indie vs AAA

I dont really buy anything from ubi or ea anymore as its regurgitated dumbed down buggy tosh. But other AAA titles from the likes of Rockstar/Blizzard/Valve are usually safe bets.

Been some brilliant indies in the last few yeras, but i dont factor in indie vs aaa, i just go on a game by game basis.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
You gave me Bioshock. Not Infinite! :p (both have fantastic artistic visuals though. But I love the Art Deco mood of Bioshock, as well as the concept)

I found Trine 2 to be a bit 'in your face' with the colour palette to be honest. I can't say it does not look good, but it just does not wow me. I think part of it is perhaps because I just can't relate to it like I can relate to an FPS world. One of the reasons I have always loved FPS games is the immersion. Being 'in' the world, being able to lose myself in the mood and the visual. A side scrolling 2D game just makes me feel detached and uninvolved. Plus you lose immersion because you can see everything on the screen at the same time.

I guess after all said and done, beauty is always going to be in the eye of the beholder.

What about Alien Isolation? I thought it was a stunning realisation of Sevastopol. Along with the sound directing it was an amazing game to play :)

Borderlands has got to be on your radar?
Click to expand...
I've not seen much of AI, but it does have a distinct style to it. Owed to the source material, of course, where the film deliberately crafted a claustrophobic, dreary atmosphere to accentuate the horror (it being a horror film, first and foremost). You could certainly argue art for the game style, beauty is a more difficult sell, but certainly it seems to use its artstyle to actually add to the game experience - rather than most AAA games, for which the visuals are simply a medium through which to communicate the game.

Borderlands, again, isn't beautiful, but is distinct and somewhat artful. I was drawn to it because of the artstyle, certainly. But the game didn't live up to it, for me - it was both boring and bland (Borderlands 1), not what was promised by the exciting visuals. Fairly original artstyle, though (XIII aside).

The point, really, was that beauty and originality in visuals are actually two of the biggest plus points of the Indie games scene. As it happens, Mulps has clarified that he actually meant something different in his post, but the point stands - if you want originality, art and beauty, Indie games are likely where you'll find it.
 
I generally don't do indie games- the 2d or retro style games. I started playing games at the start of the 3D era and cannot see how having a 2d or low res 2d game is in anyway preferable to 3D for the player. immersion is what really gets me into a game, and an atmospheric believable world is crucial for that. As a child, my imagination filled in the gaps. Today as an adult it is unable to- and fortunately doesn't have to.

However in the AAA world there seems to be a lot of crap you have to wade through to find a genuinely good game. Both in terms of crap titles like Thief as well as the (begrudgingly necessary) DLC and pre order bonuses etc.

I think AAA gaming in general is becoming too bloated and tedius both in terms of the actual games and gameplay (eg The Order 1886 and thief) and the extra faffing such as DLC, bugs, Micro Transactions. People will eventually stop buying them and gaming budgets/graphics/ team sizes will plateau. Is my gut feeling.
 
9 times out of 10, an indie game will have better actual gameplay than an AAA imo, and will feature more innovation.

Sometimes though, you simply can't beat the big production values they will give you. There is nothing quite like getting properly immersed in a story-driven game for me, and that will almost always mean AAA....Alien Isolation, Mass Effect games, Bioshock, Dishonored for example.

There are loads of crap AAA games around that just follow the same boring formula(or the Ubisoft formula). Dying Light is the latest...Follow a map to a specific location and follow the orders on the screen. Boring.
 
Last edited:
cheesyboy said:
I've not seen much of AI, but it does have a distinct style to it. Owed to the source material, of course, where the film deliberately crafted a claustrophobic, dreary atmosphere to accentuate the horror (it being a horror film, first and foremost). You could certainly argue art for the game style, beauty is a more difficult sell, but certainly it seems to use its artstyle to actually add to the game experience - rather than most AAA games, for which the visuals are simply a medium through which to communicate the game.

Borderlands, again, isn't beautiful, but is distinct and somewhat artful. I was drawn to it because of the artstyle, certainly. But the game didn't live up to it, for me - it was both boring and bland (Borderlands 1), not what was promised by the exciting visuals. Fairly original artstyle, though (XIII aside).

The point, really, was that beauty and originality in visuals are actually two of the biggest plus points of the Indie games scene. As it happens, Mulps has clarified that he actually meant something different in his post, but the point stands - if you want originality, art and beauty, Indie games are likely where you'll find it.
Click to expand...

XIII is one of my all time favourite games. I absolutely loved the style, the comic book break out sections when you made a kill, the jazz music and the gameplay. It was wonderfully done.

I agree, Indie games will bring originality but the majority of them do not provide (to my mind) visual beauty by virtue of the fact a lot of them use pixelated graphics styles and simple artistry (not that simple cannot be beautiful). The beauty in Indie titles for me is more about the originality, gameplay and the interesting takes on genre. For example Kerbal Space Program.

That said, there are some stylistically interesting Indie games which I could say present artistry with a bit of wow factor. Never alone and Limbo. I also think Deadlight and This War of Mine are also worth a mention, along with No Man's Sky. But are they beautiful? I suppose the crux of the matter is the definition of beautiful, and in that regard it becomes a subjective discussion.

But I think there is an ageless quality to the artistry of games like Trine 2 and Ori and the Blind Forest - they will always look good because they are not limited by the technology, and most importantly they are not trying to mimic reality. But, particularly with Trine 2, I find some of the kaleidoscopic visuals eye watering and intrusive to an extent that they actually detract from the experience.

I do think we will get to a stage where we can graphically reproduce the same visual acuity of reality and the limiting factor will become our own vision.

We are all different, different lives, different memories, different personalities so it is a world or circles - some touch, even overlap to create common ground or occupy the same space and others never touch at all. I think beauty is like that.
 
Pighardia said:
9 times out of 10, an indie game will have better actual gameplay than an AAA imo, and will feature more innovation.

Sometimes though, you simply can't beat the big production values they will give you. There is nothing quite like getting properly immersed in a story-driven game for me, and that will almost always mean AAA....Alien Isolation, Mass Effect games, Bioshock, Dishonored for example.

There are loads of crap AAA games around that just follow the same boring formula(or the Ubisoft formula). Dying Light is the latest...Follow a map to a specific location and follow the orders on the screen. Boring.
Click to expand...
Story is a weakness of Indie games generally. I'm more than happy with the tradeoff with fun mechanics, but not everyone is.

I do like the idea of story driven AAA games. But actually playing them is super tedious.

Mass Effect 1 was just so boring other than the story - the ending really went down well with me, but not well enough to make me want to play the sequel after all those repetitive planet excursions (bleh).

FEAR had some amazing moments, separated by hours of tedious repetitive shooting gallery gunfights (good AI, but boring anyway).

Bioshock 1 is such an interesting world. I've only just started playing (3hrs ish), but it's so boring working your way through the splicer fights etc.

I guess I'm a mechanics guy, above all else. I also appreciate a strong art style, but that doesn't need to mean technically great graphics. And story isn't enough to keep things interesting. Probably why I tend to prefer Indies and smaller studio titles.
 
Theres good points to both really, a lot of the big aaa titles are going downhill (bf, cod, assasins creed etc) in terms of quality, but some others are pretty good (eg civ and elder scrolls aaa level and very good indeed)

But for the better indie games (because there is some terrible titles out there) they really can put the big companies to shame, like for example the only game that flawlessly does triple screens for me (recognised it as default res without tweaking settings) is kerbal space program, and it's not even finished, which is a better track record than many aaa titles both older and younger in release and all supposedly "finished", even minecraft does fullscreen better than some massive releases.

really it depends, i tend to judge mostly on the quality of gameplay, performance and storyline (unless there isnt much of a storyline by mechanic)
 
I prefer AAA when it is done well, you can't really say which one is better because you get awful AAA and indie but also excellent AAA/indie. Main reason to go AAA over indie is mostly for the graphics but even they arn't getting much better than they were 5+ years ago.
 
If I'd answered without thinking I'd have shrugged but mulling it over my favorate games over the past few years (fun factor and sheer amount of time spent playing) have been, with the exception of titanfall in the past few months..

Fortress Forever
Limbo
Deadlight
Quake Live
This War Of Mine

With smatterings of:
The Forest
Dear Esther
Time Swapper

I've played BF3 and 4, Tomb Raider, Dishonored and even Bioshock Infinite and ended up getting bored before the end.
That said.. Mass Effect 1-3.. :wub:
 
People use "indie" as if it's a genre when rally it isn't. A lot of "indie" games have very similar traits, but what people forget is that it simply means independent.

Valve's games are "indie". ARMA 3 is "indie". The Witcher series is "indie". That covers quite an amount of "AAA" games whilst being "indie".
 
spoffle said:
People use "indie" as if it's a genre when rally it isn't. A lot of "indie" games have very similar traits, but what people forget is that it simply means independent.

Valve's games are "indie". ARMA 3 is "indie". The Witcher series is "indie". That covers quite an amount of "AAA" games whilst being "indie".
Click to expand...



I don't think people forget it, more that the meaning of it has been re-invented over the last 5-6 years.

Technically, you are correct in that 'Indie' was initially used to describe an independent developer. But I think the gaming industry has changed and it is now a term so synonymous with low budget, niche, small studio games that it has become a genre defining term. It is correct that Arma 3 is technically an independent but I think describing it as such is not in keeping with the ethos of what Indie is generally accepted to be about.

I think the overall view within the gaming community and the industry is that Arma 3 is not an Indie title by anything other than technical definitioin. Hence why you never see it in the gaming press listed as an Indie game.

This shift in outlook has indeed created the modern 'genre' of Indie that we see now. Whether it is technically correct or not is neither here nor there in most peoples minds. Ask gamers and 99% will say Arma 3 is not in the spirit of an Indie title even though, as you point out, it technically is. As such we then have to look at how the term 'Indie' is relevant in the modern day. Perhaps we have to accept that the technical definition is so far removed from the reality of peoples beliefs that it becomes innacurate and therefore unsuitable for its original purpose. In effect, the actual meaning has been redefined by the collective for the collective based on common beliefs.

The technical correctness then becomes a moot point. Indeed you could argue that the technical correctness shifts in line with the prevailing comprehension of what that term means to the majority of people.

If 99.9% of people call an apple an apple when it is technically a pear - does it matter that it is a pear at all?
 
But the problem is that it isn't a genre, because the predominant theme is "low budget". Low budget isn't really a genre, it's just a product of the environment of not being beholden to a publisher.

It's like saying big budget is a genre, it isn't it's a classification of budget. The games have nothing in common outside of having a big budget.

Ergo actually trying to use "indie" as a genre doesn't make sense, it becomes meaningless because the whole point of "indie" isn't the budget, but the fact that they have no publishers, so they can push the limits more.

It has nothing to do with "technical correctness" and everything to do with understanding WHY they're classified in the way they are.

Your last comment is an appeal to the masses fallacy in that something becomes true based on the amount of people that believe in it.
 
Hit and miss..

I find that most 'indie' games are just like old flash games that come with a price tag, but there are some good ones out there too like Darkest Dungeon I find that with this one they didn't really advertise it too well but the actually gameplay once you give it a chance is very good which ironically is the complete opposite way round to how AAA games work :D
 
I've spent most of my game time on indie games like robocraft, fez, world of goo. But also play a few blizard games. The Indie ones seem more fun overall, less formulaic.
 
Compared to say the 90s or the early 2000s AAA standards have gone completely down the toilet. I find myself enjoying indie games more then AAAs now generally speaking, even through I buy a lot of both types.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom