Why there are no Indie Developers? (And why we're too small to count)

Scummbuddy · Sat 27/05/2006 06:58:24

Another article linked to, from Digg.com that I've found quite interesting is in the comparison between the Hollywood industry and the Games industry, and how there is a place for independents in Hollywood and how there may be a time when we'll rule the world.

Just not now. But keep on working and developing your skills. One of you may be the one to bring innovative ideas back into the games industry and take away the need for 8 million dollars to develop a game.

http://www.slate.com/id/2142453/

Helm · Sat 27/05/2006 10:34:17

I haven't played many recent AGS games so my estimate might be extremely stupid, but if I'd have to guess, I don't think 98% of the AGS developers would make anything even approaching innovative if they were making commercial big-time games. We've seen the type of games oldschool-adventure-game-fans-that-start-studio make, and they're the opposite of innovation, most of them.

Opinions?

HillBilly · Sat 27/05/2006 12:08:43

Quote from: Helm on Sat 27/05/2006 10:34:17Opinions?

I agree, but keep in mind alot of us just makes default adventure games for the fun of it, not to create something new and revolutionary. And hey, call me easily entertained, but I still find them good. Adventure games is the best way to tell a story from A to B, the way I see it. That FPS "pick-up-the-laptops-to-get-some-info" F.E.A.R. style is bullshit in my opinion.

Adventure games is like an interactive storybook. And, instead of finding a whole new way to play a game, people run with what they know work. I'm sure some creative minds here could create something new and exciting if they got the funds for it. But with pretty much themselves and AGS on their hands, I wouldn't expect too much right away.

But hey, I don't think 2% is bad at all. Again, most of us does this as a time-pass, not to turn the gaming world upsidedown.

Vince Twelve · Sat 27/05/2006 12:17:08

In general, indie games aren't trying to be particularly innovative. Most indie companies want to make money before they start getting experimentative (is that a word?) and that means more Mah-Jhong/Tetris/Break-out/Bejeweled clones. For major innovative breakthroughs, we often have to rely on those major game houses who have the money to risk (but usually don't want to risk it). Or... us amateurs could do it... but like Helm said, that doesn't happen a whole lot in this community... what with most of us being primarily concerned with nostalgia.

An interesting related article:
http://www.gametunnel.com/html/section-viewarticle-50.html

EDIT: There's also something to be said about paths to market. An independent motion picture can end up super good and get noticed at a film festival by a producer and suddenly be partnered with a major distributor and find itself in theaters around the globe with substantial advertising. Indie games, on the other hand, might be super fun, but they are pretty much never going to be able to have graphics anywhere near what you can find in a major publisher's games and thus these games won't be picked up with major marketing behind them. The best a game can hope for is to be ported to XboxLiveMarketplace or sold to Yahoo games. And I'm not exactly sure what happens then, but I'm guessing that the actual developer is getting the short-end of the money stick on either of those deals.

Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens · Sat 27/05/2006 17:03:42

Independent developers starting out can't afford to take chances on wacky ideas for the most part, that's the main thing. Until you've got some money to fall back on and a fan base you really have to 'play ball' and work on what sells.

The Inquisitive Stranger · Sat 27/05/2006 18:27:46

Agreed. After all, anyone can come up with a great game idea; it's just that said ideas are never put into action due to the risk of not selling well.

However, is "innovation" really what makes a good game? Some games are really innovative, but also really terrible and unappealing.

Helm · Sat 27/05/2006 19:08:08

talking about adventure games strictly:

QuoteSome games are really innovative, but also really terrible and unappealing.

also:

some games are really innovative, but also awesome and very appealing.

but:

a lot of games are of a redundant, uninspired design, and very rarely awesome and appealing.

Radiant · Sun 28/05/2006 23:26:08

Bullshit.

There are indie developers. The internet is rife with them. The point is that most of them lack the skill to get widespread recognition. But from last year, we've had such hits as Cave Story (doukutsu monogetari) and I'm O.K. (from Thompsonsoft) that came entirely out of nowhere and got widespread recognition. Then there's indie games that actually are published and make money, such as Caravel's DROD and Spiderweb's Geneforge. And there's always the buck-a-flashgame market which isn't quite near saturation point yet.

So what if it's not big business? Most of us are here for the fun and the challenge. And most commercially made games aren't big business either, only you tend to never hear of those that aren't.

MillsJROSS · Mon 29/05/2006 05:31:45

I think the problem lies in what we determine an independant developer to be. And I think the real definition is it's a person or group of people without support from a publisher. Which, if this is the case, it's obvious that most independant games aren't seen by the public at large. Unless you stumble on to there website, or someone tells you about them...it's probable that you'll never hear about them. If they did make a game that was excellent, than it would seem they wouldn't have such a hard time finding a publisher...and in that case, they no longer are independant.

-MillsJROSS

scotch · Mon 29/05/2006 07:28:47

Well if we're comparing ourselves to the movie or music industries, independant usually means commercial but funded by smallish publishers/music labels that don't control their artistic direction. Those are things we don't have many of... and as Vince pointed out, the only ones that exist are mainly about publishing downloadable games for people that don't really like computer games, just want to kill time. The only exception I can think of is Manifesto Games, who haven't yet picked up any games as far as I can tell.

There are lots of us out there making games, and if we had somewhere to pitch them to with a realistic chance of success then I think quite a lot of people would raise their game for that. Unfortunately, I don't see that appearing, but with people becoming more and more willing to pay for things through the internet I think direct sales are becoming a very attractive business model, for low budget producers and big budget alike. That's going to level the playing field a bit.

Who knows, in a few years perhaps people will be getting their console games through the internet too.

Scummbuddy · Mon 29/05/2006 22:01:49

We could have had that a couple years ago, but Infinium Labs' Phantom became debunked....

Actually, I did get downloadable console games years before that, on The Sega Channel... That was pure joy.

lo_res_man · Mon 29/05/2006 22:09:18

I think the Anonymous game developers, of Kings Quest I & II+ (with Quest for Glory II VGA hopefully coming soon) fame, count as indie. what do you think people think?

Nikolas · Mon 29/05/2006 23:23:10

Rule the world...?

Hmmm...

Well the time will come in the end. We have the means. We have the abilities and the mid to do it. But somehow we loose it along the way.

The thing is that for a track, you need basically yourself, and that's the end of things.
For a game you need, 5-6 people maybe (ok many more but still the Credits for Morrowind show 40 +- people, so for an indie game 5-6 are more than enough imo). But games are not an art yet (unfortunately actually but still, are not considered one), they are not funded as an art, they are not taught at all... etc...
Films: You need equipement (and no you cannot make a moive with a camera from your mobile). You need crew and actors. And there is a history of around 100 years to show you the way, the obstacles, and the fact that movies are there.

A very raugh analysis, but more or less movies as a medium are much much more famous than games. Music as well.

But from what I've seen indie companies are here, and they are here to stay, no matter the medium. And I like it this way, for now (until I end up working for Microsoft...)

edmundito · Tue 30/05/2006 08:12:27

I hate comparing hollywood to the games industry, but hollywood is a 80ish year old entertainment industry that can be looked back specially for mistakes they've made, and the games industry is just approaching about 30 years tops. They're completely different monsters, though.

For independent developers to be recognized in any way, they must start building something remarkable that is appealing to a group of people, and leave imitation to the bigger hollywood-envious game companies. This group of people doesn't have to be the "hardcore" gamer, because that is the most needy one of the demographic, as you must provide enough violence and state-of-the-art graphics basically. Where as others might not really care about those two, even if it would be nice to have those "features", though they're not what make a game good.

As for adventure games, they basically need to drop all nostalgia to be recognized. A classic AGS example is KQ I-II and Maniac Deluxe. I'm sure lots of people have played those games outside AGS Land, but who gets credit in the end? Sierra and LucasArts. Sure, some people who were not members of those companies made the games, but what people are looking is to replay their memories of games made by those two companies, and not by the AGS developers. Use previous elements of adventure games are fine, but use them with caution and know the difference between influence and nostalgia.

I agree that there needs to be innovation in multiple dimensions (gameplay, story, etc). Independent movies may be accessible these days and distributed by major studios, but in the beggining it was because there were very quirky movies that got recognized because they were different from hollywood movies but still had a comercial quality. In movies, it picked up in the early 90s, though it took a few years for us to really see it become mainstream. The same thing with music. A corporation did not manufacture genres like grunge. Sure, there are lot of manufactured bands these days, but back in the day it got started from people doing something different, and having an audience for it.