Azaraxzealot said:
i conceded three of those games were good, and i even like on of tell tale's games (the endless forest) but what really gets my goat is that people are lauding a game like "The Graveyard" with praise and nearly giving it an award for making a game where a granny goes and sits on a bench.
This is the entire problem I have with your argument. You dislike a game that almost won an award. It was praised for trying something new. That the game might not be any fun has no bearing on the question of "have you seen a game like this before", which would be the basis of an award in
innovation. They were not lauding it for excellence in game design, they were not praising how fun the game was, they were simply pointing out that it tried something they had not seen before.
Azaraxzealot said:
and i also hate when artistic snobs try to justify the existence of all those mario, contra, and asteroid rip-offs that are most of indie games developed.
If a game is
fun why should you justify its existence at all?
Azaraxzealot said:
i hate that people are trying to yell "ARTISTIC VALUE" when, as a game, it fails. what i want to see is MORE games like Castle Crashers, The Endless Forest, Flower, and Flow. These are REALLY beautiful and awe-inspiring games that push the boundaries of what a game can be.
So you
personally do not like such games. That in no way implies that such games are
bereft of value.
Azaraxzealot said:
but games like 'Splosion Man? Trine? Torchlight? they're just trying to be older games that people already did and polished to perfection. I simply have no patience for games that are trying too hard to win "nostalgia points" by ripping off older games (which is why i can't stand any halo past 1 besides Reach or any Call of Duty game, or Darksiders)
While the first two games certainly borrowed from other games, they did things that no other single game had. What's more, both games were remarkably fun. Since fun is the often the basis of your argument, why should I care that it took pointers from some old classics? As I pointed out, you're going to be hard pressed to find
any game made in the last decade that did not take ideas from games that cam before. And, Sure, Torchlight is Diablo. I don't think anyone would try to deny such a claim, even the people who made it. That does not mean I cannot have fun with the game.
Azaraxzealot said:
if a developer is going to be independent, why not do something with that?
All that independence buys is the assurance that, if your current project fails, the company will fold.
Azaraxzealot said:
take the chance to create something FUN and MEMORABLE that PUSHES THE BOUNDARIES OF MODERN GAMING, because for now we just have a huge selection of mario rip-offs and hentai games polluting the indie scene like Call of Duty and Gears of War rip-offs are polluting the AAA scene.
The independent scene often does. Because different people have different talents and skill sets and are willing to accept varying levels of risk, how is it reasonable to expect that
every independent developer should be "pushing the envelope"?
Azaraxzealot said:
and i've been through EVERY indie game on XBL.
Really? Because there are currently 1,708 titles in the indie marketplace.
Azaraxzealot said:
those are the only two that fell short of greatness, and the only one i EVER actually bought was "I MAED A GAM3 W1TH ZOMBiES IN IT!" and a SHIT TON of other games try to rip off of THAT.
So, you looked at the titles of more than a thousand games and dismissed all but a few and are prepared to make the
sweeping claim that only those few you purchased were worth playing? I'm willing to accept the fact that you do not like entire genres of games; this isn't some foreign concept. I myself simply do not like sports games or JRPGs. But what I find troubling about your argument is that you simultaneously make the following claims:
Independent games are crap
Some independent games are good
The good independent games are not sufficient to justify the existence of the bad games
There is no need to justify the existence of bad AAA games
Independent games are derivative
AAA games push the envelope
AAA games are derivative
Indie game X is bad because it is derivative
AAA game y is good in spite of being derivative
All indie games should be innovative
Not all AAA games need to innovative
Do you see the problem I have? Your argument is inconsistent. You are arguing in circles. In my experience this indicates one of two things:
You are trolling
You are arguing a position without having a clear idea of what your opinion on the subject is.
I can certainly accept the latter; I have been in plenty of discussions where I have been guilty of this exact thing. The former on the other hand I cannot accept.
So, in the spirit of making your position less inconsistent, I'd like you to answer the following questions:
Why should a good game justify the existence of a bad game?
If a game must justify the existence of another, why do you only apply this standard to independent games when there are plenty of terrible AAA games?
Given the choice between the two, do you prefer a game that is pure innovation yet decidedly not fun or entirely derivative but fun?
Why should the burden of innovation fall upon the shoulders of those who truly cannot afford to fail?
Why do you laud games that are entirely derivative yet well polished?
