IGN: "INDIE" IS A FAKE GAMING CATEGORY!
- Thread starter Azaraxzealot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd rather play Minecraft then COD: Black Ops. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'll playing Minecraft long after the last 6 AAA games I bought are gathering dust somewhere.Trolldor said:
Indie games are games made by indie developers, which usually means teams of no more than 6 people, with 1 or 2 people doing a majority of the work.
However because of the reputation built up by indie games, experimental, low budget or particularly innovative games are been wrongly labelled "indie".
In response to OP; indie is certainly a valid category for games, a lot of people just don't understand what the category is.
However because of the reputation built up by indie games, experimental, low budget or particularly innovative games are been wrongly labelled "indie".
In response to OP; indie is certainly a valid category for games, a lot of people just don't understand what the category is.
I think the obsession with genre labels is plainly idiotic. I think people who waste their time trying to classify music, movies, or games into neat little categories are doing themselves and everyone else an enormous disservice. I think an editorial about semantics and proper designations is a fantasticly pointless endeavor very much in keeping with today's definition (irony...) of journalism, which basically amounts to "invent things to talk about so I can justify my unnecessary job".
Anyways, the "indie label" ship has fucking sailed. No one's stuffing that genie back in the bottle. The important thing is that we know what the fuck people are talking about when they say "indie", and I think the vast majority of informed gamers, in fact, do.
Anyways, the "indie label" ship has fucking sailed. No one's stuffing that genie back in the bottle. The important thing is that we know what the fuck people are talking about when they say "indie", and I think the vast majority of informed gamers, in fact, do.
So you have one game as an example, well done. Now name at least three others.Funkysandwich said:
Then on top of that, name four indie games for every game in your shelf that you'd rather play than that game.
Edit: Or, let's make it easier. For every Triple A game released in 2010, I want you to name just one indie game - a different game each time - that you'd rather play.
I'm a little split on this. Do I think games developed by independent deserve to be evaluated differently from AAA titles because of their lack of funds? To an extent yes, especially if they are priced lower. That being said, most of the indie games I've played are either as good or better then any mainstream counterparts they may have, and would stand up well being evaluated as such.
That all depends on the individual, IMPO. In any case, you can lay down a little cash for a little game, or a lot of cash for a big game. Or you can either pay as you go or save up. I think most people would agree with that reasoning.Trolldor said:
True, although I'll argue that lots of indie games have the same quality discounted AAA titles, with a plus or minus margin on either side.Bad Jim said:
*ahem*Trolldor said:
Uplink, AI War: Fleet Command, World of Goo, Anmesia: The Dark Decent, Aquaria, Aaaaa! A Reckless Disregard For Gravity, DEFCON, Braid, Mount & Blade: Warband, Audiosurf, Bit.Trip BEAT and Killing Floor. All of which I would far rather play than Call of Duty: Blops.
On topic: As the saying goes, you can't spell "ignorant" without "IGN". The nature of the internet means that if an "indie" game rises to popularity, it's usually because it's good.
I must wonder: did 3/4 of the people criticizing the article even bother to read it before erupting into unjustified rage?
The writer here is making a series of completely valid points:
1) The term "indie" is relative (how independent ARE independent developers, and what is indie supposed to mean? After all, we have 6 different definitions coming from posters in this thread alone), as well as arbitrary.
2) Independent games have the same average levels of quality that "corporate" games do. They don't deserve to be held above "corporate" games simply by virtue of who made them. All games should be judged equally by critics AS GAMES, regardless of who made them. Indie developers make just as many terrible games as major publishers, so why should their efforts be seated on a glass pedestal? Similarly, why should corporate games be diminished if they're good?
3) Claiming that "indie" games should be a separate category prevents the game industry from achieving progress. For instance, people complain about how "major" games lack the emotional impact of "indie" games, but rarely do you see someone say "they should learn from [indie game X]!" Reviewers and society in general have a bad habit of laying major titles off to the side, of saying "Well, it's a corporate game, what do you expect?" when in fact, they should be saying "Oi! Do it this way!"
The writer here is making a series of completely valid points:
1) The term "indie" is relative (how independent ARE independent developers, and what is indie supposed to mean? After all, we have 6 different definitions coming from posters in this thread alone), as well as arbitrary.
2) Independent games have the same average levels of quality that "corporate" games do. They don't deserve to be held above "corporate" games simply by virtue of who made them. All games should be judged equally by critics AS GAMES, regardless of who made them. Indie developers make just as many terrible games as major publishers, so why should their efforts be seated on a glass pedestal? Similarly, why should corporate games be diminished if they're good?
3) Claiming that "indie" games should be a separate category prevents the game industry from achieving progress. For instance, people complain about how "major" games lack the emotional impact of "indie" games, but rarely do you see someone say "they should learn from [indie game X]!" Reviewers and society in general have a bad habit of laying major titles off to the side, of saying "Well, it's a corporate game, what do you expect?" when in fact, they should be saying "Oi! Do it this way!"
That last sentence is what drives it home. Indie or not, game designers are just that: and their creations are just games, no matter the source. Arbitrarily walling them off from one another because people dislike "THE MAN", instead of using them as a teaching tool, is a stupid waste of time.
I can see the issue with having an indie game category. I mean, if we were being technical about what qualifies as independent then the lesser known, lower budget, innovative games that this category is supposed to promote would get overshadowed by big budget games like Half-Life or Halo. Technically indie, but not really the kind of underground thing you're looking for. Should they be disqualified because they happen to be successful?
Oddly enough, I have almost all of those games. And I raise you Super Meat Boy, Gish, Chime and Everyday shooter.Delusibeta said:
According to Steam I've spent 14 hours playing COD: Black Ops and another 13 hours if you add on my MW2 playtime.
I've spent 73 hours playing Mount and Blade: Warband and Christ alone knows how long playing Minecraft, and I'm not bored of either of those games yet. So an Indie game can easily be more entertaining then a AAA one.
The best definition of independent developer is also the simplest. For a developer to be considered independent, the studio must be able to make all decisions internally without consulting with a group not inside the studio. Activision is not independent because, ultimately, the company does answer to the stockholders. Id was, formerly, independent but when they were purchased by Bethesda's parent company they lost the title.
Some might decry such a definition as it places Epic and Valve in the same category as Twisted Pixel or Q-Games but to refine the definition further makes the definition subjective by nature which is, all considered, not an efficient use of language.
Some might decry such a definition as it places Epic and Valve in the same category as Twisted Pixel or Q-Games but to refine the definition further makes the definition subjective by nature which is, all considered, not an efficient use of language.
Yes there is. For example, indie is the truncated form of the word independent. In it's most common form, indie refers to a music group unaffiliated with a label. Which is also what using the world independent would signify. Which really means that you have two words, one derived from the other that have nearly identical meanings in the given context. Which, if you really want to split hairs, makes the distinction between the two a matter theoretical at best.Nfritzappa said: