Pretentious indie games- worst of the worst?

[The Adventurer]

You know how many indie games there are? Yet you listed many of the most popular highly praised ones?

Yes, popular and highly praised for a reason. This isn't the AAA market where an ancient franchise name and a flashy ad campaign will net you a million sales. These games have to stand on their own merits. These games are popular and loved for a REASON. Because they are good. Nothing more and nothing less. the ones that aren't popular, aren't very good. So why should I, or anyone else, care about them?


If you want to get angry at a sector of gaming, get pissed about the piles and piles of soulless 'Pay to Win' shovelware choking out everything actually worth a damn. That will probably bring about a gaming recession in the next 5 to 10 years.

[Tupin]

It really is like choosing between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. Either pay-to-win BS with companies that want DRM and "licenses" along with Gamer Fuel or pretentious indies that want to use games as a soapbox and think "fun" isn't a descriptor that all games should have to be.

[The Adventurer]

It really is like choosing between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. Either pay-to-win BS with companies that want DRM and "licenses" along with Gamer Fuel or pretentious indies that want to use games as a soapbox and think "fun" isn't a descriptor that all games should have to be.

I don't know how you define 'fun'. But most well reviewed indie games are fun. Or at least invoke some kind of engaging emotion. Which is the very nature of games.

[Tanooki]

It's all opinion really. The indie games are a mixed bag, for as many overly hyped hot messes there are, there's far more that just suck and are ignored or there are a few that are nice but get glossed over. It is a shame some of them that get puffed up do for whatever reason beyond the game itself like Fez or Meatboy, hell I hate Braid but that one will evoke some emotion (rage and disappointment for me, love for others.)

I find your best avenue is to roll out the humble bundle thread and get all those goodies for like $5~ and learn what is solid or not. If you really love the game to pieces and feel your conscience demands it, buy another copy and pay the developer what they really deserve in your opinion (or whatever they're asking at X site.)

[Tupin]

I don't know how you define 'fun'. But most well reviewed indie games are fun. Or at least invoke some kind of engaging emotion. Which is the very nature of games.

I thought games were supposed to be entertaining as their primary goal. They're not movies. If their main goal was anything other than entertainment, they wouldn't be called GAMES.

If I want a visual novel, I'll read a visual novel. Doesn't mean that they're actually games.

[The Adventurer]

I thought games were supposed to be entertaining as their primary goal. They're not movies. If their main goal was anything other than entertainment, they wouldn't be called GAMES.

If I want a visual novel, I'll read a visual novel. Doesn't mean that they're actually games.

Your definition of 'entertainment' must be pretty narrow if can't imagine someone finding some form of entertainment from a game like Gone Home. Some games derive entertainment from being a white knuckle thrill ride, some through reflexive puzzle solving, others through careful application of stratagy, but some are entertaining simply because they present a mystery and your desire to unravel it pulls you onward. Maybe it's my lifelong love of adventure games that makes this much easier for me to grasp. Story-first video games are not an alien concept to me.


And you're right, video games are not movies. There is no experience in any game I listed that could have gotten from a passively viewed film. Also your statement suggests that only movies are allowed to tell complex character driven dramatic stories or abstract metaphor laiden narratives that delve into human physiology. Every entertainment medium can do that. Prose, comics, film, poetry, and yes... Even video games. Because it take all kinds of types to make a medium.

[Tupin]

And in my experience, the people who try to do it in video games are very ham-fisted and childish in their attempts. Maybe it's because gaming is still a relatively young medium.

People trying explicitly to make art usually end up making it, but not in the way that they intended. Every game is art if you consider it merely representative of the artist who made it. In other forms it is much more debatable, especially if it tries to make a statement.

[sfchakan]

I loathe ham-fisted results and I think that's what some people were complaining about.

[The Adventurer]

Every game is art if you consider it merely representative of the artist who made it.

Yes. All games are (some form of) Art. I'm glad we can agree on that.

And all artistic works are a representation of the artist, that's the whole point.

[Tupin]

Yes. All games are (some form of) Art. I'm glad we can agree on that.

And all artistic works are a representation of the artist, that's the whole point.

Thing is, if an artist sets out to make a statement with their work and completely fails, it becomes solely a representation of the artist. Because their statement that was made was poor.

So for example: while Gone Home is art in that it is interesting to assume the factors that were put into its creation, why it was made how and when it was, and why the intention was what it was intended to be, it is not art in that it actually makes any deep sociological statement, its primary intention. Because it does not. What can be said of art that fails at the intention that it sets out to do? A lot. But none of it is usually kind to the artist as people can see past the veneer that the artist wants us to look at rather easily.

[Az]

Yes, popular and highly praised for a reason. This isn't the AAA market where an ancient franchise name and a flashy ad campaign will net you a million sales. These games have to stand on their own merits.

I don't think the case of shit games selling like gangbusters back in the late 80's to 90's is the same as today (although I'm happy to be proven wrong).

While there's lots of games that sell huge that people may not personally like they're not bad games objectively. The last yearly update to Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, Madden, et cetera may be something loathed by personal tastes but in no way can you say they are poor representatives of their genres. I'd sooner eat a platter of shit than play the latest EA sports titles but I won't take up the mantle that they're poorly programmed sports games. Hell, you even have companies that release critically acclaimed games that sell rather well but because they haven't sold 590 million copies they deem it a failure.

I guess what I'm asking is this: in past generation console space (360/PS3) what are some games that were huge commercial success due solely to their name/license/ad campaign yet were critical failures?

[Manhattan Sports Club]

I must mention in response to the idea that indies cater to intelligent, passionate people and not greedy corporations: a lot of 'indies' try to take advantage of posers who think they have some expertise on classic gaming but were and always have been casual gamers. Apparently, they think software labeled 'retro' justifies cheap, copycat design. We don't need another Rogue, Space Invaders, or Pac-Man clone. And don't even get me started about all the Flappy Bird clones that litter the Android/Google Play stores. They should be ashamed of that.

[Tupin]

And let me just say: for how often these people complain about Nintendo rehashing the same franchise/idea year in and year out, for as much as they complain how bad they are to indies, they sure love making games that are basically modern "homages" to Nintendo games.

There's a really deep strain of dislike for Japanese developers among American indies for some reason, something that I've seen responded to several times by both the everyday Japanese gamer as well as a developer. Apparently gamers in Japan see big American expos like PAX as "let's all beat up Japan" conventions. Kamiya is (in)famous for his replies to Westerners about his games, (thought Wonderful 101 just wasn't good IMO) and expresses the opinion of many.

[Manhattan Sports Club]

Honestly, indie and individualism in general are more pronounced in western cultures than Japanese or Asian ones. Japan may be considered more individualist than say, Korea, but it is still more collectivist than the West. Most indie games come from the West, and Cave Story, for instance, was--despite being very influential--an exception and not the rule. So there is some respect to be given to western developers. But in reality, both were doing 'indie' on home computers back in the 80's and 90's long before it became a trend, while at the same time not being infested with this hipster art-douche mindset. Back then (and pardon the antiquated language) games simply meant 'gaiety'. Trust me: I am a very artistic person myself, but as much as I love games, they mean something different to me than what most elitists are trying to make them.

Also, Phil Phish looks like Frank Cifaldi (or Phrank Ciphaldi in this case). However, if I had to choose between the two, I'd go with Cifaldi. Much less of an asshole, at least from what I know of, anyway.

[kupomogli]

Yes, popular and highly praised for a reason. This isn't the AAA market where an ancient franchise name and a flashy ad campaign will net you a million sales. These games have to stand on their own merits. These games are popular and loved for a REASON. Because they are good. Nothing more and nothing less. the ones that aren't popular, aren't very good. So why should I, or anyone else, care about them?


If you want to get angry at a sector of gaming, get pissed about the piles and piles of soulless 'Pay to Win' shovelware choking out everything actually worth a damn. That will probably bring about a gaming recession in the next 5 to 10 years.

Most highly praised indie games that get a 70+ gain that 70+ because they're cheap games. If these same games cost $60, they'd get slammed harder than [insert your mom joke here.] That right there is your REASON. How's this for an example? Hotline Miami is a decent game, but the game is only a few hours long. Compare it to Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes, as it was a short game that on average was two hours long, but it apparently also had a lot of side content as well. Both games are short, similar in length, but while Hotline Miami gets highly praised, Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes gets shit all over. You can spin it however you want, but there's no denying that the cost of Hotline Miami is a major factor in how it scores so well in peoples eyes.

Even if we were to say 100 indie games were among the quality of the best console games, which that's a long stretch, and they deserve them on their own merits, not because they're cheap, another very long stretch of the truth, then we should be apologetic about all indies because there's 100 good games out of 100,000+ are decent? Not by a long shot. The 100 good games are the exception, not the rule.

*edit*

Because of that, I stand by my statement that indie games are shit. There's the rare good one, and that's fine. I'll praise that game. I'll generalize by saying indies suck, not that they're good, because most indies do infact suck.

[The Adventurer]

Yes, if a 3-10 hour indie game cost $60, instead of $10-20, it would reflect in criticle analysis. The same way if a $60 game would be if it too was being priced at 300-600% of its commonly accepted retail price.

Your argument is ludicrous. Try again.

Edit: and Ground Zeroes was a $30 retail game. It's price, mostly, reflecting its length. And it was hardly 'shit all over'. That was just some general disappointment at release. Afterwords most people dug the game. A lot.

Edit2: and Ground Zeroes kind of proves my point, as its a tad over priced for its content. And early reviews and experiences being negative reflected that. Any game, if it's priced higher then it's content's worth, is going to draw some negative heat from consumers. That's a massive 'duh'.

[Gameguy]

Yes. All games are (some form of) Art. I'm glad we can agree on that.

While games can be art, that doesn't automatically make all games art. It's like saying Troll 2 is art because it's a movie.

Also, this is pure ignorance. Anyone who knows anything about art assets in video games knows 2D sprites (and especially stylistically lower res looking sprites) are harder to work with then Polygons. Once you have a 3D model you can put it at any angle you want and scipt its rigging to give you your movement cycles. With a sprites, you have to draw every angle, and every movement from scratch. PS. If you played FEZ for any period of time, you'd know it does actually use 3D models for all world geometry. Its viewing angle just makes everything look 2D. You know... since that's the premise behind all its gameplay.

So Fez is lazy after all?

I've played a ton of indie games, and I can't think of one that was actually bad.

Battleblock Theater
Cave Story
FEZ
Guacamelee!
LIMBO
Mark of the Ninja
Rouge Legacy
Shovel Knight
Splunky
Super Meat Boy
They Bleed Pixels
Volgarr the Viking
Gemini Rue
Gone Home
Machinarium
Primordia
To the Moon
Awesomenaughts
Skullgirls
League of Legends
Bastion
Cthulhu Saves the World
Legend of Grimrock
Shadowrun Returns
FTL: Faster the Light
Papers, Please
World of Goo

All legit radical.

Of the ones from your list I've played Machinarium. It's not bad, but there are flaws with it. It is pretty short(which is a weakness), but what I noticed is that it's run in Flash. If you accidentally right click while playing, up pops a Flash menu like right clicking on a Flash cartoon in a web browser. It completely disrupted any immersion I had going with the game.

[Tupin]

On that list, only Papers, Please is something that is a truly original idea. That game was actually pretty cool.

[The Adventurer]

It's not bad, but there are flaws with it. It is pretty short(which is a weakness),

Short is not a weakness. Portal is a very short game, and its one of the greatest of all time. Length is just as important to determining if a game is good or not. Padding for length is inherently bad (see: Grinding in most RPGs). A game that knows not to out stay its welcome is often a relief. I was playing the new STRIDER game recently, and I love it to death. But around hour 10 I started to realize it was just running too damn long. I was doing the same things over and over again and it just wasn't as fun as it was in the first 5 hours. It felt like it had one door key power-up too many and overstayed its welcome.


That isn't to say long games are inherently bad (He said, 60 odd hours into Dark Souls.) But its a rare (non-multiplayer based) game that can go on for ages and still hold your attention.

Of the ones from your list I've played Machinarium. It's not bad, but there are flaws with it. It is pretty short(which is a weakness), but what I noticed is that it's run in Flash. If you accidentally right click while playing, up pops a Flash menu like right clicking on a Flash cartoon in a web browser. It completely disrupted any immersion I had going with the game.

Based solely on your avatar you may also enjoy; Gemini Rue and Primordia.

And I'll agree with the Right Click thing in Machinarium being a little distracting. But after the first time, I just stopped right clicking.

[Gameguy]

Short is not a weakness. Portal is a very short game, and its one of the greatest of all time. Length is just as important to determining if a game is good or not. Padding for length is inherently bad (see: Grinding in most RPGs). A game that knows not to out stay its welcome is often a relief. I was playing the new STRIDER game recently, and I love it to death. But around hour 10 I started to realize it was just running too damn long. I was doing the same things over and over again and it just wasn't as fun as it was in the first 5 hours. It felt like it had one door key power-up too many and overstayed its welcome.

It depends on the type of game. Pong is as short as you can get and it's plenty fun. With story based games like adventure games, there needs to be enough of a story there that it feels complete. The difference between a novel and a pop-up book. The LucasArts games are usually around 8-10 hours long give or take and they feel the right length. Something 2-4 hours long just feels too short for a story based game, they usually feel rushed.

Based solely on your avatar you may also enjoy; Gemini Rue and Primordia.

I'll get around to them eventually. I did play Resonance from the same developer, it was alright but again it felt a bit short and slightly lacking in some other areas(spoiler: the most likable playable character gets killed halfway through the game, a real buzzkill). It was good, just not among the best I've played.