Indies vs big budget games, which have better gameplay?

Depends on the title on a case by case basis, not just the budget. It would seem silly to generalize

at least we know op opinion on the matter lol....

honestly if we are dealing with generalities here (which you seem to be) . neither because you are making it seem as if indies arent copying old genres or just mixing genres just like AAA games are. its a game by game basis.

Depends on the title.

Pretty stupid question.

Red Dead Redemption is AAA , yet it has lots of gameplay.

Indies rely on gameplay because they don't have the money to fund high end graphic fidelity. AAA titles does both... usually. That said, thousands of indies gameplay are also rubbish.

Big budget games, definitely. And no, I have not started gaming recently. In fact I've probably played more indies than you. You can check my PSN account and Steam ID: Vatusus

Seriously, only a very restrict few indie games managed to hold me for more than 2 hours straight. They become boring and tedious pretty fast

Indies are overrated

Big budget games are ruining the industry. It's a dead ringer that somebody has bad taste when they cite something like The Las of Us or that shitty new Tomb Raider game as something good. These are games built out of cliches. They're polished and have slick production values, but they're so totally devoid of anything new or interesting that they just blend together into the sludge that is modern triple-A gaming.

There are exceptions, of course. The Witcher 3 was a masterpiece, and MGSV is shaping up to be one of the greatest games ever. The vast, vast majority of big budget games, though, are too afraid of alienating anyone that they take 0 risks, and as a result they don't do anything interesting. Too often when I watch a trailer for an upcoming big budget game I think "wow, I've already played this game 100 times."

One of the worst trends in gaming right now is the combat system we see in games like Assassins Creed, Batman: Arkham games, Shadows of Mordor or Sleeping dogs. This combat system is garbage, and more and more games are starting to copy it. You can literally turn off your screen and spam buttons without thought and you'll win most fights in these games. A combat system should take skill and be deep, but this is a step backwards.

The good indie games that come out are gameplay focused, high quality, and original. Games like Rocket League or Darkest Dungeon take a risk on something new and pull it off extremely well. The other day a game called Big Pharma came out, which is a game about running a pharmaceutical tycoon, unto itself a really cool idea and the game is great.

The indie scene has stuff like Dwarf Fortress and Nitronic Rush, which are freeware games that are some of my favorite games of the last couple years. Dwarf Fortress in particular is one of the most mind bending, creative and technically impressive games I've ever played, but most casual gamers wouldn't be able to look past the ASCII graphics.

Of course, 95% of indie games come to PC and PC only, so I wouldn't expect the console kiddos here to appreciate just how good the indie market is.

It's definitely a case-by-case scenario. Just looking at "indie" games and "big budget" games as a blanket statement though, I have found more enjoyment and a preference for big budget games for whatever reason.

I mean, I literally did just start playing games a month ago after about 10 years of research here in System Wars so take that as you will.

I am alive ( which is pretty much an Indie/Arcade game ) is 100 times better than that pos big budget game called -----> The Order.

So your poll is flawed with only two options, I´m with Lostrib, comparison is only possible on a case to case basis.

Even so, you can't say I havent played more than enough indie games.

You know, when you put your own opinion in the options, you're just inviting people to vote "against" you...

On-topic: Depends on the developer.

That's way too broad. Great gameplay can come from anywhere. It's not about the money you throw at the game but rather the talent of the developers. There are great indie and great AAA budget games as well as terrible indie and terrible AAA budget games.

Generally an AAA budget game is less likely to be flat out bad. Money can buy a certain level of quality. A "bad" AAA game is usually not fundamentally flawed or just completely unfun. Even the AAA games the internet skewers for being "bad" (stuff like Watch_Dogs, Assassin's Creed Unity, Desinty) aren't actually terrible games. They just didn't live up to expectations or had some technical issues we expect an AAA game to not have. It's pretty rare a game like Resident Evil 6 comes along which is just flat out bad in every way.

Since the explosion of digital distribution, the volume of indie games releasing is far higher. I find that indie games are the ones that end up being straight up bad games. We're talking the unplayable, broken, or just downright unfun game in every way. Without any real money or quality standards placed on indie devs, there is a greater chance of a real turd being released. We also don't have expectations for indie games so we're often surprised when one is good. ,

I think your poll question needs to be more biased.

Depends on the game.

But lets not front, recently, it's been the indie side. Be it the 2d stuff the graphics whores hate on as archaic games, or kickstarter stuff like Divinity Original Sin for instance. Never mind gems like Xenonauts, Legend of Grimrock 2, or what have you.

Big budget when it's done by a competent studio. Just look at MGS V.

Depends on the game.

or AAA games with no gameplay (Ps4)

None... AA games are where it's at. Best of both worlds.

I've played games from AAA devs with great gameplay, I've also played games from Indie devs with shocking gameplay. As the rest have said, budget does not = quailty.

Based on your biased poll, I think I am able to conclude a few things about you,

A - You're a hipster
B - You only drink craft beer
C - You hate anything on the radio
D - You are a liberal


Let me know how I did. :)

P.S. I'm just poking fun.

Umm it depends on the game, budget does not dictate quality of gameplay...what a ridiculous question.

Indies seem more mechanically focused on a few mechanics and strive to do them well. Big budgets deliver on an overall package that's enjoyable when combined as a whole with its sum of parts.

It's just that I'm finding the big budget stuff not entire delivering on what they have a leg up on compared to indie games. Indie games have just been consistently strong and reliable in what they deliver in terms of gameplay.

3/4

@skelly34: damn. Which did I miss on?

No one cares what you think, jankarop.

Liberal.

What do you think of this indie game?

Yep.

Tough to compare two massive genres only separated by money, but I can tell you that for the past couple years I have been far more satisfied with indie offerings in terms of gameplay than retail AAA offerings... As a matter of fact I can't tell you the last AAA game that made me feel anything new in terms of gameplay. They're conceived to be safe and to sell as to recoup massive budgets... Its not a shot at them, it's just what I've observed.

Bouncing around indies of the past few years, you can find a treasure trove of indie gameplay that does make it tough to look at the next "fill in the blank" AAA franchise. They seem most often either out of fresh ideas or tired all together...

Indies as of late

Budget doesn't dictate that at all.

In the old days (the 90's, when gaming was good) it was a creative effort by a small group of people in an office.

Unfortunately it is now it is dictated by corporate shills looking at demographics deciding what goes in and out of a game, and specifically what type of game it is.

Sadly as well (even more sadder), indie games have been invaded by hipster pinky haired mutton chop tosspots.

At this point, things look bleak.

Can i have a mix of both?

But if i have to choose one only, ill go with indies anytime and everytime.

Other than a select few, i feel like i can watch a few movies and it will be like playing a triple A console centric game. With better acting too!

The answer is Nintendo.

@mesome713: Captain Toad!

@Cobra_nVidia: That picture is too adorable. Damn you Nintendo and your ability to make me love your games! Captain Toad is a motherfucking beast. So much fun.

Voted for creative Devs.

I prefer AA studios overall.

Indies are hit and miss with some games being utter crap whereas other games end up being played for hundreds of hours. Whereas AAA games are usually good, but at the same time, they usually fail to amaze, a decent but banal and forgettable experience.

I go with indies. But to be fair, 90% of indies are flat-out garbage. You really only hear about the good indie games.

AAA. I have bad taste.

I think the only indie I really enjoyed was hotline miami but I admit I haven't been paying a lot of attention to indies.

I'd rather play older non indie games on older consoles.

As others have said it really depends on the dev (indie or big budget established studio).

Thing is most I consider most indies to be shovelware and big studio games to be too dumbed down for the unwashed masses.

I mostly enjoy games that come from small studios like House Marque.