Indies don't count.

[J T]

Here's a list of complaints I commonly read across many gaming websites:

"They don't make games like they used to. Nothing has that old arcade/NES feel anymore."

"Videogames aren't innovative, especially with gameplay."

"Graphics are too focused on realism/too brown and grey. Nobody puts style in their graphics."

"Everything released nowadays is an FPS or covershooter."

"Games are too easy. Nobody dares to challenge us like the old school."

"Nobody takes chances anymore. There aren't anymore games that do weird and adventurous things."

"Videogames can't tell a good story."



My common response to these complaints is to toss up a dozen indie titles that counter the point. The common response I get is "Yeah, but those are indie games. They don't count."

I don't understand this reaction. They meet all requirements of what a video game is, so why don't they count? Because EA didn't shove eleventy million dollars into it? Because Bobby Kotick didn't market the hell out of it and then create so many sequels that you hate it? Did ______ indie game not count becuase it was made entirely by two guys that dumped their entire heart, soul, and life savings into making it? Does it not count because it hasn't been focus group tested until all personality has been removed from the game?

/end rant.

[BurningDoom]

Because a lot of people are used to high-production values and a certain level of polish added to their games.

I can enjoy good indie titles. But I think most of those people want to see games made with the same sensibilities as some of those indie games, but with the financial backing and attention to detail that comes from a big-budget release.

[Hobie-wan]

A lot of people are ignorant and don't realize that many of those beloved games from the earlier generations were made by a dozen or fewer people. Heck, classics like Pitfall were created by 1 person.

[AppleQueso]

Naturally, if they were to count indies it'd kinda nullify a lot of their gripes, so of course those don't "count."

A lot of those complaints don't hold much water even if you don't count indies, but that's a different discussion altogether.

[BogusMeatFactory]

There are two over-generalized statements about people.

1. They like to complain.

2. They like to be right.

Both of these really do apply to this topic. People want to have a verbal argument and tout their mental superiority to others in the field of discourse. They want to make a popular-although-untrue statement like, "Games aren't innovative anymore," and try and run with it, plowing over everyone who speaks in the contrary.

The reality of it is, indie games come with a social stigma to many gamers. Watch Indie Game the Movie and you can see it looming. There is an air of superiority over common mainstream games that is implied and, in some instances, blatant. Does that mean anything in the real world though? Not at all. Games are meant to be played. Like with books, movies, art and tv, your interpretation of a game, how you experience it is different than another person.

That is the beauty of a game and what makes it unique.

[Gamerforlife]

Do I personally believe that Indie games don't count? No

Do I think in the grand scheme of things they don't count? Yes

But that's why we like them right? They're not beholden to the same rules as the games that do count

[Menegrothx]

Indy, shareware and homebrew games don't represent the video game industry. For example there's an indy game about beating up Anita Sarkeesian. And there's rape simulators, school shooting games etc. You could never publish a commercial game like that. You can make an indy game out of anything since there isn't a budget on the line, nor are there any publishers to censor the content and dictate what the game should be like.

It's fair to make generalizations of the video game industry's unwillingness to make/publish certain kind of games these days because it's a fact. Some legendary video game designers are asking money in kickstarter these days because publishers refuse to publish oldschool RPGs, adventure games, space sims etc because it's "too risky, not enough people would buy it". And with many of these genres, it's basically impossible to do a proper game if you're an indie developer, so it's a fact that certain type of games that were produced in the 1990s and early 2000s aren't being made anymore, commercial nor indy. You can't make a large oldschool RPG with a 0 budget and 2-3 guys. Or you can, but it will take an eternity to finish. Hence we don't see any of those certain types of games being made anymore these days, they are too risky for publishers and require too much resources and people to be made by indy developers.


It's stupid to ignore indy games as a whole, but it's a fact the indy game scene isn't a part of the video game industry and the image of gaming. 2D platformers, shmups and beat em ups are a good example. During the 1980s and 1990s they were prominent, a part of both media and mental image of what video games are, because there were tons of commercial games of those genres being developed for consoles, home computers and arcades, so they were visible part of the video game industry. Nowadays games like that are still being developed by indie developers, but they aren't visible in TV commercials, gaming magazines etc as commercial game developers don't make games like that. When you're trying to find games to buy for your Xbox or Playstation, there aren't any like that available. Although thanks to Xbox Live Arcade and PSN that situation is starting to change, so what I just said was more true during the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era (I'm sure some one will try to correct me on this and mention Viewtiful Joe ).

When we think of different eras in gaming, our mental image of them is defined by the commercial games that were released during those times. Here on these forums we spend a great deal of time talking about Genesis and Super Nintendo games but yet we don't talk about early 1990s indy games at all really. Our mental image of the early 1990s (in video games) is shaped by the commercial console, computer and arcade games of that time.

[BoneSnapDeez]

For better or worse, most great indie games are on the PC. I think folks who complain about games not being "old school" enough want 80s/90s style titles released on consoles again. They want to relive the NES/Genesis/SNES experience.

[brunoafh]

Personally from the collector's standpoint I tend to ignore indie games (not completely) because half of the fun for me is putting it on my shelf, hunting stuff down, etc. I wouldn't say they "don't count" and I have bought and played my fair share of indie games, but generally I'm a console gamer at the end of the day and can't seem to give up the idea of physically owning stuff. That said I love guys like NG Dev Team that provide physical copies of their games.

[Menegrothx]

For better or worse, most great indie games are on the PC. I think folks who complain about games not being "old school" enough want 80s/90s style titles released on consoles again. They want to relive the NES/Genesis/SNES experience.

Development kits and publishing costs on consoles have traditionally been so expensive that it's made indie development on consoles impossible. Console manufacturers want to profit from all games developed for their systems, while on PC you can't do that. Of course there were pirate games for different consoles back in the day, but very few unlicensed games, like the bible games on NES.
If I recall correctly, in Metal Jesus Rocks' Al Lowe interview he said that Sierra decided to stay away from consoles because during the video game crash era they got some bad experience from developing/porting games to the Atari 2600: it cost 50 cents to make a PC floppy disk game and if it didn't sell, you could rewrite the disk and put some other game on it, but Atari took 8 dollars for every game cartridge and if the game didn't sell, they couldn't just erase the memory from the cartridge and put another game in it instead, so it didn't make economical sense for them to publish games for game consoles. During the video game crash they got back a truck load of unsold Atari 2600 game cartridges that was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and couldn't really do anything to them.

Personally from the collector's standpoint I tend to ignore indie games (not completely) because half of the fun for me is putting it on my shelf, hunting stuff down, etc. I wouldn't say they "don't count" and I have bought and played my fair share of indie games, but generally I'm a console gamer at the end of the day and can't seem to give up the idea of physically owning stuff. That said I love guys like NG Dev Team that provide physical copies of their games.

Many popular indie games are available as physical/collector's edition copies, and now as Kickstarter is becoming increasingly popular, developers are trying to get more donators by offering big box and collectors editions of their games. But yeah, for most small budget indy projects it just doesn't make economical sense to publish their games in a physical form, which is a shame.