Nope, that's just you reading between lines.

This is strawmanning and you know it.

I'm suggesting that having noncreative parties involved in the creative process with the motive of making as much money as possible is suboptimal.
I'm not using words like prohibits or completely, nor am I drawing a direct relationship between creativity and fun. Some people are good at making fun games, some aren't. I'd say unless someone got to the top of a games publishing company by making a huge pile of damned good games they more likely fall into the latter category; people usually become a giant in any industry though good business practice (which involves risk mitigation, which involves making games you know people are going to buy).

Dragging the paged stuff back:
Pretty much.

Ok so you say that you like indie games better, ok. I tentatively guess that's subjective enough to attribute to personal taste.

Alright I'm ok with that.

I think my confusion comes from the fact that you are kind of presenting a utopian vision of the gaming industry, a world where people independently fund and create their own games and make sufficient money to do so and investors and the like stay the ♥♥♥♥ away. A world where people abstain from practices that could make them more money more easily and focus on the integrity of the art.

I think my problem is that that makes no sense to get mad about, in my eyes. I mean its a neat vision but the world cannot work that way.

I'm not sure why you put this liz. I thought I was addressing this point already by the implication that profit is put first ("Make a game that will sell"), which is dependent on fun or lovable IP (inclusive or), and not necessarily much innovation.

Buuut I'm also not sure why this argument is dragging on. Like I said before, I thought it was a no-brainer that companies that are out to make money will do their best to copy as much as possible from previous games, reducing costs while making an (hopefully) equal amount of money as the game they're copying. That's not a point that can really be argued against, thus it's not an argument.
The discarded argument, that indie games are in some way better than mainstream games, was hashed over and answered by pointing out it's mostly a matter of taste. And now Contrary is bringing in something about utopian game making world where everybody independently publishes (removing the distinction between indie and mainstream)?

What the hell are we still arguing over? Don't get me wrong I love to argue but I'd like to know what's the main point here.

The problem is that the thread's title and original topic are invalid what with the indie/mainstream crossover.

I guess it does come down in some way to the integrity of the art (though I still feel you're addressing my words as though they're surrounded by sirens and bright neon signs, Contrary) and my frustration therein.

Financial success in the world of games is far more closely related to consumer exposure than to how fun something is. Example: Duke Nukem Forever has hit the bestsellers charts whilst being ripped apart in reviews and deemed rushed out and ultimately unsatisfying.
It was always going to sell. It would've been nice if they'd made something that was fun to play in the process.

Nice to who? And furthermore, made fun to play on whose expense?

And why? (Dohoho)

Nice as interpreted by me, at little expense to them (they've got a squillion dollars and a fun gameplay concept already but oh no they applied weapon limits and HP regen because that's cool now rather than paying homage to the era the game "comes from") because that'd net a fun game for their fans.

Seems like the world would be even cooler than it is if more people preferred to do nice things.

Sadly Geti, the world is filled with callous souls and shrewd businessmen.
Oh, and blood sucking lawyers.

The problem here is that I know people who legitimately enjoy playing Duke Nukem Forever despite the fact that critics hate it
Whether a game (or any source of entertainment) is "good" or not is probably one of the most subjective things around, surely if there are actually people who enjoy it then they have succeeded? And there are people who enjoy it.
Who is the person that decides whether a game is "fun" or not? Who are you to tell them that they are wrong to like playing this game, and that it is not a "nice" thing?

Of course this topic is subjective, but a minority of people enjoying something is indicative of said something being fun. Some people enjoy watching the movie "The Room". The majority of people don't though, because it's utter crap - and half the people who do enjoy it are enjoying it because it's utter crap and they're having a laugh at it.

I'm not one to say what's fun and what isn't, but I will say this: Prelude and RvR, whilst gleaning positive feedback from various parties, have ultimately "failed" as games in my eyes simply because the number of people who have actually enjoyed them likely number below 30. I would not call them "good" games, sadly, even though there are fun moments in there to be had. Sure, I had fun making them, and some people have had fun playing them, but that does not make them "fun" relative to, say, canabalt or katamari. I'll pick them up again later on and try to replace the unfun mechanics with fun ones and we'll see how it goes, but for now, they're esoteric prototypes.

Also, success is relative.