The future of gaming lies in indie developers?

[Casual Shinji]

Odd how indies are the only good games these days, yet I hardly ever play them and am still enjoying a meriad of titles that DON'T include Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed.

And if there's one thing MGS5 has taught me, it's that you can't beat cold, hard cash, no matter how much creativity you have.

 

[The Jovian]

Personally I think medium sized crowdfunded/lower tier publisher-funded titles is where true quality and innovation will be found. The Indie model is too unreliable and attracts to many lazy con artists who think asset flipping is all it takes to make a game and the AAA model is either too safe and homogenized or just a medium sized game puffed up on steroids and sold in pieces.

Medium-sized games (or AA games, whichever you prefer) is what gave us XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Spec Ops: The Line, Sins of a Solar Empire, Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Pillars of the Earth, Wasteland 2, the Shadowrun games and all of them have been both more innovative (or at least more memorable) than most AAA games and of higher technical quality than most Indie games so you have a "best of both worlds" situation here.

 

[stroopwafel]

Much has been said about rising production costs, long development times and risky return on investment of modern games and it's safe to say this will continue to pose a significant chokehold for publishers who will either play it safe with yearly iterations of the same thing, go out of business or withdraw from game development entirely.

Having said that though this year particularly there were a lot of genuinely fantastic 'AAA' games(Bloodborne, Witcher 3, Batman, MGS5) with Fallout 4 still to be released. So, some years are better than others I s'pose?

Also I think it's a good sign that smaller game development companies like CD Projekt and From Software are somwehat filling the vacuum left by the greats of ye olden times(EA, Activision, Konami, Capcom though they seem to have turned around a bit) who are victims of their own success and are now run by these fucking monkeys who only care about money(and more money) at pretty much the expense of everything from creativity, working environment to sound consumer practices. Also, how much more awesome games did Square made before merging with Enix? They pretty much dominated the PS1 era but became a complete joke after the merger. Something about succesful companies who became succesful by making, well, good games just turning to shit after all this success enables them to become corporations(including attracting the managers and shareholders that will creatively destroy them).

And this is just the heart of the problem ain't it? The games industry is bigger than ever but it has just become another soulless corporation-driven enterprise with very few people working in it with genuine passion for the medium. Some indie games are great but they mostly lack the resources and experience to rival the production values of AAA games. A lot of them are good, but not really in the same league as games that take full advantage of modern hardware.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here's a scary notion:

The future of gaming lies in good games being made and sold.

I can say I've played great games and shit on both ends of the development spectrum in the last year. When you're the biggest entertainment industry in the world, there will be a massive spectrum in quality.

 

[Tragedy's Rebellion]

I don't think production values have anything to do with the quality of the games - just look at what Diablo 3 turned out to be. No amount of expansions and patches is going to fix that mess. Witcher 3 is an indie game. Many people seem to equate "indie" with "low budget 1-man team" which is a misnomer. Also Divinity: Original Sin is a very open game which rivals the Elder Scrolls series. The map is obviously not that big, but it has many creative and fun places and events to explore, something that Skyrim (for example) doesn't have. It is a bit more linear (not too much though), but that is a good thing in this case. That way the challenge can be controlled more easily and give a sense of progression and achievement. What I mean by "the future is in indie developers" is that AAA developers are interested in different goals and the sole interest in money is never conducive to art. Video games are art thanks to Richard Wagner, so deal with it. I'm not saying that in a hipster kind of way, I'm saying it very matter-of-fact and is a bit complicated to explain in a single thread post. There is nothing wrong with making money, even a lot of money, but not at the sole expense of *everything* else where it threatens to make the very thing you do sub-quality. I like to equate AAA games with cheap chinese plastic. If you like buying cheap plastic then that's your thing, but it's not mine. History tends to gather the good things in art and forget about the mass-produced mainstreamized-to-the-point of idiocy inconsequential pieces. That is why I think the future is in the hands of indie developers, because they have the enthusiasm and opportunity to make something that will be remembered.

 

[Neonsilver]

I don't think the future lies in indie developers.
It's more in experimenting and risk taking with smaller titles.

AAA don't necessarily lack the creativity that indie has. Development of AAA titles cost a lot of money, the people that have that money want some guaranties. As a result things that are successful are repeated as often as possible. So new IP's are rare, we get many games from the same genre and so on.
Indiedevelopers don't have a bunch of number crunchers breathing down their necks at every decision and they can do what they think is best. Because of that we see new IP's and genres that the big developers won't touch from indiedevelopers.

 

[kasperbbs]

Nah.. Both produce good and bad games. While there are a lot more indie titles, the majority of them are not worth a second glance.

 

[briankoontz]

Everything affects everything else. The call for "more creativity" in the games industry is a very old one, but several years ago there was no Kickstarter, not much of a Mobile market, not as much of an industry in general outside of the AAA scope, and probably most importantly minimal ways to actually sell one's games outside of retail stores who are only interested in high budget titles on their shelves.

We're not at all experiencing a "creative renaissance" in games. What we're experiencing is a myriad of new technological improvements to allow creativity to be functional in our capitalist economy. Developers who previously wanted to be creative but felt there was "no alternative" to the high budget, hierarchical way of making games for profit now live in a time where the INFRASTRUCTURE has been built to allow them to both be creative, have a dynamic and progressive rather than a regressive effect on culture, and simultaneously feed their families.

There's been nothing less than a *democratization* of game development, and as those who understand the value of democracy can tell you, there's no surprise that that is turning out very well, with terrible steam games just like terrible youtube videos a small price to pay for the tremendous value gained.

We're reaping the benefits now of a lot of people putting in a lot of hard work to build the infrastructure needed for this to happen. They should all be commended.

 

[the_dramatica]

I like to say it lies with AA devs, like tripwire, bohemia and talesworlds.

 

[Savagezion]

The future of gaming is in the market. Recently the market decided to go crazy over many great indie titles such as minecraft, limbo, braid, fez, meatboy, bastion, etc. These games offered new gameplay concepts that the major publishers ignored because for decades they literally got rich doing the same thing over and over again. Gaming has recently had its market explode in size. Publishers will be looking to copy successes, whether it be an indie success or a AAA success. Many genres have plenty of room for innovation. Simulation games for example haven't had any real innovation since Maxis was in its prime. I will give Poptop software some credit for Tropico but it hasnt really seen big improvements since the first title. Tycoon games are a shell of Rollercoaster Tycoon (the originator) nowadays and only offer a small portion of what Chris Sawyer gave us. Strategy games have seen some new ideas in the turn based area, but the real time strategy genre hasn't seen a whole lot of innovation. Action games and shooters have seen a lot of streamlining.

With the market quadrupling in size like it has recently, now we have to wait and see what people support. AAA games will do what they have always done and try to polish and streamline the successful ideas. Indie devs will continue to do what they have done and try to do the best with what they have to work with (which is much more nowadays). SO the market is not only bigger but more balanced to give everyone equal opportunity in the market. With this generation being so slow out of the gate, its possible that many will drop out of gaming and the status queue will stabilize back to the tried and true method. However, it is also possible with the success of indie games recently that the market could see a big shift. Thanks to Skyrim and Witcher 3's success, we may see a lot of RPGs flood the market. I don't think any industry position really has the market cornered right now. It's anyone's ballgame right now, and hopefully I hope stuff simply stays that way indefinitely. It would be awesome if at one point in time so many good games release that it is impossible to keep up on everything.

 

[Nimcha]

I sure hope not. There are very few indie games I like. Same goes for the AAA games but at least they look nice.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

Being a medium size development team doesn't make you not indie. Indie: Independent. It has nothing to do with the size of your studio or budget. Luckilly we've avoided the music trap of having an indie "genre" (because that makes sense right?), but indie is anything from 1 guy to 100 guys as long as they're short a publisher.

That's only your preferred interpretation of indie which is by no means universal.

To me, a medium-sized studio such as Double Fine isn't indie in the least, regardless of whether they had a deal with a publisher or not. The fact that they're able to force their games into IndieCade through connections - where they get the luxury of competing against lone indie devs and small teams - and also like to go begging on Kickstarter doesn't change a thing.

Speaking of Tim Schaffer and Double Fine, this is perhaps a good example of someone who used to be indie but now shovels enough uninspired shit to rival any AAA developer.

 

[DoPo]

That's only your preferred definition of indie which is by no means universal.

Then what does "indie" mean? What is it a shorthand for?

The fact that you choose to interpret it differently doesn't make it universally NOT mean "independent".

 

[elvor0]

Being a medium size development team doesn't make you not indie. Indie: Independent. It has nothing to do with the size of your studio or budget. Luckilly we've avoided the music trap of having an indie "genre" (because that makes sense right?), but indie is anything from 1 guy to 100 guys as long as they're short a publisher.

That's only your preferred interpretation of indie which is by no means universal.

No. Its the definition of independent. Which indie is universally shorthand for, no ifs, buts or coconuts. You can't pick and choose who is independent, otherwise the phrase means nothing.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

Then what does "indie" mean? What is it a shorthand for?

The fact that you choose to interpret it differently doesn't make it universally NOT mean "independent".

So, if a big studio with like 200 developers decides they want to give self-publishing a try, they should able to enter their games into competitions such as IndieCade and IGF? Surely you can see why that doesn't make sense. Size matters for any sensible interpretation of "indie".

 

[elvor0]

Then what does "indie" mean? What is it a shorthand for?

The fact that you choose to interpret it differently doesn't make it universally NOT mean "independent".

So, if a big studio with like 200 developers decides they want to give self-publishing a try, they should able to enter their games into competitions such as IndieCade and IGF? Surely you can see why that doesn't make sense. Size matters for any sensible interpretation of "indie".

Well I don't know what the rules are for IndieCage and IGF, but they are /still/ independent regardless of it being fair or not. That's just dodging the point. It wasn't a statement about fairness, it was a statement of is this indie? Which is a yes or no answer. If a publisher was involved in any way shape or form, not indie. Very clear cut.

The fact that people just slap indie on any and only small studios is wrong to be honest. Journey is labelled as an indie game, but it was mostly funded and published by Sony.

 

[Tragedy's Rebellion]

Competitions can enforce their own rules on who to allow. Making it fair is up to them and not on the definition of indie. Competitions are also a circle jerk whenever we talk about art. Mozart was in a music competition to be a church composer at one point and he didn't win.

 

[Mikeybb]

There's a lot of gradiation of indie studios as well these days.

From the bigger ones such as DoubleFine all the way down to solo developers and teams of less than a handful.
The same can be said of the games they produce.
Some pitch themselves at around the five dollar mark, others ten, others up to twenty and so on, with play lengths and content varying to great degrees as well.

I'm not sure it can be said that the future of games development is Indie, but more accurately that we could see a shift towards the prevalence and success of productions from the smaller end of the studio market.

I think at the same time we're just starting to see the effect of so many smaller studios.
Some good Indie games are, despite being of decent quality, just not making sales.
Perhaps it's a lack of exposure due to so many releases demanding coverage.
Perhaps it's a matter of trying to stand out from the crowd.

All I know for sure is that now there are a lot more games being released that a few years ago would all have been called Indie.
Methods of distribution, funding and raising awareness about such releases are becoming more numerous and available than ever.
A fertile environment will see growth.
Growth can lead to crowding.

Perhaps we'll witness a microcosm of the bigger games industry.
Some studios will prosper, some fail.
Maybe eventually some of the more successful indie studios will start to absorb the floundering ones.
A kind of mini-me for EA.

 

[elvor0]

Then what does "indie" mean? What is it a shorthand for?

The fact that you choose to interpret it differently doesn't make it universally NOT mean "independent".

So, if a big studio with like 200 developers decides they want to give self-publishing a try, they should able to enter their games into competitions such as IndieCade and IGF? Surely you can see why that doesn't make sense. Size matters for any sensible interpretation of "indie".

Well I don't know what the rules are for IndieCage and IGF, but they are /still/ independent regardless of it being fair or not.

The fact that people just slap indie on any and only small studios is wrong to be honest. Journey is labelled as an indie game, but it was mostly funded and published by Sony.

The question is whether people care more about the correct use of the label, or the product produced at the end of the day.

Well I'm not saying Journey isn't a good game (I honestly have no idea, I've not played it) and ultimately a good game is a good game, I'm just saying its disingenuous and unfair on teams who are /actually/ indie and that the person I responded to is well...wrong. Its not an interpretive notion, its a black and white one. You can't have an interpretive opinion of what is indie because there isn't anything to interpret.

Obviously that's not say you can't create a good or great game without a publisher, 2 to 200 people, but a publisher certainly helps (most of the time), and something like Journey is quite often held up as a gem of the indie scene despite being financed for 3 years by Sony is frankly, bollocks.

If words can just be whatever we want them to be at a given moment rather than what they are, why even bother using words to begin with?

 

[DoPo]

Then what does "indie" mean? What is it a shorthand for?

The fact that you choose to interpret it differently doesn't make it universally NOT mean "independent".

So, if a big studio with like 200 developers decides they want to give self-publishing a try, they should able to enter their games into competitions such as IndieCade and IGF? Surely you can see why that doesn't make sense. Size matters for any sensible interpretation of "indie".

Right, gotcha - using that logic Steven Hawking is not disabled, since he does not participate at the Disability Athletics.