Pretentious indie games- worst of the worst? [Archive]

Tupin

10-18-2014, 12:00 AM

Come on, we all know about these. Games that are bad even if you put aside their creators and hatedoms. I still think the biggest gaming-related mistake I have ever made was buying Gone Home.

Most immature, pretentious, unfun, preachy, anti-game "game" with a script that would be laughed out of any writer's room even in Hollywood that I have possibly played. Its winning of awards just proved that gaming "journalism" is a joke and that people are desperate for their hobby to be art in the same way that movies are.

And I swear, half of these games are "retro" simply because these developers don't want to try to make something in 3D. Fez is another example of one of these indie games that I couldn't stand.

Is the industry really becoming nothing but Molyneux-esque hodgepodges of "games" that are just a glorified visual novel or Mountain Dewrito fueled AAA brown shooters? You either deal with egotists telling you that you're a shitty person or faceless corporations getting away with always-online or on-disc DLC. Every once in a while a game comes out that actually is worth the full price, but most of the time I'd rather wait until a price drop.

Tanooki

10-18-2014, 12:48 AM

Tupin

10-18-2014, 01:03 AM

You're probably onto something, and good job calling out Fez. I got that one free with PS+ and man I'd have been pissed if I paid the $10 or whatever it went for when it was new. At first it seems ok, but as you go more than 30min or so into it, it's just very disjointed, the map is a hot mess, and it just gets fairly boring exploring it yet people spooge all over its greatness and I just don't see it.
"Suck my dick and choke on it"- Phil Fish, creator of Fez

Nothing of value was lost by its sequel being canceled. All of these one-hit wonders suddenly acting like they can tell their customers what they want is disgusting.

If nothing in actuality comes from all of this industry BS currently going on, and gaming five years from now is nothing but those two extremes I mentioned, we can't say we didn't try and say we wanted something different.

The Adventurer

10-18-2014, 01:22 AM

This thread is super pretentious. Stick your nose up higher.

Tupin

10-18-2014, 01:36 AM

This thread is super pretentious. Stick your nose up higher.
You just don't get what I'm trying to do with it. I don't want you reading my thread, you shitlord misogynistic manchild. Check your privilege, you neckbearded fedora wearer.

(Joking in case you can't tell)

Gameguy

10-18-2014, 01:58 AM

The difference between indie and homebrew. Slapping together a game and charging money for it when it's the same quality as other games released for free. Besides a few exceptions, most indie games feel this way.

Manhattan Sports Club

10-18-2014, 02:05 AM

I can understand your complaints. My most hated are the so-called 'art games' and 'politi-games'. People will use subjectivism to tell you that you can't claim games are not art or deserve to be taken seriously. Considering the mechanics of games have been used in therapeutic scientific simulations, there is some truth to it having some merit outside of entertainment. However, in terms of games as a competitive avenue, I do not care for story-driven cinematic stuff. I don't mind pulp-level stories at all, but I don't play the games for that specifically. I generally avoid the cut scene-fueled games of today. I also don't care for the surrealist/dada or postmodern aesthetic which is overused by art elitists. It cheats by not trying in any regard to establish an objective or interpretable meaning and could send the observer on a wild goose chase, looking for some kind of message behind it when it could just as easily been random garbage thrown together. This is often observed in the very pretentious so-called 'literary fiction' genre. I used to dabble in that kind of writing years ago but quit when I realized how tedious it was. Obscure trash like Tenderenda the Fantast and The Eater of Darkness were dropped once I got around to reading Animal Farm. Because of the hipster culture, the ideologies of these works are infiltrating indie games. I have no control over it or ability to predict how it could influence someone in a positive way. I simply choose not to play them and move on.

The Adventurer

10-18-2014, 07:52 AM

If you don't care for art games. Don't buy them. Thread over. The end.

The existence of these games does not preclude the existence of others. If these games were not made, you would not get different games to fill the void. Just less games. Which would be terrible.

And I swear, half of these games are "retro" simply because these developers don't want to try to make something in 3D. Fez is another example of one of these indie games that I couldn't stand.

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.

Tupin

10-18-2014, 03:35 PM

I was mentioning Fez as an aside. I was talking more that "indie retro inspired platformer" is now about as unique and "artistic" as any AAA brown military FPS.

Indies have hit a wall and hit it hard.

old_skoolin_jim

10-18-2014, 04:01 PM

Tupin

10-18-2014, 04:15 PM

I definitely disagree with OP over Gone Home's merits. I love a story-driven game, and even though some have boiled it down to a "walking simulator", labeling it as such is just too simplistic. It excels at creating an atmosphere, and you can really get a sense of each family member's personality and internal/external struggles and triumphs if you nose around the house and take stock of your surroundings. While it's certainly not everyone's cup of tea, I loved the 4 or 5 hours I spent with it.

While there have always been a wealth of uninspired 2d platformers, there are also a ton of great, newer ones. Have you checked out Battleblock Theater? Freedom Planet? Dust? VVVVVV? Mercenary Kings? I don't think any of those would call themselves "art games", but they all have a great aesthetic and solid gameplay. I'd go out on a limb and say as long as people are making 2d platformers, there's going to be at least 10 generic and/or dull ones to every great one. It's simply been that way since the 8-bit days.
It did not deserve the praise it got. The story, while clearly trying to be serious and like something Hollywood would make, would probably be laughed out of any writing room in Hollywood. It was juvenile and one level above fanfiction. It's the epitome of the immature gaming industry trying desperately to justify themselves to the believers in traditional mediums. The fact that it won so many awards only proves the people who are talking about how out-of-touch games "journalists" are right and shows the very people they wish to impress how unprepared for the "big leagues" that they are.

The fact that American indies are usually corrupt and egotistical as all hell does not help the genre. That they think of their audience as a bunch of misogynistic manchildren that are worse than ISIS and Ebola combined hurts them even more. Why the hell would I give people who hate me money? If anything, this just made me want to look for more Japanese indies, thanks for the Freedom Planet recommendation.

Thanks for the suggestions, though.

josekortez

10-18-2014, 05:30 PM

I would say Towerfall if I had to pick one. I read an article in Edge, which is a British games magazine, that said that the creator, Matt Thorson, would have never launched on Ouya had he known that exclusivity would have killed the games' sales, but at $14.99, the game was the most expensive Ouya game on the store for nearly a year, rivaled only by Final Fantasy III, which regularly for $15.99. I recently bought it at $9.99 when it was on sale since I had some leftover Ouya credit on the store, but I don't see what the hype is all about. I have a few freemium games on the system such as Busted and Knightmare Tower that I have enjoyed a heck of a lot more than Towerfall without even buying any of the DLC. Also, he had to have known that he wasn't going to get rich overnight on a brand new system that had a relatively small install base. I would venture to say that he probably hasn't done that much better on PS4 with Ascension since that one was a free PS Plus game a couple of months ago.

kupomogli

10-18-2014, 06:09 PM

99.9% of all indie games I've played aren't very good. There are a few great ones, but very very few. The reason I feel people praise these games are that they're cheap so people are apologetic about their overall quality. Whether a game is $15 or $60 shouldn't change your guidelines on how you rate it, but that's not how it seems to work. It seems that if a game launches at $15, people rate it better than a $60 game because it's cheaper.

I'm not saying all indie games suck as there are some definite good ones, but the majority of them, including the super popular ones, range from shit to meh.

Tupin

10-18-2014, 06:18 PM

The Adventurer

10-18-2014, 06:54 PM

Manhattan Sports Club

10-18-2014, 07:01 PM

The Adventurer

10-18-2014, 07:18 PM

In addition, would you consider Pier Solar to be 'indie'?

That's really the question, isn't it? Valve and Riot make money hand over fist. But they self-publish. And are privately owned. So I concider them 'independent'. Especially of the corporate structure of the big publishers.

Tupin

10-18-2014, 07:18 PM

Fez, Super Meat Boy, and Gone Home are the most famous/infamous indie games and that is depressing.

The Adventurer

10-18-2014, 07:24 PM

Fez, Super Meat Boy, and Gone Home are the most famous/infamous indie games and that is depressing.

That's hugely debatable (Braid, Cave Story, and Limbo definitely are huge. Oh, and Minecraft of course)

And they are only 'famous' amount people who care about video games.

And it's not depressing. It's up lifting that our hobby gives us such varity of experiences.

kupomogli

10-18-2014, 07:33 PM

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.

You know how many indie games there are? Yet you listed many of the most popular highly praised ones? From your list though, Super Meat Boy isn't very good. Cheap level designs built around mass repetition. Legend of Grimrock is unique, but after the first 30 minutes it gets really old really quick. Combat turns very repetitive while the map turns into a whole bunch of trial and error the further you get into the game.

I did like Fez, Cthulu Saves the World, Spelunky(which is based on Spelunker anyways,) and Cave Story.

If you liked Cthulu Saves the World play Breath of Death 7. You may or may not like it, or like it as much. It's basically a much shorter version of Cthulu Saves the World since it predates the game. It's about three to four hours long with four characters only. I liked Cthulu Saves the World, but I didn't like it as much as I probably would have since I played Breath of Death 7 first and gameplay is pretty much identical.

Also, if you like rogue likes, then another good indie game to play is One Way Heroics. Each world is preset, but the worlds themselves are a series of randomized maps. It's a rogue like game where the only way you can save the world is to defeat the demon lord. You start at the castle and darkness comes from the left, so you have to use the number keys to advance to the right("One Way,") killing enemies and gaining experience, picking up weapons, armor, and items, etc. The game feels different from most rogue likes as it feels you're playing through a full RPG in a short amount of time since there are mini towns and mini dungeons you come across as you progress. You can get extra party members to come along with you depending if they're on the map you're on and you have enough charisma when you find them. You can also customize your character prior to starting each world with a myriad of classes and special abilities. Each time you win or lose, you gain points to purchase new classes and purchase new abilities. You can complete the game in less than an hour on the normal difficulty if you're good at roguelikes(I finished in about 30 minutes after I got how to play the game,) but the amount of content it does have a lot of replay value and it's a unique experience compared to literally any other rogue like you've probably played. While I finished it in 30 minutes, I put 10 hours into it before I quit playing. I'll eventually go back to it, just haven't.

The Adventurer

10-18-2014, 09:09 PM

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

10-18-2014, 09:22 PM

The Adventurer

10-18-2014, 09:24 PM

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

10-18-2014, 09:36 PM

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.) :D

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

10-18-2014, 09:50 PM

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

10-18-2014, 11:22 PM

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

10-18-2014, 11:29 PM

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

10-18-2014, 11:53 PM

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

The Adventurer

10-19-2014, 01:08 AM

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

10-19-2014, 01:29 AM

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.

10-19-2014, 03:12 AM

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

10-19-2014, 03:21 AM

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

10-19-2014, 03:30 AM

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

10-19-2014, 04:01 AM

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

10-19-2014, 07:26 PM

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

10-19-2014, 07:41 PM

Gameguy

10-20-2014, 12:19 AM

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

10-20-2014, 12:37 AM

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

The Adventurer

10-20-2014, 12:55 AM

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

10-20-2014, 01:41 AM

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.

Daria

10-20-2014, 05:00 PM

Oh god. Someone brought up Troll 2. *shudders*

Anyway this is sort of a silly thread. Some indie games are serious and preachy. Some indie games are whimsical. Some are boring as shit while others are a ton of fun. They're made by people of all walks of life who all enjoy different things and have (somewhat) unique concepts of what a game should be. I don't think it's fair to lump them all together and declare that indie games are any one definitive thing.

I like indie games because they're accessible, generally so cheap that if I buy one and am disappointed it doesn't really matter. It's not like getting burned on a $60 purchase. They're also someone's baby, and I find that admirable. Big studio games are too often a product coldly calculated to produce the best returns possible. They're designed by programmers and artists getting paid a 9 to 5 with probably about as much passion as anyone else gives their day job. In contrast indie games are generally a labor of love. Projects people work on in their free time, sometimes people love their babies so much they quit their jobs and invest everything they're got into them. It's romantically charming. Indie games also have the freedom to break away from industry conventions, the AAA games with their bloated budgets can't afford to take risks anymore. So in steps the little guy to try something controversial and legitimately new. If there's any real innovation in gaming left to developed this is the avenue it's going to take.

Tanooki

10-20-2014, 06:31 PM

Well at least it wasn't Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. :D

The thing is with indie games as daria said, they're varied. You get stuff from people who just love games, maybe they miss the style of the 80s and 90s, and you end up with something like Shovel Knight or Mighty 09 next year. You get others who are made by self important pretentious assholes like Fish who make somewhat confusing art statements and weird designs, then get butthurt when questioned about anything what so ever, and you can feel the difference in those games if you know who that troll is or not. You also get total art pieces, look up what somehow qualifies as a game 'MOUNTAIN' and see what that one does. Then there's a lot of just garage level stuff where people are learning aspects of game design and it's a crap shoot. Perhaps they're good at art and audio, laid down some decent controls, but they have zero clue how to balance difficulty, or stage design, or objectives and it makes the game anywhere from annoying as hell to an impossibly hard pain in the ass to play, or it's just a cheap hot mess they try and cover up pitching it as a 'challenge' game when it just fairly well sucks. You can't really clump the whole mess of indie games into the pretentious asshole category as it's not fair, some of it is just genius and you wonder why these guys didn't have a legit game job ever before. Look at Cave Story, stunning, and it wasn't until years later when it got picked up for virtual console, 3DS remake, etc because it's just that damn good.

LaughingMAN.S9

10-21-2014, 07:51 PM

Dear Esther.

I actually liked this but couldn't even tell you why, is this even a game???

LaughingMAN.S9

10-21-2014, 08:20 PM

Whether a game is $15 or $60 shouldn't change your guidelines on how you rate it, but that's not how it seems to work.

On the contrary, that's exactly how it SHOULD work. The disparity between spending 10 to 15 dollars and 60 dollars is a big one, especially in this economy. Is it unreasonable to expect more for your dollar from a triple A big budget title made by hundreds of people around the world and a marketing budget rivaling most smaller countries entire gdp than from some smaller indie title made by one guy in his basement and word of mouth being his only marketing? I say no

I don't buy a used Honda Civic and expect it to give me the same experience as driving a Ferrari down the autobahn therefore I don't compare them. It's a question of expectations, at $15 dollars my threshold for fun is significantly lowered and I can achieve being entertained easier because I'm not expecting much but at full retail 60 this game better have Hollywood voice actors, 29x anti aliasing, dynamic lighting from the future, sub surface scattering adaptive tesselation 790 frames per second come with a sandwich for pre ordering and suck my dick. I want to see the pores opening up on my protagonist face in real time when he emerges into the sunlight from his post apocalyptic nuclear bunker because that's what other games in that price range are offering.

Tldr: I rented duke nukem and genuinely had fun with it, only cost me around 6 bucks which is more or less what it was worth in my eyes, if I had paid full retail for that game I would have thought it was the biggest piece of shit i ever played. The price you pay should and does affect how fun you will find a game

The Adventurer

10-21-2014, 08:28 PM

Dear Esther.

I actually liked this but couldn't even tell you why, is this even a game???

Yes. Because you have agency. Its not a passive experience.

kupomogli

10-21-2014, 09:51 PM

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'.

You reiterated my point. Indie games are overrated as hell because they're seen as cheap games and that's not how it should work. A game should be based entirely on its quality compared to other games, not given a free pass because it's developed by a small group of people working a few months throwing a game together at home.

And I never said Ground Zeroes cost $60, I only referenced it. It was a retail game that was bashed simply because its length, while indie games get a free pass because they're indie, because they're seen as cheaply developed games. Why the double standard?

Maybe the ludicrous people are the ones who give indie games a free pass and rate them higher because they cost cheaper. I'd rather play a $60 6/10 than a $5 5/10 game. Paying less doesn't increase the quality, it just costs less. If I wanted to wait for that $60 game to drop in price I could do that.

LaughingMAN.S9

10-21-2014, 10:58 PM

You reiterated my point. Indie games are overrated as hell because they're seen as cheap games and that's not how it should work. A game should be based entirely on its quality compared to other games, not given a free pass because it's developed by a small group of people working a few months throwing a game together at home.

And I never said Ground Zeroes cost $60, I only referenced it. It was a retail game that was bashed simply because its length, while indie games get a free pass because they're indie, because they're seen as cheaply developed games. Why the double standard?

Maybe the ludicrous people are the ones who give indie games a free pass and rate them higher because they cost cheaper. I'd rather play a $60 6/10 than a $5 5/10 game. Paying less doesn't increase the quality, it just costs less. If I wanted to wait for that $60 game to drop in price I could do that.

But that's a false equivalence, by your metric every game that isn't uncharted 2 is a piece of shit.

Indies are fairly rated within the lane they're in, if I took hotline miami and held it up against halo 27 or whatever number they're up to now, hotline Miami wouldn't even be considered, who the fuck would pay 60 for a game that looks and plays like that when you factor in what 60 dollars gets you today?

Again taking my car analogy from before, comparing a million dollar Bugatti should be exactly the same as comparing it to a ford model T because they're both cars and should only be judged by that fact and ignoring everything else. Should burgers not exist because ribeyes and porterhouses exist?

No one is giving indie games a free pass, they're being fairly judged against other games within the same price range, in that regard it's the very definition of fair.

kupomogli

10-22-2014, 08:44 AM

No one is giving indie games a free pass, they're being fairly judged against other games within the same price range, in that regard it's the very definition of fair.

Based on publications, they're being judged against all games, not just indies. So Hotline Miami is as good as than Dragon Age Origins, Rayman Origins, Wipeout HD, GTA4 Ballad of Gay Tony, and Bayonetta, better than Valkyria Chronicles, Dark Souls 2, Final Fantasy 10/10-2 Remaster, Lords of Shadow, DmC Devil May Cry, and a myriad of other games that it's not really better than but it is.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/ps3?sort=desc&page=1

Whether it's a publication, a store like Amazon, or Steam, it doesn't differentiate indie games. A lot of people are blind sheep that take reviewers word for good games and have no opinion of their own. I'm sure a lot of them filter the best scored games and make their purchasing decisions on those.

Tupin

10-22-2014, 01:10 PM

Yeah, judging games based on what critics like isn't such a good idea. Especially considering how closely both indies and AAA devs are with "journalists" these days.

Another crash would probably fix it. And it might happen, video game sales in general declined last year.

Arkanoid_Katamari

10-23-2014, 03:18 AM

I kinda like the indie games. I haven't played too many, mainly just the ones my roommate has recommended to me, he's really into them, and I'm more into playing my NES games and stuff.

I've only played a few, I played Fez and didn't get too far, I thought it was real good. Super Meat Boy was cool, but hard as nails and I just reached a level I don't ever see passing in this century.

I did finish Ilomilo, which is a Microsoft exclusive, a little puzzle game where u move blocks and stuff, and it was real fun. Pretty short, I'd feel cheated if I spent $60 on it, but I enjoyed it.

I like the artsy games, personally. And they're not limited to just indie games, what about Catherine and El Shaddai and Shadow of the Colossus? Those were pretty artsy games and they're very good. They're different, unique, and I'm an artist myself so that kinda stuff sort of appeals to me. I also smoke and listen to Sonic Youth so maybe I'm a hipster, idk. I dd beat GTA 5 tho, so that should un-hipster me. And did play a lot of online Halo. I like all kindsa games.

The retro-style games are alright, but retro-just-to-be-retro, imo, isn't really my thing it feels too obvious, like they're trying too hard.

I did recently try Guacamelee and best buy, and that was awesome. The graphics remind me of Rayman Legends, they're an original looking style, none of that retro pretentiousness, just fun, wacky platforming. I'll prolly buy it at some point cuz its great.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions tho, so i respect those who don't like it.

Richter Belmount

10-23-2014, 05:02 PM

Retracted

Daria

10-23-2014, 05:07 PM

Based on publications, they're being judged against all games, not just indies. So Hotline Miami is as good as than Dragon Age Origins, Rayman Origins, Wipeout HD, GTA4 Ballad of Gay Tony, and Bayonetta, better than Valkyria Chronicles, Dark Souls 2, Final Fantasy 10/10-2 Remaster, Lords of Shadow, DmC Devil May Cry, and a myriad of other games that it's not really better than but it is.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/ps3?sort=desc&page=1

Whether it's a publication, a store like Amazon, or Steam, it doesn't differentiate indie games. A lot of people are blind sheep that take reviewers word for good games and have no opinion of their own. I'm sure a lot of them filter the best scored games and make their purchasing decisions on those.

Wow. Someone takes meta critic way too literally.

Richter Belmount

10-23-2014, 05:08 PM

Yeah dont read Polygon kupo theyll have you believe Bayonetta 2 is only a 75 out of 100 , when practically every other site gave it a near perfect score.

Tupin

10-23-2014, 05:10 PM

Yeah dont read Polygon kupo theyll have you believe bayonetta 2 is only a 75 out of 100 , when practically every other site gave it a near perfect score.
It doesn't matter number-wise, but given the political slant that Polygon had with that game...

sfchakan

10-23-2014, 08:52 PM

You only have to read some (http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/13/6957677/bayonetta-2-review-wii-u) of their reviews (http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/4/5720864/tropico-5-review-wasted-away-again) to see the issue.

Personally, I think they should be dropped from Metacritic so that developer's bonuses are not affected by Polygon's politics.

Unfortunately, they aren't the only outlet that stands by bullshit being printed. GameSpot printed a review for the PC port of Dead Rising 3 that was politically loaded (http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/dead-rising-3-apocalypse-edition-review/1900-6415861/), awarding it only 3/10. Odd, their review of the Xbox One game (http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/dead-rising-3-review/1900-6415558/) was drastically different and didn't penalize the game for "questionable" content, giving it a 7/10.

Tupin

10-23-2014, 09:15 PM

Point is that you don't trust review sites, simple as that.

sfchakan

10-23-2014, 09:19 PM

Well, you have to question all sources equally. There's backroom deals going on with YouTube channels and all sorts of things.

kupomogli

10-23-2014, 10:19 PM

Off topic talking about journalists and not indies, but Polygon is one of many biased journalistsic websites. In my opinion, journalists have no integrity and are the most biased gamers. They don't review scores based on the games themselves, they review games based on popular opinion of a game before it comes out. Based on some private conversations we know journalists have been having on what news to allow the public to see etc, and how we've seen too many great video games get low scores and too many poor ones get high scores, I think most of the major publications are working together to all give similar opinions on games that are released.

Here are a some examples. Final Fantasy 13 had high reviews from just about every publication yet the majority of the fanbase despised the game. It's a shit game, so of course even the most doubt fans of the series is going to hate on it.

Monster Hunter 1 and 2 on the PS2 scored pretty low. The series didn't start scoring high until Monster Hunter Freedom Unite, which was actually around the time those of us outside of Japan were aware of how big the game has become in Japan. The first and second games are almost identical in gameplay and design, so how can the average increase by 2/10? Public opinion. The public opinion was high, so they based their score on that.

Lords of Shadow 2 was a game that actually had a low public opinion what with you controlling Dracula and the idea of playing the game in a modern city. The game was bashed all to hell, sitting in the 50s in Metacritic for the first few weeks after it launched. Every reviewer had paragraphs of "stealth ruining the game blah blah blah" when stealth is strung across the game but they're all minor sections in the game and very simple except for two sections. Definitely not enough to post about it in half the review. This is a game that has high praise among the fans. The biggest issue imo is how strong the auto targetting is, and the fact that there's no way to override it by holding a direction, something that you probably won't find in any of their reviews.

Another thing with journalists is that if a game is legitimately difficult, they'll bitch and moan about how they suck balls at video games, unless of course it's advertised as a hard game. Dark Souls and Demon's Souls are great games don't get me wrong, but they were advertised as hard games. That you will die, die, and die again. Imo, journalists take this advertising as. "It's not just us who sucks ass, everyone is going to die constantly." So they praise it, the reason a game like Super Meat Boy(garbage,) gets such high praise. God Hand came out before devs were accepting of high difficulty. It was also released as a budget title, launching at $30. If this game was reviewed today and advertised as difficult, it'd get glowing reviews because it's an amazing game, but back then it was trashed by a lot of journalists.

Journalists for the most part are untrustworthy pos gamers who manipulate a system that they've long had under their thumbs. They're a bane to the industry and the reason that the worst games are always getting the most amount of hype while a lot of the best games are getting swept under the rug and only known to us the super hardcore gaming fanbase. I think I should copyright that. Super hardcore gamer. Nerd but less hateful(you don't see other fanbases being called nerds for being really hardcore fans at what they like.)

Gameguy

10-24-2014, 12:07 AM

Especially considering how closely both indies and AAA devs are with "journalists" these days.
You mean with the orgy sex parties? Or just the Google Group where all the journalists get together and discuss what games they'll cover, what they'll ignore, and how they'll rate them?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/GameJournoPros

Tupin

10-24-2014, 12:22 AM

You mean with the orgy sex parties? Or just the Google Group where all the journalists get together and discuss what games they'll cover, what they'll ignore, and how they'll rate them?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/GameJournoPros
And it begins...

Figured that I'd mention that most American reviewers/sites have been historically unfairly hard on Japanese games and recently found another outlet in that they can say that they're bad socially. Even if, you know, they give an American game that goes FAR beyond skimpy clothing and breasts a score that doesn't even consider such things.

Also, Nintendo in particular is aware of how biased most Western sources are, hence Nintendo Directs and Treehouse Livestreams.

Gameguy

10-24-2014, 12:51 AM

How far back are you going for "historically unfairly hard" on Japanese games? As an example GamePro gave Final Fantasy III 5 out of 5 back in 1994, EGM gave it 9 out of 10. Everyone loved Nintendo from the 80's through the 90's. While there were North American divisions the best/better console manufacturers during the 90's were Japanese(Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Panasonic, NEC, SNK), the worst ones were non-Japanese(Philips, Atari). During that time the PC was the platform for American games to thrive on, the consoles were a mix and Japanese games were everywhere and usually well loved.

Tupin

10-24-2014, 01:09 AM

sfchakan

10-24-2014, 02:04 AM

We're really going off topic, but the debatable bias against Japanese developed games really started to appear in the last console generation to me (360/PS3). Modern Japanese games, in general, don't seem to fair well with certain crowds.

Tupin

10-24-2014, 02:34 AM

One of those crowds happens to be indie developers, despite all the contribution Japanese devs did to the "indie" label.

Think I've mentioned it before, but part of the disconnect between Japanese and Western devs is that the Japanese devs assume Americans are just going to call them a bunch of backward sexists or something similar instead of talking about the game itself. American conventions are multi day "talk about how terrible Japan is" festivals to them.

The Adventurer

10-24-2014, 07:44 AM

I don't know what you're talking about. Many indie titles draw heavily from Japanese video games. Everything from classic game elements to art direction to story structures.

You can't look at games like Bastion, Mark of the Ninja, Super Meat Boy, Skullgirls, Shantae Pirate's Curse, and even freaking Shovel Knight without seeing Japanese game inspiration coming out their ass.

And Japan actually has a pretty robust indie scene. Its just the language barrier keeps most of them in Japan. Stuff like Cave Story, Strike Suit Zero, and Liberation Maiden do make it here sometimes.

Also, I don't know where the idea that individuals don't matter in Japanese game development. When so many studios are based around individuals and their vision. Miyamoto, Inafune, Sakurai, Sakaguchi, Kojima, Igarashi, Suda 51... these are the names much of the video game industry are built around.

Tanooki

10-24-2014, 10:59 AM

Off topic talking about journalists and not indies, but Polygon is one of many biased journalistsic websites. In my opinion, journalists have no integrity and are the most biased gamers. They don't review scores based on the games themselves, they review games based on popular opinion of a game before it comes out. Based on some private conversations we know journalists have been having on what news to allow the public to see etc, and how we've seen too many great video games get low scores and too many poor ones get high scores, I think most of the major publications are working together to all give similar opinions on games that are released.

Well years ago I worked in the online video game review racket and it was corrupt even a decade ago as bad as it is now so it's nothing new. What you're complaining about there, what a lot of people bitch about there, I made a point to avoid. Sure my reviews ended up being a bit longer than others, but at least I'd get a slow stream of emails thanking for honesty and not spewing out the same crap others did so I know there's a market for it. I just did GBA/DS handheld reviews, but I'd never evaluate a game against another version or system and use that to +/- it as that's a childish cop out. I kind of ripped the old Nintendo Power scoring categories of gameplay, audio, visuals, play control and challenge and dig into those and I'd throw in replay value too. I never slammed immaturely a game, even if it was a turd, maybe a solitary joke (like on a tmnt game I'd joke using a fan reference over a bug that should have never been in there.) Teen Titans on GBA the final boss I pointed out was a buggy nightmare because the collision is broken and most times you fly through the guy taking a hit and not dishing out one. In converse if the game was really a 9 worthy outing I wouldn't verbally felate the developer of the game but I'd point out the strengths in those categories and we need more of that, objectivity and non-bought off or boosted scores. Eventually that style of mine kind of got less appreciated where I was and the reviews started to spread out and it's about time things got otherways dicey internally and I quit around 2006 I think it was.

I have no idea what polygon is other than a gaming review site, but I'm curious what you all are talking about with so called politics because I doubt I can just go to their site and read through a review and see why they're full of crap. I know what Gamespot is, anyone does after that Gerstmann blowup, surprises me they still get the readership they do being so slimy.

...now what's this deal on picking on Final Fantasy XIII? I thought it was great, not excellent but great. I didn't care it was linear and it was nice not having to piddle around towns too though I did miss that part of it a bit. I loved the areas, the combat system, and a/v package and the story. It just got crappy planet side because it has no sense of direction beyond the first few Cieth markers, and you're grossly underleveled for the next area to hit the next area so I've only gone that far. Castlevania LOD2 I remember getting screwed with but the first one was buggy and annoyed me enough I never finished it, yet I do love that 3DS game and it gets dumped on some stupidly -- it really just is NES CV3 with God of War button tap/combo mechanics for the whip and the 'orbs' to raise the HP/MP.

sfchakan

10-24-2014, 12:36 PM

I have no idea what polygon is other than a gaming review site, but I'm curious what you all are talking about with so called politics because I doubt I can just go to their site and read through a review and see why they're full of crap.

Read the two I posted and you'll see plenty of bullshit.

I have similar experiences from a little over a decade ago, Tanooki. Once you start "working" alongside some folks, you see plenty of shenanigans.

I read a post by Kevin Gifford a while ago that I thought summed it up pretty well over here (http://magweasel.com/2013/04/18/writing-about-games-not-making-money/).

Daria

10-24-2014, 04:02 PM

Yeah those "reviews" you linked to were terribly biased. They would have made great editorials though if polygon had just ditched the rating system. I think there's a place for that kind of gaming journalism, but certainly not as a rated review.

Tanooki

10-24-2014, 04:22 PM

Slanted garbage writing in gaming is fine for a tabloid type gaming article or for an opinion piece, but never for a legit review and that link a couple posts up below my last sadly pretty much hits it. There likely isnt a fix because the game makers can just screw the writers since they can do better with youtube and other free outlets reducing their user value to little. Its like when you see those IGN flashback stories re-reviewing a game months or a year later and that so called 10 is really a 6 or 7 with an apology attached.

Ackman

10-24-2014, 06:31 PM

Unpopular opinion time.

Passable:
Battleblock Theater (not as good as Castle Crashers)
Cave Story
Shovel Knight
Skullgirls (Just didn't grab me, I suppose I don't hate it but I definitely don't think it is worth the money it got funded I've had much more fun with Melty Blood and Akatski Blitzkamp (way superior games)

Absolute ****:

Braid (steaming pile of kak)
FEZ
LIMBO
Rouge Legacy
Splunky
Super Meat Boy
Volgarr the Viking (actually a decent game but the difficulty is so damn tedious)
Gone Home
Fist Puncher (looks like they spent a weekend making it)
8bit boy (feels like I'm playing a lobotomized 90s platformer)

And some other terrible ones I've purged from my memory the **** ratio is pretty high though.

I just can't stand it that pretentious **** like Braid gets praised over Ms Splosion Man, Mark of the Ninja, Kung Fu Strike or Samurai 2 Vengeance etc
Also I stongly dislike the we're retro so let's use graphics that are worse than the NES, not because of limitations but because they're too ******* lazy or cheap to put some actual effort into the game. Probably some ****** had to **** **** ***** to get favorable reviews on their **** stain of a game.

Tanooki

10-24-2014, 08:22 PM

It's not that bad of a list. I don't agree with Spelunky or Limbo, but the rest of them are pretty terrible and definitely not worth the overkill suckuppery (like Braid) gets. The passable list though I think is a bit harsh calling them only that. The design into those few games I have played on your small list (1/2 of them) are actually quite very good.

sfchakan

10-24-2014, 11:55 PM

Yeah, I'd be 100% okay if it was an op-ed and not those outlet's official reviews for those games.

Flojomojo

10-27-2014, 08:40 AM

I just tried Nidhogg (http://nidhogggame.com) for the first time on Vita and was immediately reminded of this thread. I think it's brilliant, it's like Bushido Blade on Atari 2600 on crack, but I'm sure some of you would find it a "pretentious indie game" and not worth your time or the good press it has received.

Guess what? That's just your opinion, and the Gamergate-like nastiness towards anything different is not how all of us feel.

Pretentious indie games are my absolute favorite genre, and in my opinion, this kind of game is the single best thing about Vita and PS4. Don't Starve, Fez, TxK, OlliOlli, Nidhogg, DokiDoki, Dustforce, Mutant Mudds, and many others ... are so much more interesting to me than Destiny and Batman Arkham part 4.

If you don't like them, you certainly don't have to buy them, but that's no reason to piss on the preferences of people with different opinions and tastes.