Indie gaming
Journal Entry: Thu Aug 21, 2014, 3:46 AM
Comrades
Sites
Links
Art Status
Works in Progress1
Blogs in progress
1
Collaborations
None
I confess - sometimes I read vidya game news. Sometimes it happens that I read them not on Igromania.ru or stuff, but on western gaming websites. Like, honestly, I really enjoyed Engadget's subsidiary, Joystiq, for a while.
That is, while the whole INDIE thing had not started. So instead of having 80% news devoted to actual gaming news about actual real games, 80% of the content shifted to tell the stories of Kickstarters and Steam Greenlights about indie developers. Yeah, I get it, news draught. But come on...
So, a couple of days ago, on one such site I read a lulzy story about how a "female indie dev" was caught fucking journalists for favorable reviews on several gaming news outlets. That aside, the game in question was a text-based SJW shitfest about "depression" - not even a real game, but a multiple-choice quest.
And see, that's what's the whole indie scene is - pretentious fucking shitfestering pile of abhorrent talentless gunk.
So there's that - I loathe "indie" games. And I can actually make a case for it.
First off tho, I have to make an important term distinction. There are big and small studios and publishers. EA, 2k, Blizzard, Warner Bro's Games, Netherrealm studios, Ubisoft, Visceral, Bethesda - big players, yup. Yager, Starbreeze, arguably THQ, GSC, CD Projekt - smaller/small. But these are viable business entities, employing dozens of people, having quality control, SLA, legal departments, full-time artists and programmers, marketing, etc. A small studio isn't INDIE, even if it's not connected to a major publisher - a small studio will still get it's game on the shelf by someone else's means.
In my classification, Indie game are made not by factual, full-line process studios and devs, but by makeshift, on the go, just "forming" collectives, who are missing or outsourcing key departments and employees, who are not connected to proven, known to the market publisher, and who rely on outside real-time investment to fund the game.
This is why indie games, well - SUCK.
The main thing is resources and money. It should come as no eye-opener, that the more resources you have - the better tools you can affort, and better tools yearn better quality of the product that is made through them. Tool include not only material assets, but more importantly - human resources. If your budget has a limit of say, $2 mill over 2 years of a production cycle for a game design department, you can hire 4 big industry professionals that require a 250K over the year. If your budget is $30 000 for a year, you can hire well, 2 students for 15k a year. Yeah, these students MIGHT BE the next Joe Karmak (sp?), but they still have zero experience, and you wouldn't expect them to produce the same result as 4 solid professionals.
Same goes for material assets. You have to rent server spaces. You have to buy your designer and programmers adequate equipment - computers, professional software, cameras, etc. When you don't have professional work-station servers, you can't expect to render realistic cut-scenes with hi-poly models - that's a given.
More importantly, a functional studio has departments that take care of all the inner operations - ordering materials, doing the logistics, proving the needs of the employees, etc.
But indie studios? People multi-task. One person is often working as a designer AND modeler, AND photographer, AND is responsible for system administration, because the studio doesnt have the money to hire actual separate specialists. Multi-tasking in a work environment always downgrades the quality of each job unit. Then, you have to rely on always fixing things on the go, changing stuff of the go, outsourcing - and then wasting energy trying to gather the outsource puzzle into one functional work process.
That is the reason why an overwhelming majority of "indie" games are one of the following:
- retro-pixel side-scroller variation
- retro-pixel side-scroller platformer
- flash-based abomination that is "artsy"
- pixel-hunting quest thingy with detailed immobile background
- fps/horror/game that is so polygonal it should've stayed in the early 90s
- abstract AND artsy
See, that's the point. For example, "retro-pixel side-scroller" - why is it so prevalent? Well, firstly, such games are OLD. Their source codes had been released decades ago, and are available now for free. It costs nothing for an "indie dev" to obtain them, and then just modify them to the hearts content. The codes are simple enough to be worked on by beginner programmers. Pixel graphics don't require a lengthy - and costly - production process.
Making a good, A(AA) game is a really complex process akin to filming a blockbuster. Consider a game like I dunno, Grand Theft Auto. Aside the engine programmers, aside from the coders, you need people that:
- conduct motion capture (so that in-game and cut-scene models move realistically)
- go around a country filming and taking shots of architecture, textures and etc - to build libraries for the designers and modelers
- sound effect directors
- voice actors
- animators
- AI programmers
- level designers
- lighting specialists
the list goes on. No indie collective that prances around Kickstarter, can afford that.
The result is the same as in cinematography. It's not about making a visual eyegasm only. Even realistic, grounded films like say, Trance or series like Breaking Bad, that don't involve giant transforming robots, need a huge budget and effort from a massive, professional team, to make it look good as it does.
But independent films are more often than not a "shaky cam" cheap experience with overlong shots of a floating pack of garbage, or some dark, dank, weird-ass shit. There's a reason why District 9 was rolled out in theaters worldwide, but Neils Blokamp's short film that preceded it became only a Youtube hit.
Indie games, due to the constraints put on them, are always badly made and boring - that's the bitter truth. You may whine that stuff like Battlefield 4 or Call of Poopy is boring as well because its all pew-pew and VIOLINS, but at least it's breaking technological and production grounds, paving way for the medium to develop.
But you see, there's nothing fun or innovative about yet another "nostalgic" sidescroller, or a flash game about some developers "feels". It's no new word in gameplay, and it's visually repulsive. How a game like say, Isaac's Binding is good and innovative, when the pew-pew top-down view dungeon crawlers existed since the 80s? Hows is Slender a technological or gameplay feat when it lasts 20 mins at max (and yet people complain that 8-hr games are short)?
More so, these games are NEVER desired by or played by a general audience. They are a niche thing, born by gamers who want to feel "special" about liking "non-mainstream COD CLONES OMG". It's a completely self-contained, circle-jerk scene for which quality is an anathema since it gets "less genuine".
Simply put - these games are bad. They are bad because their developers don't have the budgets to make anything good. They are bad because they are a repetition of old, worn-out shit. They are bad because the niche they exist withing doesn't try to acknowledge the fact that quality, not pretentious wrapping, sells a concept. They are bad because they are made by faggots for faggots.
I'm not saying that indie games should cease to exist. No, they should - they might well be a platform for rag-tag collectives to someday develop into viable, professional teams, if only for that.
I'm arguing that we should look at these games for what they are - horrible, broken turds that deserve the same level of scrutiny and critisms that solid gaming products get. That they are a thing for a hipster niche, and should not influence mainstream, quality gaming. That people who do them are often tallentless scammers.
That's my view on this shit. I have a really cool idea for a game. But I have a presence of mind to realize that such a game would require a lenghty production cycle by a professional team - and I have the presence of mind not to buy some half-baked flash engine and try to do it on my knee, taking the role of 4-5 employees.
Correct way of handling such a desire, is to go to a bank, take a big-ass credit for a beginning small business, assembl a quality team with all key studio departments, and set out to do it like a professional business entity which you are. When you beg for shit on Kickstarter, and go around Deviantart begging random artists for free concept art, you know that your product will be lump for shit.
So you go and make a 2D pixel retro side-scroller platformer, and game journalists piss their pants.
Thanks, I'd rather play Aliens: Colonial Marines.
lol this absolutely has to be carefully-placed bait.
Though, at the same time, I think they're somewhat important; as you mentioned they can be used as a sort of launching pad for amateur developers to network and form small studios with other developers.
I'd highlight the problem from another angle - the label "indie" is often used to give mediocre, even by old games' standards, pieces of hackwork chance of commercial success, or should I say, to excuse their fundamental flaws. You know, same goes for movies, just replace "indie" label with "art-house". You don't like it? Well, they say, you just can't get the ideas behind it (when in most cases there are none).
In gaming, I call people who can sit and drool through a Pokemon game, Minecraft, a pixel platformer and other "reflex"-type simple-ass kiddie games, fags. Because I think about these games the exact same shit people think about Twilight and Justin Bieber. That this is bad entertainment for manchildren, and I don't have OCD to like them. I can't enjoy the games because they are BORING and BAD for me. Like, you know - Twilight and Justin Bieber. And I can say that because well, I move ON with shit with time. I don't have nostalgia blind me from objective truths. That old Star Wars movies nowadays are horrible to watch. That Doom is so linear and badly executed, that why would you want to play in in 2014. That Beatles objectively suck and are not quadruplied Jesus. Yeah, sure, all those things were breakthrough at that time - but let's look at them like they're the PAST, finally, and not try to say they have the same value in the present and try to replicate them.
And yes, I actually mentioned that it's the same shit as with art-house cinema. It's always a result of not thinking shit through, and getting enough resources to oull an idea off.
And a point a lot of retro-gaming fags miss completely - advances in graphics and technology allow for advances in gameplay and narration. Think about such a normalized gameplay element for modern games as destructable objects. This simple thing, that became possible when computers and game engines were powerful enough to pull off objects destruction calculations now is a staple of FPS and action games. Destructible covers changed the way people play say, FPS, added realism and provided a bigger gameplay variety.
But no, it's all us graphics whores caring only about graphics, the people say)
Truth is, such petite games have to offer something unusual to be memorable. Criticize Isaac as much as you want for its minimalistic design and primitive gameplay, but it has its strong side - replayability, based on random generation of pretty much everything. Something similar makes people play games of chance. Let's not forget about visual component - with limited resources, one can't invest too much in technical side of game and has to rely on design itself: not HOW, but WHAT. This is reason why I think that old DooM's surreal levels were far superior to generic levels of its trequel. High-resolution textures and high-polygonal objects of environment can't save mediocre area design, but properly designed level doesn't necessarily need all that technical candies (though, of course, it's better WITH them than without). Believe me, I'd really like to see Isaac completely redone into something 3D and HD, with enormous grim dungeons, realistic gore and all those visceral and fetal goodies, with huge and unfathomably disgusting bosses. But, as it's not gonna happen, I somehow learned to enjoy the game in way it exists (probably because I'm fag).
Destructible covers? How about making EVERYTHING destructible? Haven't seen it in any serious commercial game so far, though we have example of Minecraft (which, to say, I hate no less than you do). Or yet better example - Dwarf Fortress. I can't remember any games with SUCH depths of gameplay mechanics, too bad that game itself is way too abstract for most gamers, including me, to even try it (same goes for 'roguelike' RPGs).
Narration? Games, from my experience, narrate story through alternating parts where you play and parts where you watch, listen or read. Even if there is no cutscenes and you control your character in plot-driven parts (HL2), there's not much you can change during them: basic mechanics of storytelling usually remains the same, and I don't get why to fix things that have never broken.
Technological advance allows creation of cinematographic cutscenes, but somehow even the written text can be decent alternative. After all, people didn't stop reading books in era of cinema.
Face it, in order to have decent plotline and advanced mechanics game doesn't require top-notch engine. It's all about creators' abilities to convey their ideas using obsolete tools, even if they are amateurs.
Which, of course, doesn't apply to "indie horrors" DEVELOPAHs who just use popular creepypasta characters to attract drooling fangirls, or to those who mimick proto-games from early 80s and pretend they are creators.
Well that's the sames hit I've been talking about. Replayability in the terms of "oh can I get 2 gold stars on that level" and "oh this level's placement of walls changed, will i be able to complete it in 50 secs vs 60" - sorry, thats some nerd ass shit that's exciting for fucking manchildren who have nothing to do but replay already primitive games on full-ass systems. For smarthpones - that shit's fine, I like my Fruit Ninja or Temple Run when I try to sqeeze out a turd on the can, but wasting hours on the same stuff before a 2K HD monitor? Nope. I bought such a monitor/tv to look at beautiful fucking graphics, interesting narrative and realistic, simulative gameplay.
So yeah, probably you're a fag.
Mincraft has such an ability because, I guess, it's lowpoly. And it's the game's core mechanic. You shouldn't be able to demolish building in Battlefield by fucking punching them.
No. Technological advance allows the creation of a cinematographic GAMEPLAY, jesus. It's because people are stuck in this dumb-ass, childish ideas that "in order to have a decent game you don't neeed this and this and THAT and this, it just gutta be FUUUUUN", we don't have stuff like Oculus Rift and Project Morpheus kicking up already.
In a nutshell - interactive, cinematographic, realistic narrative-driven games like Last of Us are the future of gaming on full personal systems. These are the games that justify the existence of such systems (and I personally can't wait for Order 1886). Nintendo will continue making downgraded systems and games catered to kids, which is fine. Button-masher "petite" as you say games will stay on handhelds. And only indie retro shit will remain a niche for faggot hipsters)
2) You somehow seem to divide people who enjoy old games and those who like new ones into two mutually hostile groups that cannot overlap. This is fundamental mistake. I agree with your opinion on hipsters, they'll swallow anything they think is non-mainstream. I agree with your opinion on retrogamers, ones that rob themselves out of AAA-project fun because of dogma that "only old games are TRU". But you forget to consider demographics - which I think can't be too small - that enjoys good game regardless of era it was made in. This indie game, deliberately done as middle 90s game, would be good by middle 90s' standards? If not, kick it out of your library. But you seem to believe that nothing was good back then, so I'm probably gasifying a puddle.
3) You say that such games are OK on portable devices, and then you mention Fruit Ninja... dafuq, I thought that if game is good, it would be good on any platform, and reverse is true. But, apparently, playing same thing on smartphone or on PC defines if you are cool dude or a fag? What happens when portable devices will allow to play big AAA games on them, would it make everyone still holding on cumbersome home devices, as you say, fags? Will it also make games of today shit, and will you call, for example, Spec Ops: The Line shit in year 2024? Ah, I already know that you'll say "yes".
4) I have no doubt that amateurs want their games to be cinematographic, which is impossible to achieve with limited funds, outdated toolkit and lack of professional personnel. But, if "cinematographic" equals "impressive", there are ways to get it done even within limitations of genre, engine and budget, granted that audience won't mind something suggestive rather than explicit. I know a couple of modern games done by professionals in genres that died out in "big" game industry, these mastodons do awfully well though aren't very popular.
5) How about genres and series that did not improve over time, but only downgraded? Starcraft 2 is basically old good Starcraft with new graphics and slightly renewed arsenals. HoMM 3 was pinnacle of series, since that, each new part was getting more and more questionable. Or let's take such series as C&C Red Alert, Diablo, Disciples. In all three cases the first game of trilogy is so outdated that I can't enjoy something that obsolete. Sequels? They rock, if you ask me. Trequels? Fuck no. Red Alert 3, Diablo 3 and Disciples 3 are all so shitty that they shouldn't be considered games. They didn't just decide to evolve; they fucked and wasted whatever was good about their predecessors. So yeah, if golden days of RTS and TBS genres are left behind, who would criticize gamer who sticks to best things these genres have offered so far, if best things in this case are quite old?
Same applies for the mapping- and modding-scene. Especially for easy to mod games like the Elder Scrolls series, with its billions of anime-hair- and sexy-female-armor-mods with messed up normals and low-poly-models.
I've also played quite a lot of Xenonauts that got it's final release this year, there just isn't games with that kind of game mechanics out there in this modern era, and I can't replay X-Com Terror from the Deep forever, another game that has my full attention today is one that I believe you would enjoy as well, and that's the re-imagination of Shadowrun (Shadowrun Returns w. Dragonfall). It's awesome to play a game that actually uses story as the main mechanic. Feels true to the old era.
It might be so that I'm an old fox in the yard that just can't drop my love for the Amiga times and the good period of my life when I played NES-SNES all day long. Those were the good days for sure!
But even then, even tho I played these games, I felt they were lacking. Every year brought improvement, and as technology of game improved, so did the narrations. The games I truelly like are none older than 10-15 years max, and even then, I have no desire to replay Half-Life 2 because it's quite fugly now.
Old games also suck balls. Call me a douche with no imagination, but no, you can't tell compeling stories in 2D pixel side-scrollers, they dont have the mechanics for that.
And I agree that there's a lot of shit out on the indie market, but there's also a big hole in the market that the established brands and companies cant fill, I guess it's a niche market that wouldn't have much of a following in today's gamer's where everything should be streamlined to fit a specific genre and build from a successful recipe from the last title, with minor adjustments to the overall game-play. But that gets pretty lame in my eyes quite fast.
There has been some progress on the AAA market, with titles such as the X-Com: Enemy Unknown release. They even refined the original mechanics and made a great title with quite different rules but still being able to give you the core atmosphere of the X-Com universe. I would probably shit my pants with happiness if there were more innovation like this on the established market.
And not to forget, most of the established companies today started out as "indies", even though the word wasn't out there, so today's indie scene will filter out what's good and in a couple of years we'll hopefully see new brands getting established that can fill out the holes and give us more diversity among the AAA titles than we have today.
Well that's how I see things at least!
Some indie games have potential, others are going to start and never grow out of being shit. (coughFezcough)
Indie games have potential when an actual studio takes over and provides resources. When you have 2 manchildren fixated on their childhood and autisms do something, you get autisms and their fixation.
That's that simple.
Could be the resources from a studio, but then again if they cared enough about their product too they could turn out something halfway decent. Then again, as you said, most of them are fixated on re-capturing their childhood and autism into something "new"
Marketing plays a huge part on it's success too, then again with the general western view towards consumerism these days... they could give a turd wifi capability and people would pay $1000 for the faulty first generation models released.
Problem is that most indies don't want to form dev. studios, since they only want to work on their own games and stay the special little snowflake they are, they want to stay artistic and keep away from the real bussiness side of things, all at the cost of the quality of their product.
In the mobile market these studios do tend to get formed, but they get into their own little bubble where they only make copies of their succesfull game, since it sells, without trying to innovate or create different games, since they might not sell. I mean just look at the companies behind Angry Birds and Candy Crush, they started out small, but now are HUGE, they probably have the structure to make AAA games, but they won't, since they're affraid of risks.
If only these two scenes could meet, since one side only focusses on making risks and showing their vision, sacrificing quality for it, while the other side only focusses on making money and expanding their brand, sacrificing opportunities and progression for it.
not sure if a good path at all, eh, but yeah.
The two conceptions that turned out to be a total, ahem, disappointment.
But don't you think, that actual independent scene is capable to create some truly interesting projects, that should be only something like... indicator of potential good game? That you don't need to create triple A game, with 12 hour long singleplayer, Co-op mode, competitive multiplayer and of course, mod friendly API.
Something, that you can use as demonstration for your ideas and tool for obtaining financial support (for example kick-starter).
Or you think that something like this, idea constructed with free-to-get resources from all around on internet that can possibly show good outcome is... impossible?
There are, in essence, two types of games outside sport and vehicle simulations - button-mashers and narrative games. A button-masher is a game about pressing the button at a right time - that most games arcade-type games starting with stuff like Galaga and ending with Mario-esque platformers, fighting games and etc. These games don't need a 12-hour long single-player or shit. There's a gameplay mechanic and that's it. These are the games that now permeat the mobile game industry as they once did the console games.
The type of indie devs that I talk about sure, can develop such shit. But thing is - most people of my age kinda outgrew this genre OR we want to play them on mobile phones while sitting on the can. We don't want or need them on consoles or our high-end PCs.
Narrative games - FPS, action, RPG, survival horror, etc - require more and more quality. They do need all that, but no, I don't think an "indie" dev can pull it off.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-51P…