We live in a f*cking backwardsasss society

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

You can argue story, gameplay, artistic graphical design and content all day, but what really separates these Indie Arcade Games from Full Retail Games are the graphics. That's the one main thing that this thread is failing to take into consideration. I see arguments about story and gameplay, but those things don't cost money, they just require talent. The things that require money in making a game are advanced game engines, graphics, sound design, animation, that kinda stuff. For example, take the RAGE Euphoria Engine that Rockstar created, used in games like GTA4, RDR, and soon Max Payne 3. That's where the money goes to, that's why full retail games cost as much as they do. The higher development costs are directed towards things like graphics and sound.

Show me an Indie Arcade game that looks as good as Modern Warfare 3, Crysis 2, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3 and you may have a point. You ask the question how could an Indie Arcade Game have better story and gameplay than a Full Retail Game? Very simple, just like how many retro games have better story and gameplay than a lot of current Full Retail Games. That isn't what costs money, the money is in the graphical and sound design/technology, something that Indie Arcade Games are lacking in, and that's why they're priced how they are.

Slashless

I think that it isn't a matter of developers focusing on graphics over story and gameplay, because development studios are branched out into different teams, different divisions. It just comes down to the fact that development studios for many games which excel in graphics don't have that same talent in the divisions who are directing the gameplay and story. It doesn't require cutting edge technology to write a good story, it just requires talent. Good game design doesn't require cutting edge tech either, it just requires talented people with vision and a good idea of how games should be played.

My main point was that the rising costs in games, and the reason Full Retail Games are priced the way they are is because of cutting edge technology in graphics and audio, and the development of new engines. These sorts of things lend themselves to more bugs, more problems, and it just requires a larger team of people to iron everything out.

It's really no surprise at all to me that Indie Arcade Games can have a better story or better gameplay than a Full Retail Game, because a lot of retro games excel in these departments as well over current gen games. When it comes to graphics and sound tech, though, along with game engines, Indie Arcade Games are way behind, and that's really why they're priced how they are, and why they don't cost much to make.

[QUOTE="Slashless"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

You can argue story, gameplay, artistic graphical design and content all day, but what really separates these Indie Arcade Games from Full Retail Games are the graphics. That's the one main thing that this thread is failing to take into consideration. I see arguments about story and gameplay, but those things don't cost money, they just require talent. The things that require money in making a game are advanced game engines, graphics, sound design, animation, that kinda stuff. For example, take the RAGE Euphoria Engine that Rockstar created, used in games like GTA4, RDR, and soon Max Payne 3. That's where the money goes to, that's why full retail games cost as much as they do. The higher development costs are directed towards things like graphics and sound.

Show me an Indie Arcade game that looks as good as Modern Warfare 3, Crysis 2, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3 and you may have a point. You ask the question how could an Indie Arcade Game have better story and gameplay than a Full Retail Game? Very simple, just like how many retro games have better story and gameplay than a lot of current Full Retail Games. That isn't what costs money, the money is in the graphical and sound design/technology, something that Indie Arcade Games are lacking in, and that's why they're priced how they are.

arkephonic

I think that it isn't a matter of developers focusing on graphics over story and gameplay, because development studios are branched out into different teams, different divisions. It just comes down to the fact that development studios for many games which excel in graphics don't have that same talent in the divisions who are directing the gameplay and story. It doesn't require cutting edge technology to write a good story, it just requires talent. Good game design doesn't require cutting edge tech either, it just requires talented people with vision and a good idea of how games should be played.

My main point was that the rising costs in games, and the reason Full Retail Games are priced the way they are is because of cutting edge technology in graphics and audio, and the development of new engines. These sorts of things lend themselves to more bugs, more problems, and it just requires a larger team of people to iron everything out.

It's really no surprise at all to me that Indie Arcade Games can have a better story or better gameplay than a Full Retail Game, because a lot of retro games excel in these departments as well over current gen games. When it comes to graphics and sound tech, though, along with game engines, Indie Arcade Games are way behind, and that's really why they're priced how they are, and why they don't cost much to make.

Good points. Though I'd also argue some Indie games outmatch retail titles in content and gameplay as well.

Do you think Video Games will get in the 70$ area next gen. I hope not. :(

You spelled "Por que" wrong. Other than that, no wait, that post was terrible and you should be ashamed.

Why not blog it? Nobody cares about your opinion.

You spelled "Por que" wrong.

jhalter1

No one cares about spanish, it's all about French.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="Slashless"] Modern warfare 3 uses an outdated 10 year old engine. Why I used it in my example. Does this possibly show that devs should stop focusing on graphics and try to improve the actual game? :oSlashless

I think that it isn't a matter of developers focusing on graphics over story and gameplay, because development studios are branched out into different teams, different divisions. It just comes down to the fact that development studios for many games which excel in graphics don't have that same talent in the divisions who are directing the gameplay and story. It doesn't require cutting edge technology to write a good story, it just requires talent. Good game design doesn't require cutting edge tech either, it just requires talented people with vision and a good idea of how games should be played.

My main point was that the rising costs in games, and the reason Full Retail Games are priced the way they are is because of cutting edge technology in graphics and audio, and the development of new engines. These sorts of things lend themselves to more bugs, more problems, and it just requires a larger team of people to iron everything out.

It's really no surprise at all to me that Indie Arcade Games can have a better story or better gameplay than a Full Retail Game, because a lot of retro games excel in these departments as well over current gen games. When it comes to graphics and sound tech, though, along with game engines, Indie Arcade Games are way behind, and that's really why they're priced how they are, and why they don't cost much to make.

Good points. Though I'd also argue some Indie games outmatch retail titles in content and gameplay as well.

Do you think Video Games will get in the 70$ area next gen. I hope not. :(

Yeah, I actually said that Indie games outmatch retail in content and gameplay, as well as story.

I think they'll probably be $60 again, but the advanced game engines, graphics and sound design will require more money and resources, so if developers are sometimes having trouble breaking even this generation with the way things are, a $70 standard wouldn't seem too far fetched.

[QUOTE="jhalter1"]

You spelled "Por que" wrong.

Slashless

No one cares about spanish, it's all about French.

The only indie game I can honestly say that I've ever enjoyed was VVVVVV. I didn't enjoy Minecraft due to its dull lack of direction. Super Meat Boy was hard for the sake of being hard and when I beat the game I didn't feel the sense of accomplishment that I usually get with platformers.

[QUOTE="Slashless"]

No one cares about spanish, it's all about French.

freedomfreak

:3

a $70 standard wouldn't seem too far fetched.

arkephonic

The only indie game I can honestly say that I've ever enjoyed was VVVVVV. I didn't enjoy Minecraft due to its dull lack of direction. Super Meat Boy was hard for the sake of being hard and when I beat the game I didn't feel the sense of accomplishment that I usually get with platformers.

nintendoman562

Didn't like Minecraft either, need to play vvvvvv.

What did I just read.Stevo_the_gamer

A drunk slashless rant stevo. A drunk slashless rant.

[QUOTE="jhalter1"]

You spelled "Por que" wrong.

Slashless

No one cares about spanish, it's all about French.

So about the city you live in, what language is it in again? :3.

One thing of note, that's already peen touched on somewhat by ark in this very thread, is that full retail games often cost more to make because of the production values absent in indie games. Also, indie games can often seem better than their big budget retail counterparts because they have nothing BUT gameplay to ride on.

Games like Uncharted 3, Mass Effect 3, etc. are all being developed as "interactive experiences" nowadays, and gamers are largely beginning to expect those types of experiences over classic, pure gameplay.

[QUOTE="Slashless"]

[QUOTE="jhalter1"]

You spelled "Por que" wrong.

verbtex

No one cares about spanish, it's all about French.

So about the city you live in, what language is it in again? :3.

:x

you'll PAY FOR THIS VERB :X

Games like Uncharted 3, Mass Effect 3, etc. are all being developed as "interactive experiences" nowadays, and gamers are largely beginning to expect those types of experiences over classic, pure gameplay.

Assassin_87

Kind of sad imo, though we still have Nintendo, Handheld, and Indie titles so I'm content for now..

Though some games do blend Gameplay/cinematics most excellently, like MGS4.

Indie devs have a lot more creative freedom, whereas high budget devs like Naughty Dog are doing what they are told by men in suits, who may not even have an interest in the industry. And what they are being told is to create something with mass appeal and draw in the lowest common denominator.

More and more of the games in my favorite games list are indie. Whereas more and more of my least favorite games are from AAA devs.

Last year my GOTY was Terraria, and my WGOTY (Worst game of the year) was Skyrim.

Brilliantly entertaining OP :lol:

[QUOTE="jhalter1"]

You spelled "Por que" wrong.

Slashless

No one cares about spanish, it's all about French.

Where's the "didn't read lol" gif when you need it??

Where's the "didn't read lol" gif when you need it??

_TheJoker_

You do realize don't you, that yor entire argument completely falls apart by the simple principle that QUALITY IS SUBJECTIVE.

To me, the Forza series (or even GT for that matter) is far superior to Trials HD.
Skyrim runs circles around Bastion.
Uncharted beats out Super Meatboy any day.
And oh yeah, Mass Effect trilogy (despite it's ending) is still the superior series to any Final Fantasy game.

So suck on that!! :P:P

My point being, that some people might find more enjoyment in the games you listed, but others can equally find merit in the ones you disparage. Skyrim for example is a deeply immersive experience that Bastion can't come close to emulating. The Forza and GT racing games are stellar examples of polish and quality. Who's to say otherwise?

I'm not trying to put down the low budget indie games by any means. What they are able to accomplish is a marvel and without a doubt there is much creativity to be found there. But trying to proclaim a quality difference is an exercise in futility when how that quality is gauged is in the eyes of the beholder.

You do realize don't you, that yor entire argument completely falls apart by the simple principle that QUALITY IS SUBJECTIVE.

AdobeArtist

All threads can be put down with that.

System wars wouldn't be if everyone followed that ideal.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

You do realize don't you, that yor entire argument completely falls apart by the simple principle that QUALITY IS SUBJECTIVE.

Slashless

All threads can be put down with that.

System wars wouldn't be if everyone followed that ideal.

The pursuit of objectivity is the entire purpose of this forum.

"This is objectively better than that because of these reasons."

Now that I think about it, it's the basis for any debate.

The subjectivity stance can undermine any debate completely.

-

So you're right, stating that argument really doesn't help prove anything.

W t f did I just read?!?!?!?!?!

You know the best thing being about an actual gamer? (a person who plays video games for fun btw) is you are given the choice to like indie devs and actual big time devs (like ND and Bioware) and you might not know this (or are too dumb to realize it) majority of people like both indie and big name dev companies. Not all indie games are great though, same with big name dev games.

Trials HD better than Forza?

Get the f*ck out of here. You're mental. It's even more idiotic to even try to compare them. It's like saying Geometry Wars is better than Starcraft 2.

W t f did I just read?!?!?!?!?!

You know the best thing being about an actual gamer? (a person who plays video games for fun btw) is you are given the choice to like indie devs and actual big time devs (like ND and Bioware) and you might not know this (or are too dumb to realize it) majority of people like both indie and big name dev companies. Not all indie games are great though, same with big name dev games.

Ballroompirate

You're completely missing the point of the TC's argument.

All he's arguing is that it's crazy how indie games are better than big-budget games.

-

That has nothing to do with the ability to selectively like games.

Trials HD better than Forza?

Get the f*ck out of here. You're mental. It's even more idiotic to even try to compare them. It's like saying Geometry Wars is better than Starcraft 2.

heretrix

Indie games don't have a big budget to work with, and thus have to compensate by being more creative. Not saying that big budget titles are never creative, but generally speaking that is probably the case.

Hey guys look at me, I like indie games, Im a gaming hipster.

PC360Wii

W t f did I just read?!?!?!?!?!Ballroompirate

Trials HD better than Forza?heretrix

Hmm good point, it's not hard to be better than Borza, shoudl have used an example like PGR or something.

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]

W t f did I just read?!?!?!?!?!

You know the best thing being about an actual gamer? (a person who plays video games for fun btw) is you are given the choice to like indie devs and actual big time devs (like ND and Bioware) and you might not know this (or are too dumb to realize it) majority of people like both indie and big name dev companies. Not all indie games are great though, same with big name dev games.

peterw007

You're completely missing the point of the TC's argument.

All he's arguing is that it's crazy how indie games are better than big-budget games.

-

That has nothing to do with the ability to selectively like games.

Like I stated not all indie games are great and same with big budget games.

Simply saying indie games > big budget games is as stupid as the pc > console or console > pc arguments.

Super Meat boy better than U3?Chrome-

/

lol tl;dr

Simply saying indie games > big budget gamesBallroompirate

No one is saying that Ball-Ate.

[QUOTE="PC360Wii"]
Yes, gaming hipster, which is why GTA4, MGS4, and SMG2 are some of my favorite games of all time. lol.

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]

W t f did I just read?!?!?!?!?!Slashless

Trials HD better than Forza?heretrix

Hmm good point, it's not hard to be better than Borza, shoudl have used an example like PGR or something.

lol tl;dr

Aljosa23

I need to play Super Meat Boy again.

On second thought my blood sugar is already rising dangerously high trying to beat the true final boss in cave Story so maybe I'll hold off....

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

lol tl;dr

Slashless

I need to play Super Meat Boy again.

On second thought my blood sugar is already rising dangerously high trying to beat the true final boss in cave Story so maybe I'll hold off....

DJ-Lafleur

[QUOTE="Slashless"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

lol tl;dr

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Slashless"] YOU'RE JUST MAD I BASHED GEARS 3 :evil:Slashless

lol that was terrible.

Aljosa23

Is what I said after returning Gears 3 to Gamestop.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Slashless"] YOU'RE JUST MAD I BASHED GEARS 3 :evil:Slashless

Gears of War 3 was pretty lackluster. My main complaint with the series as a whole are the boss fights. Plus, the on-rail segments in every Gears of War game are abysmal.

[spoiler] General Ramm was a good boss fight from the first game, but Gears of War 2 and 3 had no good boss fights. I'd even go as far as to say the last boss in Gears of War 2 is the worst end boss of all time. [/spoiler]