Would you buy an Indie game?

jsmoke

jsmoke

jsmoke

Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
11,259
So playing a bit of Super Meat Boy and Braid. Now they are obviously not graphical masterpieces however they have generated millions in sales, SMB is reasonably enjoyable, would be fine for a mobile game.

I don't quite see the hype around them though, not worth the money??
 
To be honest, I prefer indie games.

They're a bit more focused: try and do one thing really well rather than go for a broad-brush approach.

They tend to be shorter, which suits my gaming time.

Frankly, they're generally more interesting and innovative.
 
jsmoke said:
So playing a bit of Super Meat Boy and Braid. Now they are obviously not graphical masterpieces however they have generated millions in sales, SMB is reasonably enjoyable, would be fine for a mobile game.

I don't quite see the hype around them though, not worth the money??
Click to expand...

Have you ever played Minecraft?
 
I've been playing more and more indie games over the past year or so. Mainly The Binding of Isaac. Excellent game with a good racing community.

Also enjoyed others like SMB, FTL, Fez, Hotline Miami, Risk of Rain, VVVVVV.

So to answer your question, yes I would.
 
My Steam library is full of indie games.

They're cheap, some are innovative and by buying them I feel I am supporting creative development.

I still play Trine 2 and Limbo even though I've completed them.
 
Hell yes - there are so many quality indie games around at the moment. And considering that Braid and SuperMeatBoy can be got for a couple of quid each or less (steam sale/humble bundles etc) I would say that if you play them just a couple of times you have got your monies worth out of them - I cant say that for some of the AAA titles I have bought over the years.
 
I play a combination of 'AAA' and Indie games and love/hate them both equally.

The standout's for me are games that push the envelope a little; games like Don't Starve and Kerbal Space Program are my 'go to' games.

I see them on an equal standing with big realeases now. Its not the graphics or marketing that makes the game its the quality of the gameplay and fun/enjoyment you have while playing it. :)
 
Doomedspeed said:
Its not the graphics or marketing that makes the game its the quality of the gameplay and fun/enjoyment you have while playing it. :)
Click to expand...
^^this :D

I have a mixture of both indie and AAA, find a lot of the indie games to be fun.

I try not to pre-order AAA games now as so many are a disappointment: amazing graphics, huge hype but when the game comes out it's buggy or just rubbish.

Some indie games have real character, something a lot of AAA games miss out on.
Also a lot of indie developers continue to update games with free content updates etc, AAA titles release these as DLC
 
Doomedspeed said:
I play a combination of 'AAA' and Indie games and love/hate them both equally.

The standout's for me are games that push the envelope a little; games like Don't Starve and Kerbal Space Program are my 'go to' games.

I see them on an equal standing with big realeases now. Its not the graphics or marketing that makes the game its the quality of the gameplay and fun/enjoyment you have while playing it. :)
Click to expand...

I disagree a bit, the devs of SMB sold themselves as much as they could, they did every interview they possibly could, they tried to create a cult following, which they did. Marketing must be a bit part in game sales?

When you look at say Mass Effect 3 then SMB and compare pricing and gameplay it's hard to see why it got so many sales, but it did.
 
I think the benefit of indie games is that they're low budget and so they aren't afraid to be innovative, because ultimately there's a lot less at stake. They also <need> the support of every possible customer, so tend to be more community focused and listen to and try to incorporate a lot of player suggestions.

Contrast this with the big developers who are putting millions into a single game - they NEED it to be a huge hit, so they have to cater to the lowest common denominator; meaning often they will follow a tried and tested formula.

Also they wont care if 10, 20, 5,000 players hate what they've created and don't buy the game; they've got a market of millions, a few thousand unhappy customers is a drop in the ocean.

Basically:

AAA - you'll get a (supposedly) polished game with fancy graphics but generic gameplay.
Indie - you'll get basic graphics, but creative gameplay with fresh ideas and decent developer interaction.

Obviously those are massive sweeping generalisations, and there are exceptions on both sides. Also the "polished" part of AAA game seems to be in decline =/

I guess it depends what is more important to you :)

Also, OP when you say "not worth the money".

Indie games are usually what? ~£4-6?

If that gives you a couple of hours entertainment, that's not bad.

I bought Project Zomboid a few years ago for £5. I've had at least 10 hours gaming out of it, so 50p/hour isn't bad.

10 hours out of an AAA game (not unrealistic for a single player campaign) would be £3-4/hour, so which one is "not worth the money"? ;)
 
Last edited:
I'm playing indie titles more than big budget games these days. They tend to be more gameplay heavy, creative, challenging, harder to master, more satisfying. At the moment Rogue Legacy is getting all my gaming time.

//start rant
The problem with big budget games these days is the obscene amount it costs to produce them. Massive teams of coders, testers, designers, producers, artists etc all working round the clock for years. With so much money involved there's immense pressure to not take any risks in design and, more than ever before, developers are playing it safe to bring in the no.s. That's why games these days hold our hands from start to finish - wrapping us in bubbles of regenerating health, simple mechanics, and sign posts everywhere. Look at CoD and Battlefield and the actual gameplay mechanics involved - they're painfully simple and dumbed down compared to the shooters we had in the 90s. This is the case across pretty much all genres. Skill ceilings have been lowered to crawling height and random luck based elements encouraged to level the playing field. Video games used to be a niche pastime for people who were all about the hardcore stat fiddling, twitch aiming and exploration. Working things out for themselves and mastering the necessary skills. Now it's a pastime for the masses and has been dumbed down accordingly. This isn't a rose tinted look at years gone by - games were better back in the day in pretty much every way that matters :mad:
//end rant!
 
Warbie said:
I'm playing indie titles more than big budget games these days. They tend to be more gameplay heavy, creative, challenging, harder to master, more satisfying. At the moment Rogue Legacy is getting all my gaming time.

//start rant
The problem with big budget games these days is the obscene amount it costs to produce them. Massive teams of coders, testers, designers, producers, artists etc all working round the clock for years. With so much money involved there's immense pressure to not take any risks in design and, more than ever before, developers are playing it safe to bring in the no.s. That's why games these days hold our hands from start to finish - wrapping us in bubbles of regenerating health, simple mechanics, and sign posts everywhere. Look at CoD and Battlefield and the actual gameplay mechanics involved - they're painfully simple and dumbed down compared to the shooters we had in the 90s. This is the case across pretty much all genres. Skill ceilings have been lowered to crawling height and random luck based elements encouraged to level the playing field. Video games used to be a niche pastime for people who were all about the hardcore stat fiddling, twitch aiming and exploration. Working things out for themselves and mastering the necessary skills. Now it's a pastime for the masses and has been dumbed down accordingly. This isn't a rose tinted look at years gone by - games were better back in the day in pretty much every way that matters :mad:
//end rant!
Click to expand...

Agreed - using PZ again as an example. It's hard. Very hard. In fact the game intro itself spells it out to you - you WILL die. You might survive for a few hours, a few days, or if you're really lucky/good, a few months or even years (in game time), but sooner or later you will slip up, and die, and when that happens you lose everything, no "load last save", "return to checkpoint" etc. Game over, start again.

Unfortunately that doesn't appeal to the mass market - people don't want to lose everything because they weren't concentrating because they were too busy texting their mate, or watching BGT, so hardcore games like that simply wont have a wide appeal :(

Ultima Online was pretty much killed by the same phenomenon.

Started out as proper hardcore, be robbed, killed etc. by anyone, anywhere, at any time, and lose everything you were carrying - if it happened to be all your worldly possessions, tough!

Then came Trammel - bye bye open PVP, but you could still lose everything by being killed by monsters.

Then came blessed items - sure, you could die, but you'd keep some of your items, a pain, but no biggy.

Then insurance - don't want to lose your items? Just insure them, sorted!

What a waste :(
 
jsmoke said:
I disagree a bit, the devs of SMB sold themselves as much as they could, they did every interview they possibly could, they tried to create a cult following, which they did. Marketing must be a bit part in game sales?

When you look at say Mass Effect 3 then SMB and compare pricing and gameplay it's hard to see why it got so many sales, but it did.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are exactly right.. That's a great way for an indie developer to make their money/living.

What I meant was 'personally'. I obviously see Hype around games but I don't get drawn in by it.. Like Minecraft; No matter how good it is. Its just not the kind of game I am interested in/want to play :)
 
Yes they're cheap and often better than AAA titles.

The franchises especially are dull, worn out, declining and ludicrously expensive. Gameplay has been lost, whereas I think in indie titles it's the focus.
 
jsmoke said:
I disagree a bit, the devs of SMB sold themselves as much as they could, they did every interview they possibly could, they tried to create a cult following, which they did. Marketing must be a bit part in game sales?

When you look at say Mass Effect 3 then SMB and compare pricing and gameplay it's hard to see why it got so many sales, but it did.
Click to expand...

It's not hard at all, SMB got so many sales because it's an extremely good game, and its graphics are actually particularly good in game in terms of detail and the amount of effort put in.

Indie or not (Which isn't a genre) I measure the quality of a game on its own merit, hence why Super Meat Boy is one of my all time favourite games. I've played well over 100 hours of it, and I'm still not done (I won't progress a level until I get an A+ in it) and I recently beat the Kid levels. It's a game that models itself on old school hard core platforming, which is a massively refreshing experience compared to a lot of modern games that hold your hand throughout most of the game.

Super Meat Boy is brutally hard, but that's the way it should be.
 
OP, heres a list of some of my favourite indie games that you should try as I think they would change your opinion:

Bastion
Defense Grid
Hard Reset
Machinarium
Mark of the Ninja
Orcs Must Die 1+2
Skulls of the Shogun
Torchlight 1+2
Trine 1+2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom