Independent Games Festival Nominees Announced

Thanks to the IGF website for revealing their list of nominees for the 2004 Independent Games Festival awards, which have been running since 1998 "to encourage innovation in game development and to recognize the best independent game developers." The finalists in the 'Open Category' include everything from "blend of puzzle and action" Fuzzee Teevee, budgeted at a mere $10,000, to the $1-1.5 million "FPS and RTS [hybrid]" Savage: The Battle For Newerth. The 'Web/Downloadable' category also has some interesting entries, from seeing "two possessed cue-balls duke it out in realtime battle" courtesy of Kung-Fu Chess follow-up Billiard Boxing, to recently-featured "puzzle-based massively multi-player online roleplaying game" Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates.

Comments

Battle For Newerth

[Hard_Code]

That always reminds me of this.

$1.5 million = independent?

[BTWR]

OK, I know "independent" means it isn't from some huge software firm, but I was thinking "independent" was in the "under $10,000" sort. Like Bejeweled... certainly prizeworthy, but if that cost $1.5 million to make, then someone did NOT know how to hire a CS major at the local college! (Hell, my friends coulda made that game and woulda been square if you agreed to buy them a new nintendo game or something!)

Re:$1.5 million = independent?

[Smidge204]

I also find the results rather... offcolor?

I can't seem to find any solid definition of what "independent" is. The best I can make out from their rules is "self funded" and "company whose primary business is game development as opposed to commercial game publishing"

That's pretty vauge, IMHO. And to me, "independent" means you don't have a company backing you.

Maybe there should be another category for people who develop games independently, as in by themselves with at most a small group of friends instead of a structured, funded company behind them.

I really think some of the more unique game ideas were overlooked as a result... Obviously a team of professional developers stand to develop a more complete and polished product than some guy working on it in his spare time, especially within the same timeframe.
=Smidge=

Re:$1.5 million = independent?

[Bagels]

For "independent", read "not owned by EA or other large industry players". Indie filmmakers can have companies; they're just usually not big, well known companies, and they're willing to try innovative, even "dangerous" things to make a name for themselves. Such games are At least in spirit, I think that's what the IGF is attempting to promote here, though of course "different" doesn't mean better if the idea is poorly executed.

Re:$1.5 million = independent?

[MMaestro]

You have a point, "independent" projects should be capped up to a certain point. Anything that costs $1.5 million to produce certainly raises some eyebrows to say the least.

But then again, in today's modern world of intense competition in the game market and the costs of making a game; its hard to draw a line.

Re:$1.5 million = independent?

[Smidge204]

That's the tricky part... at what point does their company become "not independent" anymore?

From your post, you make it sound like risk-taking is what defines them. That's not a very good way to differentiate!

There has to be a limit somewhere, which is why the grandparent post was very interesting: how is a $1.5M budget "independent"?

There doesn't seem to be a clear, objective definition for this. If you have one please share!
=Smidge=

Re:$1.5 million = independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a well known games industry definition, and it's very similar to the independent film one, i.e. a company that isn't a publisher. It's the same battle of haves vs havenots that the film indies have vs the big studios, where the studios/publishers have a virtual monopoly over the market.

Just because you can scrounge up 1.5 mil (which is low end compared to say an EA game), doesn't mean you can even get onto a store shelf to sell it, let alone get a publisher to pick it up.

Personally, I like the idea that the categories aren't stratified by the cost of the game. In some ways, this means that they need to win on merit alone, just like the indie film scene. Doesn't matter if you shot it on a camcorder in mexico with a wheel chair for a steadycam, you can still win Sundance!

Re:$1.5 million = independent?

[bear pimp]

Reading a few of the developement boards of 'indie' developers, it seems they don't enter because of the money involved. The entrance fee is $100 and if they are selected, the finalists have to appear at the festival and demo their game or are disqualified. This immediately discounts many people (especially outside the US) who may not even be able to afford the price of an air ticket and accomodation. The result of any competition that a: requires an entry fee, and b: requires other associated costs involved with turning up, are never going to have a true representation of the artform they are celebrating.

Re:$1.5 million = independent?

[BTWR]

good point. "Risk-taking" is very relative. To a random CS major, a $20,000 investment in a game (advertising, hosting, art equipment purchases, etc) is a huge investment. To EA, 20K is a memo. Then again, to EA, lauching their own sports-only console would be risky, and then there's everything-in-between that 20k-20 million range.

Re:$1.5 million = independent?

[danieljames]

As developer of one of the entrants with a relatively high budget, I can't imagine how we could be more 'independent'. Two friends had a ridiculous idea for a Pirate game, hired another friend, two artists, and another friend, made a game. Yes, we were lucky enough to be able to rustle up the money from friends and family to pay salaries, buy servers, etc. If we hadn't, the game would never have been made (for better or for worse none of the development team are at a time of life where they can live without earning some money).

As it is we've made PP for substantially less than 1/20th of the cost of recent big-corp developed MMPs such as the Sims Online. So we're pretty cheap. Restricting the budgets of entrants to ~$10,000 would make it the 'cheap games written by moonlight or students' competition, not the independent games festival. There's a place for both, of course.

This is indeed analogous to the independent movie vs. studio movie distinction. I believe that most independent films cost hundreds of thousands, some a lot less, some quite a bit more.

That said, I agree about the points below regarding entrants being required to attend. There is a student showcase, perhaps there should be another category for people who are unable to made the GDC. I don't think $100 entry fee is out of line, although I did baulk at the $1,000 entry fee for the 'Interactive Academy' or whatnot awards.

Re:$1.5 million = independent?

[Merusdraconis]

And as one of the beta testers for Puzzle Pirates, it's clear to all concerned that the game qualifies as 'independent', despite its budget (and quality). I honestly have no idea where these guys got their money from.

Trying to quantify independent, though, is difficult. Really.

Savage is worth the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, suprised to see that Savage is part of this. The day before this article came up I had just purchased Savage over the net due to the fact that I loved the demo and couldn't find a copy at EB. It's nice to know that my dollars went to support an "indy" company like S2games. I hope that they rise above it all and keep true to the game, I'd like to see a Savage 2 as long as the fun keeps up.

For anyone who hasn't tried savage, you owe it to yourself to at least try the free demo. If your a fan of FPS's this game is worth a look, specially if you've ever wanted to be able to control a character from an RTS in the thick of battle, that's exactly what this game is.

Billiard Boxing?

[JFMulder]

Makes me think about cross-genre game: Rock paper scissor rusian roulette

Dubious competition

[Mr.Wiggin]

I wonder how they assessed the entries, I mean Savage is hardly what ANYONE would call independant with a $1.5million budget. Why are they in the competition? Surely not to win the prize money (which is miniscule in comparison to their budget).

Some of the others seem a bit poor quality too, especially compared to this years stars such as Starscape and AlienShooter.

Highly dubious - give the money to the developers that a)actually need it and b)show the potential to make something worthwhile.

Savage is unimpressive

[Prien715]

I tried the Savage demo and thought it was initially pretty neat. After about an hour, I realized that although the idea wasn't bad, the FPS gameplay felt clunky and random. I tried the commander mode and it didn't seem to have much depth. The tech tree was fairly linear and there wasn't really a way to rush vs tech common to other RTSs.

Why play Savage? If you want a good FPS, go pick up Counterstrike or Unreal Tournament. A good RTS? Warcraft 3. You like the mixture of both? Natural Selection provides solid FPS gameplay (Half-life engine) while having 2 distinct races each with a commander (and it's a free mod to half-life).

I don't understand the appeal behind the game. Anyone who thinks it's revolutionary hasn't played natural selection.

Really good indie game

[va3atc]

Really good indie game is the well thought out Planet Blupi. It is a RTS based game but holds that cartoonish look and great strategy. All in all I wish I could find it locally because it would make a great Christmas gift :)

Heres a snippet from the webpage


Planet Blupi is a stragtegie and adventure game for PC compatibles. It subtly blends action with thought-provoking challenges. Behind the quiet and gentle facade, you'll enjoy a fascinating diversion full of surprises. Planet Blupi is ideal for ages 12 to 99.