Seriously? You can almost win an award for THIS?!

[jamez525]

I once saw a painting that was a single red stripe (one brush stroke) on a solid blue background. Its name? Red Stripe. It was being sold for $15000.

It's called modern art, and it doesn't make any sense.

You know that is incredibly cheap.
I would like you to meet it's big brother, Voice of Fire, and it's $1.8 million price tag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire

 

[saluraropicrusa]

excuse me, Ultratwinkie, but i'd like to point you in the direction of Valve. they are definitely not (or, not anymore, no company starts with a AAA budget) an indie developer, but would you honestly tell me that Portal is "more processed cheese based on an established series"? your view on the AAA industry makes me think you're looking exclusively at games like CoD. yes, these games sell a lot, because people ENJOY them. to say that gamers only want what's familiar is severely limiting, especially to the more mature of us. i would consider almost all of my favorite games to be at least as innovative as people think indie games are (Portal, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus... hell, when it first came out, Halo was doing things that people hadn't seen before). just because a game is made by a company with a big enough budget to make it look pretty does NOT mean it doesn't have room to be innovative, engaging, immersive, and any other word you want to use to describe it as excellent. an industry that can produce games like Portal and Mirror's Edge, and then give them enough to make a sequel, is hardly worthy of being completely overlooked as stale and cookie-cutter. oh, and series' like Mario and Zelda didn't start as AAA franchises. they survived to become this because they were good enough to gain a serious fan base.

also, why do indie games need to appeal to a limited demographic? how is it not possible for an artistic game to attract a broad audience? i honestly have no idea how you people could consider it a bad thing for a truly excellent, artsy game to reach an audience broader than the art snobs.

Well, as I mentioned before, Tale of Tales pretty much are snobs and I guess their audience follows suit. And to be fair Halo didn't do anything new at all at the time, Goldeneye proved console shooters could work, several shooters going as far back as the original Team Fortress mod for Quake 1 in the mid/late 90s had introduced us to team based gameplay, and Tribes introduced us to team based, open terrain combat with some vehicle action as far back as 1998. So... not really.

Ehem, but disregarding that, I do agree with your post. True and good art can touch almost anyone, as opposed to a bunch of beret wearing snobs who are in fact praising it for being absurd or abstract rather than genuinely artistic. Not that I'm saying that art can't be absurd or abstract, but there's a difference between doing so because it's part of the message or feeling you're trying to convey, or just because you want to be artsy and alienate as many people as possible besides the aforementioned snobs who probably wouldn't have gotten the message anyway unless the artist had elaborated on it for several paragraphs like in the previous green picture with the orange line.

were any games using regenerating health the way Halo was before it came out? (this is an honest question, by the way, i'm not entirely caught up on my video game history) i'm not going to tout about how super-original Halo is since i know it's not, not really, but as far as i understand it did one or two new things in terms of game play. i could be wrong of course, and please do correct me if i am. anyway i don't think the series warrants as much hate as it gets, as it's a genuinely fun shooter especially with friends/in multiplayer, and Bungie put a ton of hard work into it.

 

[Axolotl]

How is it innovative?

How isn't it? Can you name any other games like it?

Yes, Big Rigs Over the Road Racing springs to mind.

 

[imnot]

Because this seems like a game the developers really made for themselves and we are supposed to interact with it and feel EXACTLY how they want us to. I play games to have fun and escape from reality for a while, i don't play games to feel emotions, that's what movies and books are for.

That's nice, but the rest of us play it for both. Just like we watch movies, listen to music, and read books for both. Just like we do FUCKING ANY FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT for both. You may only want it to escape from reality, and that's great, because you don't speak for everyone.

are there ANY indie games out there that blur the lines between AAA and indie? because so far i dont see any innovation in the indie scene. it seems to be just a bunch of sidescrollers and mario knockoffs.

i have yet to play a GOOD 3d indie game, or at least one that i would indeed enjoy for more than 2 minutes before i got bored and went back to Red Dead Redemption or Saints Row 2.

i really want to know if there are any 3D 3rd-person indie sandbox games out there... it seems like they are incapable of that (or even just good 3rd person in general).

and before you all go "SUPER MEAT BOY AND LIMBO!" on me, i played (and hated) both those games because i have no degree of patience for platformers, which it seems like every indie game is a variation thereof (or a Contra/Asteroids knockoff)

EDIT: Forgot about Minecraft and Mods. Because Minecraft is the only exception and everything else that's not a 2d sidescroller, run-n-gun, space shooter game is a mod. Oh, and please stop bringing up "Amnesia: Dark Descent" and Minecraft. I think we ALL know those are the VERY rare exceptions to the indie development scene, whereas the list of AAA games that nail fun on the head can go on longer than my arms. Say what you will about Gears of War and Halo for the trends they started and not being "artistic", but at least they know how to get that fun replay value there.

Sure, I guess you can say that. You could also say Red Dead Redemption and Saints Row 2 are GTA knockoffs, and Halo and Gears of War are all the same bland shooter games that haven't evolved since Doom. I can therefore conclude that any original AAA game is an incredibly rare exception and that there are no original games. What's that, you say? I'm missing the forest for the trees? Well, you are too, so...

Wait why Have you qouted me, Ididnt right either of them!

 

[drummond13]

Dude, calm down. Seriously. Some of us DO play games to feel emotions, and are grateful for experimental titles. Just because YOU don't like something doesn't make it a bad thing. Some of us rather liked Limbo, for example. The industry doesn't exist just to churn out games that YOU like.

 

[GiantRaven]

Yes, Bigr Rigs Over the Road Racing springs to mind.

Explain your choice.

 

[Axolotl]

Yes, Bigr Rigs Over the Road Racing springs to mind.

Explain your choice.

Because they're both empty, worthless games devoid of any merit or value.

 

[GiantRaven]

Because they're both empty, worthless games devoid of any merit or value.

Ignoring, of course, all the key differences between the two. Such as Big Rigs not featuring Old Women, Benches or Grave yards and The Graveyard not featuring Big Rigs. Also, Big Rigs is a game that completely fails at what it sets out to do (being a buggy incomprehensible) mess, whilst I imagine The Graveyard achieves exactly what it sets out to do (be an interactive experience akin to viewing such surrealist experimental art).

Tell me, how is The Graveyard worthless and devoid of merit because it doesn't fall into the notion of what you enjoy or want to experience? I don't enjoy the majority of, say, Real-time Strategy but you don't see me labelling it as 'worthless'. Just because a piece of interactive media does not conform to the standards of what we expect, does not mean it has no value. Perhaps there is a group of people out there who want to experience what is given with The Graveyard (I'm assuming there is, since the game was nominated for an award and all). Why do we have the right to label it as 'worthless' and deny that niche market what they enjoy?

 

[Axolotl]

Because they're both empty, worthless games devoid of any merit or value.

Ignoring, of course, all the key differences between the two.

I never said they were exatly the same, I simply said thjey were similar.

Such as Big Rigs not featuring Old Women, Benches or Grave yards and The Graveyard not featuring Big Rigs.

That's like saying Doom and Wolfenstein were totally different because Doom has demons and no Nazis, whereas Wolfenstein has Nazis and no Demons.

Also, Big Rigs is a game that completely fails at what it sets out to do (being a buggy incomprehensible) mess, whilst I imagine The Graveyard achieves exactly what it sets out to do (be an interactive experience akin to viewing such surrealist experimental art).

How is The Graveyard interactive?

Tell me, how is The Graveyard worthless and devoid of merit because it doesn't fall into the notion of what you enjoy or want to experience?

Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't enjoy the majority of, say, Real-time Strategy but you don't see me labelling it as 'worthless'.

No, but a RTS fan is likely to label something like say Stalin vs. Martians as worthless.

Just because a piece of interactive media does not conform to the standards of what we expect, does not mean it has no value.

Of course not. That it's derivative, lazy and uninspired means that it has no value.

Perhaps there is a group of people out there who want to experience what is given with The Graveyard (I'm assuming there is, since the game was nominated for an award and all).

There are people out there who enjoy being beaten with sticks, that doesn't the fact that being beaten with sticks is unpleasent.

Why do we have the right to label it as 'worthless' and deny that niche market what they enjoy?

I'm not trying to stop them doing anything. But why shold some people enjoying it prevent me from pointing out its low quality?

 

[itsausernamewhatofit]

EDIT: For clarity, the idea of The Graveyard is to be experimental. It's meant to be an interactive experience, rather than a game.

Isn't a game an experience that you interact with? I get what they're trying to do but in my opinion it seems like they sort of have an inflated opinion of themselves.

I can't argue about their opinion of themselves, I've not looked into it. It wouldn't surprise me though.

But while a game is an experience you interact with, not every experience you interact with is a game. Like how a book is something you read, but not everything you read is a book. It's debatable whether this counts as a 'game' or just something interacted with in a similar way. I'm more the latter, but both are legitimate judgements I'd say. Hell, even the industry itself can't come to an absolute definition of 'what is a game?'

I see what you mean. Although in your analogy interactive experience is equivalent to thing you read so maybe we need a new term for this sort of thing. I'm drawing a blank for what else you could call it though. Book and pamphlet both fit into the things you read catagory and we would never say "It's meant to be more of a thing you read, rather than a book."

 

[Zukhramm]

I don't get they whining. Don't like The Graveyard, don't play The Graveyard, if I started questioning everyone who liked things that I found absolutely terrbile I'd have no time for anything else. I'll enjoy my indie games and you can play whatever you want to. What's the problem?

 

[Azaraxzealot]

The existence of such exceptions demonstrates the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Yes, the vast majority of the things made by the indie community is trash but why concern yourself with this when the community does, from time to time, produce a game that is absolutely worth playing?

well if people always bring out the same two examples, then they fail to have impact. Those two games do not excuse all the tripe on Newgrounds and Kongregate do they?

And if you're going to bring up Minecraft? i'll bring up Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row, hell, even Crackdown, World of Warcraft, Starcraft (2), and Red Dead Redemption.

had enough? no? okay, you want me to compare to Amnesia?
well: Condemned: Criminal Origins, Silent Hill 2, even sections of Thief and Fallout are fairly scary at times.

seriously, you got two exceptions of all indie games. I have a list that can go on and on and on. people should stop bringing up those exceptions to the "indie games are mostly 2d games that are blatant copies of older games and 3d games that are either mods or trying to rip-off other games

seriously, those 2 exceptions really don't excuse every dress-up game and strip-poker game on Newgrounds.

 

[lockeslylcrit]

The Graveyard and The Path are not supposed to be games, per se. They are supposed to be devices to challenge your emotional and intellectual ideals. One just needs to stop looking at the text (what you see) and start looking at the context (the meaning behind what you see).
If one does not believe they should be nominated for any awards, then I guess they don't believe games are an art form either.

 

[DonMartin]

I remember downloading the demo for The Graveyard a few years back or so... It was the same as the real game, except in the real game, there was a special feature: DEATH. You basically paid to have the old lady killed.

It might be pretentious, it might be art, but I think it's innovative, because to my knowledge no one has done anything quite like it before.


But the game got me thinking about video games as an art, and as such an eye-opener (to a young meself) it's got some personal value for me.

 

[DonMartin]

And come on, there are more great contributions from the indie devs to the video game scene other than Minecraft and Amnesia..

"aaaaaAaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA! A reckless disregard for gravity" was great, for an example! It was fun!

"VVVVVV" was a lot of fun too.

"Tag" paved the way for some of the new features in Portal 2

"Supercratebox" Fun little game, and while it might not be particularily deep, it was a lot of fun.

"Cavestory" Fun, simple little game.

"fl0w" was a very interesting game, so to speak. No real goals, but worth a playthrough.

"World of Goo" went on to become a hit on the Wii and Pc.

"Braid" ..well, everyone knows what Braid was. I loved it, so did many others.

And the list goes on and on..


We cant expect the indie devs to create masterpieces on the same grand scale as RDR, but we can expect smaller ones. They complement eachother, dont they?

 

[HereForFreeFood]

Biggest bunch of nonsense I ever heard. Way too much trying to sound all deep and brooding. Life is not as difficult as those hipsters make it out to be.

Vonnegut fought in World War two and witnessed an air bombing that killed almost double the people the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima did, so I think he knows a little more about life than you and me. He definitely isn't just a hipster.

 

[G-Force]

2d games that are blatant copies of older games and 3d games that are either mods or trying to rip-off other games

seriously, those 2 exceptions really don't excuse every dress-up game and strip-poker game on Newgrounds.

And you have no issue with AAA titles ripping off each other?

 

[Iron Mal]

Now, I played the demo of The Graveyard and....as a game it frankly sucks harder than experienced ladies of the night.

As a piece of interactive art...it isn't all that great either. It's drab, lifeless, mildly depressing and makes me wonder why they didn't just go to their local graveyard and make it a photograph or short film instead (in fact, this could have actually worked as an indie short film if done properly).

This game just felt about as pretentious and 'art games don't even need gameplay' in attitude as you could possibly get.

Also, what exactly is the innovation being made here?

I'm aware that not every game has to be a AAA action fest but if you're going to claim something is innovative then it should be clear as to what exactly is being innovated.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

well if people always bring out the same two examples, then they fail to have impact. Those two games do not excuse all the tripe on Newgrounds and Kongregate do they?

Were it only those two games you might have a point but as I already noted there have been plenty of games made by independent companies that have been well regarded. If we ignore your stipulation that we cannot consider 2d games or sidescrollers, we find many many more examples.

And if you're going to bring up Minecraft? i'll bring up Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row, hell, even Crackdown, World of Warcraft, Starcraft (2), and Red Dead Redemption.

What exactly is you point? That well funded professionals can make a good game more often then poorly funded amateurs? Because not only is that point without value with respect to your argument, it is obvious without exploration or explanation.

seriously, you got two exceptions of all indie games. I have a list that can go on and on and on. people should stop bringing up those exceptions to the "indie games are mostly 2d games that are blatant copies of older games and 3d games that are either mods or trying to rip-off other games

Nope, I listed more than a dozen. Here are, off the top of my head, well regarded independent games made in the last few years:

Metro 2033
'Splosion Man
Pixel Junk Shooter
Limbo
Heavy Rain
Monday Night Combat
Various releases by Telltell Games
Trials HD
Braid
Torchlight
Shadow Complex (Began it's life as an Indie game and was purchased on the strength of a video on an iPhone during GDC)
Castle Crashers
Fat Princess
Flow
Flower
Trine
Comic Jumper

This list includes new takes on the classic SHEMUP, a number of well designed puzzle platformers, third person action, games that generally defy genre conventions, first person shooter and role playing games along with various art driven efforts.

seriously, those 2 exceptions really don't excuse every dress-up game and strip-poker game on Newgrounds.

Here is the real question. Why does one thing have to answer for the existence of another? Should Red Dead Redemption have to answer for Daikatana? Should Bioshock have to answer for Superman 64? What games are going to atone for atrocities like ET, Shaq Fu, Hannah Montana: The Movie: The Game, The Simpsons Wrestling, Night Trap, Yo! Noid!, Revolution X and Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing? Because every one of these games was produced by a major studio. Hell, why don't we start to wonder what movies make up for the existance of the unending stream of garbage that comes out of hollywood? And, just how many Oscar winning films worthy of being considered a "must watch" make up for Battlefield Earth?

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Metro 2033 - an original but severely flawed shooter
'Splosion Man - tries to rip-off portal, shadow complex, and mario
Pixel Junk Shooter - again, can't embrace the 3rd dimension, little more than an arcade game
Limbo - gritty mario (or trying to be Braid)
Heavy Rain - QTE special! it was heavily marketed, so hardly an indie game
Monday Night Combat - fun for about 10 minutes, then boring. honestly, how many people even still play it?
Various releases by Telltell Games - they don't make games, they make experiments with interactivity
Trials HD - hardly an indie game considering the coverage it has received.
Braid -rip off of prince of persia
Torchlight - rip off of diablo
Shadow Complex (Began it's life as an Indie game and was purchased on the strength of a video on an iPhone during GDC) - EA game, not indie.
Castle Crashers - wow, ONE other good example.
Fat Princess - wtf? battlefield and Runescape rip-off (the whole game is like one minigame in Runescape)
Flow - (same for below) see, why aren't more indie games like this? they look amazing and have a great feel about them, still, this doesn't account for the shovelware and bullshit that most indie games are.
Flower - (same as above)
Trine - bionic commando remake in not-europe that tries to be thief
Comic Jumper - contra rip off. simple as that.

fixed. but seriously, i'm still right when i say MOST indie games are either rip-offs of other games and don't add anything to each other (like most AAA games do. they borrow elements from other games then add on different concepts or gameplay mechanics, but indie developers MOSTLY just take an old game, add a gimmick, and then proceed to peddle it as "artistic" and "innovative". and the masses buy this shit up like eastern medicine and tribal tattoos)

when i play an indie game that hooks me in and makes me want to come back to it over and over again (even if i've beaten it), then i'll take back EVERYTHING i've said about how most of the indie scene is rip-offs of 8-bit games.