I dont think he is actually downplaying indie games. He is saying that they are not really the reason why somebody buys a gaming console or gaming pc. Also while an indie game could be great, no doubt about that, but when a AAA is great there really is no comparison. Thats why like him, I also dont believe an indie game should be consider as GOTY.

Like The other guy said as well, Great indie games are like lightning in a bottle. Its really a rare chance that an indie game gets all this praise. And even afterwards its not like people flock to buy it aside from minecrat. But AAA get at least one amazing game every year at least. Its just easier to reach what you imagined when you have the time, recourses and man power to make it real. again, not downplaying indies, just saying its easier for AAA to achieve greatness. 

1. Exceptions?. No, those aren't exceptions, those are the norm now. Indie games have been here since gaming began, only there was a period where they drastically shrank and become "unpopular" for a time, but now they are back and stronger and more in number than ever before. 

2. Of course they do, because it's on a device that's still relatively new and seemingly having less total users than the other two consoles, yet their games are selling far more on that system than the other two combined, sometimes even with PC thrown in as well, and that speaks volumes. People have all sorts of reasons to buy a Switch you know, it's not "AAA or bust" mentality.

3. No, not really. You're the one pulling one by limiting it to a spectrum you think holds a majoritarian sway over the entire industry. I'm not even "defending" PC gaming at this point, I'm actually trying to talk about indie games, which you probably haven't noticed us talking about for a while now. Don't know why talking about good indie games needs to count somehow as "defending" PC gaming. 

We already know about the budget, and Hellblade has shown that it doesn't need to be blown to insane lengths, like with GTA V and RDR2. I think you're just trying to limit a budgeted game to being a console exclusive, and yet you accuse me of "£defending" PC gaming, yet you're defending some imaginary "right" to have something locked to a closed off box. I can understand if said closed off box had high end hw, had a control scheme that wasn't accessible to multiple platforms, but consoles don't have that route to take. They also don't make your games either. 

"Since you can't counter it"?. It's been countered hundreds of times before, it's called self funding, consumer funded, third party funded, and hell, as Bungie have shown us, outside of the industry funded. It's been proven time and time again that multiple games can be funded and on various levels, hell Star Citizen is still being worked on and it's been able to amass an insane amount of funding, both from consumers and other parties. It's not some bullshit warped reasoning of "Oh, consoles are the only thing that can ever fund AAA, so they deserve to be exclusive". 

Dude, you hate on PC by showing it. You talk so low about the platform, I haven't seen you once giving good kudos to the platform at all, even though that platform makes your damn games. You owe everything to the computer making your console and games possible, as without it, we'd have nothing. If you give kudos now, it's only because I've pointed it out, even if you so much as have to "recollect" a mention from years prior, because it's only had to be brought up because I've pointed it out. If you never "hated", you'd mention it without me having to tell you, that's how it works.

You seem to have a problem with an outside source funding Bungie, because it's proven that we don't need any of the big 3 to make a game possible, even for AAA or AA. You seem to have a fear of being denied something to be made exclusive to you though. I on the other hand, do not mind my games going to other systems. 

4. No, but the way you push this narrative that it needs "big funding" makes it awfully close to "we need the big 3, because they always know when and how to lock it to their box", and you know full well that not all 3rd parties pull that, because they want as much money as possible, and that isn't always found by locking it to one box, ergo, 1st parties want it exclusive.

Not sure what anti-consumer practices have to do with GOTY awards or funding my dude. Micro trans are here to stay, and they are employed by many, many devs/studios by now. China can fund what it wants, you have zero say on what they can and cannot do, and as much as I'm not a fan of China's ethic, I'd rather they fund for something, than it being any of the big 3. I'd rather an emerging market give the first party a massive run for their money, because competition is good remember?. 

5. Yes, believe it or not, indie games can hold a lot over AAA games. I still find Minecraft and it's possibilities as being far better than some crappy scripted CGI events, or narrow corridor areas.

6. Dude, you're playing the card so easily right now. Why not knock it off for a change?. I own a Switch, 3DS, N3DS and a 360 you know.

Do tell, since we like to use the Steam survey as the gospel of *all* PC hardware (when I know, not sure if you do, that it isn't actually true), what do they build a PC for?. Surely not "just AAA games"?. What about games like KCD, you know, a game that was made by a studio that isn't regarded as being AAA?. What about Subnautica?, or games that can be modded, that are both indie and AA/AAA?.

I think indie games should be considered up for GOTY. It should never be limited to "AAA" games, that's just a narrow minded and arrogant way of looking at things. 

It's not incredibly rare though. We get all sorts of indie games that either sell well or turn heads. When I said "lightning in a bottle" iI meant a good combo that really, and I mean really turned heads, not "once in a blue moon". Each year we manage to get a good indie game or more. Maybe not to you, but to thousands if not millions of other gamers worldwide. 

No, not downplaying indies, but making them appear far less important and popular, and making AAA seem more popular and important, thus making them more prominent over indie games, despite evidence pointing to the opposite. 

Indie games achieve greatness as well, but AAA's in recent years have shown that they aren't always AAA, maybe in budget, but lacking premium pristine quality and obviously having to rely on what indie devs have had to over the years, even mobile games. 

Dude stop with the straw man. Specially the building pc thing. WHere the hell did that come from? I think you can take any argument about anything and turn it into an anti pc thing.

I will give you one thing in that I should not have said that indies should not be considered for GOTY. I just think when an indie is being considered for GOTY, reviewers seem to ignore a bunch of limitation. Like Big AAA get bombarded when they have a super short story, no story, or just crappy. Indies get a pass and they say, look how great the story was for such a small studio. Things like features, just look a pubg, it got praised to hell and all it had was battle royal with a single map. Imagine if Battlefield or COD came out like that. Call of duty received hell for ditching the single player story. Fallout gets dumped on for looking the same as previous entrys, but indies can be 2d an everybody looses their mind(insert joker meme here). Im just saying indies have to get a pass on so many things in consideration for their budget and/or size while AAA dont. If they are as great they should be scrutinized like all other games. 

So Chazore are you wanting us to believe someone would build a PC with power much over X1X, costing some couple thousand dolars, to play Indie games that would run fine on something 5 to 10 times cheaper? Sure thing.

It is incredible rare, you would count on the fingers of your hand indies that sell over 10M and got GOTY award, and if Indies is what you like you would probably remember them all.

Yep, any Indie (or even most Nintendo exclusives) if reviewed on same criterea would lose some points. When reviewer go and discount points for tearing, stuttering and whatnot, or for the graphics not being pristine, sound not fully developed, etc and you can clearly see that those games they gave good score being Indie, HH or whatnot with caveats "that is good for that platform, or for that budget" you can certainly see that they aren't using the same ruler.

User moderated - Bristow9091

"He is saying that they are not really the reason why somebody buys a gaming console or gaming pc"

Not an anti-PC "thing", just a really bad argument or point to even make. You know there are hundreds of millions of gamers out there. You should know by now that we all do not think exactly the same as thew two of you here do. We don't always build and buy a PC/console just for AAA games. Again, it's not "anti-PC", it's just a silly assumption to have. TO assume every single gamer, and even then, to then follow up with "well the majority", well no, because if that were true, then we'd be seeing the hundred million sales, like MC has gotten and other games out there that are indie and have reached higher than the recent single player only sales of some AAA games. It's obvious today, that AAA isn't the sole biggest driving force, not when you've got mobile users, mobile games, mobile MT's making insane dosh. Nearly two decades ago, yes AAA was at the forefront and the most prominent, but today, not so much. AAA's get far much more media hype than indie games, even for paper/email ads, which makes them appear quite popular, while indies rely on youtube and storefronts for their own hype, as well as social media. 

"Reviewers ignore a bunch of limitation" , what limitations?. We've always had AAA and AA, let alone indie games that get reviewed poorly or actually being bad games in general. AAA games on the other hand, shouldn't be bad, because they are supposed to be AAA for a reason. Surely boasting a massive budget and director/studio and good engine should grant us a very good game no?. Someone who builds a game in their room/garage/attic doesn't have much of a chance at making a game as supposedly polished as a AAA game, so they already have a far less opportunistic outlook, while the AAA studio has more going for itself, so they should show us what they can do with said advantage. There really should be zero room for any big screw-ups when it comes to playing and talking a big game. You cannot talk and play big, but not show it, it just makes you look incapable of doing what you set out to accomplish.

I find AAA games with a short story to being okay, but only if it is priced accordingly. Indie devs know this with their own shortcomings. After all, Stardew Valley and Undertale were rather short, yet one of them offer insane amounts of replayability, while asking for only £15. A AAA game with a short story should price themselves accordingly as well, but most of the time it's just expected to sell for £40-55, rather than £25-30.

PuB was praised because it did something for the emerging BR genre that others clearly failed and flopped on, over on Steam. Then FN came along and did better in it's own way. It's clear at this present time that PuB has lost all it's goodwill, and now it has to work it's arse off to get anywhere. 

If you want to look at a game with one map, that gets praise and popularity, look no further than League, or even FN itself. Both manage to do things in their own way to keep things interesting. BF & CoD have zero excuses because they are AAA, again this harkens back to what I was saying before. AAA studios don't have room to make excuses or screw-ups.

People like 2D and 3D indie games, but postly pixel 2D ones because they hark back to a simpler time, when we had good pixel 2D RPG/Action games, and people still love those to this day. What exactly is wrong with liking a 2D game over a 3D one (even a AAA 3D game) in 2019?. It's very weird and warped to have this imagination, that AAA should hold some ultimate sway over everything else (it really doesn't, when you amount the number of games not AAA based). 

See, if AAA talks a big game, bigger than an indie game, then yes, more scrutiny should come their way, as an indie game, if it talks a massive budget and scope, as well as talking a big game (But we very rarely see any of those at all). 

1. Yes, yes they have. Tell me when GoW sells as much as Minecraft does in a year or two, I'll wait, or better yet, another game from a "AAA" devloper like FN, tell me when it sells as much as a game like that. There's even games like the Binding of Issac, PoE, Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, Ark, Rust, Rocket league, Robotcraft, Terraria and PuB, all of them having millions of players playing said games. A decade and a half ago, you'd be seeing a few hundred thousand, up to a possible 1-2m, but now we're seeing up to 10+m players playing these indie games, so yes, they are now becoming the norm, whether you like it or not. 

2. No, it's not just for Nintendo games. That's your narrow minded viewpoint of "how one should buy a console". Do you want to compare Switch indie games and how they are outselling PS4 alone?, let alone PC and X1, and that's telling mate, very telling (even then, bringing software sales data into this topic would derail it). There are people like me, who game on PC and play indies on it, as well as double dipping to play them on the go with the Switch.

3.Like it or not, Hellblade is AA, not AAA. Trying to separate an indie studio from one another is just frivolous.

"You brought Star Citizen"?. I haven't *bought* Star Citizen, because I'm done buying early access games, and games still in development. I am however *watching* Star Citizen, a game that's still in development (you know, like a certain RDR game was for around a near 10 years). It hasn't become vaporware though. The naysayers, the type that absolutely hate the game and don't want anything to do with it scream vaporware, as well as the incredibly impatient (Are we supposed to award and praise being impatient these days?. I seriously hope not, because we have that Miyamoto saying if I recall correctly). People finance the game via various means, one way the KS pitch, the others are buying the game, optionally buying the ships (the devs have stated there will be other ways of buying the ships when the game launches). Ahh, see you're comparing a console game to a PC designed one. If anything it'll be held against what Crysis has done, and Book of the Dead, rather than a console exclusive, designed only for one system. Maybe compare the game to the same system it's on?. The tech that SC has alone surpasses what is in GoW (Can I place any item where I want and move in a vehicle at light speed, all in real time with friends moving around at the same time?).

4. If you weren't, you'd be pointing out some pros, but you hardly ever do mate. You're always one to point out it's shortcomings, it being "lesser" than "GoW" or "RDR2", just because it doesn't make what *you* want, rather than what others are buying. I'll use an example from my own pov. I think Ubisoft is absolute gutter trash because they slap on 4 layers of DRM, pull over console parity with the PC version (Creed Origin's texture detail for example) and ask for a higher price, while also demanding you install and use Uplay, even if you purchase it from Steam. On top of that, their games are seemingly "demanding", yet they look practically alike when compared to the current gen versions, which alone makes zero sense and screams a lack of optimization, but according to some of you on here, they are Gospel, despite what they do. I know they definitely have issues to sort out, they make games that clearly do not appeal to me anymore, and that's fine. In the end I'd rather support someone that doesn't seek to gimp me, and brand me as a "pirate" despite having bought all my games via Steam, GoG, Battle.net and Origin. 

PC doesn't need an "owner", not everything in life needs an "owner" in order to be good or show greatness. PC is an open platform, and it has shown numerous times that it can be good at what it does in it's own ways. It doesn't need millions of dollars splurged on silly subway ads, or wasting hundreds of dollars worth of paint on the side of  building, which then needs more money to scrub it off. PC has it's own ways of advertising games, and it does so via the internet, in which billions of people use on a daily basis. 

People commit to the platform because they want to, because they see something there that others do not. Why do you think anyone releases games on PC to this day?. DO you honestly think that consoles and PC are exactly the same, in terms of operation and design?, because one is a closed off box owned by a corporation, while the other is an open market that has hundreds of vendors selling various parts, none of which own run any game studios, because the platform has no first party owner.

5.No, you seem to misunderstand the way I look at exclusivity. I see one as being a legit reason as to why something has to be exclusive, vs another that is done in such a way from a party member directly doing something to claim said exclusivity. See a game being exclusive to PC is either via peripheral or hardware constraints. There is zero reason for someone on PC to "buy it" for the platform, as the platform has no first party owner (not even Epic is doing this, as said games they buy and lock to their storefront are also available on consoles), but on consoles you need to sell a plastic box, so to do that you need to create your own reasons to sell said box, but these days it's become more and more common to simply buy up IP's that exist on other platforms, and then locking them down to your box, which comes off as being illegitimate to me, because they didn't create that IP, they simply want to hold onto it to sell their box, rather than creating their own. Why do you think PC gamers get antsy when MS buys up PC IP's?. Do you think MS is going to only develop just for PC?, no, they want to keep at it with the Xbox, and they'll do whatever it takes. 

"I can smell you being pissed", I wouldn't pull a petulant move like that if I were you, because you know exactly where jabbing like that goes. Why would I "pretend" not to care, when I've told you before that I own multiple systems, and buy what *I* like on said systems. I've bought a myriad of Pokemon and Zelda games on Nintendo devices for years. I've seen people emulate BotW on PC, but I've not sought myself to go and emulate it, because I like playing it on the go. When Nintendo releases a better version of the Switch, or a new console, that can allow BotW to achieve more frames/visual upgrades, I would play it on said system as well, why do you think I bought an N3DS? (please answer this, no dodging either, because I really want to know your direct, and simple answer to this).

If you aren't "interested" in the platform, then maybe you should simply not talk about it, or constantly pull out shortcomings out the arse?, just a thought (Please, no mirror retort. They are lazy and impractical). Why do I have to praise Sony?. Do you see me talking about them in your discussion board?. Sony is a company, not an eco-system, not an open platform. Sony is a company that happens to sell one console type, the other two being MS and Nintendo,m also selling their own console types, but not one platform running one console, completely different from PC.

The last thing I want, is a console I've no interest in, hampering with a platform I game on, that's when you'll see my ire, because I just want the best possible experience on the platform I've invested into over the years. Whenever I hear of console parity, I just roll my eyes and wonder as to why I'm the one to be screwed over, especially since I'm the one who invested into higher end hw. Do you think that is legitimately deserved and fair or something?. Do you think objectively speaking, that anyone who dares invest in higher end hw, be completely fucked over by another platform?. 

6. Getting "smashed" by other good games doesn't really matter if they have MT's or not. I think FN is absolute crap, yet millions upon millions of gamers out there think the complete opposite, and make Tencent/Epic billions, if it wins it wins. I hate MT's just as much as you do, but no force on earth is going to let me stop them from winning anything, it's a numbers game dude. Voting with your wallet only ever works if the side you're on supports the notion you do, if not then you lose out. I've voted against Ubisoft countless times, yet they are still breathing, still making 4 layer DRM games that cost a lot, demand far more hw power and look less idealistic for the hw demands, and thus I lose that round, because I'm not a part of the bigger crowd that made that choice. One person or 5 voting makes zero difference, not unless it inspires more people to do the same, which rarely happens. 

Third parties don't need to have those intentions, because they don't own said systems. They sell more because they want more. They want to reach as many as humanly possible, just look at how many times Skyrim alone has been ported, or the old DOOM games (both via companies and via fans). First parties are going to want it that way because they need to make their boxes looking different and lucrative. 

7. Of course I can, just like you and Eva have when it comes to AAA games and indie ones.

8. Nope, my "hate" (More like disagreement) is toward a myriad of companies and studios, not just Sony. I disagree with how EA has been handing it's infrastructure, it's entire business ethic and planning, just like I disagreed with Sony and their role of refusing to not employ crossplay with multiple games, while 3 other parties out there were employing it for a while now. I'm not one to agree with how Konami has handled their staff, their IP's and generally how they view their consumers (akin to "whales").

No, see I've owned multiple systems before, but I have a core preference, just like you owned up to me within this same discussion. There is a difference between owning multiple systems (trying things out) and having a core preference (liking a particular thing). I "defend" PC gaming because it's always being ragged on via stupid myths and the usual gunk that gets tossed it's way (Like "it's a platform with garbage shovelware and MMO's/Mobas" when it really isn't, or how about the usual "PC gaming is dead again" each time a new console gen starts?). It's always been this way, even before it become a prominent platform, the wars which stemmed from the console ones (which still go on to this day and should honestly end).

I'd like for said non first party games to release on PC, because hey, that's what I game on, that's where I prefer to game, and that also happens to be the same platform that makes our games and hosts gamers in the hundred+ million out there. Why would a dev want less money in the long run?. Why would they want to focus only on short term sales, rather than nice long tail sales?. You are leaving money on the table when you leave out PC, like it or not. You can clearly see some devs even trying their best to spruce up ports to PC, or same day PC versions ith console releases in tow (The DoA studio recently points this out for their PC version commitment, so surely there is a reason they are pulling out all the stops). 

"Just see this thread and how triggered you got"

Again, I honestly don't see there being a need to being this direct with jabbing, it solves nothing and gets us nowhere. 

There is a focus of AAA games on PC and consoles, so I'm not sure what idea you're getting from that. I'd love to see more third parties funding games, because then we'd all be able to play said games, rather than just one party (unless you know, said system doesn't support higher end hw and the peripherals needed, because that's on your fave companies to sort that out, not me, not PC gaming). 

I can imagine China supporting more games and building their own as time goes on, so you best be prepared for their version of competition. 

9. Trust you to make use of an old internet Minecraft meme, but hey, that's what I've come to expect of you by now. Also, the price argument?, how droll and predictable.

Unlike you, I can actually remember the indie games I've played, as well as the ones I listed above, that millions of other gamers plat. You just don't like indie games doing or selling well, that you refuse to admit your face narrow minded budget types are either being horrendously mangled to death by either always online, MT's or cancelled deals. Face it, there is more dire going on with the AAA industry than one or or 8 people in a flat in London, cobbling together one game.  

Yeah, indie games lose points automatically to you two, because you seem to hold this narrow minded belief that indie games are trash and don't contain beauty of their own. You lack clarity, both of you. You also lack vision. Looking at a demo like Book of the Dead shows what you can accomplish, not on consoles, but on higher end hw, indies also show what you can do with pixel art, art direction and music, all on a smaller budget. Art is beautiful, not childish fantasies for one style alone. Unlike you two, I actually appreciate art in many forms, be it 2D, 3D, B&W or static, even watercolor (look at my avatar for example. That artist draws so many adorable and beautifully drawn pieces). 

AAA games are supposed to be AAA, not AA or indie. You cannot tell me with a straight face, that both are equals, because they most certainly aren't, by fact. Both types have varying budgets, teams,s cope and manpower, as well as technologies at their disposal. Those with the highest of all should never screw up, why on earth would you excuse and allow them to?, they are touting "greatness" and yet it isn't what was displayed on the tin when it's pointed out, so why excuse that?. AAA games have zero room to trip up with their talk of big games. Don't tell me you can talk big and then excuse yourself like nothing happened, because that's downright asinine.