Indie RPGs - On Reviews

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.

Originally Posted by Ovenall
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…

Originally Posted by rune_74
You are proof in point that whats fun for you is not always the same of what is fun for others…

No, not me. But holding indy games to different standards is stupid. Ultimately I want a game to be fun to play, otherwise why play it? Graphics don't need to be 3D or HD or whatever. Doesn't need to be a million dollar production. But it needs to be fun and compelling.

Otherwise, what's the point?

Originally Posted by northreign
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.

I agree, why make something that's crap?

Of course everyone rushes to point out it's so hard to make games and blah blah blah but while I don't think indie needs high powered graphics if it's a single character tile based game with a poorly thought out game world and rpg elements who gives a shit? Sure it's hard to make games but the difference between good and bad games is more about the care put into them and the basic talent of the people making them than the budget.

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.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
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.

But if I name names feelings get hurt and fanbois attack. If I discuss generalities then no progress is made. May as well shut down the internet.

But the point here is not how things turn out but what people are shooting for. How can you make something worthwhile if you aren't ambitious? Obviously it's much harder to make something great but if you don't try you will be lucky to achieve mediocrity and so far aside from knights of the chalice every indie rpg I know of released to date falls short of even that.

Ah, we're in that territory. Bye.

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.

Originally Posted by Dasale
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.

People have different priorities man. Indie RPGs like Eschalon and Avernum cater to certain opinions about what is most important while mainstream RPGs like Oblivion and Dragon Age 2 cater to different priorities.

Whether you like indie RPGs or not is directly related to what your priorities are.

I was thinking about "the PC platform as a degenerated platform".

It's just a thought right now, based on what I often see (and write here) :

- lack of creativity
- extinction of whole genres
- platform being dominated by a few genres
- platform being … well, not really dominated, but influenced by - a huge number of sequels [or prequels]

Apart from a few genres not existing on other platforms at all, these are mainly the factors I which - in my very personal opinion ! - make up a degenerated platform.

This is something I tend to see from ecological environments, too :

- lack of diversity
- extinction of whole species
- domination by a few species
- domination by radiations of a few species, maybe even (I'm not quite sure on that - would translate into the sequels/prequels thing from above).
( - lack of diversity in terms of DNA )

the point is that this is like the time after a mass extinction or after an ecological desaster (like or example a massive bloom of algae in water, which is draining the water of dioxygen and thus killing a lot of life that's in the water there where the blooming takes place) or in a desert.

- few species
- ecological niches unused
- widespread radiation of these few species over time (thousands ? millions ? of years)

So, to sum it up, in my eyes, the PC platform - regarding these criteria - is dead.
The only "life" comes from the Indies, but all of the other factors point - in my personal perception - rather towards a degenerated platform.

Pc gaming is dead again?
I wish!… we would get plenty really great games if that was the case.

Remember that this is just a theory - a "thought-model" - of mine.

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)

Most indie RPG's get around a 7 or 8 in most scores, a 3 and half stars…which with the ones I have seen it's pretty fair. I think this is a subject not anyone will agree on. 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.

Originally Posted by rune_74
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)

Sorry, couldn't resist

Originally Posted by rune_74
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.

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?

Originally Posted by ManWhoJaped
…
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?
…

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.

Originally Posted by ManWhoJaped
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?

Um, both eschalon games from basilisk have taken more then a year…I think 2 to 3 for both.

Side-note : I just found this : http://www.gamesbrief.com/2011/04/in…s/?utm_source#

A great analysis of the casual games market - and it fits frighteningly well onto the PC games market as well : http://www.makinggames.de/index.php/…_der_sackgasse

It's in German language, and I translated my personal "key sentence" from it myself :

"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]."

The first conclusion is that Google translation is awful, I couldn't understand clearly much sentences through it.

Here few totally wrong points of the article, if I understood well the awful Google Translation:

• The author seems think casual game market is leading by game companies, but the truth is it is leading by players.
• The author seems think there's one category of casual game players, that's an horrible misunderstanding of the reality.
• For sure there isn't much creativity in casual gaming but it's not by looking at the top ten sells that you can analyze the creativity in a game genre. We got recently a very good example of creativity in casual gaming, Anomaly: Warzone Earth.
• Limit casual gaming to Hidden Objects, Time Management, Word games and Card games is a deep misunderstanding of casual gaming.

What say more? On such a wrong basis it's hard to start any debate. I could not have understand the awful translation and some points seem quite valid, but well overall it seems that this guy is analyzing something he doesn't know.