Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bricktop]

Came across a fairly cool article about creativity in the indie games industry. Thought people here might find it interesting.

Link


I know I've certainly noticed that a fair few indie games seem to play off eachother a lot, sometimes to the exclusion of actually making anything new. I do think that indie games are a lot better than mainsttream gaming though (yet another modern shooter? lol) so meh, could be worse.

Bricktop

[scriver]

I find her pretensions annoying. She completely misunderstands what indie games/devs are. You can't define "indie" as a genre, because it isn't an indicator for what kind of content the game has - it's a business model. Indie developing is not about making innovative games, it is - unsurprisingly - about being independent from big publishers (either because they don't want you or you don't want them). That's what makes devs (and thus their games) "indie", regardless of what kind of games they is making or the quality or innovation of them. Of course indie devs copy or base their games on other succesful game designs - that is how people work. You get odeas from other people's ideas. That indie devs are generally more open to new things than big companies and publishers is, while true to some extent, completely beyond the point and not inherent to or a requirement for being an indie developer.

[Bricktop]

While it is true that it isn't a requirement for indie developers to attempt to be innovative... why isn't it? Why isn't it expected of ALL developers to attempt to innovate? Demonising the concept of coming up with a new idea is surely counter-productive to anybody who actually wants to play more than one game.

The thing is, for indie developers there is far more possibilities for attempting new things. The moment you remove publishers from the equation, a lot of the suppression of creativity that goes on in the games industry goes away with them. As such, why aren't they trying new things? Why are they all copying thew same game idea and art style? Its needless.

[scriver]

There is no "demonising" going on - I don't even know where you got that notion from.

Anyway, it's simple. Developers are people. Some people come up with more ideas than others. Some people see the other dude's idea and think "yeah, that's cool, but I could do the same thing better" and try to do that. Regardless of what their ideas are, they want to make games. You don't pay them to make games, you pay to play their games if you think you would enjoy them. So would you try to control the developers? So what if some of them make games you don't like? It doesn't hurt you. It's not like having requirement of being "new" and "fresh" over their heads is going to create a healthy, thriving business atmosphere creativity-wise anyway. All that would happen is that fewer games would be made.

So- the question is: Why should all devs be innovative all the time? Why not let them make the games they themselves want to make?

Those who are innovative innovate, other people don't. That's not going to change, and there's nothing wrong with it either.

[Flying Dice]

The author notes on multiple occasions that her opinions are unpopular, as if it were some sort of badge of _hipster honor. It seems to me that any unpopularity would stem from the generalizations and misconceptions rather than the opinions presented being incredibly revolutionary -- of course there is bad writing in indie games; there is bad writing in every medium. The idea she presents that using unoriginal concepts naturally leads to lower quality doesn't fly, either.

 Yes, innovation can lead to a wonderful game (see: Bastion), but it can also lead to shit (see: Gears of War, and the ensuing series of chest high wall simulators [no hate against the game itself, just that 'innovative' mechanic; Gears may not have started it, but it certainly popularized it]), just as repetition of past ideas can create great games (see: CounterStrike: Source; Terraria, KAG, etc.) just as easily as it can create shit (see: Every Call of Duty past World at War). Just because a good idea has been done before doesn't mean a new developer can't do something great with it -- the idea was successful because people enjoyed it. Just because an idea hasn't been tried before doesn't mean it is good -- there is quite possibly a reason why it hasn't been tried before.

Halo 2 and 3 were hardly innovative, with little more than some graphics upgrades and mechanic changes/additions, yet they were some of the most successful and popular games of their generations; Halo 2 was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for popularizing console online multiplayer. Quake III: Arena was hardly much different than earlier FPSes of the original style, yet it is still played today.




Even the emphasis on good writing is a flawed idea at the heart of it; the best games are not those in which the railroad tracks are gilded. The vast majority of games which I adore either are completely open-ended (see: Aurora, Cataclysm, DF, any RTS, TBS, or 4X) have fairly open-ended gameplay in which the main plot exists as little more than a trail you can follow for a bit of extra loot and experience (see: Elona, Morrowind, Fallout: NV, etc.) or have little/no story at all, focusing on quality gameplay mechanics and exciting moments (CounterStrike:S, Day of Defeat:S, Frozen Synapse, Alien Swarm, KAG, any of the many Touhou games, Just Cause 2, Ace Combat 6 (Gog yes, that mission where you fly down the barrel of the giant railgun), etc.). Quality writing can be enjoyable (Bastion, Final Fantasy IV, Metro: 2033, GTA IV, in somewhat of a contradiction, Morrowind, etc.), so long as one recognizes that the game will almost certainly be a play-once-and-drop title, as if you've played it once, you've played it a hundred times. If the writing is good enough, you may go back for a playthrough in a few years, but it doesn't provide the constant, quality entertainment that other games do.

[Bricktop]

Even the emphasis on good writing is a flawed idea at the heart of it; the best games are not those in which the railroad tracks are gilded. The vast majority of games which I adore either are completely open-ended (see: Aurora, Cataclysm, DF, any RTS, TBS, or 4X) have fairly open-ended gameplay in which the main plot exists as little more than a trail you can follow for a bit of extra loot and experience (see: Elona, Morrowind, Fallout: NV, etc.)

But... all of that open world? All of those sidequests? Every single character, location and event in those games? That is the writing. It is ALL writing.

Even in Dwarf Fortress, every pre-set creature and civilisation, every pre-made object and every existing material is the writing. Basically, everything which isn't generated randomly by the computer is a world which has been written (and since the generated worlds are made using pre-existing formulas. there is a heavy amount of writing going on.



Oh, and seriously... there was, like, one joke about it being an unpopular opinion? (Unless of course you want to point out the others...?)

EDIT:

Oh, and I just had another re-read of the article to check something and...

You can't define "indie" as a genre, because it isn't an indicator for what kind of content the game has - it's a business model.

But that is how the article defines indie games... by their business model. Right there, in the 2nd paragraph.

[scriver]

You can't define "indie" as a genre, because it isn't an indicator for what kind of content the game has - it's a business model.

But that is how the article defines indie games... by their business model. Right there, in the 2nd paragraph.

You miss my point. It's not a genre. You can't assume any special kind of content from "indie" games, so you can't use "indie" as a genre. Regardless of how she says she defines indie in that paragraph, she spends the rest of the article stating what kind of content she expects from such games. And that is dumb, bordering on being a True Scotsman fallacy. It's like saying that carpooling developers should produce a certain kind of games.

Quality writing (Bastion, Final Fantasy IV, Metro: 2033, GTA IV, in somewhat of a contradiction, Morrowind, etc.),

Dude, I am so disappoint. You can't make a list of quality writing in games and not mention, nay, put above all else, the great piece of code that is Planescape: Torment. You just can't.

Now go write PS:T on the blackboard a hundred times, mister

[Bricktop]

You can't define "indie" as a genre, because it isn't an indicator for what kind of content the game has - it's a business model.

But that is how the article defines indie games... by their business model. Right there, in the 2nd paragraph.

You miss my point. It's not a genre. You can't assume any special kind of content from "indie" games, so you can't use "indie" as a genre. Regardless of how she says she defines indie in that paragraph, she spends the rest of the article stating what kind of content she expects from such games. And that is dumb, bordering on being a True Scotsman fallacy. It's like saying that carpooling developers should produce a certain kind of games.

So we should hold games developed in the indie market to lower standards just because they are indie?

It is essentially what you are saying. These forums are full of people criticising mainstream gaming for lacking innovation and being just a parage of yet more modern shooters (CoD clones and the like) so why is it wrong to level the same criticism at the indie market? They are falling into the same trap, afterall.

Bricktop


EDIT:

Also, with the No True Scotsman fallacy... that would only stand if she said that they weren't indie. She didn;t say that. She just said they aren't very good. This isn't "you are not a true scotsman", this is saying "your tartan is bland".

[scriver]

So we should hold games developed in the indie market to lower standards just because they are indie?

It is essentially what you are saying. These forums are full of people criticising mainstream gaming for lacking innovation and being just a parage of yet more modern shooters (CoD clones and the like) so why is it wrong to level the same criticism at the indie market? They are falling into the same trap, afterall.

No, I'm saying we shouldn't hold indie devs to any special standards just because they are "indie", when all that means is that they haven't got a big name publisher. It's okay to say "the game industry is too monolithic", it's foolish to say "indie devs should be especially innovative just because they are indie". She's putting demands and expectations on indie devs that has nothing to do with what it is to be an independent developer, and that makes her pretentious.

Also, with the No True Scotsman fallacy... that would only stand if she said that they weren't indie. She didn;t say that. She just said they aren't very good. This isn't "you are not a true scotsman", this is saying "your tartan is bland".

Note "bordering on".

[Aequor]

Also, with the No True Scotsman fallacy... that would only stand if she said that they weren't indie. She didn;t say that. She just said they aren't very good. This isn't "you are not a true scotsman", this is saying "your tartan is bland".

It's more along the lines of 'your tartan is made by MacWillis and not MacDonald, so I expect you to be extra creative when working!'

[Bricktop]

So we should hold games developed in the indie market to lower standards just because they are indie?

It is essentially what you are saying. These forums are full of people criticising mainstream gaming for lacking innovation and being just a parage of yet more modern shooters (CoD clones and the like) so why is it wrong to level the same criticism at the indie market? They are falling into the same trap, afterall.

No, I'm saying we shouldn't hold indie devs to any special standards just because they are "indie", when all that means is that they haven't got a big name publisher. It's okay to say "the game industry is too monolithic", it's foolish to say "indie devs should be especially innovative just because they are indie". She's putting demands and expectations on indie devs that has nothing to do with what it is to be an independent developer, and that makes her pretentious.

But a lot of the criticism aimed at the games industry as a whole is about its lack of creativity and this blame is regularly put on the publishers. If it is true that the publishers are to blame, why isn't the indie market any better?


If you think she's pretentious and demanding, go tell her that. You won't change anything arguing with a random dude on a forum.

Bricktop

[Flying Dice]

So we should hold games developed in the indie market to lower standards just because they are indie?

It is essentially what you are saying. These forums are full of people criticising mainstream gaming for lacking innovation and being just a parage of yet more modern shooters (CoD clones and the like) so why is it wrong to level the same criticism at the indie market? They are falling into the same trap, afterall.

No, I'm saying we shouldn't hold indie devs to any special standards just because they are "indie", when all that means is that they haven't got a big name publisher. It's okay to say "the game industry is too monolithic", it's foolish to say "indie devs should be especially innovative just because they are indie". She's putting demands and expectations on indie devs that has nothing to do with what it is to be an independent developer, and that makes her pretentious.

But a lot of the criticism aimed at the games industry as a whole is about its lack of creativity and this blame is regularly put on the publishers. If it is true that the publishers are to blame, why isn't the indie market any better?


If you think she's pretentious and demanding, go tell her that. You won't change anything arguing with a random dude on a forum.

Bricktop

He didn't start arguing with you, he contested some of the points she raised and you jumped in to defend them.

Also: Most of the criticism I see is directed at game developers, except in cases where the publisher is doing something stupid, like dropping a popular series or creative team. And yes, the fact that she is applying different standards to indie developers does make her pretentious; most indie devs are basically what larger developers would be if they didn't have established bodies of work or contracts with well-known publishers. She treats "indie" as if it were an indicator of quality (it isn't--see Sturgeon's Revelation), and this makes her pretentious for the same reason that people who like bands that aren't well known think they're good because they aren't well known.


Unrelated: You don't need to sign your post. We're all bright enough to glance over to the left and notice who wrote a post, even if we couldn't tell from the tone.

[Necro910]

Unrelated: You don't need to sign your post. We're all bright enough to glance over to the left and notice who wrote a post, even if we couldn't tell from the tone.

And you can put it in your signature, if you really need it 

[Bricktop]

So we should hold games developed in the indie market to lower standards just because they are indie?

It is essentially what you are saying. These forums are full of people criticising mainstream gaming for lacking innovation and being just a parage of yet more modern shooters (CoD clones and the like) so why is it wrong to level the same criticism at the indie market? They are falling into the same trap, afterall.

No, I'm saying we shouldn't hold indie devs to any special standards just because they are "indie", when all that means is that they haven't got a big name publisher. It's okay to say "the game industry is too monolithic", it's foolish to say "indie devs should be especially innovative just because they are indie". She's putting demands and expectations on indie devs that has nothing to do with what it is to be an independent developer, and that makes her pretentious.

But a lot of the criticism aimed at the games industry as a whole is about its lack of creativity and this blame is regularly put on the publishers. If it is true that the publishers are to blame, why isn't the indie market any better?


If you think she's pretentious and demanding, go tell her that. You won't change anything arguing with a random dude on a forum.

Bricktop

He didn't start arguing with you, he contested some of the points she raised and you jumped in to defend them.

Also: Most of the criticism I see is directed at game developers, except in cases where the publisher is doing something stupid, like dropping a popular series or creative team. And yes, the fact that she is applying different standards to indie developers does make her pretentious; most indie devs are basically what larger developers would be if they didn't have established bodies of work or contracts with well-known publishers. She treats "indie" as if it were an indicator of quality (it isn't--see Sturgeon's Revelation), and this makes her pretentious for the same reason that people who like bands that aren't well known think they're good because they aren't well known.


Unrelated: You don't need to sign your post. We're all bright enough to glance over to the left and notice who wrote a post, even if we couldn't tell from the tone.

But...that isn't what pretentious means.

Also, where did she say that "indie" should be an indicator of quality? She said they have advantages over big companies due to the lower risks from making games with a lower budget and therefore have less reason to shy away from trying new stuff.

You seem to be attributing a lot of things to her that she hasn't said. You've decided she's the Hipster Villain without any indication of hipsterism.

Oh, and with the post signing thing, its a habit from another forum.

[Flying Dice]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is that enough? I'm sure I can make time later tonight to do a more in-depth analysis of the exact flaws with each and every paragraph in the article, assuming I finish writing and editing some fanfics a bit early.