Music Banter - View Single Post

Key · 05-05-2016, 08:57 AM

There's been a common trend when it comes to indie game releases and AAA game releases. If you're unsure of what either term means, just do a quick google search. In short terms, AAA titles tend to be developed and directed by a big company, whereas an indie game is developed by a small team or even one person. Now, since that's out of the way, I want to express my views and opinions on this subject as I think there are some fair points to be made on both sides. Before I get started, I do want to express that I have found from experience that I tend to enjoy a lot more indie game releases than I do with AAA titles, especially since most indie game releases don't break my wallet right away.

So, what's the argument then? Well, from what I can tell, people have been talking about the rise of indie game development as a new way to experience gaming and find more enjoyment out of video games in a way that hasn't really been done in quite some time. They say that people who develop indie games take more time to make sure that the game doesn't have glitches, they're crisp in terms of graphics and mechanics, and they tend to be super cheap. I can agree with some of those points, but I have had experiences with AAA titles that have allowed for the same amount of enjoyment even though the cost of said games tend to be a lot higher. However, on the other side of that, I do tend to focus more on an indie developer and the games they put out because 99% of the time, I enjoy it a lot more than AAA titles. Is that to say that indie developers are automatically better than the developers that make AAA titles? Of course not. But, there is also the point that the developers and the companies in charge of the AAA titles tend to be more on a strict time frame in terms of getting their game out to the public, whereas most indie developers can take their time as more frequently than not, people don't really know about any games coming from said developers until they are released. On that same point, I did mention that most of the time, indie game developers tend to focus a lot more of their time on making sure everything is crisp, but a small percentage of the time, you'll get a game from one person or a small team that is an absolute ****fest. I'm going to get flack for saying this, but Undertale is the first game that comes to mind. I haven't played the game yet and I don't really have any plans to play it soon as the hype around it nearly matches the amount of hype that Five Nights at Freddy's gathered, and I also feel like the same poisonous fanbase surrounds it too. But, my main reason for not having any interest in the game is the graphics style that the game took. I don't feel like the developer or developers in question took a lot of time to make sure the game looked good. I understand completely that the game has a great story and apparently the gameplay is a lot of fun, but if the game isn't aesthetically pleasing to the eye from the get go, I'm really not going to bother with it. That's not to say that's how I choose the games I want to play, but I just can't stand the amount of hype surrounding it and it's really put me off of it.

Back onto the topic of not knowing about a developer until a games release, take The Binding of Isaac for example. I'm pretty sure before the game was actually released, nobody had even heard of Edmund McMillen. There may have been a few people that were familiar with him, but before his big game was released, nobody would've had a clue that a new game was in the horizon. But of course, when the developer decides to make a sequel, that's when the strict time frame and budgets come into play. People were anxiously waiting the arrival of The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth, and it was all in fairness due to the amount of hype and the huge and non-poisonous fanbase that the original game received. In that sense, I have wondered once or twice before what would have happened to the original games release if it had been announced to be released from a big company like EA or Ubisoft or even Microsoft. Obviously the hype surrounding the game would have been evident before the release, but I don't think people would have found as much enjoyment as they would have expected a lot more from a bigger company when the original Binding of Isaac wasn't in the best stages throughout it's popularity. Of course it's a great game, but imagine it being released by a bigger company, the game would've been completely different. That's also not to say that indie developers can't meet the expectation or even exceed the expectation that AAA developers set for their companies on video games. I mentioned in an earlier post about Darkest Dungeon that I could consider that to exceed expectations from any kind of developer working on the game, it just so happened to be made by an indie developer.

I don't want to constantly attack AAA developers and only give credit to indie game developers either, because like I mentioned before with Undertale, there's some hit and misses on both sides. However, when it comes to a big company making a game that has to be released at a certain time, they've got a lot more to lose because they set themselves a budget, a time frame, and they are trying to push their game out to the more recent platforms which causes them to pay other people to test their games, fix bugs, and all that stuff. Imagine if an indie developer decided to form a big company and continue making indie games. Well...they wouldn't necessarily be considered indie games anymore, and unfortunately they'd be considered a sellout and before they can release their next game, they would be shunned. The last part isn't always true, i'm just using my imagination. At the same time, the bigger companies have already got that loyal fanbase that they can rely on even in their worst of times. Nintendo is a good example of this. They released the Wii U and not a lot of people are happy with it, but they can still rely on the fanbase that absolutely love it, and they can continue to make games for the system because of the constant fanbase that they've managed to keep around. If an indie developer lost it's entire fanbase, they'd probably have to shut down and save up their money in order to make "their next best thing".

So what's the final verdict then? Well, I can't say that I'm strongly on either side. I mentioned earlier in this post that I tend to enjoy indie games a lot more, which prompted this entire month dedicated it in the first place, but can I really say that one is better than the other? Of course not. I've brought up points about both sides that could allow people to see the opinions that I've come up with that seem to make sense. But at the end of the day, a video game is a video game. If it's good, it's good. If it's bad, it's bad. And that's really all there is to it.

05-05-2016, 08:57 AM	#356 (permalink)
Key . Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 13,153	There's been a common trend when it comes to indie game releases and AAA game releases. If you're unsure of what either term means, just do a quick google search. In short terms, AAA titles tend to be developed and directed by a big company, whereas an indie game is developed by a small team or even one person. Now, since that's out of the way, I want to express my views and opinions on this subject as I think there are some fair points to be made on both sides. Before I get started, I do want to express that I have found from experience that I tend to enjoy a lot more indie game releases than I do with AAA titles, especially since most indie game releases don't break my wallet right away. So, what's the argument then? Well, from what I can tell, people have been talking about the rise of indie game development as a new way to experience gaming and find more enjoyment out of video games in a way that hasn't really been done in quite some time. They say that people who develop indie games take more time to make sure that the game doesn't have glitches, they're crisp in terms of graphics and mechanics, and they tend to be super cheap. I can agree with some of those points, but I have had experiences with AAA titles that have allowed for the same amount of enjoyment even though the cost of said games tend to be a lot higher. However, on the other side of that, I do tend to focus more on an indie developer and the games they put out because 99% of the time, I enjoy it a lot more than AAA titles. Is that to say that indie developers are automatically better than the developers that make AAA titles? Of course not. But, there is also the point that the developers and the companies in charge of the AAA titles tend to be more on a strict time frame in terms of getting their game out to the public, whereas most indie developers can take their time as more frequently than not, people don't really know about any games coming from said developers until they are released. On that same point, I did mention that most of the time, indie game developers tend to focus a lot more of their time on making sure everything is crisp, but a small percentage of the time, you'll get a game from one person or a small team that is an absolute ****fest. I'm going to get flack for saying this, but Undertale is the first game that comes to mind. I haven't played the game yet and I don't really have any plans to play it soon as the hype around it nearly matches the amount of hype that Five Nights at Freddy's gathered, and I also feel like the same poisonous fanbase surrounds it too. But, my main reason for not having any interest in the game is the graphics style that the game took. I don't feel like the developer or developers in question took a lot of time to make sure the game looked good. I understand completely that the game has a great story and apparently the gameplay is a lot of fun, but if the game isn't aesthetically pleasing to the eye from the get go, I'm really not going to bother with it. That's not to say that's how I choose the games I want to play, but I just can't stand the amount of hype surrounding it and it's really put me off of it. Back onto the topic of not knowing about a developer until a games release, take The Binding of Isaac for example. I'm pretty sure before the game was actually released, nobody had even heard of Edmund McMillen. There may have been a few people that were familiar with him, but before his big game was released, nobody would've had a clue that a new game was in the horizon. But of course, when the developer decides to make a sequel, that's when the strict time frame and budgets come into play. People were anxiously waiting the arrival of The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth, and it was all in fairness due to the amount of hype and the huge and non-poisonous fanbase that the original game received. In that sense, I have wondered once or twice before what would have happened to the original games release if it had been announced to be released from a big company like EA or Ubisoft or even Microsoft. Obviously the hype surrounding the game would have been evident before the release, but I don't think people would have found as much enjoyment as they would have expected a lot more from a bigger company when the original Binding of Isaac wasn't in the best stages throughout it's popularity. Of course it's a great game, but imagine it being released by a bigger company, the game would've been completely different. That's also not to say that indie developers can't meet the expectation or even exceed the expectation that AAA developers set for their companies on video games. I mentioned in an earlier post about Darkest Dungeon that I could consider that to exceed expectations from any kind of developer working on the game, it just so happened to be made by an indie developer. I don't want to constantly attack AAA developers and only give credit to indie game developers either, because like I mentioned before with Undertale, there's some hit and misses on both sides. However, when it comes to a big company making a game that has to be released at a certain time, they've got a lot more to lose because they set themselves a budget, a time frame, and they are trying to push their game out to the more recent platforms which causes them to pay other people to test their games, fix bugs, and all that stuff. Imagine if an indie developer decided to form a big company and continue making indie games. Well...they wouldn't necessarily be considered indie games anymore, and unfortunately they'd be considered a sellout and before they can release their next game, they would be shunned. The last part isn't always true, i'm just using my imagination. At the same time, the bigger companies have already got that loyal fanbase that they can rely on even in their worst of times. Nintendo is a good example of this. They released the Wii U and not a lot of people are happy with it, but they can still rely on the fanbase that absolutely love it, and they can continue to make games for the system because of the constant fanbase that they've managed to keep around. If an indie developer lost it's entire fanbase, they'd probably have to shut down and save up their money in order to make "their next best thing". So what's the final verdict then? Well, I can't say that I'm strongly on either side. I mentioned earlier in this post that I tend to enjoy indie games a lot more, which prompted this entire month dedicated it in the first place, but can I really say that one is better than the other? Of course not. I've brought up points about both sides that could allow people to see the opinions that I've come up with that seem to make sense. But at the end of the day, a video game is a video game. If it's good, it's good. If it's bad, it's bad. And that's really all there is to it.