You know, what really got me into indie games was that most of them had something unique and interesting to offer. They weren't all auteur works (although a lot of them were), but they generally felt like they weren't just made "to make a game", they were made because they had a reason to exist. There were definitely a lot of rough edges, but they were interesting. There wasn't the hegemony you'd see in AAA titles.
But... you don't see that so much in the indie scene now. Many of those games feel like they just exist because someone thought "I should make a game". There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's somewhat counter to the spirit that made the scene interesting in the first place.
I feel like a lot of indie games now capture the form but not the function. They look indie, but they don't really feel indie. I don't think there's an indie "bubble", I feel like the scene that had those values has moved somewhere else. Or if it hasn't, it will. We've always had a glut of mediocre games that didn't really make anyone much money (see: flash games in the mid oughts.) Same thing, its just the platform has expanded and the branding has changed.
Yeah. And as a guy with tastes that run awry from the "mainstream FPS" genres, I've been getting a lot of my gaming enjoyment from indies over the past few years. And the games with sticking power have always been the ones that are pushing the boundaries or trying something different.
Braid: Platformer where you can (and must) rewind time.
FTL: A roguelike where you command a ship instead of an RPG hero.
Monaco: A heist movie, as a top-down game.
Fez: Side-scrolling 2d platformer... in 3D! (where perspective changes are actually part of the platforming)
On the other hand, the ones I've enjoyed the least have wound up being less innovation, and more derivation. At least, according to my Steam library.
Comments
You know, what really got me into indie games was that most of them had something unique and interesting to offer. They weren't all auteur works (although a lot of them were), but they generally felt like they weren't just made "to make a game", they were made because they had a reason to exist. There were definitely a lot of rough edges, but they were interesting. There wasn't the hegemony you'd see in AAA titles.
But... you don't see that so much in the indie scene now. Many of those games feel like they just exist because someone thought "I should make a game". There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's somewhat counter to the spirit that made the scene interesting in the first place.
I feel like a lot of indie games now capture the form but not the function. They look indie, but they don't really feel indie. I don't think there's an indie "bubble", I feel like the scene that had those values has moved somewhere else. Or if it hasn't, it will. We've always had a glut of mediocre games that didn't really make anyone much money (see: flash games in the mid oughts.) Same thing, its just the platform has expanded and the branding has changed.
Yeah. And as a guy with tastes that run awry from the "mainstream FPS" genres, I've been getting a lot of my gaming enjoyment from indies over the past few years. And the games with sticking power have always been the ones that are pushing the boundaries or trying something different.
Braid: Platformer where you can (and must) rewind time.
FTL: A roguelike where you command a ship instead of an RPG hero.
Monaco: A heist movie, as a top-down game.
Fez: Side-scrolling 2d platformer... in 3D! (where perspective changes are actually part of the platforming)
On the other hand, the ones I've enjoyed the least have wound up being less innovation, and more derivation. At least, according to my Steam library.