What's with all the indie platformers?

[Saetha]

So while I've been poking around the indie dev community lately, I noticed something - there are a METRIC SHITTON of indie 2D platformers (Maybe with something like "puzzle" or "action" tacked on for style. Perhaps "Metroidvania" if they're going the retro route.) Like honestly, it's to the point where I'll start investigating an indie dev... only to immediately tune out when they announced their upcoming indie action platformer. WHY? There are other genres people! Did all the indie devs of the world just collectively forget that the third dimension exists? And all suddenly became obsessed with jumping? It seems like everyone and their mother has a 2D indie platformer in development.

Another thing I've noticed (Although not to as a great a degree.) is the animal game genre. Some indie devs seem to have remembered that three-dimensional space exists, but they seem to think it can only be explored by low-poly animals like deer or foxes. A cutesy low-poly animal game was even showcased as EA' s indie game at E3! Between these two genres, I feel like you could encompass maybe 70% of all currently in-production indie games.

Isn't the indie dev community supposed to be a font of creativity and experimentation? Why are they all obsessed with the same few genres? Surely at this point they have to realize those genres are over saturated, and they're unlikely to really be noticed there. Are they all copying some really popular 2D platform game or something? Are they all trying to get on iOS and just doing it in the laziest way possible?

What's up with it because it's honestly confusing me.

EDIT: Also hey, this is my 1000th post!

 

[axlryder]

A. It's easier to develop a 2D platformer than a 3D game, and having a solid game that works and can be developed in
a reasonble timeframe is often more important than making some elaborate 3D game with a host of development hiccups

B. It's generally cheaper to develop 2D platformers than a 3D game

C. It's often more practical to develop something with a unique hook in 2D than 3D due to dealing with fewer variables you have to work with.

D. many indie devs are making games as a passion project, thus they're often being fueled by nostalgia. You can't help what inspires you.

E. as long as these games keep selling moderately well and there continues to be a demand for them, then developers will capitalize on that demand. I mean, I think there are MORE than enough 3D games with guns in them, but they continue to get made year after year.

 

[Saetha]

A. It's easier to develop a 2D platformer than a 3D game, and having a solid game that works and can be developed in
a reasonble timeframe is often more important than making some elaborate 3D game with a host of development hiccups

B. It's generally cheaper to develop 2D platformers than a 3D game

C. It's often more practical to develop something with a unique hook in 2D than 3D due to dealing with fewer variables you have to work with.

D. many indie devs are making games as a passion project, thus they're often being fueled by nostalgia. You can't help what inspires you.

E. as long as these games keep selling moderately well and there continues to be a demand for them, then developers will capitalize on that demand. I mean, I think there are MORE than enough 3D games with guns in them, but they continue to get made year after year.

Actually, curiously enough, I recently watched a video by TotalBiscuit that posited (Among other things) "2D platformers are an overplayed genre in the indie world and you can't expect to be noticed or make good money if you do one, even if it's really good. You will not make the next Limbo or Supermeatboy." Of course, the point of the video overall was that making a good indie game isn't a guarantee because there are too many indie games in general (Regardless of genre.) but he focused specifically on side-scrolling platformers, calling out the belief that games like Braid and Supermeatboy were popular so "obviously" 2D platformers are the money-makers now when that's not necessarily true. Maybe it's just me, because I have a hard time telling one from another, they all seem so lacking in actual creativity or innovation.

Not really arguing with your other points (ALthough I'm a bit depressed that they come down to laziness and money. Great job being the last bastion of innovation, indie devs.)

Although... this doesn't explain why there are more four-directional 2D games, like RPGs and stuff. It still sidesteps all the issues of 3D without being yet-a-goddamn-nother 2D side-scrolling platformer. Most four-direction 2D games I see just seem like dungeon crawlers or trying to ape Binding of Issac.

 

[Zenja]

I think it is because the indie scene has gotten so popular that they are actually trying tyo mimic the success of others. At the start of the indie revolution games like Braid, Meatboy, Limbo, and Fez were held as poster children of indie gaming next to Minecraft which also spawned tons of copy projects from other indies.

2D vs. 3D doesnt really offer cost benefits or time benefits that matter nowdays. Software and hardware have long overcome that hurdle. You can lease the Crytek engine on Steam for $100/6 months. There are a lot of really good tools available for very reasonable prices to not just make a 3D game but a really good one.

I do agree with the 2D platformers but also put forward 3D sandbox block worlds instead of animal games. I have only ran across Shelter on that front. But the amount of sandbox block worlds is kind of annoying. A couple look interesting but at best they are just "Minecraft but with X improved/altered".

 

[Saetha]

I think it is because the indie scene has gotten so popular that they are actually trying tyo mimic the success of others. At the start of the indie revolution games like Braid, Meatboy, Limbo, and Fez were held as poster children of indie gaming next to Minecraft which also spawned tons of copy projects from other indies.

2D vs. 3D doesnt really offer cost benefits or time benefits that matter nowdays. Software and hardware have long overcome that hurdle. You can lease the Crytek engine on Steam for $100/6 months. There are a lot of really good tools available for very reasonable prices to not just make a 3D game but a really good one.

I do agree with the 2D platformers but also put forward 3D sandbox block worlds instead of animal games. I have only ran across Shelter on that front. But the amount of sandbox block worlds is kind of annoying. A couple look interesting but at best they are just "Minecraft but with X improved/altered".

Ah, yeah, Minecraft clones is another. I haven't seen too much of them lately, but I do remember seeing a bunch of voxel-based "builder" games a while back.

Recently, I've also seen a few games that look basically like Stardew Valley clones ever since... well, Stardew Valley became a thing. Not so much that it's worth mentioning (Really only like four or five.) but I've noticed a few games look like they're just Stardew Valley but not.

I guess the takeway here is the depressing majority of indie devs are just shameless copycats.

 

[DoPo]

I guess the takeway here is the depressing majority of indie devs are just shameless copycats.

Why "indie"? Is that not the case everywhere? I want to remind you how many CoD clones came out since CoD became a big thing. It's only now that big game publishers started introducing more non-modern shooters. Speaking of shooters, do you remember the flood of WW2 shooters back around the start of the millenium? I do. They sort of blur together, though, so I can't remember which was CoD and which was MoH. I think I played at least one. Diablo has also had its clones for quite a while now. And open world sandbox games where you can just dick around? While it wasn't exactly started by Bethesda, it was certainly popularised by them. Finally, zombies. If it's inde devs that are copy cats why do zombies infest EVERYTHING. Low poly top down shooters, AAA games, as well as numerous movies and TV series.

I don't think it's the "indie" in "indie devs" that's the problem.

EDIT: And, hey, how could I forget about MOBAs. Interestingly it was AAA going after an very niche indie genre that even gave us that acronym. Before that it was pretty much DotA and ovvasionally mentions of its predecessor - Aeons of Strife. Well, there were few more WC custom maps that did this but they seem to have been lost to time.

 

[Saetha]

I guess the takeway here is the depressing majority of indie devs are just shameless copycats.

Why "indie"? Is that not the case everywhere? I want to remind you how many CoD clones came out since CoD became a big thing. It's only now that big game publishers started introducing more non-modern shooters. Speaking of shooters, do you remember the flood of WW2 shooters back around the start of the millenium? I do. They sort of blur together, though, so I can't remember which was CoD and which was MoH. I think I played at least one. Diablo has also had its clones for quite a while now. And open world sandbox games where you can just dick around? While it wasn't exactly started by Bethesda, it was certainly popularised by them. Finally, zombies. If it's inde devs that are copy cats why do zombies infest EVERYTHING. Low poly top down shooters, AAA games, as well as numerous movies and TV series.

I don't think it's the "indie" in "indie devs" that's the problem.

EDIT: And, hey, how could I forget about MOBAs. Interestingly it was AAA going after an very niche indie genre that even gave us that acronym. Before that it was pretty much DotA and ovvasionally mentions of its predecessor - Aeons of Strife. Well, there were few more WC custom maps that did this but they seem to have been lost to time.

I never said it was? I guess I figured it was common knowledge at this point that the AAA industry is filled with nothing but a bunch of PR guys pushing clones of the last biggest thing. Why mention that when it's not really the point of the thread, and pretty obvious besides?

But I guess it sort stings even more coming from the indie community because they're supposed to be the ones that break out of AAA's constant copy-catting bullshit... and they aren't. So many indie games and devs seem to use the creative freedom afforded to them by... making a clone of Limbo with "retro" pixel art graphics. Uh huh.

 

[axlryder]

A. It's easier to develop a 2D platformer than a 3D game, and having a solid game that works and can be developed in
a reasonble timeframe is often more important than making some elaborate 3D game with a host of development hiccups

B. It's generally cheaper to develop 2D platformers than a 3D game

C. It's often more practical to develop something with a unique hook in 2D than 3D due to dealing with fewer variables you have to work with.

D. many indie devs are making games as a passion project, thus they're often being fueled by nostalgia. You can't help what inspires you.

E. as long as these games keep selling moderately well and there continues to be a demand for them, then developers will capitalize on that demand. I mean, I think there are MORE than enough 3D games with guns in them, but they continue to get made year after year.

Actually, curiously enough, I recently watched a video by TotalBiscuit that posited (Among other things) "2D platformers are an overplayed genre in the indie world and you can't expect to be noticed or make good money if you do one, even if it's really good. You will not make the next Limbo or Supermeatboy." Of course, the point of the video overall was that making a good indie game isn't a guarantee because there are too many indie games in general (Regardless of genre.) but he focused specifically on side-scrolling platformers, calling out the belief that games like Braid and Supermeatboy were popular so "obviously" 2D platformers are the money-makers now when that's not necessarily true. Maybe it's just me, because I have a hard time telling one from another, they all seem so lacking in actual creativity or innovation.

Not really arguing with your other points (ALthough I'm a bit depressed that they come down to laziness and money. Great job being the last bastion of innovation, indie devs.)

Although... this doesn't explain why there are more four-directional 2D games, like RPGs and stuff. It still sidesteps all the issues of 3D without being yet-a-goddamn-nother 2D side-scrolling platformer. Most four-direction 2D games I see just seem like dungeon crawlers or trying to ape Binding of Issac.

yeah, I was going to mention that the game's themselves don't tend to sell nearly as consistently as they used to, but the fact is that the initial investment is naturally lower (for both time and money) so even if the return isn't anything fantastic, it's less of a hit for the dev when the game doesn't do well.

I don't really consider them all lacking in creativity or innovation, but there's definitely a lot of copy pasting going on with a lot of games (though obviously this can be said for every genre). I think the difference is that the barrier of entry for 2d Plats is lower, so you see more people doing the same stuff, making the substantial body of creative stuff easier to overlook (which partially contributes to the lack of guarantee in sales)

I wouldn't jump to call it laziness (that's a little presumptuous). I'm sure some devs are lazy about it, but I'd consider it more likely to be a combination of personal interest, indie devs often having bills/lives/jobs outside of game design, and the fact that a lot of devs are still learning when they make these games. I'm sure they'd rather develop something than sit around making half-finished bits of game until theyre good enough to make something more complex. Even the semi-clone games have a lot of work that goes into them if they have meaningful differences from the game that they're aping.

The four directional genre was just never as popular, so you're going to get fewer people inspired by it therefore fewer people interested in developing it. There weren't nearly as many Smash TVs and LOZ:LttPs as there were sanic and marios. As for top down RPGs, not sure, but I'd guess they can take a long time to develop, and you probably need to have more writing skills to pull them off.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Same reason everyone and their dog uses zombies as go-to enemies. Its cheap and easy to design. All you need is a jumping mechanic and solid objects, or an unarmed no-AI enemy with raspberry jam on their face and a free moan .midi.

 

[MythicMatt]

A 2D platformer is simple to get all the basic programming down for. Creating the actual graphics/soundtrack/plot is the harder part. Indie devs, like stated before, are making games out of passion. Eventually, you get enough experience to do something else from there.

It might just need to be accepted that platformers are one of the game styles that you really need to dig deep in the bucket to pull out a real gem, and that can't change.

And, speaking as someone who is working on some form of amateur indie platformer themselves, a lot actually goes into learning what you're doing. Not like writing a few chapters of a novel before asking for comments on what you have, but an actual lot. Who is the protagonist? Why do they do these things? What reason do they have for jumping on turtles in a sewer?

If you want more of something, it's good practice to give it a shot yourself. Maybe you could learn a thing or two from at least planning out a game?

 

[Souplex]

They're easy to develop, and a lot of people grew up with them.
There's a huge demand, and the mainstream industry is not supplying it.
Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[sXeth]

I thought it was prettymuch shifted to the 3d Walking Simulators with no actual gameplay but pushing buttons and reading popups, moreso these days. Though I do remember the platformer wave.

Though my more prevalent gripe with indie games right now is that everything is early access, has been early access for a year or more, and has no defined date of ever coming out of early access. Devs need to get their **** together, finish a product, iron out the bugs instead of hiding behind the Early shield.

(Slight hyperbole, obviously, but it seems like every time I see an indie game come up on Youtube or whatever that looks interesting, such is the case)

 

[aba1]

I know personally as a indie dev a big part of the reason is that I am a 2D animator. I am completely self taught in all my skills. I grew up on newgrounds and love 2D graphics as opposed to 3D. Also much like other people have said most indie devs are working on next to no budget and can barely afford the adobe suite let alone 3D software and a whole team of animators and programmers to help. I know people think kickstarter helps but with all the items you end up giving to backers you really don't actually make any money on it all that much let alone enough to live off of while you attempt to get the project done.

You guys really have to keep in mind a lot of us are really gambling a lot on small projects in the hope that they will do well so you can progressively expand more and more over time till you have a decent sized studio that can handle any sort of a larger project.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

It's a good way to get a feel for designing mechanics. Stardew valley was a first time project in C-minus that sold 400k in less than a week but it took almost 4 years to make. If you want to make something quickly a platformer is a good go-to, the baby steps of a lot of indie devs

 

[shrekfan246]

You've only just now noticed this?

I hate to say it, but it's been like this since Braid and Limbo hit the scene in the first place.

But hey, don't worry, just like in the AAA space, there are still tons of games that are trying to push the mold, like Aarklash Legacy, Bastion, The Banner Saga, Cloudbuilt, Darkest Dungeon, Dex, Divinity: Original Sin, Eldritch, Endless Legend, Grim Dawn, Hard Reset, Invisible, Inc., Legend of Grimrock 2, Sanctum 2, Satellite Reign, Shadowrun Returns/Dragonfall/Hong Kong, Starpoint Gemini 2, Superhot, Transistor, Undertale, and Ziggurat.

EDIT: The relative "indieness" of some of those could be debated if you believe that in order to be "truly indie" a developer can't go through a publisher at all, but, well. I think they still count.

 

[aozgolo]

There are a lot more indies out there than just platformers, though it depends where you look. On Steam I'm seeing tons of indies of many different varieties, platformers, roguelikes, simulations, visual novels, strategy, RPG, schmups, puzzle, adventure, the list goes on and on.

On consoles, 2D Platformers are perhaps more common since they already are designed to be controller-friendly.

Also, saying 2D Platformer is kind of like saying RPG, it gives a basic gist of what gameplay will be involved, running, jumping, platforming, but there are so many ways it can be executed. On one end of the spectrum you have the simple classic Mario level-based go-right style platformers, then you have the massive Metroidvania style, the puzzle platformers, and even Sandbox style like Terraria, one of my favorite platformers of all time was Tomba! on PS1 as it was basically an RPG Platformer with quests and NPCs.

I don't think that indie devs making 2D Platformers is taking away from other genres at all, it's not like these devs would be cranking out a 3D Dungeon Crawler, a FPS, or a Racing game instead, they make what their passionate about, or not at all.

 

[pookie101]

probably because most game development engines have a tutorial thats basically "create a 2d platformer"

 

[DoPo]

I never said it was? I guess I figured it was common knowledge at this point that the AAA industry is filled with nothing but a bunch of PR guys pushing clones of the last biggest thing. Why mention that when it's not really the point of the thread, and pretty obvious besides?

Sure, that's true for AAA games, but your phrasing suggests that it's just indies. Let's try the same phrasing for something different:

"I seems that there are male Romanians."

Of course, the same is true for the rest of humanity, as well, but this phrasing suggests the Romanians are somehow exceptional for this. When they aren't.

they're supposed to be the ones that break out of AAA's constant copy-catting bullshit... and they aren't.

I guess the takeaway is that it doesn't seem to be an inherent issue with indie developers. It seems to be an inherent issue with games developers in general.

In fact, it stretches wider than just video games, as I've demonstrated using zombies but here is another example - fantasy setting. How many times that boils down to "like Tolkien"? It's true for video games, but not only them - D&D is a shining example, but other books and films ahave also used this to various degrees.

A large, la-a-arge portion of creative works are nothing if derivative from other works. Sure, some are only "inspired" or otherwise not as tightly related, but they aren't as many as what you'd call "shameless copycats".

Again, doesn't seem like indie developers are somehow unique among the entirety of creative community.

 

[Dizchu]

I have made a 2D platformer myself and I have been experimenting with the style since the early 00s with engines like Klik and Play and The Games Factory. So I think I am in a position to offer some thoughts.

There are a few reasons why 2D platformers are a popular go-to genre for indie developers. First of all, nostalgia. Everyone recognises games like Super Mario Brothers and Sonic and those general mechanics are easy to replicate. As a result people who grew up playing these games will likely dabble in the genre themselves.

Secondly is probably the most important part for me, it's the easiest way to make an immersive game world that the player can explore. One could argue that top-down RPGs are 2D games that also offer this, but the difference is that platformers have verticality and traversing an environment is a pretty easy to understand and exciting gameplay mechanic. One big reason we play games is so we can be transported to another world, and as far as I'm concerned the best way to make another world (hah, pun intended!) is through 2D platformers.

That's not to say it's the only way, I am really fond of point-and-click adventure games for the same reason. But there navigating the environment is replaced with investigating and interacting with it, and it's not the easiest genre to work in. Platformers though? When done right they're extremely charming and evocative, just look at Ori and the Blind Forest and Rayman Origins/Legends. Those games are absolutely spectacular.

I thought it was prettymuch shifted to the 3d Walking Simulators with no actual gameplay but pushing buttons and reading popups, moreso these days. Though I do remember the platformer wave.

That's a pretty niche genre that requires quite a dedicated development, I doubt it'll ever really "catch on", it's certainly not an economically viable genre. Because without traditional gameplay you have to substitute it with tons of environmental detail and even if you have some amazing map designers on the game, it's still an extremely risky kind of game to make.

Honestly I find the whole "zombie survival" genre to be the major cash-grab of the moment because you can just buy a bunch of art assets and copy-and-paste a bunch of code, throw it together randomly and call it a "sandbox".

EDIT:

2. Pixel art is possible without any artistic knowledge (2D art requires some, but is still faster to create.

I strongly disagree. Pixel art is mostly used because you can condense the amount of detail in a scene to a more manageable scale. It's the same reason chiptunes are easier to make than full-blown orchestral pieces or even a basic rock song. In order to make pixel art or a chiptune stand out, you need a very good grasp of what you're doing. You need to know exactly the right colour and shading choices because there's not much room for error.

I'd say pixel art as a style makes it more feasible for a single person to design the graphics for an entire game, but if you don't know how to draw larger-resolution art the graphics will suck.

Any kind of art is "possible" without artistic knowledge, but whether or not that art would be good is an entirely different matter.