Indie Gaming Gets 2004 Mid-Term Grades

Thanks to Game Tunnel for its 2004 mid-term report card on the independent PC gaming scene, rating what "is turning out to be one of the most impressive years yet in the Indie world." Among the approved-of titles include action games such as Hamsterball ("a wonderful surprise that plays a lot like Marble Madness would play [if updated]"), platform adventures such as Gish ("[starring] a ball of tar [whose] goal is to find his girlfriend who was taken down... the sewer"), before looking forward to interesting hopefuls that include Oasis ("takes all the strategy of a game like Civilization and then turns it into a 3 minute experience.")

Comments

Solid, Just Not Earth Shattering

[illuminata]

Well, it seems that the indie development scene can produce games that rival budget titles from the big boys, and that's a step in the right direction, but I just can't say that I'm all to impressed.

I was hoping to see more out of the independents. They have that unique position of being able to really do something that nobody has ever done before and they haven't stepped up yet. All of the games in the article were explainable with a statement like "Well, it plays like Popular Game A, with a little bit of Popular Game B and C in it." That's not what I wanted to see. Where's the games that can pretty much be defined on their own? Where's the games that take the independent developer into the big leagues?

The independents look like they can do what others do pretty well now; the fact that they've come that far is encouraging. But still, I have no compelling reason to buy their titles over a cheap title from a tried and true developer or publisher. Wait, shouldn't I support them because they're indie? Nah, I'll support the companies that make something that interests me regardless of size. If an independent can give me something that hasn't been done before and is fun at the same time, they'll be sure to see my dollars.

Re:Solid, Just Not Earth Shattering

[Anonymous Coward]

You are getting confused by a review trying to explain a game by making references to familiar genres. If you are looking for someone to go "check out this game it is truley unlike ANYTHING you have ever seen" then you will play one game every 5 years. Just because someone explains a new game to you based on familiar themes and genres doesn't mean the game is identical to others.

Any decent indie developer lives by the rule "make something people cannot buy elsewhere" - it's common sense. If you can buy a big publisher mainstream version of an indie game from a year or two ago it will always be better and probably cheaper. So it makes no sense for indies to just replicate mainstream titles. Hence GOOD INDIES DON'T.

However, very rarely will someone make something so "off the wall" that it has no connection to any previous form of gaming. There is a good reason for this, there is a very good chance people will reject it. They wont understand.

Think about two truely innovative titles like REZ(ps2) and ViewtifulJoe(GameCube) - both of these lost their publishers a lot of money (FACT). These were rare titles that were good and totally new, yet people didn't get it and voted with their wallets.

Starscape - this one is very good, yet again I defy you to find anything remotely similar in a shop. It's like a shootemup crossed with command&conquer (kind of).

GISH - not my cup of tea, but certainly unique, you cannot buy anything like this in a shop.

Hamsterball - I enjoyed this, but it got really hard really quick. Again, you CANNOT buy this in a shop. Ok you could download marble madness for an emulator or a phone, but it isn't the same really, the true 3D environments here lead to much more interesting puzzles.

If you can find the proper top quality indie titles you will always see something you cannot get anywhere else. The serious indies would be out of business if they just copied mainstream titles. What idiot would spend more on something that they could get out of a Walmart bargain bin for half the price? Nobody.

Re:Solid, Just Not Earth Shattering

[KDR_11k]

Hamsterball - I enjoyed this, but it got really hard really quick. Again, you CANNOT buy this in a shop. Ok you could download marble madness for an emulator or a phone, but it isn't the same really, the true 3D environments here lead to much more interesting puzzles.

Umm... Super Monkey Ball?

Re:Solid, Just Not Earth Shattering

[Sylver Dragon]

Starscape - Bought this one recently, and love it, but it is very much like Star Control 3, without the colony managment. That or Solar Winds. In the end though, its a damn fun game, and one that I am glad I spent the US$35 on (ordered the CD and case).
Though, as the parent poster said, game companies, even indies aren't going to go too far out on a limb, nor can they really. Comming up with something that no one is going to say is like something else that has been done before is basically impossible. You just have to reach a point where your game seems to be the best example of something, with its own twists. That way, eventually, everyone says that all of the games similar to your game are just knock offs of your game.

Re:Solid, Just Not Earth Shattering

[illuminata]

Well, for one, I do buy the games that fall within genres quite often. My point being is that I'm not too compelled to make a purchase from an indie when their game is too similar to what's already available from the big companies.

As far as the indie games you said were innovative, I don't see that to be much of the case. Let's take Starscape first. The fact that you were able to say it's sort of like a shoot 'em up crossed with Command & Conquer is proof that they're using borrowed ideas. Gish seems like it's a pure 2D side scroller to me (and the character kind of looks like that Meatwad thing from Aqua Teen Hunger Force). Also, you were able to draw a comparison between Hamsterball and Marble Madness, and sure you can't buy it in a shop, but does that make it truly different? Plus, as a previous poster said, it does draw a lot from Super Monkey Ball as well.

The "innovations" being made in the independent game development scene are too superficial. Essentially, the games that you've shown me can be bought elsewhere. For the most part, it's been done before. Sure, there's some differences in looks and stories floating about, but there has been no fundamental changes in gameplay. That's where you bring up the point of rejection. I just don't see why you would stay an indie if you were afraid of rejection. It seems to me that the credibility that an independent developer would earn from creating an innovative title, rejected or not, would be worth much more than the short-term easy money in the long run. Also, If you plan on making things similar to everything else in terms of gameplay (and often times in story) you might as well just get a job with an established game developer since there's not much point in grinding things out to make a clone (in terms of gameplay at the very least). As an indie, you have much more freedom to really make something different at the lower levels of gameplay. By not using that freedom, they're not going to separate themselves from the rest of the pack; thus not being able to compete.

On a side note, you mentioned Rez and Viewtiful Joe being bad financially. I can at least take your word for it when it comes to Rez, although I'll end up making sure for myself on Viewtiful Joe (as it does have a sequel coming out). I did think Rez was fairly innovative and it did minimize on the borrowed ideas. I think some rejection still would've occured, but it definitely could've gotten a better campaign behind it. For the most part, it snuck in to the market without much noise. With Viewtiful Joe, I really thought it was overrated. For the most part side scroller with the time controlling features we've seen in games like Blinx the TimeSweeper. Graphically it was impressive, but the characters just didn't cut it for me; I definitely didn't care about the main character at all. I think that some of those superficial things were its biggest problem and would be the main contributing factor if it was indeed a financial failure(other than internal factors). But, as far as it being an innovator; I'd have to say that it wasn't. But, I do give credit for both Sega and Capcom for at least releasing them.

Open source gaming

[obeythefist]

Don't forget that all the open source game developers are Indy. Go check out the games in progress at sourceforge, I was really surprised. Freeciv is an excellent and free game, and there are loads of others in work.

The only thing working against the indy game developers is publicity, because of course the big companies control the big media distribution and so on... Indy gaming needs the same kind of pro-selling word of mouth that Linux has been getting from day one.

woah!

[chrish]

Wow, the gameplay trailer for Gish really blew me away; I've never seen things like that going on in a game. Normally I hate platformers because I seem to suck at jumping puzzles, but I've definitely got to give that one a try.

And I'm hoping Hamsterball doesn't get crazy hard too quickly, my son (he's 3) might enjoy it. He plays racing games on my PC (and likes to watch me play Neverwinter Nights and Thief), and Rogue Squadron II/Zelda/Super Monkey Ball/Super Smash Bros. Melee on our GameCube. ;-)

What Independents Want

[MiceHead]

Independent studios want to create wonderful, experimental titles, but are, in part, held back by business requirements. As businesses, our first priority is to become profitable, and the least-risky way to do this is to create more traditional offerings. (The same is true for large development houses.) Fortunately for us, better middleware tools and increased publicity can free us of this constraint. The former will allow us to experiment and develop easier; the latter will allow us to reach an audience now reserved for the large publishers. As these conditions improve, you'll see independents take more risks.

Middleware comprises the audio libraries, AI plugins, and 3D engines such as Torque, Conitec A6, and FMOD. These tidbits are the lifeblood of independents. Without them, we'd have to code everything from scratch, and you'd see even more Tetris clones than you do now -- little innovation. With them, we're freed from the low-level stuff. We can create games that look and sound good enough to attract consumers. As middleware improves, it'll become even easier to experiment and innovate.

Publicity is trickier -- while events such as the Independent Games Festival allow us to bend the ears of larger publications, it's still the big studios that are going to command the previews and exclusives. Having approached a number of print publications, I've found that it can be difficult to secure a sizable preview for our game, even though I think folks might like to hear about where we're innovating. But even this is improving; sites like The Adrenaline Vault are particularly indie-friendly, often posting press releases from smaller development studios.

I think, then, that it's only a matter of time before the smaller studios attempt experimental titles in substantial numbers. Many will be terrible; some will be great fun. But as it becomes easier to experiment, you bet we'll be doing more of it, simply because we can.