Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JosephManderley

General Gaming I think I prefer indie games

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Test Drive Unlimited was like Forza Horizon (you never specified Horizon) but yeah there are a ton of games like that, Horizon wasn't the inventor of open world racing games.

Yes I did. You cut it out when you quoted me. Regardless even if FH didn’t create a new genre, AAA games don’t feel like games from 10 years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Yes I did. You cut it out when you quoted me. Regardless even if FH didn’t create a new genre, AAA games don’t feel like games from 10 years ago. 

You’re being a bit selective in your choices, picking the cream of the crop. Forza Horizon and God of War are good examples of evolutions in the AAA space, which is to say a lot of AAA games are stale as fuck and essentially copy cats of their older selves but prettier and a little bigger scope - think Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, Halo, what have you. 

 

But even Forza Horizon 1 was, what, 7 years ago? The newest iteration is great, I love it, but it’s not some leap over the original formula. 

 

There’s nothing wrong with that, but if I’m picking the category that is going to typically try new and interesting things, it’s indie games in a runaway. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assassin’s Creed Origins/Odyssey are a leap over 10 year old games. Halo hasn’t released a game in 4 years. 

 

There are are lots of AAA games that are pushing forward. And there are lots of indie games that aren’t 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Assassin’s Creed Origins/Odyssey are a leap over 10 year old games. Halo hasn’t released a game in 4 years. 

 

There are are lots of AAA games that are pushing forward. And there are lots of indie games that aren’t 

They are evolutions of the formulas, yes, but like I said if we are going to play the somewhat juvenile game of one category versus the other category, by their very nature AAA games are going to tentatively evolve as not to upset the masses they are created for when compared to the indie scene. Like, it really isn’t a debate. Indie games have way more freedom to try crazy shit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

They are evolutions of the formulas, yes, but like I said if we are going to play the somewhat juvenile game of one category versus the other category, by their very nature AAA games are going to tentatively evolve as not to upset the masses they are created for when compared to the indie scene. Like, it really isn’t a debate. Indie games have way more freedom to try crazy shit. 

Most of the "crazy shit" isn't fun.  And most indie games aren't doing crazy shit.  A ton of them are derivative.  Most of them simply don't have the resources to create something great.  Most of the Indies that I have played aren't very polished, have a couple of good ideas that are iterated on but aren't fully developed before the game is over.

 

And while SOME AAA games are tentatively evolving (CoD, Madden and FIFA come to mind) -- there are tons of AAA studios pushing the boundaries forward.  (Doom 2016, the Wolfenstein reboots, Fortnite, AC Origins, God of War, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Most of the "crazy shit" isn't fun.  And most indie games aren't doing crazy shit.  A ton of them are derivative.  Most of them simply don't have the resources to create something great.  Most of the Indies that I have played aren't very polished, have a couple of good ideas that are iterated on but aren't fully developed before the game is over.

 

And while SOME AAA games are tentatively evolving (CoD, Madden and FIFA come to mind) -- there are tons of AAA studios pushing the boundaries forward.  (Doom 2016, the Wolfenstein reboots, Fortnite, AC Origins, God of War, etc.)

Not fun according to who? That’s too subjective to take seriously as a point. I don’t know how to even contextualize “most” indie games. There are tens of thousands. “Most” AAA games certainly are not innovating, and I’m not arguing that none are. 

 

What’s undeniable is AAA games are consistently under way more pressure to shy on the side of what they know works, which is why when one actually does push the industry forward it’s so surprising and such a big deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

Not fun according to who?

Me, for one.  Crazy can be fun, or not fun.  Crazy is not in itself fun.

11 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

I don’t know how to even contextualize “most” indie games. There are tens of thousands.

This goes back to the false narrative that indie games all innovate, and AAA games do not.  The 100sof  rogue-lite/likes and walking simulators that are released each year are not all innovating.

Pointing at the indie-games that do innovate (and ignoring the ones that don't), while simultaneously looking at the AAA games that don't innovate (and ignoring the ones that do) is intellectually dishonest.

11 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

What’s undeniable is AAA games are consistently under way more pressure to shy on the side of what they know works, which is why when one actually does push the industry forward it’s so surprising and such a big deal. 

Some teams are under pressure -- that's clearly the case (IMHO) with the annual releases of multi-player shooters and sports games.

 

When AAA games don't innovate they become the next Tony Hawk/Guitar Hero, and fade from existence.

What is also true, is that being innovative can also drive huge returns/profits.  (See games like Overwatch, Fortnite, etc.)

 

My point, is that indie games aren't the last bastion of innovation.  IMHO, that is a false narrative.  There is significant innovation in the AAA space.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Me, for one.  Crazy can be fun, or not fun.  Crazy is not in itself fun.

That's an entirely different discussion. 

 

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

This goes back to the false narrative that indie games all innovate, and AAA games do not. 

You made that narrative up though. Nobody is saying all indie games innovate and no AAA games do.  

 

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

The 100sof  rogue-lite/likes and walking simulators that are released each year are not all innovating.

Sure, again, not disagreeing that the indie games that do not innovate are innovating lol. 

 

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Pointing at the indie-games that do innovate (and ignoring the ones that don't), while simultaneously looking at the AAA games that don't innovate (and ignoring the ones that do) is intellectually dishonest.

Who did this? Certainly not me. You picked a select few AAA that (kind of) innovate (which, if we want to get into that we sure can: AKA God of War changed the God of War formula - but it didn't really do all that much to innovate the industry, but again, different discussion). 

 

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Some teams are under pressure -- that's clearly the case (IMHO) with the annual releases of multi-player shooters and sports games.

Every team is under pressure, indie or not. I'm talking about a very specific type of pressure unique to games made by big companies with massive budgets and financial goals to hit from their shareholders. They are nearly always going to skew for the safe, tried and true technique, as well as schemes to squeeze every last dime out of their customers. These games are often collaborative efforts, with different teams working on different parts of the game at once, not necessarily being on the same page. The project's initial vision is often pretty compromised by the end due to a variety of factors specific to the nature of being a AAA game. 

 

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

When AAA games don't innovate they become the next Tony Hawk/Guitar Hero, and fade from existence.

This is simply not true. You mentioned obvious examples in literally the sentence before this one - sports games, WWE games, etc don't innovate and they're alive and well. Tony Hawk probably could have come back and did just fine if the game they put out wasn't very bad. 

 

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

What is also true, is that being innovative can also drive huge returns/profits.  (See games like Overwatch, Fortnite, etc.)

Fortnite was a failed game that literally copied an indie developer's formula to make it big. Brendan Greene left a big company because he wasn't able to focus on what he wanted to focus on, and he created the biggest phenomenon in gaming in 10 years or so. 

 

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

My point, is that indie games aren't the last bastion of innovation.  IMHO, that is a false narrative.  There is significant innovation in the AAA space.

And again I don't see anyone making that claim. Nobody said AAA games do not innovate at all. But when pitting indie games vs AAA games, indie games obviously innovate more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

You’re being a bit selective in your choices, picking the cream of the crop. Forza Horizon and God of War are good examples of evolutions in the AAA space, which is to say a lot of AAA games are stale as fuck and essentially copy cats of their older selves but prettier and a little bigger scope - think Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, Halo, what have you. 

 

But even Forza Horizon 1 was, what, 7 years ago? The newest iteration is great, I love it, but it’s not some leap over the original formula. 

 

There’s nothing wrong with that, but if I’m picking the category that is going to typically try new and interesting things, it’s indie games in a runaway. 

 

 

 

But I get what he's saying. 10 years ago, or even the start of last gen, many AAA games were criticized for being me-too games with overexposed lighting, or were gray and gritty, or were becoming more open-world. Crackdown 3 was criticized for feeling too much like Crackdown 1 and not an evolution of the series. In other words, what Crackdown should be in 2019.

 

That's because people know what an open-world game felt like in 2007 compared to 2019.

 

Technology has also allowed far more. You weren't getting migrating hordes filled with hundreds of enemies in games 10 - 13 years ago. You weren't getting constantly updated racing games with clubs or live events at the start of the previous gen. You weren't getting many open world games that had gameplay as good as something like Horizon Zero Dawn since many open-world games decided to forsake efforts in smoother gameplay with using those efforts for building the world. You weren't getting massive battle royale games because technology made it difficult (the only thing close to that I can think of was MAG, which released in 2010). You weren't getting a, "Hey, look at that mountain over there. You can actually climb it," moment like in Breath of the Wild. AAA games were going more action-heavy with RE5 and RE6. Now you have puzzle-oriented ones again that can be played fully in virtual reality, making it a completely different experience. Even as the fourth main entry in the series, its convoy set piece would have been impossible 10 years ago in Uncharted 2, with not just the scale of everything but how all the enemies react. Same goes for the final chapter in Lost Legacy. You weren't getting that many wide-linear masterpieces like God of War. You didn't get many stealth games like Metal Gear Solid V, which gives you free reign in impeccably crafted levels and a seamless transition from stealth to action gameplay. You weren't getting something like Dreams, which has become an unbelievable creator tool and it's still in early access. You weren't getting the unbelievable detail in RDR2 where NPCs talk about other NPCs and these characters react to the smallest thing you do to them that most people don't even think about.

 

Hell, even in a remake of a 20-year-old game, you never got an enemy like that motherfucker Mr. X who would chase you through an entire area. The original Mr. X was in a room as a jump scare and wouldn't follow you across the map (and the one wall destruction moment is scripted), and Nemesis would follow you through maybe one or two rooms. There was a limit to the amount of items you could get from Nemesis because he wasn't actually a constant threat; he would show up in certain moments. Then you play RE2make and all you can think of is STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP which I don't think of much for AAA games. It's why even veterans of the original WTF'd at the new Mr. X. It changed how you played significantly.

 

On the other hand, many pixel-art indie games would have been possible in the 90s. Many "walking sims" like Gone Home were possible in the 90s and 2000s. Stuff like Stardew Valley was a response to the lack of games like Harvest Moon. Highly acclaimed indies like Axiom Verge and Dead Cells are variations of existing indie formulas, and in some cases variations of formulas set in the 8-bit/16-bit era. That's why it's many indies, not AAA games, that are "roguelike" and "Metroidvanias." Because even 

 

There's definitely a market for lower-budget games that try to be different, but when you have a billion indie studios, you're more likely to get experimental stuff like Donut Country (which is a different type of puzzle game). But even there, you have tons and tons or games that aren't revolutionizing the industry, even if those games are really damn good. I don't think you're fully grasping the progress in the AAA sphere, and I think it's because it's way easier to look at something like Donut Country and go, "Whoa, new and different," because it looks so weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

But I get what he's saying. 10 years ago, or even the start of last gen, many AAA games were criticized for being me-too games with overexposed lighting, or were gray and gritty, or were becoming more open-world. Crackdown 3 was criticized for feeling too much like Crackdown 1 and not an evolution of the series. In other words, what Crackdown should be in 2019.

 

That's because people know what an open-world game felt like in 2007 compared to 2019.

 

Technology has also allowed far more. You weren't getting migrating hordes filled with hundreds of enemies in games 10 - 13 years ago. You weren't getting constantly updated racing games with clubs or live events at the start of the previous gen. You weren't getting many open world games that had gameplay as good as something like Horizon Zero Dawn since many open-world games decided to forsake efforts in smoother gameplay with using those efforts for building the world. You weren't getting massive battle royale games because technology made it difficult (the only thing close to that I can think of was MAG, which released in 2010). You weren't getting a, "Hey, look at that mountain over there. You can actually climb it," moment like in Breath of the Wild. AAA games were going more action-heavy with RE5 and RE6. Now you have puzzle-oriented ones again that can be played fully in virtual reality, making it a completely different experience. Even as the fourth main entry in the series, its convoy set piece would have been impossible 10 years ago in Uncharted 2, with not just the scale of everything but how all the enemies react. Same goes for the final chapter in Lost Legacy. You weren't getting that many wide-linear masterpieces like God of War. You didn't get many stealth games like Metal Gear Solid V, which gives you free reign in impeccably crafted levels and a seamless transition from stealth to action gameplay. You weren't getting something like Dreams, which has become an unbelievable creator tool and it's still in early access. You weren't getting the unbelievable detail in RDR2 where NPCs talk about other NPCs and these characters react to the smallest thing you do to them that most people don't even think about.

 

Hell, even in a remake of a 20-year-old game, you never got an enemy like that motherfucker Mr. X who would chase you through an entire area. The original Mr. X was in a room as a jump scare and wouldn't follow you across the map (and the one wall destruction moment is scripted), and Nemesis would follow you through maybe one or two rooms. There was a limit to the amount of items you could get from Nemesis because he wasn't actually a constant threat; he would show up in certain moments. Then you play RE2make and all you can think of is STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP which I don't think of much for AAA games. It's why even veterans of the original WTF'd at the new Mr. X. It changed how you played significantly.

 

On the other hand, many pixel-art indie games would have been possible in the 90s. Many "walking sims" like Gone Home were possible in the 90s and 2000s. Stuff like Stardew Valley was a response to the lack of games like Harvest Moon. Highly acclaimed indies like Axiom Verge and Dead Cells are variations of existing indie formulas, and in some cases variations of formulas set in the 8-bit/16-bit era. That's why it's many indies, not AAA games, that are "roguelike" and "Metroidvanias."

 

There's definitely a market for lower-budget games that try to be different, but when you have a billion indie studios, you're more likely to get experimental stuff like Donut Country. But even there, you have tons and tons or games that aren't revolutionizing the industry, even if those games are really damn good.

I think you kind of expressed how I would have responded, in that typically the AAA realm innovations are dictated more by technological advancements - not always, but typically - where indie games are less interested in that for a variety of reasons. 

 

Again it's not that AAA don't innovate, they just have less incentive to do so and there are so few of them in comparison that it just doesn't happen near as often as it does in indie games.

 

Even the indie games that are mentioned in this thread are a microcosm of the games out there. A person couldn't possibly even be aware of all of the indie games, while it's relatively easy to do with the AAA releases. 

 

Innovation itself is a nebulous term, and all new ideas are based on old ones. But for the sake of this discussion I don't think we need to get too into the weeds on that. Essentially what I'm saying is that indie games by far and away are going to try more creative and new ideas for video games than AAA games are. Whether or not a person is into that is up to them, and as I said with my first post, I truly don't really even think about it all that much anymore.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Paperclyp said:

I think you kind of expressed how I would have responded, in that typically the AAA realm innovations are dictated more by technological advancements - not always, but typically - where indie games are less interested in that for a variety of reasons. 

 

Again it's not that AAA don't innovate, they just have less incentive to do so and there are so few of them in comparison that it just doesn't happen near as often as it does in indie games.

 

Even the indie games that are mentioned in this thread are a microcosm of the games out there. A person couldn't possibly even be aware of all of the indie games, while it's relatively easy to do with the AAA releases. 

 

Innovation itself is a nebulous term, and all new ideas are based on old ones. But for the sake of this discussion I don't think we need to get too into the weeds on that. Essentially what I'm saying is that indie games by far and away are going to try more creative and new ideas for video games than AAA games are. Whether or not a person is into that is up to them, and as I said with my first post, I truly don't really even think about it all that much anymore.  

 

Kinda. My main points are:

  1. AAA games do try new things, but many of them are more grounded than something like Donut Country, even though that's not necessarily a completely different game since it has plenty of puzzle elements.
  2. Technology innovations are fantastic because they're literally things that weren't possible. Something like Dead Cells probably could have existed 15 years ago. Days Gone and Uncharted 4 could not without significantly changing the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Kinda. My main points are:

  1. AAA games do try new things, but many of them are more grounded than something like Donut Country, even though that's not necessarily a completely different game since it has plenty of puzzle elements.
  2. Technology innovations are fantastic because they're literally things that weren't possible. Something like Dead Cells probably could have existed 15 years ago. Days Gone and Uncharted 4 could not without significantly changing the game.

See, to me Uncharted 4 is a pretty good example of a stale series that didn’t do a whole lot to innovate other than it looks better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

See, to me Uncharted 4 is a pretty good example of a stale series that didn’t do a whole lot to innovate other than it looks better. 

 

Opposite here. The open arena areas, the seamless ways to transition from a jump to a sneak attack/weapon stealing, and more ambitious set pieces were great innovations in the series that looked very small at the start with UC1 in retrospect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

That's an entirely different discussion. 

Then either I expressed myself poorly, or you didn't understand my point.

 

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

You made that narrative up though. Nobody is saying all indie games innovate and no AAA games do.  

 

I did not -- my responses that you were responding to were my reaction to that narrative.  See:

On 6/28/2019 at 4:37 AM, Moa said:

AAA gaming has been chasing its own tail for a while with constant retreads, iterations, and generally trying to be the Witcher. Indie games tend to be doing much more interesting and original things. I also think that past a certain age you've seen what AAA gaming has to offer and it's hard not to be jaded about it.

On 6/28/2019 at 8:22 PM, ShreddieMercuryRising said:

 Outside of Nintendo's first party offerings, AAA games generally feel the same to me as they did 10 years ago, only more polished and graphically detailed. 

 

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

 

Every team is under pressure, indie or not. I'm talking about a very specific type of pressure unique to games made by big companies with massive budgets and financial goals to hit from their shareholders. They are nearly always going to skew for the safe, tried and true technique, as well as schemes to squeeze every last dime out of their customers. These games are often collaborative efforts, with different teams working on different parts of the game at once, not necessarily being on the same page. The project's initial vision is often pretty compromised by the end due to a variety of factors specific to the nature of being a AAA game. 

 

Every team is different, some teams are like this.  Others are not.  I believe you are overly generalizing on this point.

 

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

 

This is simply not true. You mentioned obvious examples in literally the sentence before this one - sports games, WWE games, etc don't innovate and they're alive and well. Tony Hawk probably could have come back and did just fine if the game they put out wasn't very bad. 

In my view, licensed sports games survive based on the strength of the licensed IP.  But this is a debate that probably isn't worth having.

 

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

 

Fortnite was a failed game that literally copied an indie developer's formula to make it big. Brendan Greene left a big company because he wasn'tThe able to focus on what he wanted to focus on, and he created the biggest phenomenon in gaming in 10 years or so. 

This probably isn't worth the debate.  Fortnite brings significant gameplay differences to the Battle Royale multi-player FPS game mode that weren't in PUBG.  I am certainly not an expert, but everything I have read suggest Brendan Greene did not invent the Battle Royale multi-player mode, but was rather the first to be successful commercially.

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

 

And again I don't see anyone making that claim. Nobody said AAA games do not innovate at all. But when pitting indie games vs AAA games, indie games obviously innovate more. 

I will only say it varies from team to team and game to game.  I'll defer to you to make the generalizations across hundreds (or thousands) of teams.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AbsolutSurgen

 

You said the narrative was that “all indie games innovate, and no AAA games do,” and that simply was not put forth by anyone, including the others you quoted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 1:12 AM, JosephManderley said:

It's not been a deliberate thing, but I just realised the VAST majority of my Switch library is made up of indies.  Just in 2019 I have bought Wargroove, Downwell, My Time at Portia, Crypt of the Necrodancer, Cadence of Hyrule, Friends of Ringo Ishihawa and Graveyard Keeper.  I haven't bought a 'big budget' game since Pokemon Let's Go.

 

Maybe it's my age, and these games often remind me of the stuff I played when I was younger?

How can you judge big budget retail released games if you only own a Switch? Get a PS4 and the following games, and then see if you still prefer indie games to big budget releases:

 

Alien Isolation

Assassin's Creed Syndicate

Assassin's Creed Origins

Assassin's Creed Odyssey

Batman: Arkham Knight

Bloodborne

Darksiders III

Dark Souls III

Days Gone

Detroit: Become Human

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

Dishonored 2

Divinity: Original Sin

Divinity: Original Sin II

Dragon Age Inquisition

Dying Light

The Evil Within

The Evil Within 2

Fallout 4

Far Cry 4

far Cry 5

Final Fantasy XV

God of War

Grand Theft Auto V

Hitman

Hitman 2

Horizon Zero Dawn

Judgment

Kingdom Hearts III

The Last Guardian

The Last of Us Remastered

Mad Max

Mafia III

Mass Effect Andromeda

Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

Metro Redux

Metro Exodus

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

Middle-earth: Shadow of War

Nier: Automata

Ni no Kuni II: Revenant Kingdom

Persona 5

Pillars of Eternity

A Plague Tale

Prey

Rage 2

Ratchet & Clank

Red Dead Redemption II

Resident Evil 2

Resident Evil VII

Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice

South Park: The Fractured but Whole

Spider-Man

The Surge

Thief

Titanfall 2

Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Uncharted 4: A Thief's End

Until Dawn

The Witcher III: Wild Hunt

Yakuza 0

Yakuza Kiwami

Yakuza Kiwami 2

 

I'm an older gamer too (49) and I've been playing games since Pong, so I like to play indie games with 8-bit/16-bit pixel art and design structures to bring back the feeling of gaming when I was a lot younger as well - but it's a nostalgic novelty at best for me because big budget current gen games are what I realistically wanted games to be like back then. There are definitely indie games that I quite enjoy that aren't old school in look and design as well, but my main gaming interest these days is big budget retail released stuff that offer all the current technology bells and whistles and deep engrossing worlds and content that I can really sink my teeth into for long periods of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this needs to be an either/or distinction - there have been plenty of incredible AAA games this gen.  I've absolutely loved Wolfenstein, Dishonored, Resident Evil 2, God of War, Batman, etc.  I think the general point that @JosephManderley and others are making is that there are lots of unique experiences and risks taken in the indie space that aren't necessarily translated to the AAA arena, and many people have begun to prefer these kinds of games.  Sure, there are too many pixel-art-2D-metroidvania games to count, but there are also indie games of astounding emotional and creative depth, the likes of which I haven't seen in any big-budget game.  I view it similarly to the film business - the market for middle budget movies is evaporating, so you're left choosing between big-budget (often times) run-of-the-mill spectacle, and micro-budget indie fare.  A good game is a good game regardless of its budget, so we don't necessarily need to pick sides.

 

The topic is very relatable to me because I began to feel this way even towards the end of the last generation.  Oddly enough the Wii-U rekindled my love for games, which I don't believe is an opinion lots of people share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

People have different preferences, how crazy is that?

The point that I was making is how can someone say that they prefer one thing to the other when they haven't even tried the other? I couldn't come to the conclusion that I prefer big budget games to indie games if I haven't played any indie games, or at the very least only played a few that aren't considered some of the better ones.

1 hour ago, ShreddieMercuryRising said:

I think the general point that @JosephManderley and others are making is that there are lots of unique experiences and risks taken in the indie space that aren't necessarily translated to the AAA arena, and many people have begun to prefer these kinds of games. 

But this is only something that you can come to a conclusion about if you've actually played a good amount of the big budget games out there, which isn't something that you could have done if you only own a Switch.

1 hour ago, ShreddieMercuryRising said:

A good game is a good game regardless of its budget, so we don't necessarily need to pick sides.

I agree to a certain degree, but based on the type of games that I personally enjoy the most I can say from experience that overall I tend to prefer big budget games to indie games. That's not to say that there aren't some indie games that I enjoy as much if not even more than big budget games, but for the most part big budget games tend to deliver the gaming experiences that do it for me more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd sooner have my finger nails and toe nails ripped off with a rusty pliers and have my testicles hooked up to a car battery than play another Sony: The Game or Ubisoft: The Game anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really easy to know whether or not you are going to like a game from seeing like 30 seconds of gameplay. There are times when I've been wrong about games based on initial impressions, though this mostly occurs with indie games, but the idea that you have to play Far Cry 7 to know that it's going to be trash is ludicrous.

 

AAA games are to Marvel movies as indie games are to movies worth watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Why are you assuming he hasn't ever played big budget games?

 

He just seems to have a preference and that's fine. 

He stated in this thread that the Switch is the only platform that he games on, therefore he couldn't have experienced most of the current gen big budget games out there beyond maybe playing some of them at his friend's place who he said has a PS4. But if that's enough for him to come to the conclusion that he prefers indie games to big budget ones, then fair enough. Different strokes for different folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Phaseknox said:

He stated in this thread that the Switch is the only platform that he games on, therefore he couldn't have experienced most of the big budget games out there beyond maybe playing some of them at his friend's place who he said has a PS4. But if that's enough for him to come to the conclusion that he prefers indie games to big budget ones, then fair enough. Different strokes for different folks.

Oh, I wasn't aware AAA games didn't exist until the current generation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Moa said:

It's really easy to know whether or not you are going to like a game from seeing like 30 seconds of gameplay.

That might be true for you, but it's not for me. Until I actually play a game then I don't really know for sure how it's going to appeal to me, unless it's within a genre that I don't particularly like. There have been times that I thought that a game looked really good in gameplay videos but I ended up disliking it, just as there have been times that I didn't think that a game looked good in gameplay videos and I ended up liking it.

22 minutes ago, Moa said:

the idea that you have to play Far Cry 7 to know that it's going to be trash is ludicrous.

While I feel that the Far Cry series has gone downhill a bit after Far Cry 3, I still like it.

3 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Oh, I wasn't aware AAA games didn't exist until the current generation. 

This discussion is taking place well into the current generation, so I assumed that it's the one that we were discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think AAA games innovate out of necessity. They need to sell and have to think of ways to set themselves apart from the other games similar to it.

 

Indies innovate out of creativity and freedom. 

 

They overlap sometimes but that’s generally how I see it. I don’t know which one innovates more. AAA innovations are definitely more noticeable though since so many more people play them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

I'd sooner have my finger nails and toe nails ripped off with a rusty pliers and have my testicles hooked up to a car battery than play another Sony: The Game or Ubisoft: The Game anytime soon.

 

I'm getting tired of their template. :| 

 

1530128801250.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I honestly don't know what half those games are and I like several Sony franchises 

 

It doesn't matter if one recognizes the games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I sorta feel like it should. 

 

This conversation doesn't require you to be able to know what the game is. But I can say if someone agrees with him but can't identify the games, then they probably have no idea what they're talking about. :p 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I'm getting tired of their template. :| 

 

1530128801250.png

Nice try, that's Uncharted 1 through 13 for those who don't know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...