Randomly Crap Out Your Opinions Thread

[Insane3]

Indie games really aren't much different than the modern, mainstream gaming business. The former just coats those similarities in a layer of quirk and DIY.

I used to be really into gaming, but with the FPS and casual game-heavy market overflow sometime in the mid/late 2000s, not so much anymore. It's weird...I actually think RPGs (IMO, the most superior game genre) were more advanced, technically and creatively, in the 90s and early 2000s. Just look at the Baldur's Gate series.

I think you can look at the medium from many approaches and with various expectations. The conclusions you come up with (RPG is a superior genre or 90's and 00's games were more advanced technically and creatively) are a product of your very specific approach and expectations.

In other words, I don't really agree with you because you don't give me enough information to see things from your point of view.

I think there are a lot of great indie games that defy the white straight male dominance in the video game industry (Mainchichi by Mattie Brice and Dys4ia by Anna Anthropy are good examples, I prefer the latter). I also don't believe any single genre is a better set of rules to make videogames, I think RPG have traditionnally been more oriented towards storytelling. If you look at recent indie bestsellers like Journey and Braids, they have strong storytelling, but are not RPGs. Even something like To The Moon, which borrows a lot of the traditionnal and Japanese RPG's aesthetics (mechanics, visuals, narrative structure) is not really a RPG because it lacks the fundamental RPG mechanics we come to expect like leveling and combat.

I don't think you should mind the overflow of stupid games that appear on the surface, there are a lot of great things that are done a little below. Even some games that appear to copy their predecessors are sometimes very worthwile and reflective (like Spec Ops: The Line).

[killer_roach]

Indie games really aren't much different than the modern, mainstream gaming business. The former just coats those similarities in a layer of quirk and DIY.

The difference is that most of the indie game evangelists seem to think that quirk is synonymous with quality, even when pretty much everyone and their brother has done more or less the same quirks already. In reality, most of the "quirk" factor comes from the fact that you have games that are more the product of one person's ego and they don't have the budget to properly polish their titles.

[Runesmith]

I think you can look at the medium from many approaches and with various expectations. The conclusions you come up with (RPG is a superior genre or 90's and 00's games were more advanced technically and creatively) are a product of your very specific approach and expectations.

In other words, I don't really agree with you because you don't give me enough information to see things from your point of view.

I think there are a lot of great indie games that defy the white straight male dominance in the video game industry (Mainchichi by Mattie Brice and Dys4ia by Anna Anthropy are good examples, I prefer the latter). I also don't believe any single genre is a better set of rules to make videogames, I think RPG have traditionnally been more oriented towards storytelling. If you look at recent indie bestsellers like Journey and Braids, they have strong storytelling, but are not RPGs. Even something like To The Moon, which borrows a lot of the traditionnal and Japanese RPG's aesthetics (mechanics, visuals, narrative structure) is not really a RPG because it lacks the fundamental RPG mechanics we come to expect like leveling and combat.

I don't think you should mind the overflow of stupid games that appear on the surface, there are a lot of great things that are done a little below. Even some games that appear to copy their predecessors are sometimes very worthwile and reflective (like Spec Ops: The Line).

Very true. To elaborate on my previous post, when I said RPGs were superior to other game genres, I am speaking from personal bias: I find roleplaying games to be far more fulfilling than games from other genre. I come from a text/pen & paper game background (MUSHes, MUDs, etc.), with a heavy focus on character, storytelling, interaction, open-endedness, customization, and a non-linear approach. RPGs, for me, don't necessarily even have to sport typical RPG trappings like stats, experience points, or "levelling up." Most of the text-based RPG systems I play didn't have any hardcoded combat systems programmed in. I'd probably consider the aforementioned Braid and Journey RPGs, or at least RPG-inspired. I've never played To The Moon, but that certainly looks like an RPG to me, too. Another reason why I prefer RPGs to any other genre is the variety within its subgenres - for instance, strategy RPGs, action RPGs, JRPGS, American-style RPGs like the Fallout and Elder Scrolls series, and the many combinations therein.

Dys4ia and Mainichi both look like interesting games, and what's more, I can identify with their themes (something I rarely I do with 'mainstream' games). It would be nice if popular games touched upon subjects like racism, sexism, ableism, and the GLBTQ condition in a way that didn't seem so pandering (Mass Effect 1's lesbian relationship seemed like an appeal to the straight white male stereotype, but I'm glad they rectified this in the third game).

However, I'm almost hesitant to call Dys4ia and Mainichi games due to their lack of interactivity; they both look like they're striving for something far more different than other games do. I'd be more comfortable calling them graphic novels with limited interactivity. But before totally shooting myself in the foot, I am only going by screenshots, reviews, and five minutes of 'playing' Dys4ia. They could very well exceed my first impressions. I'll have to dig deeper. Thank you for bringing these two games to my attention.

The difference is that most of the indie game evangelists seem to think that quirk is synonymous with quality, even when pretty much everyone and their brother has done more or less the same quirks already. In reality, most of the "quirk" factor comes from the fact that you have games that are more the product of one person's ego and they don't have the budget to properly polish their titles.

That also seems to be a problem, too. Indie games are usually the byproduct of one or two people exclusively (plus one person doing the soundtrack, if that counts), whereas "mainstream" games are a collective effort by a team of designers, testers, artists, musicians, and programmers. The collective idea has its own problems, of course, but the checks-and-balances are totally absent in a one or two person unit.

[Insane3]

Dys4ia and Mainichi both look like interesting games, and what's more, I can identify with their themes (something I rarely I do with 'mainstream' games). It would be nice if popular games touched upon subjects like racism, sexism, ableism, and the GLBTQ condition in a way that didn't seem so pandering (Mass Effect 1's lesbian relationship seemed like an appeal to the straight white male stereotype, but I'm glad they rectified this in the third game).

I recommend reading Anna Anthropy's work. She is a transgendered video game creator (she made Dys4ia) who also writes a lot.

Her Blog. (you'll notice that this is where I found out about Mainchichi)

An exerpt from her amazing book/manifesto.

A great article she wrote in which she mentions sexuality in the ME series.

However, I'm almost hesitant to call Dys4ia and Mainichi games due to their lack of interactivity; they both look like they're striving for something far more different than other games do. I'd be more comfortable calling them graphic novels with limited interactivity. But before totally shooting myself in the foot, I am only going by screenshots, reviews, and five minutes of 'playing' Dys4ia. They could very well exceed my first impressions. I'll have to dig deeper. Thank you for bringing these two games to my attention.

Yes, that's the initial reaction of many people because these video games don't focus on aspects that define games. The problem with the video game nomenclature is that we say "games", but the word game and the expression video game are completely different concepts. The video game is a medium and just like the comic book is not necessarily comical, the video game is not necessarily a game in the strict sense. Video games do not have to focus on challenge, but rather have to present a set of rules. Look at a game like The Graveyard. It's super simple; it has minimal challenge and you can't win or lose (at least it's not presented that way). It's an experience defined by rules (in this case implicit): walk towards the bench and turn around, wait, walk out of the cemetary. One could argue that you lose if you don't follow these rules; the goal is to experience the narrative and you can't if you don't follow the rules.

Video games don't have to be games, and while many people would not care to experience a video game they would not tend to classify as a game, games like Dear Esther are quite popular and are distributed on video game distribution channels.


(I'm procrastinating my student work but it still feels so academic... I think I'm growing into some kind of student mutant)

[Insane3]

The difference is that most of the indie game evangelists seem to think that quirk is synonymous with quality, even when pretty much everyone and their brother has done more or less the same quirks already. In reality, most of the "quirk" factor comes from the fact that you have games that are more the product of one person's ego and they don't have the budget to properly polish their titles.

I don't know... quirk can be good or annoying... I think it's a fad. Furthermore, "author" games can rule, exactly because they're the "product of one person's ego". That's the whole idea behind author theory in cinema. Tarantino, for example, is directly an offspring of author cinema and he's become really appreciated by a large amount of people.

[afterstasis]

Most hyped indie games I've played lately have been almost as bad as big-name turds like Dishonored and Call Of Duty.

The best games I've played from this year were Borderlands 2, X-Com, and Planetside 2.

EDIT: I haven't played Guild Wars 2 yet. I don't think I have that kind of time anymore, and my wife seems totally uninterested.

[Insane3]

Most hyped indie games I've played lately have been almost as bad as big-name turds like Dishonored and Call Of Duty.

The best games I've played from this year were Borderlands 2, X-Com, and Planetside 2.

EDIT: I haven't played Guild Wars 2 yet. I don't think I have that kind of time anymore, and my wife seems totally uninterested.

Hey Dishonored wasn't so bad! And I don't get Borderlands 2.

[afterstasis]

I've never enjoyed a Bethesda game for more than a week, but Dishonored didn't make it past the 24 hour mark with me.

I don't keep up with games like I probably should.
Anyone with a similar distaste for story/character-driven gaming know of any cool indie titles I should check out? I particularly enjoy competitive FPS's and RTS's, though I'm open to almost anything that isn't a full-on RPG or puzzle game.

[Insane3]

Tetris is a good indie game that isn't story-driven.

[killer_roach]

Anyone with a similar distaste for story/character-driven gaming know of any cool indie titles I should check out? I particularly enjoy competitive FPS's and RTS's, though I'm open to almost anything that isn't a full-on RPG or puzzle game.

I've been partial to Waves and Swift*Stitch lately, although Cubemen and Dungeon Defenders are fun as well.

If you haven't tried Hard Reset yet, do so.