Pretentious indie games- worst of the worst?

[Daria]

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]

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

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]

Dear Esther.


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

[LaughingMAN.S9]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/gam...rt=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]

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]

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]

Retracted

[Daria]

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/gam...rt=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]

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]

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]

You only have to read some of their reviews 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, awarding it only 3/10. Odd, their review of the Xbox One game was drastically different and didn't penalize the game for "questionable" content, giving it a 7/10.

[Tupin]

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

[sfchakan]

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

[kupomogli]

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]

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]

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.