, without losing its "soul" or "essence". Wouldn't it be better than it already is?
|
How is 2D any less than 3D? There is no objective marker that states that to be true....and what about games like LBP or Donkey Kong Country or Pokemon or Pikmin etc? They aren't 3D games, does that mean that they fail to be AAA based on this arbitrary system that you set up? There are plenty of games that just don't work in 3D. Platformers need to be drastically changed to work in 3D and lose a lot of their precision, and other games, 3D movement just doesn't work.
As for story, what about Destiny? That game has a garbage story, is it not AAA? Some goes for length with a lot of "AAA" games...how often are they actually over 15hours to get through the content? I'd say over half fall under that marker.
Your parameters are arbitrary and strange. Every game would be better given more money and time and personnel, that isn't limited to indies...I don't see why you are drawing this line at indie. I get saying certain things about digital games (although, I'm sure a lot of what you could say would still be BS), however indie productions can still be big (I mean, look at Hellblade...could you honestly look at that and say "yup, thats an indie") and they can still be amazing. Drawing lines like this is silly and unneeded.
