Ovenall
SasqWatch
I think the baseline question for a review of ANY game should be "Is it any damn fun to play?"
Just leave it at that.
Just leave it at that.
I think the baseline question for a review of ANY game should be "Is it any damn fun to play?"
Just leave it at that.
You are proof in point that whats fun for you is not always the same of what is fun for others…
I agree, why make something that's crap?For the most part I think Indie games suck badly. They're too casual to me. But every now and then one appears that is worth a price - always very little.
Indie games are more like casual games for people who don't play games, at least they are to me. Worth about $2.50 or less. I think that's the most I've ever paid for one.
I think they should try harder. You make it in your garage so-to-speak, go for the stars. Make something really good. Why make crap.
I'm willing to buy an old rpg from Sega game system times yet an awesome one for a cheap price, but not practically all of anything indie as they are just not that good.
Go above and beyond, do something great, indie game designers.
Isn't that the same for everything? AAA, indie, whatever? In which case it has nothing to do with being indie: you're saying a bad game is a bad game. I don't think many people would debate that.
Anyway, let's qualify this discussion. Can you give me examples of these carelessly made (preferably) RPGs? Of course they exist - just like any section of media - but it's hard to discuss all these generalities.
Well seriously I'd wish all those explaining it's not a matter of indie or not but just a matter of quality and that in practice most indie don't qualify, then what are those indie RPG showing that "required" level of quality?
Honestly I don't even wait an answer to this, I know they'll come back only with mods. But common surprise me.
I'm not even sure what we are discussing anymore, usually happens when alrik makes his post about idealogical stuff…(I'm thinking it's more a translation issue) (teasing)
To think they aren't trying, is just silly. 2 or 3 people working on a game(being generous here) is pretty much a fraction of what the big budget people have.
Another thing, many of the indie guys have something they are aiming for…for instance, Basilisk(and this is because I know this) is aiming for a homage to the old school rpg's, he is not trying to design modern rpg systems etc. One thing I agree on though is that indies should have a decent UI, something knights of the chalic did not have at release.
Lol, you clearly know nothing to the subject. I have a crystal clear suggestion for you, go on, make your indie RPG, and let see the result in some years....
But on the other hand, it's not really that much harder to make good software than bad software. If you spend a year making something crap and could try to make something great spending another three months wouldn't you?
...
Well what does "try" mean? If you think it means make it more good then I agree, you can't just magically make yourself be better than you are.
But on the other hand, it's not really that much harder to make good software than bad software. If you spend a year making something crap and could try to make something great spending another three months wouldn't you? If you look at something like driftmoon, no way am I going to play some overhead non party game.
Maybe basilisk makes their games like they do because that's what they like, and if so you can't argue with it. But just because people say that doesn't make it true. It seems more likely to me that as with the big boys the indies mostly make the choice to make simple games due to economic reasons. I just don't think you can make an RPG worth playing in a single year, even if you have a huge team.
An indie RPG pumped out in a year's time is just entirely pointless, at least as far as I'm concerned. Others seem to disagree but then we come back to the premise of the news item. If these same games were mainstream would people like them as much as some claim to?
"The design of casual games is dictated by business plans, not by the willingness for risks and creativity, because the publishers are schockingly spineless regarding experiments. The network of the casual business with its peripheral [?], individual developer teams should be a source of immense creativity. Instead the finance-strong gatekeeprs use/utilize their whole force/power for phase/synchronize [?] its acteurs [the developing teams]."