By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How Do You Define "Indie"?

 

Can AAA Studios Create "Indie" Games?

Yes 24 34.29%
 
No 46 65.71%
 
Total:70

Cheap, casual gamer, 2 hour game, not worth my time. Those are the best words to describe them.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Around the Network
TheGoldenBoy said:
episteme said:
For me: games that arent't funded by a publisher.

That's probably my definition as well.


This is what I'd go with too. Child of Light etc IMO aren't indie games, even though they have the production values that make them feel the same as a lot of indie games.

Basically, indie is where nobody else has a say/calls the shots with more authority than your creative freedom.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Ka-pi96 said:
A game that looks bad.

Sometimes they intentionally make them look as bad as 8bit games for some odd reason.





.- -... -.-. -..

Barkley said:
DerpSandwich said:
It's a game that's developed and published by one studio without the aid of a larger publisher. This is the correct definition. It's literally what "independent" means. We only call smaller projects indie games because we don't have a good word for them.

Kind of like with indie music. It was music that was distributed without a major label, but we didn't have a word for the genre they were commonly doing, so we started associating the sound itself with "indie." I feel it's a bit different with games though because indie music had a particular style, whereas games labeled as indie are really just smaller than regular games, sometimes even made by huge publishing companies.

Most people here want to do the whole "it's different for each person" thing, and I'm normally up for that line of thinking, but in this case there really is a correct definition for the term, and we're just plain using it wrong a lot of the time. (I'll probably get a lot of crap for being so sure of myself, huh?)


Well you're right in way but the definition should change, if it hasn't already. If a single person made a game over the course of two years and then sent it to a publisher, the publisher liked it and decided to release it with absolutely no changes to his product, does that mean a game made by one person isn't an indie game? By your definition yes, but I think most people would view it as an indie and I think it should be viewed as one.

You're right, that would mean it wasn't an indie game.  We've come to refer to the term incorrectly as a way to define smaller projects.  It's one of those things were everyone's going to do what they're going to do and I'm not going to get on their case about it, though at the end of the day there really is a correct answer, technically.

Sometimes I'll just refer to smaller games as "download games."  That's not always accurate either, as sometimes they get box releases, but I think it's closer to being an accurate way to categorize them.



Currently playing:

Bloodbath Paddy Wagon Ultra 9

Indy are selfunded games without a publisher who can't afford a retail release hence they don't get my money. Also indie means 99% garbage making the 1% look bad.



 

 

Around the Network
PieToast said:
Ka-pi96 said:
A game that looks bad.

Sometimes they intentionally make them look as bad as 8bit games for some odd reason.




But that looks good? :P

There are various reasons why a lot of  indie devs choose this approach. Some of it is that it's an easy, but also nostalgic and identifyable direction. There's a lot of more complex but far worse looking 2D and 3D art styles that they could replicate.

The game you've chosen, everything is done by 1 person. I think we should be cutting him a bit of slack in the graphics department. As long as they're functional and you know what you're doing, I don't see a problem. In fact, I actually do like the visuals in that game.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Not backed by a major publisher.



Ka-pi96 said:

Yeah, I really don't get that. There are some indie games that look really good, maybe not AAA but definitely comparable with AA games. Yet others are either made by people who just can't do graphics at all or people who intentionally make them look as bad as possible.


You bust have incredibly low standards for what makes a AA game, because I have never seen an indie game even come close to AA quality, that being a game like Bayonetta 1/2, Vanquish, SM3DW, Unfamous, Sunset Overdrive, etc.

Also, it costs less time, resources, and money to make retro-style games. That's why they do it.



I made this thread a long time ago.

 

In my honest opinion, an indie game is a game made by an independent developer, without any kind of help of bigger companies or publishers aside from publishing the game (I find this step acceptable).

 

That's the only requisite, really. Budget, team size or time poured into developing does not void an indie status, if that game is made from scratch to the end from an independent developer.



spemanig said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Yeah, I really don't get that. There are some indie games that look really good, maybe not AAA but definitely comparable with AA games. Yet others are either made by people who just can't do graphics at all or people who intentionally make them look as bad as possible.


You bust have incredibly low standards for what makes a AA game, because I have never seen an indie game even come close to AA quality, that being a game like Bayonetta 1/2, Vanquish, SM3DW, Unfamous, Sunset Overdrive, etc.

Also, it costs less time, resources, and money to make retro-style games. That's why they do it.

Star Citizen is an indie game (crowd-funded and self-published).