Why are indie games such gimmicky shit
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Why are indie games such gimmicky shit
Why are indie games such gimmicky shit
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
As opposed to what anon? Safe formulas that the AAA company relies on?
I'd settle for a good game
well, go play one of the games in your image then
I said *good* game
So you just a depressed contrarian who can't find fun in the hobbies you've once loved?
Could you perhaps explain why Bit Trip Core, N++ and Castle Crashers are bad?
rimworld, factorio, terraria etc.. op is just a major homosexual with no taste.
This. They need to stand out somehow.
Plus they are smaller games so you just take an idea and run with it.
>AAA is gay
>all the big company's are gay
>start up indies are gay
>bros why can't a start up company just make something as good as zone of the enders 3 (super high risk AA) right off the bat with only like 10 people.
homie just go read a book.
Well I will! And I'll enjoy it too!
Ori is not an indie game
let me explain this in a way even you can understand.
indie games cannot compete with AAA titles in their home field. They cannot make a massive openworld game with high quality graphics or 600 hours of content. It's a matter of budget.
So they have to think of a clever idea to base their game on, and stick with the gimmick. Instead of competing in an oversaturated market, they make their own niche.
There. Get it, monkey brain?
Then why should I care about indie games if they're all gimmicky shit? I accepted AAA will never be good because of their circumstances, why should I accept indies that have to be shit because it their circumstances
Why is a gimmick bad? Seriously, I cannot understand. Does every game have to use the same identical openworld-survival style, forever?
Cuphead wanted to make a beautifully animated platformer and that's what they accomplished. Why is having a core idea to your game bad now?
>Why is a gimmick bad? Seriously, I cannot understand.
It makes the games one-note where everything in the game is in service of that one note, that's a shit format for a shit ton of game types and genres
>Does every game have to use the same identical openworld-survival style, forever?
Nice strawman
Sure, this can happen. But being one-note isn't bad if the note is good.
SUPERHOT is very good despite the fact that everything in it is made to support the gimmick. Because the gimmick is good and makes a fun game.
Same with Bit.Trip.CORE, Plague Inc. and similar. These games execute well their gimmicks and that's all that matters.
They can be good one note games, it's just that all one note games are inherently worse than well rounded organic games. They have nothing but novelty when, a good game needs substance.
What exactly is an "organic game" and who gets to be one? Why does Plague Inc. or Cuphead or Inscryption or Lobotomy Corporation, who have great attention to detail and a well-made ga.e not qualify to be organic? Because the creators stuck with a certain kind of gameplay instead of mixing-and-matching? What you call a "gimmick" is simply the game not shifting its gameplay type around.
>They have nothing but novelty when, a good game needs substance.
What "good game" are you talking about? You've been open about hating gimmick games, but what is a non-gimmick game for you? CoD? Fifa? Bethesda games? Smash Bros?
Any game that doesn't revolve around a single novel point of interest
Example
If I wanted to get reductive enough about it, I could cram just about any game you want to mention into that box. You might want to rethink some things.
Cuphead it's just a pretty run n gun, all the Budget basically went into drawing in that style and the creator literally sold his house to do so and also partnered with Microsoft, it's just a special case and the game it's just all the same gimmick
Yes, and that is not bad. The game is fun and it looks really pretty.
Because that's what they wanted to do. A game that was fun and used a certain style of animation that looks really good. It's pretty one-note and that is not bad.
Ok but without the artstyle it would be just a regular run n gun like many others that indie developer can easily do all the time.
Yes, and that's why they have the artstyle.
>if it did not have its definining features it would be like every other game of the same genre ever!
This applies to absolutely anything ever
Not really, plenty of great games don't have a singular "defining feature" and are instead complete products where taking out one part still leaves a ton left over.
Yeah but they still have defining features 99% of time. CS and the buy system, TF2 and its movement options.
A game needs to be unique, otherwise it is just mass-produced trash. Indies simply don't have the budget to give you 150 hours of content. So they have to bet on creativity to conpensate.
And say what you will, indie games have been demolishing AAA titles for the last 5 years, in terms of quality, for the most part.
Being 2/10 in a sea of 1/10 is hardly an achievement anon
So you're saying that indie games just needs to have pretty graphics but doesn't have to do anything special. So just like AAA this days.
You know, slightly improving polygons in some tree leaves is NOT the same as HAND DRAWING EVERY FRAME OF ANIMATION IN THIS GAME.
Aesthetics are a huge part of a game's experience and nothing you will make their accomplishment less impressive.
In addition to this, Cuphead is legimately good and very polished in its platforming.
>You know, slightly improving polygons in some tree leaves is NOT the same as HAND DRAWING EVERY FRAME OF ANIMATION IN THIS GAME.
Omg have a nice day moron, you just limit yourself to what you see but don't care about what's behind the scene. Indietards are just ridiculous scum.
Yes, yes, the 1000 different weapons the latest AAA title offers!
96% of which PLAY THE FRICKING SAME.
Or perhaps the fascinating branching story where your choices matter?
OH WAIT, you just have to make a skillcheck at the end to decide the ending. Nevermind.
Or the improved new graphics from the new engine...
Which look identical to every other game the company released in this decade...
So Zelda breath of the wild is a slog with 1000 same weapons and jaw dropping graphics that plays all the same.
Ok
i have not played BotW because I don't have a Switch, so I cannot say anything about it. And thus I will not.
But the vast majority of AAA titles have been mass produced garbage with a half-baked storyline and pointless trash padding the game to 300 hours.
And vast majority of indie shit game i tried is an uninspired slog that plays all the same and try to do nothing but copy what AAA games did better or just copy each other for the sake of catering to troony's that wants to feel special and different because they don't play AAA shit.
If any of that is represented in the OP, then you are objectively wrong. None of those games was attempting to copy something AAA was shitting out in its time except arguably NitW.
Strange because every indie shit i see in that image looks exactly like that
>looks
1. Not even true
2. Judging a game by looks is beyond moronic, what the frick are you smoking?
Then next time OP should just post a written list of games or screenshot of the actual game instead of just the misleading characters
What the frick? How are the characters "misleading"? Do you just assume the games are shit because you don't like the look of them?
No it's because I don't know every game in the world and would think that a game like Ori is at the same level of all the rest of that indie shit
Downwell is a roguelite, Fez is a puzzle platformer made by a pretentious douche, Baba is You is essentially hyper-advanced Sokoban. There are lots of ways to use a basic black and white palette. Are you saying you've played Ori and hated it, or what?
I'm saying that Ori isn't an indie game and is just ridiculous and misleading putting it with the rest of those games.
It's normally lumped in with indie games despite its massive boost because it sort of went the Shovel Knight route of saying yes to some high profile crossover stuff. Rivals of Aether has Ori, for instance. The real issue is that the AA classification basically doesn't exist anymore, so if you're not fully AAA churning out schlock at least biyearly and you haven't existed for the past 20 years everyone just assumes you're indie.
Ori is in rivals of aether just because the creator of the game was in the development team for Ori and the blind forest. And became friends with Ori developer and asked for permission to use Ori in his game in which he proceeded to ask permission at Microsoft for the rights. You will never see an Ori crossover anymore because it was a special case because if someone wants an Ori crossover needs to pay big papa Microsoft because Ori is a first party xbox game studios game and i never seen an indie game franchise owned by a big corporate and you want to know why? Because is not sn indie game.
You seem unusually mad for this when I'm just explaining why it's perceived as indie. I'm not saying that it IS.
Because i like the game and I'm tired of this perceiving that is objectively wrong and misleading to people that might not know the game.
The game is old enough that any information that's out there enough to culturally osmose about it won't change at this point. Why fight it?
>Why fight it?
Because it's literally wrong and I don't like and don't want to care about indie games and this has been also the case for indie gay for many years about Ori so why bothering at this point. If you like Ori and you say it's indie you're just ridiculing the incredible work of talented people that did something unique and of actual quality that shouldn't be compared with pixel shit and meme games. It never was an indie game, it just looks like one because no big studios make games like this anymore. It's just miss information from brainlet.
>I don't like and don't want to care about indie games
>pixel shit and meme games
You have shit taste.
It's still my taste i developed from playing many many game's through my entire life sorry.
That's fair. I was hardly indoctrinated to indies from a young age or whatever, I just grew up on the classics and wound up gravitating to indies over AAAs because AAs, as you and I both know, barely fricking exist anymore and if I have to play YET ANOTHER generic open world vaguely-RPG shooter I am going to lose brain cells rapidly.
That's why i hardly play games anymore and after all my life playing games made by professional sure i can't lower myself to play and pay for school projects and glorified browser games.
I'm not going to ditch my one true hobby, least of all because I have standards for how much money and manpower was spent on the game. I appreciate games for the thought and love put into them, the competence with which they execute their core ideas, above all else.
I would rather play 10 overall good games with truly awful qualities at times than 1 mediocre game that's only trying to be mediocre for fear of actively offending someone, or worse yet, no games at all.
You just need to understand that videogames are made as a source of income.
Surely there's passion but you don't have to confuse passion with quality or good games. You need to learn to look at things in an objective way, and not be blinded by hippy frickery. Because that's probably what ruined the industry.
I AM looking at these games objectively. And what I see is that they're broken into portions, some better and some worse. And that's just how games used to be. Losing that is what killed AAA, not any amount of what you call "hippy shit".
Is there a deluge of games that think they can get away with having zero gameplay and zero charm to their art because they have a "powerful message"? Oh yeah. But a game made by a man as a glorified ad for an engine he made to compete with RPGmaker is one of the most fun things I've played in my life, two separate developers that started out making simple flash games now produce some of my favorite puzzle and strategy games, one of whom with a subgenre named after them, and the sperg who lived in Andrew Hussie's literal shadow is in the middle of making a game based upon his now decade old fever dream, and I am absolutely enthralled with it regardless of its glaring flaws solely for how fantastic the high points are.
Good for you, it's just that i don't want to play flasy game, puzzle games or rpgmaker games or other shit i consider hit and miss on my pc or 500 buks console. You know i want to play something that makes me say wow and that makes me have fun, like when i first played a jak game on PS2 or when i played Halo 3 in multiplayer for the first time. That's not something that a pixel indie game can do for me. But I'm happy for you that you can find joy in those games it just doesn't work for me.
That sucks to hear. I find most of my joy in raw gameplay concepts and style, and I guess that's a blessing for me. But I can see how hard it would be to long for a new full-scale 3D platformer and have to subsist off of... like, what, Mario Odyssey, Ratchet & Clank maybe, and some remakes? I hope you get some games that suit you soon.
why did you post an image with a ton of unique games who aren't copying any AAA title?
At most you could argue Hollow Knight is copying Castlevania but that would be plain wrong.
thank for the clear explanation
And that's why this CANNOT and NEVER WILL BE an indie game.
>So they have to think of a clever idea to base their game on, and stick with the gimmick.
So indie games like those shitty theme restaurants like Rainforest Cafe. They can't compete with quality so they draw people in with a gimmick, get their cash, and people leave feeling let down.
>bad quality shovelware exists
>therefore the concept of core ideas is bad
Balan Wonderworld was dogshit, therefore all platformers are bad. Borderlands 3 was shit, therefore all shooters are bad.
That's how you sound. Your argument is complete nonsense.
Now you just sound stupid. Pretty much all AAA games are the opposite of quality that repeat the same exact gameplay over and over. Indies are the same, but at least when you hear about a successful indie game it tends to at least fulfull its niche.
As long as it's not a shitty roguelike, i'll probably like it.
ITT: Jealous morons who have ideas but don't ever start working on them seething over the fact that other people have done that and found success
Because they are all made by the same clique that formed around homestuck over a decade ago.
If you feel indie games aren't for you, just don't play them. You don't have to play them.
>hating the LISA cast
Gimmicks are good. They know what they are: Games. I understand life sucks and you need a larger/comprehensive form of escapism, but I'm beginning to think games as a whole has suffered from this compulsion (from both devs and gamers alike). I didn't think this way as a kid, and I have fun more when going back to it.
Because they can't make a big technical spectacle. They don't have the budget. Indies deliver on niche gameplay prospects too risky for a AAA investment.
Donu thinks some indie games are actually pretty good.
Don't be talking shit about Wuppo.
What's next to angry bird
N+ probably.
>indie games is le bad because they're gimmick
>Gimmick is le bad
So care to explain what is a gimmick in your definition, why you think AAA doesn't have gimmicks, when they do and why gimmick is a bad thing.