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

Forums - Gaming - Opinion: I think it is very fair to say that if a game is indie, it's indicative of its poor quality

Arlo on 20 June 2015

I don't believe indie means low-quality; it tends to mean a certain type of game that you're just not into. They tend to be slower-paced, a little more artistic and experimental, and take a bit more patience. Some people aren't into that, and that's cool. Indies just tend to go for a different kind of feel.

A lot of people are chiming in and saying "yeah, a lot of them are crap," but I think that's beside the point. And lot of traditionally published AAA games are crap too. It just depends on the person. A lot of the games you listed have been some of my favorite games. It doesn't mean that I like bad games, and from my perspective it doesn't mean you like bad games either. You just don't like what indie devs are currently doing.

And that's a beautiful thing! It takes all kinds to make a world! [starts singing "Get Together" and dancing]



http://www.youtube.com/ArloStuff

Around the Network
Skullwaker on 20 June 2015

Generalizations aren't okay.



Official Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Thread

                                      

Lafiel on 20 June 2015
pokoko said:

It's a false dichotomy and most people who believe it are only hurting themselves.

What does "indie" even mean? By the literal definition, Insomniac is indie. So is Bungie.

A lot of people think it means team size. Where, then, is the dividing line? 20 people? 50 people? 100 people? Seems kind of silly.

I've got a better dividing line: games that interest me and games that don't. I don't give a rat's ass about the size of the team that made the game, I don't care if people call them "indie" or "AAA". All of that is completely irrelevant.

Some games from smaller studios are good, some are bad. Some AAA games are good, some are bad. I've spent over 100 hours in This War of Mine and would take it over Assassin's Creed any day of the bloody week.

If people want to base what they play one these little labels, that's fine with me. Don't blame me for chuckling, though.

a "pure" definition of the term "indie game" would probably be a game which is self-funded and self-published by a developer independend from any publisher

by that defintion Insomniac or Bungie afaik never did an "indie game", although they are "indie developers"



Volterra_90 on 20 June 2015

Yeah. Shovel Knight, The Swapper, Stealth Inc. 2, Brothers, Super Meat Boy, Fast Racing Neo... are such a bad games... I prefer some AAA titles like The Order:1886. THAT's a freaking good game.

Money doesn't equal quality, please...



pokoko on 20 June 2015
Lafiel said:
pokoko said:

It's a false dichotomy and most people who believe it are only hurting themselves.

What does "indie" even mean? By the literal definition, Insomniac is indie. So is Bungie.

A lot of people think it means team size. Where, then, is the dividing line? 20 people? 50 people? 100 people? Seems kind of silly.

I've got a better dividing line: games that interest me and games that don't. I don't give a rat's ass about the size of the team that made the game, I don't care if people call them "indie" or "AAA". All of that is completely irrelevant.

Some games from smaller studios are good, some are bad. Some AAA games are good, some are bad. I've spent over 100 hours in This War of Mine and would take it over Assassin's Creed any day of the bloody week.

If people want to base what they play one these little labels, that's fine with me. Don't blame me for chuckling, though.

a "pure" definition of the term "indie game" would probably be a game which is self-funded and self-published by a developer independend from any publisher

by that defintion Insomniac or Bungie afaik never did an "indie game", although they are "indie developers"

The trouble there is that quite a few games that many would consider as "indie" have used outside publishers.



Around the Network
JOKA_ on 20 June 2015

100% disagree. There are good indie games and there are bad indie games. There are good AAA games and bad AAA games.



Platinums: Red Dead Redemption, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, Terminator Salvation, Uncharted 1, inFamous Second Son, Rocket League

Wright on 20 June 2015
pokoko said:
Lafiel said:

a "pure" definition of the term "indie game" would probably be a game which is self-funded and self-published by a developer independend from any publisher

by that defintion Insomniac or Bungie afaik never did an "indie game", although they are "indie developers"

The trouble there is that quite a few games that many would consider as "indie" have used outside publishers.


The problem here is that nowadays indie is automatically associated with anything 2D with retro or graphically stylish.



WC4Life on 20 June 2015
pokoko said:

It's a false dichotomy and most people who believe it are only hurting themselves.

What does "indie" even mean? By the literal definition, Insomniac is indie. So is Bungie.

A lot of people think it means team size. Where, then, is the dividing line? 20 people? 50 people? 100 people? Seems kind of silly.

I've got a better dividing line: games that interest me and games that don't. I don't give a rat's ass about the size of the team that made the game, I don't care if people call them "indie" or "AAA". All of that is completely irrelevant.

Some games from smaller studios are good, some are bad. Some AAA games are good, some are bad. I've spent over 100 hours in This War of Mine and would take it over Assassin's Creed any day of the bloody week.

If people want to base what they play one these little labels, that's fine with me. Don't blame me for chuckling, though.


"indie" is used as industry term, pulling out dictionary means total lack of context. It is vague term and needs to be inspected case by case. Generally speaking it means smaller team sizes, smaller games, barebones graphics, smaller pricetag etc. because there is no major funding from publisher.

 

If we take 100 indie games and 100 big publisher funded games, the difference is instantly noticeably. My opinion is that from those 100 indie games, when picked blindly, the quality of gaming experience can be called poor compared to publisher funded games. It means you need to do your research when buying indie games and mass market just won't do that in the scale.

 

I'm not against indie games. There are great gaming experiences that manage to top even those big titles. But listing 1-2 indie titles that were great does not mean the overall quality of indie games are on par or even close.



I cannot imagine toilet-free life.

Kebabs have a unique attribute compared to other consumables. To unlock this effect you need to wolf down a big ass kebab really fast, like under 10 minutes or so and wait for the effect to kick in. If done correctly your movements should feel unbelievably heavy to the point where you literally cannot move at all.

-Downtown Alanya Kebab magazine issue no.198

pokoko on 20 June 2015
WC4Life said:
pokoko said:

It's a false dichotomy and most people who believe it are only hurting themselves.

What does "indie" even mean? By the literal definition, Insomniac is indie. So is Bungie.

A lot of people think it means team size. Where, then, is the dividing line? 20 people? 50 people? 100 people? Seems kind of silly.

I've got a better dividing line: games that interest me and games that don't. I don't give a rat's ass about the size of the team that made the game, I don't care if people call them "indie" or "AAA". All of that is completely irrelevant.

Some games from smaller studios are good, some are bad. Some AAA games are good, some are bad. I've spent over 100 hours in This War of Mine and would take it over Assassin's Creed any day of the bloody week.

If people want to base what they play one these little labels, that's fine with me. Don't blame me for chuckling, though.


"indie" is used as industry term, pulling out dictionary means total lack of context. It is vague term and needs to be inspected case by case. Generally speaking it means smaller team sizes, smaller games, barebones graphics, smaller pricetag etc. because there is no major funding from publisher.

 

If we take 100 indie games and 100 big publisher funded games, the difference is instantly noticeably. My opinion is that from those 100 indie games, when picked blindly, the quality of gaming experience can be called poor compared to publisher funded games. It means you need to do your research when buying indie games and mass market just won't do that in the scale.

 

I'm not against indie games. There are great gaming experiences that manage to top even those big titles. But listing 1-2 indie titles that were great does not mean the overall quality of indie games are on par or even close.

It's a term that's becoming less and less meaningful and those who are bound by it are only restricting themselves.  It doesn't need to be inspected at all, it needs to disappear.  "Indie" studios are becoming the new middle.  Many of them aren't just sitting in their garage, they have offices where they work.  It's an archaic term and an archaic mindset.

You need to do your research when buying ANY game.  Why would anyone ever pick anything blindly?  High graphical fidelity should never be confused with quality.



GribbleGrunger on 20 June 2015
pokoko said:

It's a term that's becoming less and less meaningful and those who are bound by it are only restricting themselves.  It doesn't need to be inspected at all, it needs to disappear.  "Indie" studios are becoming the new middle.  Many of them aren't just sitting in their garage, they have offices where they work.  It's an archaic term and an archaic mindset.

You need to do your research when buying ANY game.  Why would anyone ever pick anything blindly?  High graphical fidelity should never be confused with quality.

Well said and I completely agree.



 

The PS5 Exists.