I know every game is different but I'm talking about in general which one do you prefer? For me I prefer indie games they offer a lot more content better value for money but most of these big budget games are disappointing like SW Battlefront and COD they are very unoriginal and we are expected to spend extra money on DLC when the games themselves are not even worth the price in the first place. I go with the indie games even the ones from Kickstarter they are far superior to most of these big budget games and on consoles it is even worse with the games they have available. Don't get me wrong there are some good quality big budget games but most of them to me it seems they are not innovative at all and the devs are just making a game to make money not with any real passion or pride for the product they produce.
I've played amazing AAA games, I've played amazing indie games
I've played crappy AAA games, I've played crappy indie games
I think talent and passion come a long way. Budget isn't that important as other elements...
However, when I play an indie game that just blows AAA games out of the water, I often wonder: if these guys can do it with such a small budget, why can't a big publisher for example?
If 4A games and New World Interactive can make an amazing FPS on the budget of a sandwich, why can't EA, Activision or Ubisoft with their million billion dollar budgets?
I've played amazing AAA games, I've played amazing indie games
I've played crappy AAA games, I've played crappy indie games
I think talent and passion come a long way. Budget isn't that important as other elements...
However, when I play an indie game that just blows AAA games out of the water, I often wonder: if these guys can do it with such a small budget, why can't a big publisher for example?
If 4A games and New World Interactive can make an amazing FPS on the budget of a sandwich, why can't EA, Activision or Ubisoft with their million billion dollar budgets?
I think these big budget games are made just to make money they don't care about the quality. Look at SW: Battlefront it is by far the lowest rated shooter DICE has ever made yet it still sold millions just off hype. Big Budget games are just to deceive people with their pre order bonus crap and fancy trailers then you get the game and you realize it's not even good.
Cause anybody can make an Indie game, not everybody can make a AAA game though. Less competition.
Nope. I totally disagree.
I'm sure everyone can try and make a indie game. But you'll still need talent and passion if you wanna get anywhere.
Anyone can make music, anyone can make a painting, anyone can make a game... But that doesn't mean anyone can be an artist.
What i mean is any video game studio can make an indie game, there super cheap. But not all studios have the money to compete with AAA studios. Not all musicians use the same instruments and not all painters use the same paint.
The bigger the budget, the bigger the publisher intervention, the less creative freedom for the actual team making the game, the more generic and 'designed by committee' the game is going to be, the higher chance of bad DLC / microtransactions to milk each consumer for as much cash as possible.
It is very, very, extremely rare for a big budget game to be genuinely good. Generally, when a publisher is going to spend 100 million dollars on a project they're guaranteed to sand blast off anything that might make it unique or appealing to people with taste. There's a higher chance of cutting 50% of the content out of the game and releasing it as a season pass, raising the price of the game to twice its initial cost. The publishers are going to force design changes onto the team because of market data or focus groups which will screw things up further.
Most of the good and interesting games that have come out for the last few years have been indie games. There's loads of garbage in the indie sphere, but everything good that stands out is there.
@unrealgunner: Yeah I really wonder what the longevity for a game like SW: Battlefront is. Will people still play it in a year ?
Will people still play Destiny once Destiny 2 is out ?
I guess I'm just over AAA shooters. They don't live up to the bare minimum I require of an FPS anymore. That is besides Bethesda of course, because Wolfenstein was awesome and DOOM looks good too.
But my favourite shooters of these past years have been: Metro series, CoJ: Gunslinger, Shadow Warrior, Insurgency, Red Orchestra. All made on a tiny budget. Not even 1/100th of CODs annual marketing budget.
What i mean is any video game studio can make an indie game, there super cheap. But not all studios have the money to compete with AAA studios. Not all musicians use the same instruments and not all painters use the same paint.
what you mean to say is: there is less competition for AAA shooters ? And more competition in the indie scene, so they have to build quality to get noticed ?
It has already been said before.. I don't care about budgets, both categories have some hidden gems buried in crap, it's all the same to me, but one thing I can say is that indie developers are more willing to innovate, and that's always a positive thing imo.
@paradocs: Out of the amount of Indie games i see, i dont see much innovation at all. I see new innovations out of the big companies a lot.
Like the cover system or grappling hook ?
AAA games tend to copy eachother and copy popular game mechanics.
They also tend to copy ideas from indie games. Like Ubisoft buying the team behind The Ship, using that idea to implement a "innovative" *cough* multiplayer mode for Assassin's Creed, then firing those gullible people again.
I love both equally. There are good and bad games in both worlds.
That said, i think that the indie massification this gen has been very healthy for the industry. Some bring great and clever ideas that AAA devs would never dare to try.
@paradocs: Out of the amount of Indie games i see, i dont see much innovation at all. I see new innovations out of the big companies a lot.
Like the cover system or grappling hook ?
AAA games tend to copy eachother and copy popular game mechanics.
They also tend to copy ideas from indie games. Like Ubisoft buying the team behind The Ship, using that idea to implement a "innovative" *cough* multiplayer mode for Assassin's Creed, then firing those gullible people again.
Indie games do the same thing. How many times do we have to hear Zelda inspired, or Metroidmania inspire.
Since I usually can't handle 8-bit graphics, I generally prefer larger budget indies. That said, some of my favourite indie games include FTL, Undertale, and a few other 8-bit games.
I guess it means based on face value and first impression alone I would go for high budget games. If it's 8-bit but very good, I'll find out about it and play it anyway.
@thepclovingguy: Hey now, that call of duty wall jump was pretty sweet. They do push their games some. Im just not familiar with what all they change.
without indie games we would be playing the same shit every year, because big company dont wanna take any risks with their games. I have become so tired of all these boring repetitative shooters like battlefield, cod and all these singelplayer story third/first person shooters with the same gameplay mechanics over and over again.
@thepclovingguy: The games i play always change mechanics, Nintendo games are always changing, Xenoblade X is very innovating and nothing like Xenoblade. Heroes of the Storm was very innovating and nothing like Blizzard did before. Indie games arnt the only studios to innovate and take risk, other big companies have been doing it long before. Also Indie games are nothing new, we use to have them a bunch in the 80s when video games were getting big.
@R4gn4r0k: Same thing with movies, and why most of the most interesting movies are rarely "blockbusters". The thing is that people generally want to make money. If the thing that you're making (movie, game, whatever) costs relatively little to make, then it's easier to be profitable with a niche audience and still turn a profit. But once you start investing metric buttloads of money into getting the thing made, you're probably going to want to play it safe as hell. That means formulaic, derivative, but hopefully technically competent.
There's a give and take here. Small budget indie stuff has a real chance of being HORRIBLE. If they are forced to work with a tiny budget, there's a very real chance that it's because they just plain SUCK at what they do. Meanwhile, at least the "blockbuster" stuff is hopefully technically competent, because dealing with a big freaking budget SHOULD allow for hiring people who actually know what the hell they are doing.
The other side of that is that while the big budget stuff SHOULD be technically competent, there's a far greater chance that it's gonna be really safe and isn't gonna break new ground or take any risks. Risks have the potential to backfire and turn off huge segments of an audience, so you don't do that when you've got 100 million dollars invested in the project. Meanwhile, while a lot of "indie" creators might be either unproven or just plain shitty, at least they can afford to be a little more creative since they're dealing with a smaller initial investment.
@R4gn4r0k: Same thing with movies, and why most of the most interesting movies are rarely "blockbusters". The thing is that people generally want to make money. If the thing that you're making (movie, game, whatever) costs relatively little to make, then it's easier to be profitable with a niche audience and still turn a profit. But once you start investing metric buttloads of money into getting the thing made, you're probably going to want to play it safe as hell. That means formulaic, derivative, but hopefully technically competent.
There's a give and take here. Small budget indie stuff has a real chance of being HORRIBLE. If they are forced to work with a tiny budget, there's a very real chance that it's because they just plain SUCK at what they do. Meanwhile, at least the "blockbuster" stuff is hopefully technically competent, because dealing with a big freaking budget SHOULD allow for hiring people who actually know what the hell they are doing.
The other side of that is that while the big budget stuff SHOULD be technically competent, there's a far greater chance that it's gonna be really safe and isn't gonna break new ground or take any risks. Risks have the potential to backfire and turn off huge segments of an audience, so you don't do that when you've got 100 million dollars invested in the project. Meanwhile, while a lot of "indie" creators might be either unproven or just plain shitty, at least they can afford to be a little more creative since they're dealing with a smaller initial investment.
Good comparison, I can totally follow that logic.
Blockboster movies: more spectacle and better special effects
Indie movies: better story and character development
I think the same goes for games =
AAA games: more cinematic and better graphics
Indie games: better gameplay and more innovative stuff.
Log in to comment