Lo there, Weebl. I mean Escapist.
I've long been a fan of independent game development. Nevermind all the faff about being artistically free and having no associations to worry about and majority shareholders 'n gunk; it seems to me, the only facet of modern gaming left today that enjoys a fiercely competitive market driven by innovation. But the term "indie game" nowadays tends to refer more to one or two-man, auter-designed projects. The sort of thing driven by blood, sweat, and tears, rather than budget, market and titties. And that's just really cool to me.
And yet there seems to be a group of wholly justified people who have an instant reaction to the term "indie". They're pretentious, they say. They're egotistical, they say. They're overrated, they say. It's probably true. Many games labelled with "indie" are all those things. Here's my issue - I don't know why they are negatives, per se.
I'd have thought that one man, working on one project for years at a time, sinking nothing but his own effort into the final project, would be entitled to be egotistical, pretentious, and overrated. Isn't that fair enough? I mean, he bought into his own project; aren't you basically doing the same thing? Isn't that what drives independent design?
I guess I'm just a little worried that indie gaming is seen as some kind of big boy's artists' club that only those with a Level 10 Pretentiousness Level can enter, when it's really just another facet of game design. A wholly fascinating facet, where developers have faces and you can invest in a character, almost, as much as a product. That interests me so much, and while I understand that some people don't like that sort of thing - when they buy a game, they buy a game, and the behind-the-scenes, the people behind the game, are just so much white noise - I don't understand why there are so many quick to dismiss such projects because of their attachment to a "scene".
I dunno. I'll probably get a perfectly reasonable and explanatory answer in the first reply. I mean, it could be the deliberate use of "retro" design, right? That grates a lot of people the wrong way. I like it, mind; it's indicative of the creator's generation and whatnot. Maybe that's the reason? Because they are such a product of an individual creator, as apposed to a cohesive, standalone whole? The kind of games that work better when you get invested in the development process, as apposed to just the game itself? Does that turn people off? Having to dig below the surface? ...but that doesn't qualify as "pretentious," then does it. Well maybe there is no specific thing, rather a whole lot of things that all blend together to form a common mindset.
Crikey, that got a bit tangential. Anyway. Me, question. You, answer/discuss. Go go gadget etc.
I've long been a fan of independent game development. Nevermind all the faff about being artistically free and having no associations to worry about and majority shareholders 'n gunk; it seems to me, the only facet of modern gaming left today that enjoys a fiercely competitive market driven by innovation. But the term "indie game" nowadays tends to refer more to one or two-man, auter-designed projects. The sort of thing driven by blood, sweat, and tears, rather than budget, market and titties. And that's just really cool to me.
And yet there seems to be a group of wholly justified people who have an instant reaction to the term "indie". They're pretentious, they say. They're egotistical, they say. They're overrated, they say. It's probably true. Many games labelled with "indie" are all those things. Here's my issue - I don't know why they are negatives, per se.
I'd have thought that one man, working on one project for years at a time, sinking nothing but his own effort into the final project, would be entitled to be egotistical, pretentious, and overrated. Isn't that fair enough? I mean, he bought into his own project; aren't you basically doing the same thing? Isn't that what drives independent design?
I guess I'm just a little worried that indie gaming is seen as some kind of big boy's artists' club that only those with a Level 10 Pretentiousness Level can enter, when it's really just another facet of game design. A wholly fascinating facet, where developers have faces and you can invest in a character, almost, as much as a product. That interests me so much, and while I understand that some people don't like that sort of thing - when they buy a game, they buy a game, and the behind-the-scenes, the people behind the game, are just so much white noise - I don't understand why there are so many quick to dismiss such projects because of their attachment to a "scene".
I dunno. I'll probably get a perfectly reasonable and explanatory answer in the first reply. I mean, it could be the deliberate use of "retro" design, right? That grates a lot of people the wrong way. I like it, mind; it's indicative of the creator's generation and whatnot. Maybe that's the reason? Because they are such a product of an individual creator, as apposed to a cohesive, standalone whole? The kind of games that work better when you get invested in the development process, as apposed to just the game itself? Does that turn people off? Having to dig below the surface? ...but that doesn't qualify as "pretentious," then does it. Well maybe there is no specific thing, rather a whole lot of things that all blend together to form a common mindset.
Crikey, that got a bit tangential. Anyway. Me, question. You, answer/discuss. Go go gadget etc.
