Why is there such a kneejerk reaction to "indie games"?

[Ranylyn]

I'm far from the perfect person to comment on this, but I do have a rep as somewhat of a hipster - which does give my opinion a tiny bit of weight in the matter. If something is niche, I always end up trying it - so I've dabbled in a fair number of Indie games whenever I could get my hands on them (No credit card often means needing to try them at friends' houses, but I have a diverse array of friends with diverse interests, so it's never too hard to find one of them with that game I want to try, you know?)


Anyways, from what I've seen, it seems to boil down to "Consumer Whores" versus "Nononformist Hipsters." It's possible to like both, but from my experience, the fans of each have this unfortunate habit of not always seeing eye to eye...

Long story short, the majority of AAA games don't appeal to me. They just don't fill the role I'm looking for from a new game. And as such, I end up preferring less than reputable niche titles a lot of the time. (Skyrim? No, no, they neutered a lot of what you can do in TES in favor of just streamlining it excessively and making combat better, so instead of spending my money THERE, I'll take... say... White Knight Chronicles 2!) This isn't to say I CAN'T like mainstream, or dislike something BECAUSE it's mainstream, (Hell, my GOTY of 2012 so far is Dragon's Dogma, and Capcom is pretty damn mainstream!) but it DOES mean that I have no desire to PLAY a lot of mainstream, which, unfortunately, leads to conflicts.

The gaming industry is, regrettably, one of trends. Right now the trend is shooters. Shooters are kind of the go-to genre for a quick cash-in; the Unreal Engine comes complete with a fully functional engine for both game mechanics AND shaders for environments, making them cheap to make, and a lot of companies just make them for a quick buck. I mean, we have Battlefield, Halo, Gears, CoD, Killzone, Resistance, Red Faction, Army of Two, Brothers in Arms, Fallout (As much as I love me some Fallout 3, it is very much, in a lot of ways, similar to a lot of these in appearance and combat function) etc. So my desire for RPGs - specifically more feudal-era fantasy RPGs (an area that Final Fantasy, among other series, has long since abandoned in favor of... of all things... the pupularity of GUNS, lolwhat) becomes almost impossible to fulfill through the mainstream - which leads me to the niche titles.

The issue comes when I deal with, for lack of a less insulting term, "consumer whores." So I know this one guy who is sick of the mainstream but still buys them since "it's all they're making." I point out that if he wants other genres, he just has to look to less popular companies. "omfg if they were good they'd be popular niche is automatically garbage blah blah blah you effing hipster get the heck out of my face etc etc etc I forgot how old and decrepit your mom is so I just said I did her so the joke's on me but seriously go away"

Basically, what it seems to boil down to is... the gaming community mainstream seems to be primarily perpetuated by consumer whores who buy whatever the big companies put in front of them, so they keep making money and thus making more games. These people are too blinded by their own ignorance to try other stuff - which can easily be better - by sheer virtue of "If it was good that company would have more money." Well GEE, look at some of the industry giants. EA. Activision. Ubisoft. Notice the trend? These companies have been around for awhile! A new company doesn't become mainstream overnight! But sadly, some people just refuse to take a gamble on a smaller company.

As a notorious hater of FFVII, I can also say "hype is a turn-off." And it goes both ways. As a hipster, I get turned off by hype for the next CoD since that means whatever niche titles I pre-order in November get shafted till December since my local EB is kind of moronic in that regard and spend my pre-order deposit on getting more shooters in instead of MY ORDER. But at the same time, a more mainstream gamer is just as likely to get turned off on a niche title since the fanbases can be just as ravenous - smaller numbers are offset by more of a desire for the game due to it filling a role that's missing from other recent releases, which makes it that much more desired.


Point being, IMO, the entire thing, the ENTIRE thing, would be offset with one thing: Have SMALL filesize, none of that full game unlock 1 hour demo bull (for speed and bandwith issues) demos available for every game. A free sample of what it has to offer. No more worries about "taking a gamble on the unknown" for the consumer. Risk free and allowing everyone to try one another's games to help bridge gaps and show "hey, yeah, we might have different tastes, but this certainly isn't bad! It's just not what I normally like!"

 

[kingthrall]

Games like the Witcher which would be branching out of the indy area come to my mind of a great game. Not some Kirby Nintendo game brining me back to the early 90's where pokemon was the in thing.

The Witcher as in, a game that actually branches out its story from EVERYTHING you do at the beggining to different endings? rather than the Deus Ex 1 approach, where you can do lots of neat stuff that will eventually you get called for (like killing someone relevant a long time ago and the story follows up that, unlike other games where it WONT let you do that kind of input because it will ruin their story) but the endings are just the same regardless of what path or decisions you made during all the game (not as egregious as Deus Ex: HR, of course)

Or what is it exactly?

EDIT: And what is wrong with The Binding of Isaac? It actually has better RPG elements than Diablo 3, and that is SAYING something when even Yahtzee backs it up.

I have not questioned the Binding of isaacs mechanics, I questioned its look that depicts it like a snes game. Also I dont like Diablo 3, its so homogenized classes and duplicate monsters its beyond a joke. Diablo 1 is a different story however.

 

[Frybird]

One thing that Indie Game: The Movie taught me:

People like Phil Fish, McMillen and Blow are pretentious and arrogant and full of themselves because they kind of HAVE TO.

These are people who made entire games with often times complex mechanics and whatnot, and they did it mostly BY THEMSELVES (or with 1-2 other people) for many years in a non-professional enviroment and no project management or whatnot. And most important of all, with barely any financial security.

I think if you really want to make a game nowadays that gets praised by the press, and do it as a semi-professional without much or any backing in terms of Work, Planning and Finances, you kind of have to be convinced that the game you are making is the best thing ever made and no other game comes close in terms of the passion you invested in it.
It's not an easy job, it's not a secure job, it's hard work and chances are that you will have no success.

That doesn't make those people any less arrogant and smug, but for me at least, it at least excuses them for being like this.

 

[DioWallachia]

I have not questioned the Binding of isaacs mechanics, I questioned its look that depicts it like a snes game. Also I dont like Diablo 3, its so homogenized classes and duplicate monsters its beyond a joke. Diablo 1 is a different story however.

So do you expect that they find money to licence an Unreal Engine for it? in fact, think about the games like Dwarf Fortress and Minecraft, If they had any more better graphics it will be slower as hell, and i believe that TBOF will have the same problem for a game that generates its content randomly constantly. The only way you could hate its art its because of association of douchebags and that its all.

And to be honest, both side of the spectrum (Nice art style or ULTRA GRAPHICS OF AAA) are both usefull if they stay on their extremes. Do i need you to recall how ugly was the transition to Polygon Ceiling (the middle ground)?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PolygonCeiling

Hell, i will go and say that doing Sprite Art is waaay more difficult than doing it in 3D, simply because at least in a 3D modeling program, you only have to deal with making the skin AND the model of the character just once and THEN do the animation frame by frame to match up whatever motion you want them to do. In Sprite Art however, you have to do EVERY frame of animation,art and body from the scratch.

EDIT: Why Diablo 1 instead of 2? just asking because that called my attention.

 

[DioWallachia]

People like Phil Fish, McMillen and Blow are pretentious and arrogant and full of themselves because they kind of HAVE TO.

Mc millen an pretentious and arrogant? never saw him in interviews of anything and its kinda the first time i ever read someone saying that. What did he claim to look like an ass?

 

[Frybird]

People like Phil Fish, McMillen and Blow are pretentious and arrogant and full of themselves because they kind of HAVE TO.

Mc millen an pretentious and arrogant? never saw him in interviews of anything and its kinda the first time i ever read someone saying that. What did he claim to look like an ass?

I haven't heard of him stirring a big "controversy" either (heard some comments on people hating him, but...well, i don't know), and he's actually the most laid back and friendly guy portrayed in Indie Game: The Movie, but he still comes off as a bit smug.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

There are a number of factors behind indie's power of polarization.

1) Indie games are not made by billion dollar corporations. They're the underdogs who go toe to toe with companies who's weekly operating budget is more than every penny they'll get to complete a game. They make games often with little more at their disposal than an idea, consumer level software, and gumption. We want to root for such people because most of us have, at some point, had a great idea for a game or thought we could do better. The indie game is made by our avatars - they remind us that we all could take our shot at the industry.

2) Indie games are often where new ideas are born. Making a game is a risk. For many indie developers the risk is such that the effort is all or nothing meaning any gamble regarding a mechanic or art style is a safe choice.

3) Indie games are generally derivative. Because of the aforementioned risk, most indie games are outright copies of some successful idea (see the outright clones of minecraft for example) or a mashup (it's x plus y - braid for example is prince of persia plus super mario brothers)

4) Indie games play the long odds and sometimes win if only marginally. Because of the first two points, on the rare occasion that an indie game is good or at least has an idea or ideas good enough to overlook the flaws for a time, undue praise is heaped upon them because we so love to see a champion.

5) Indie games are made by small enough teams that we often know the name of the people who made them. Only the most beloved AAA games that kept the same guys on staff for a long time manage to force knowledge of the people behind them upon us. We often remember guys like Sid Meyer or Warren Specter and the name alone is often enough to get people interested in a project. But out of the thousands of developers out there and hundreds of designers, there are perhaps only a few dozen or so of such stature that a significant portion of gamers would even recognize the name. By contrast, when a beloved game was made but a handful of people or even a single stalwart soul, linking the person with the thing you like is incredibly easy.

6) We remember the names of people and idolize them. Such treatment is never healthy for the idolized individual's ego. Jonathan Blow is a pompous gasbag. Peter Molyneux promises the moon and delivers a meteorite. For every personality there tends to be some similar sentiment. People who are idolized often forget that they are just people.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

My guess is that the pretentious set of indie fans/devs may not necessarily be the majority, but they are the loudest.

 

[bluepotatosack]

This argument seems to always come up in any creative field, and it never makes any sense to me. I just try to take each game as a separate entity and judge it on it's own merits. Reasonable?

I try to disregard my feelings for the developer while doing so, but I will admit that doesn't always work out (yeah, I'm a bit of a Schafer fanboy).

 

[Ed_MyEscapist]

Hey, Sorry to try to revive a convesation that seems to be dead guys but has anyone taken a look at Gamesplanet Lab? they seem to believe they have found an answer on the whole AAA Indie games; If the right companies sign up to the platform then i think we will be able to find out if independent developers really have what it takes to handle the Big Money pressure!
http://bit.ly/GP_Lab

As established previously on this thread arrogance is a necesity when creating a project; That is what makes them a good project leader, that is the reason they get where they are, however there is no reason for us to put up with it, so it's ok to not like them! personally i don't really mind arrogance, petulance on the other hand is hard to stand.

 

[Something Amyss]

And yet there seems to be a group of wholly justified people who have an instant reaction to the term "indie". They're pretentious, they say. They're egotistical, they say. They're overrated, they say. It's probably true. Many games labelled with "indie" are all those things. Here's my issue - I don't know why they are negatives, per se.

You don't know why being overrated and full of shit are bad things?

NOT SURE IF SERIOUS.

Like, I get the whole "indie shouldn't inherently be a bad thing," but these really are negative traits. Being a douche is supposed to put people off. If not, EA would be the most beloved publisher ever. Individuals may be "entitled" to act like shits, but we are "entitled" to voice our own sentiments that they are entitled little shits. Having one's head up one's own ass is a poor way to move forward.

What it seems to come down to is "I don't understand why people react negatively to negative behaviour that normally inspires a negative reaction." Further, you admit this is probably the case for most indie devs, but wonder why there is a black mark on indie gaming?

"Why do people think fire is hot, just because it burns when they touch it?

 

[DioWallachia]

And yet there seems to be a group of wholly justified people who have an instant reaction to the term "indie". They're pretentious, they say. They're egotistical, they say. They're overrated, they say. It's probably true. Many games labelled with "indie" are all those things. Here's my issue - I don't know why they are negatives, per se.

You don't know why being overrated and full of shit are bad things?

NOT SURE IF SERIOUS.

Like, I get the whole "indie shouldn't inherently be a bad thing," but these really are negative traits. Being a douche is supposed to put people off. If not, EA would be the most beloved publisher ever. Individuals may be "entitled" to act like shits, but we are "entitled" to voice our own sentiments that they are entitled little shits. Having one's head up one's own ass is a poor way to move forward.

What it seems to come down to is "I don't understand why people react negatively to negative behaviour that normally inspires a negative reaction." Further, you admit this is probably the case for most indie devs, but wonder why there is a black mark on indie gaming?

"Why do people think fire is hot, just because it burns when they touch it?

I am going to take a WILD guess, so bear with me while i try to think WHY those people end up as assholes:

.
.
.

You may be forgetting how deep and and full of shit is the process of MAKING one of the god dammed games, alone, without much help. If there is help is just friends in their spare time rather than profesionals, because after all, if you get a few, there may be the slight chance that they dont WANT to follow your vision because why in the fuck would THEY help your miserable idea of a (for example) plummer who lives in a kingdom full of mushrooms and jump his way into victory, it will never catch on unlike MY IDEA of spiked angsty teenage boys with oversided swords because I can reach my audience with REALISM, not you.

And even if the idea of competing against an entire industry that doesn't give a shit about innovation, MAY sound good since there is no chance that they will ever pull out a good idea even if their lives depend on it, it is still risky. Because YOUR idea may eventually be used at some point in the hundreds of movies/games that come out all the time and do it SO BADLY that it may leave a bad taste on ANYONE in the audience, to the point that they will IMMEDIATELY associate your idea/premise with the recent crappy one (Kinda of how people will inmediately think of the fail that is Galactus of Rise of The Silver Surfer when they read about one of Nyarlathotep forms named "The Crawling Mist")

Hell, even movies that had NOTHING to do with you may STILL fuck you over. Remember John's Carpenter "The Thing"? The best horror movie of all time, the Citizen Kane of horror in other words...........except that isnt quite true, isnt it? it flopped and it was critically panned, some people were disgusted by it because they believed they were going to see ANOTHER "alien who is friendly to children" movie just like "E.T: The Extra Terrestial" (It was released a week before) Well shit, i wonder why they didnt notice the simple undeniable fact that JOHN CARPENTER, A HORROR MOVIE DIRECTOR, was behind this movie.

And ALL this crap while you are still trying to at least make ONE fucking game/movie in your spare time. Isnt that GREAT how the world just conspires against you into driving you into the despair horizon?

Spoiler

no

So, the audience is too stupid and most likely will praise your movie/game after you are bankrupt or dead, the producers are too greedy, a talentless hack may misuse an idea so hard (COUGHVampires-sucks-now-thanks-to-TwilightCOUGHT) that none wants to see yours for fear of disappointment and any other professional is too self absorbed, the last one made munch worse if you so happens to be a normal person that just want to make a good game and DARED, DARED I TELL YOU!!, to have a good idea that even the professional didnt think off (HOW DARE YOU? YOU MISERABLE CASUAL FILTH, TO HAVE MORE TALENT THAN I!!)

So if you werent a jerk before then by now the sheer pressure will most likely make you into one now ("He Who Fights Monsters Becomes a Monster Himself" indeed) Its the equivalent of having blue balls for YEARS and never quite comming to a closure because of how long it takes to do the art,programming and all the other bullshit. The need to be....released of your OWN idea increases more the more convinced YOU are that you are bringing a dead art/genre/whatever to the ignorant world (bonus points if you think that you are Prometheus, brining the gift of "fiery innovation" to the squishy mortals)

PROTIP: If you are not hearing this kind of voice in your head....


....then you are not crazy enough.

I do however believe that acting like a jerk comes with 2 positives (if you can even call them like that):

1)The attention that you produce by your antics of assholess (is that even a word?) makes more people look into your magnus opus, after all, its better to BE talked about rather than not.

2)It will make people angry and approach your material with the idea of TRASHING THE FUCK out of your dreams by finding every nitpicking reason to complain about it. That may seem like a bad move but the truth is that the worst thing you could do to an artist is to never tell him why his art is good or bad, so it helps that they analyze every detail (after all, Art is always the sum of all its part, irrelevant as they may be alone)

That is why i used the John Carpenter The Thing as an example earlier, imagine a good director like him trying his best techniques in this remake of an old movie ("Who Goes There") ends up confused by how the movie flopped, the critical failure AND the fact that somehow now everyone loves this movie when its already too late, the people failed him when he needed it the most.

Dear Dio that being an artist sucks. Seriously, you may end up dead or believing that you are NOT actually a Orson Welles impersonator doing Citizen Kane 2: The Quickening

"Why do people think fire is hot, just because it burns when they touch it?"

Because people are supposed to approach it with caution. You are supposed to feel warm by it and that is what indie SHOULD be, you should be in the calm and warm realization that there were people that once were like you and were driven mad to give you this fire. Dont forget it kid or otherwise, you may end up like them.

 

[DioWallachia]

Because most of them are these shitty artsy casual games.

Name them, just to be sure.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

And yet there seems to be a group of wholly justified people who have an instant reaction to the term "indie". They're pretentious, they say. They're egotistical, they say. They're overrated, they say. It's probably true. Many games labelled with "indie" are all those things. Here's my issue - I don't know why they are negatives, per se.

You don't know why being overrated and full of shit are bad things?

NOT SURE IF SERIOUS.

Like, I get the whole "indie shouldn't inherently be a bad thing," but these really are negative traits. Being a douche is supposed to put people off. If not, EA would be the most beloved publisher ever. Individuals may be "entitled" to act like shits, but we are "entitled" to voice our own sentiments that they are entitled little shits. Having one's head up one's own ass is a poor way to move forward.

What it seems to come down to is "I don't understand why people react negatively to negative behaviour that normally inspires a negative reaction." Further, you admit this is probably the case for most indie devs, but wonder why there is a black mark on indie gaming?

"Why do people think fire is hot, just because it burns when they touch it?

People say they're overrated. People say they're pretentious. I don't know why being overrated and pretentious is bad, though. A lot of great things are overrated, that doesn't make the games bad. Pretentiousness can often make things better.

Pretentiousness is not a negative. It is not an admirable quality to have, but it does not adversely effect the end product. It is a requirement if one wants to stand out in a crowded and extremely competitive market, so some would say it is a positive trait for an indie auter to possess.

I'm also considering that a lot of these devs have pretentiousness thrust upon them. Take Braid. It could have quietly snuck under the radar and been given lukewarm reception, with a cult following of dedicated fans of puzzle and platforming games. Similar things are released on the app store and on the DS all the time. But instead, critics are all like OHH MY GAWWD IT'S THE BEST INDIE GAME EVEERR MAAADDE!", and all of a sudden Jonathan Blow has become, not of his own volition, a pretentious, artsy face of a generation of developers.

And then, of course, people react negatively to that. I honestly get the feeling that a lot of ill will towards indie developers, even the outspoken shitheads, only come because they were labelled as such, and they were forced into a position they couldn't back out of. This is what hype and expectations do to one or two-man teams. At least the Gears of War guys have such criticism evenly spread. When every single thing is essentially aimed directly at you, positive OR negative, you will feel the weight of the world on your shoulders. That'll break a man. So is it really so bad that they feel they have to act up? ...no indie dev starts out that way. They only finish that way.

And you know what? Maybe I want devs to be shitheads. Maybe I want them to have an inflated sense of importance. Like I said; the indie scene fascinates me. The egotistical, twitchy, self-entitled loner makes for much more interesting following than a comfortable, safe-job programmer. And let's not forget that people who speak their mind in such frank terms do certainly command respect in those terms.

 

[DioWallachia]

People say they're overrated. People say they're pretentious. I don't know why being overrated and pretentious is bad, though. A lot of great things are overrated, that doesn't make the games bad. Pretentiousness can often make things better.

Pretentiousness is not a negative. It is not an admirable quality to have, but it does not adversely effect the end product. It is a requirement if one wants to stand out in a crowded and extremely competitive market, so some would say it is a positive trait for an indie auter to possess.

I'm also considering that a lot of these devs have pretentiousness thrust upon them. Take Braid. It could have quietly snuck under the radar and been given lukewarm reception, with a cult following of dedicated fans of puzzle and platforming games. Similar things are released on the app store and on the DS all the time. But instead, critics are all like OHH MY GAWWD IT'S THE BEST INDIE GAME EVEERR MAAADDE!", and all of a sudden Jonathan Blow has become, not of his own volition, a pretentious, artsy face of a generation of developers.

And then, of course, people react negatively to that. I honestly get the feeling that a lot of ill will towards indie developers, even the outspoken shitheads, only come because they were labelled as such, and they were forced into a position they couldn't back out of. This is what hype and expectations do to one or two-man teams. At least the Gears of War guys have such criticism evenly spread. When every single thing is essentially aimed directly at you, positive OR negative, you will feel the weight of the world on your shoulders. That'll break a man. So is it really so bad that they feel they have to act up? ...no indie dev starts out that way. They only finish that way.

And you know what? Maybe I want devs to be shitheads. Maybe I want them to have an inflated sense of importance. Like I said; the indie scene fascinates me. The egotistical, twitchy, self-entitled loner makes for much more interesting following than a comfortable, safe-job programmer. And let's not forget that people who speak their mind in such frank terms do certainly command respect in those terms.

But the critics said that its the best game ever because it is? or because they just wanted a perfect excuse to shit on todays mainstream games and they found their paw know as Jonathan Blow?
In time, he will be driven by pride thanks to this label and send himself into an spiral of oblivion, but in the eyes of the critics, its a price that he has to pay with his life, so other indie creators will be forced to "demonstrate" that games arent just about art and subvertion but also about fun and that going THAT far may destroy the efforts of other indie developers. It doesnt matter in the end who wins as long the critics get what their want, and that its to fulfill their miserable lives with joy after being MENTALLY SCARRED by the sheer boringness that its the brow-shitty-realistic-shooters that dominate the market.

Dang. I went OVER-HAMMY in this post, in fact i felt very hammy during this day for some reason.

But anyway, back on topic. I dont see why people keep reusing the "Braid is actually awesome and the best of the best" thing when compared to other games of the indie and even mainstream. It generates bad press everytime someone uses the words "X of all time" and worse of all, it generates fanboys. The last thing i want is for people to be so narrow minded that they dont pay attention to good games like Journey, Bastion, The Binding of Isaac, IJI, Noitu Love 2, The Stanley Parable and Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The Braid thing also reminds me of how people today call Mario 64 the best 3D platformer of its era (TODAY) but back then, the superior one was Banjoo Kazooie, i just dont see how can you MISS a glaringly obvious superior contender unless full nostalgia googles gear+69 is being wear.

 

[Aprilgold]

To put it in a blunt sense: They have a stereotype portrayed by people like Jim on the Escapist that every single indie game is some sort of demeaning thing on the common person. When, in honesty that isn't truly the case. For every one Braid there are seven down to earth Minecrafts. I can name several that are not demeaning to the average people and this includes but is not limited to:
Minecraft
Terraria
Shoot Many Robots
Audiosurf
Bastion
Lone Survivor
Cave Story and all of its following adaptations and ports
Breath of Death IIV
The Binding of Isaac
Gish
Cthulhu Saves the World
Sequence
Frozen Synapse
Portal
Tiny and Big: Grandpa's Leftovers

And more that I can't think of right now. If you really want to know why Braid is considered the way it is, go learn about its roots. The best way to do this is to watch 'Indie Game: The Movie' which can be bought through Steam.

In conclusion, its all just one giant-ass stereotype most gamers take for truth, I had a friend who wouldn't touch Minecraft for months because he heard it was a indie title, and as such thought it was terrible but once tried he loved it all the more.

Because most of them are these shitty artsy casual games.

Is Minecraft, Terraria, Frozen Synapse, Cthulhu Saves the World, The Binding of Isaac, Gish or Portal "shitty artsy casual games" hell in a better sense Half-Life 1 was essentially indie by the fact that it was not published by anyone else but Valve themselves, so is Half-Life 1 a "Shitty artsy casual game"?

 

[DioWallachia]

To put it in a blunt sense: They have a stereotype portrayed by people like Jim on the Escapist that every single indie game is some sort of demeaning thing on the common person. When, in honesty that isn't truly the case. For every one Braid there are seven down to earth Minecrafts. I can name several that are not demeaning to the average people and this includes but is not limited to:
Minecraft
Terraria
Shoot Many Robots
Audiosurf
Bastion
Lone Survivor
Cave Story and all of its following adaptations and ports
Breath of Death IIV
The Binding of Isaac
Gish
Cthulhu Saves the World
Sequence
Frozen Synapse
Portal
Tiny and Big: Grandpa's Leftovers

And more that I can't think of right now. If you really want to know why Braid is considered the way it is, go learn about its roots. The best way to do this is to watch 'Indie Game: The Movie' which can be bought through Steam.

In conclusion, its all just one giant-ass stereotype most gamers take for truth, I had a friend who wouldn't touch Minecraft for months because he heard it was a indie title, and as such thought it was terrible but once tried he loved it all the more.

Because most of them are these shitty artsy casual games.

Is Minecraft, Terraria, Frozen Synapse, Cthulhu Saves the World, The Binding of Isaac, Gish or Portal "shitty artsy casual games" hell in a better sense Half-Life 1 was essentially indie by the fact that it was not published by anyone else but Valve themselves, so is Half-Life 1 a "Shitty artsy casual game"?

Wasnt Half Life 1 published by Sierra up until the end? even when they repeatedly told Valve to cut corners?

Also, The Binding Of Isaac i could label it as arty.
I mean sure, the others brought innovation and are well made (except Minecraft who still needs lots of expanding on central attraction of the game) but TBOI wins the indy arty label just because even when its clearly inspired by Legend of Zelda, it still manages to tell the story by showing us the story through the gameplay items rather than a shitload of cutscenes (the Mom's items, reflect his gender issues, the Wire Coat Hanger suggest an unwanted pregnancy and so on) that will eventually make sense when you see all the endings.

I find your choices very hard to clasify as "casual" games even in the eyes of the most ignorant people. TBOI is hard as shit, Portal needs more IQ than the average BAKA GAIJIN, Minecraft and Terratia you need a shitload of imagination and Cthulhu Saves The World...i have no clue beyond its a humorous 16 bit throw back RPG (maybe its the most standard of all of them?)

Maybe you could have found more examples that fit HIS criteria but are undeniably awesome?

 

[DioWallachia]

This argument seems to always come up in any creative field, and it never makes any sense to me. I just try to take each game as a separate entity and judge it on it's own merits. Reasonable?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!! LOGIC!! MY ARCHNEMESIS!!

We meet again....