Unambitious indie developers have three bad habits. One is to try and imitate the indie games which have been successful...
She implies that these are bad habits when practiced by indie developers, as if it is merely expected behavior from larger devs.
No, she says it is a bad habit practised by indie developers. She doesn't say anything about mainstream developers.
For a genre that should be all about innovation its output is remarkably homogenous and low-risk.
She repeats the false assumption that having a different business model/lower funding somehow affects the way in which the developers work, or the ideas they create, beyond simple financial constraints. All game devs largely stick to 'low-risk' and more of the same, not just mainstream ones. If there are more indie devs who are willing to experiment, it is because they don't have as much to risk.
But the different business model allows for more risk, therefore there is no reason to limit yourself to the concepts that are seen as "safe".
I admit that I don't agree with the article when it says that lack of imagination is the only reason for same-y games (I think the market being largely made up of inexperienced developers also plays a large part in it) but to say that indie developers are perfect despite the increasing stagnation is to give un-due praise.
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this, but unless the developer becomes interested in the game as its own entity that lack of passion will be a noticeable weak point.
As if indie devs have a responsibility to be more attached to their games than normal developers are.
No, as if to say that being unattached to a game is likely to lead to lower production values. It is a concept that holds true in all media.
Everyone expects humorous games to be a little weak – really, the writing standards in this industry are appalling – but an atmospheric horror game can’t coast by on low standards. Write the horror game that’s in your head. If it isn’t there? Don’t write it. The successful titles of other indie developers are not your template
Starts with a faulty generalization, continues to state that indie devs are somehow supposed to be more original than mainstream devs and not reuse good ideas.
But humorous games are expected to be weak. If they weren't they would be appear in lists of "funniest moments" and the like. (Don't forget, gaming has been around for decades now - its low status as a medium does suggest there are severe problems to be addressed).
None of this would be as infuriating if I didn’t actually like humorous fantasy, and it’s not like I’m hard to please. Kobolds Ate My Baby can keep me entertained while sober, for crying out loud, this is not a high bar to hurdle. It has the advantage of other players. You have the advantage of pre-scripting. Unlike the horror-clones, the ‘ironic’ fantasy developers can’t fear risk because they’re not creative enough to find it. Pushing the boundaries would require nudging the middle first.
She assumes that she doesn't like games like this because the developers are lazy and unimaginative, rather than examining the standards she is setting and the alteration of her perception of it based on her own opinions.
So... people should lower their standards in order to prevent criticism being aimed at bad games? It doesn't work that way.
(Also, she clearly has low standards for humour. I mean, she says she likes 'Kobolds Ate My Baby"... if you aren't familiar with the game, its humour is pretty much summed up entirely within the title.)
By contrast, the nostalgia market is terrified of risk. Not to absolve them of laziness, mind you; if the best thing you can say about your game is that it’s out of date you’re not weaving wonders here, but many developers seem more comfortable borrowing from the past then betting on the future.
More assumptions and generalizations, both in accusing indie devs who return to beloved mechanics and themes of laziness and lack of imagination (or guts), and starting with the basic assumption that old = bad, which is patently false.
Except it is clearly lazy to some extent. Many courses on coding (especially those which sell themselves to students as "learning how to make games") suggest re-creating old games in order to understand the principles at work. If something which is the equivalent of coursework is being released as a full game, something has gone horribly wrong.
Retro has its own appeal, but there are far more of them than the genre deserves – especially when you can play the originals for free on half a dozen websites.
The fallacy here is that if something has been done once, it should never be done again--another example of an obviously flawed thought process. If this were true, we would have perhaps half a dozen games from each genre, the last of which would have been created several years ago.
Except that isn't said. What is said is that exact recreations of games are a waste of time, especially when there is no indication that the creator really cares about what they have made.
Or, with artful weasel-wording, I didn’t, as this flaw is one that spreads its necrotic tentacles across tiny and towering alike: writing is still devalued in gaming culture.
It’s the core problem behind every nostalgia-grasping mediocrity and clownish hack ‘n slash. The games industry can’t improve until it sees writing as more than the paper around the gift, because no-one will have a story they care about enough to work for. And for all their protestations of art, your average indie developer is no better.
Again, she makes faulty, subjective assumptions about the industry as well as holding indie developers to a higher standard.
So you think writing is prioritised by the industry? I'd like to see you find evidence of that.
Also, she said that the indie developer is just as bad as the rest of the industry, implying that she thinks BOTH sections are at fault. You seem to be making faulty, subjective assumptions about the article. 
1. You can infer from the context of the article that she is in most of these cases using indie developers as example of who
should be doing these innovative things, which implies that the contrast to her ideal of indie devs would be mainstream devs. Just because it isn't spelled out for you doesn't mean it isn't there.
2. Just because a situation
allows for something to occur doesn't mean it
will or
should. Certainly, indie devs are risking less money than mainstream devs with an abnormal title: thousands rather than millions. That doesn't mean that the risk isn't there, or that it isn't serious to them, just that it is objectively a lower risk in terms of absolute numbers.
3. The point of my statement is that her entire article is in regards to indie devs. She doesn't state or imply that mainstream devs should be expected to care about their products as much as indie devs. It isn't about the fairly objective statements she makes, it is about the biased conclusions she draws from them.
4. No, humorous games are not expected to be "weak" by everyone. Assuming that "everyone" thinks the same way you do, or she does, is a generalization based on faulty logic. I expect (or at least hope for) games with humorous aspects or themes to explore them in interesting, mature ways that evoke actual humor, rather than one-off gags. Just because something is funny doesn't mean it has to be mindless or predictable.
5. You keep misinterpreting my statements. I'm not sure if it is because you want to have something to disagree with, or because you aren't paying much attention. My point was that she is automatically assuming that games are sub-par because the developers are lazy or uncreative, not because she has high standards (
IN TERMS OF GAME QUALITY). In other words, she may have unrealistic expectations (
IN TERMS OF HER MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT DEVELOPER BEHAVIOR). A dev team can put their hearts and souls into a game and have it turn out shitty, and a dev team can be lazy as all get-out and still make a good game.
6. I never denied that it wasn't. You appear to have missed the point again, so let me clarify:
SHE IS ASSUMING THAT "MANY" DEVS WHO USE OLD IDEAS ARE LAZY, RATHER THAN THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN PARTICULAR STYLE OF THAT CONCEPT, OR TO MODERNIZE SOMETHING THAT THEY LOVED WHEN THEY WERE YOUNGER FOR A NEW GENERATION OF GAMERS. Her point isn't wrong, necessarily, but she states it in an incorrect way. I certainly agree that the people who are rehashing games with little more than a color swap are lazy, but that doesn't mean that "Using old concepts" equates to "Lazy, incompetent hack". By those standards, practically every game on the market would be the product of a bunch of lazy, unoriginal devs who just copied other games pixel for pixel.
7. She never mentions exact recreations in that quotation. She mentions there being far more retro games than the genre deserves, and that the originals are in many cases playable for free online. By 'original', she appears to be talking about games from the actual arcade/Atari era, and if your interpretation is correct, then she is classifying all/most retro games as ripoffs or recreations, which is just as ignorant as assuming that an idea being done once is equitable to it being done many times.
8. Setting up strawmen isn't helping your case. I pointed out that she makes a generalization about developers not prioritizing writing, and you decide to put words in my mouth. I never claimed or implied that developers in general do prioritize writing, because that would have been just as faulty as her assertion. I would agree that certain developers value quality writing, but I would agree with neither generalization, as both are equally false. You seem to have been having some issues with reading comprehension.
Repeated:
And for all their protestations of art, your average indie developer is no better.
By that, she is not only making false assumptions about indie developers (that they view their games as art to any degree greater than mainstream devs), but that there is some merit in this false assumption, as the meaning of that statement is essentially "Despite evidence to the contrary, indie devs really
aren't that different from mainstream devs", suggesting that that is somehow a noteworthy conclusion rather than obvious fact.
Incidentally, I actually agree with a number of points she raised, in the abstract. My issues with the article largely stem from the fact that she makes a number of false assumptions and generalizations in trying to prove her opinions, but you are apparently content to ignore that and assume that I'm attacking her opinions, rather than the way in which they are presented. I'll admit, I wasn't as clear as I could have been-next time, I'll save the detailed breakdown for when I'm not trying to multitask between working and reading other, more interesting things.
Since I see no evidence that we will reach any sort of equilibrium beyond "treadmill", I'm going to drop out, as I have several things to write (Hi guys!) that are much more important to me than arguing the merits of an article by some no-name blogger that I will likely never hear of again.
Author
Topic: Indie gaming article (Read 1557 times)