View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Dec 03, 2024 10:25 pm



Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things) 
Author Message
DRL Developer
DRL Developer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:27 am
Posts: 3138
Location: A little south and a lot west of Moscow
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
I'm honestly not sure why innovation is always regarded as the defining mark of a good game. Some of my favourite games in the last few years haven't been innovative by any stretch of the imagination, but they're great because they took something that already existed and made it better. If you want to make a truly innovative game, you have to take all of the conventions that people are used to and turn them on their heads, and I'd argue that isn't always a good thing as far as games are concerned. You're dealing with an interactive form of entertainment, and in order for people to enjoy your game, they need to be able to interact with it intuitively and easily. When you totally defy convention, it becomes alien to people and takes them time to adjust. Most of the commercially successful indie games change a few things up, but otherwise follow some kind of a convention that people would be used to. Super Meat Boy is a fairly traditional platformer, but with faster respawning and no lives. Braid is also a fairly traditional platformer, but focusing on a different mechanic. Even Minecraft, as much as it's paving the way for a new genre, is set up like an FPS as far as the HUD and combat work. There's a reason these games do so well: people feel comfortable playing them.

Wall o' text aside, I agree pretty much entirely with Grif. There's no use arguing over this stuff anyway - buy a game and play it if you like it. There shouldn't be any other factor affecting your choice to play a game.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:51 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 3032
Location: Somewhere in the universe
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
Agreed With grif.

Though i think you can't really compare the two seeing as one has usually a large company of people developing it, knowing this will likely take off do to it's mainstream gameplay and style is .
And the other is developed by a single to small group of people who don't have money or professional and only have their idea, their time and their motivation.

Bottom line:
Don't compare.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:12 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:10 pm
Posts: 495
Location: Uncertain quantum state
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
It doesn't have to cost five hundred thousand dollars to make a game for PC, and by extension, the arcade marketplaces of consoles.
I thought I'd saturate the above sentence with hyperlinks to different sorts of indie stuff, but I think the point is already made.
Due to the ridiculous production costs of an AAAAA-game, it has to be profitable.


But yeah. About the industry: it's the modern, average video game consumer.
You rarely think about it, but the actual demographic of these computer/video games is in fact the faceless masses who buy a game, presses start twice and then throw in the shelf.
It's the guy who buys Madden n every year. It's the guy who couldn't kill the first boss. The guy who didn't get to the second achievement in the story mode.

Sadly, that guy also does not care about DRM on the pc.


While I do understand that people might have better things to do than spend hours a day with video games, I don't like how it... polarizes the industry.


Last edited by findude on Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:38 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:20 am
Posts: 4772
Location: Good news everyone!
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
That's the very nature of a mainstream game developing companies. They wont release games they aren't sure will sell.
Knowing that, many "innovative" games are simply too risky for mainstream developers to try - since they might be a hit, or they might just crash and burn.

That's why I'd say if this is about innovation and trying new things, sure, indie games win out.


However, If we're talking about GOOD games... well, that's subject to opinion.
But I think most of us can agree that not every innovative game is a good game, and visa versa.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:51 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:57 pm
Posts: 1020
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
I enjoy sandbox gaming, open ended stuff, and the indie market seems to cater for my tastes more.
LittleBigPlanet is the only mainstream game that I can think of that would offer the same experiences as many indie games.

I'm not a big fan of sequels that don't add anything new to the gameplay, or if something could just be DLC (See: The entire Rock Band/Guitar Hero franchises).
And it seems we're in a bit of a sequel culture: Every game and it's mother has it's own sequel.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:43 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 2:44 am
Posts: 491
Location: Dank dreams.
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
I love open world games having the freedom to do as you want I think there's more Open world Indie games than Mainstream.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:05 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:09 am
Posts: 1115
Location: Being The Great Juju
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
...what open-world indie games do you know of? Because I know of plenty open-world AAA titles. The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Just Cause 2, the GTA series, Assassin's Creed, inFamous, Prototype, and so forth.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:07 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 2:44 am
Posts: 491
Location: Dank dreams.
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
SCZ is one check the Zombies thread Clonks open world KAGs close to Open world theres a whole list of them you just have to keep your eyes open for them they're all over the Internet.

btw Ragdoll you've tried to make me sound stupid on this thread twice :P .


Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:11 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:46 pm
Posts: 1930
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
KAG isn't open world and neither is Clonk. Survival Crisis Z is, but the world isn't nearly as expansive or interactive as, say, what Ragdoll said.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:41 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:57 pm
Posts: 1020
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
Elder Scrolls, Fallout, GTA. Open ended gameplay.

Creed was just repetitive tasks. Sure, you got a few towns and some road between them, but you were confined to shitty tasks, over and over.

Terraria is open ended gameplay, as is Minecraft.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:51 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 6:04 pm
Posts: 2901
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
Dwarf Fortress is another one and you could probably get by on a technicality by saying that every identical roguelike is too, but I'd say there's more highly rated open world AAA games than independent ones.


Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:12 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 2:44 am
Posts: 491
Location: Dank dreams.
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
K but Indie games sure as hell have more destructible terrain games.


Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:56 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:09 am
Posts: 1115
Location: Being The Great Juju
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
DAME777 wrote:
btw Ragdoll you've tried to make me sound stupid on this thread twice :P .
You're managing to do that by yourself quite nicely.
DAME777 wrote:
K but Indie games sure as hell have more destructible terrain games.
...so? How on earth does destructibility factor into how good a game is? Besides, most games with destructibility that are indie have incredibly boring destructibility, ie, Cortex Command- where you can destroy any pixel you want so long as you have a sharp enough round, or Minecraft, where if you click on a block long enough, it will disappear. Destructible terrain has been around for quite a while in mainstream games- Worms is a great example of this. Games these days tend not to have destructible everything because that's pointless. Instead, you can just destroy what's important which actually affects gameplay; DICE's new Frostbite engine, developed for the Bad Company games and Battlefield 3, is probably one of the better examples of this. That's destructibility done right- it's not a core part of the gameplay, it flows naturally with all of the other elements, giving the player a more realistic and streamlined experience.

Your arguments for supporting indie games over mainstream titles are incredibly poor... and I'm typically a fan of indie devs.


Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:17 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 550
Location: error: location not found
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
Hrmmm. If it's fun, ♥♥♥♥' play it. I see a lot of indie games that are just as creatively bankrupt as many mainstream titles.


Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:24 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 4886
Location: some compy
Reply with quote
Post Re: Indie "vs" Mainstream (Why we can't have nice things)
I think findude has touched on my thoughts, but I'm coming to the realisation that my views here are the product of evaluation through subjective criterion. It's more or less impossible to be objective here, which means ultimately that this discussion is pointless. :-( I think I just prefer the idea of someone loving their creation, not pumping out 30 versions of it. Then again, I like farb's captain series, so in the end I'm just biased. Damn.

Contrary wrote:
I don't know why you say that polishing old formulas is a bad thing, in fact I think it is as much a necessary part of quality as innovation. Fact is that most innovative games don't do it perfectly the first time. You are a developer, I think you've seen how even adding minor elements within an existing game can go wrong initially and require polishing. The same holds true for entire games. Look at Cortex Command. Many great innovations, but as many of us come to realize also many fatal flaws at a fundamental level. The ideas of Cortex Command could use someone copying it and refining the formula.

Also, wasn't it not too long ago you were lecturing me on my rants on petty game label ♥♥♥♥?

I didn't say that polishing old mechanics was a bad thing (See: I've spent quite a bit of my time doing that. Z'09?).

Where was I lecturing you about petty game label ♥♥♥♥? I think I've gotten annoyed about console wars before but not game labelling. I realise that this is no better but it's not direct hypocrisy this way ;)


Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:31 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.
[ Time : 0.037s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]