2004 Indie Games of the Year

cyrus_zuo writes "For all those who think that the best games that came out this year were all sequels Game Tunnel presents a different angle on things with their 2004 Independent Game of the Year awards. For those who believe that the best game this year was that badly named expansion pack that they have the nerve to call Halo 2, check out the awards for a different side of gaming than you are used to."

Comments

get off it

[mikeg22]

For those who believe that the best game this year was that badly named expansion pack that they have the nerve to call Halo 2...

Oh for god's sake. Halo 2 had revamped graphics, sound, a completely new single player campaign and XBOX Live support. What is your definition of a sequel anyways?

Re:Independant

[stratjakt]

Why doesnt the games section in slashdot cover this kind of stuff?

All it discusses are Doom 3, Half Life 2, Halo 2, and the odd update to WineX that lets yet another big commercial Windows title run under linux.

I guess I don't understand what motivates /. in general. They have a lot of eyes watching, but don't really use that to the general advantage of OSS.

To me, new and good indie games, or hell - any good game I've never heard of is true "news for nerds". SCO v IBM is "news for IP lawyers".

Re:Unneeded comment

[nz17]

You know, we often hear the old hash of a joke about Slashdot readers not reading the linked articles. On one hand I can understand this, because they are often Slashdotted. However, just because they can't be read by a viewer does not mean that those said viewers should then make comments about the article site unseen.

For example, Albert Pussyjuice (675113) here gripes about "For those who believe that the best game this year was that badly named expansion pack that they have the nerve to call Halo 2, check out the awards for a different side of gaming than you are used to," being a comment by cyrus_zuo. Well, Mr. PJ, if you were to even cursorily glimpse the actual article you would seen that this is a direct quotation from the first paragraph in the linked article. Amazing, isn't is, what an ass a minor convenience has made you to be!

Then there is saltydogdesign (811417)'s comments in a sister post where he breaks down the initial paragraph of the article into pieces and lamblasts the author. Well let's read that paragraph in whole again:

"For all those who think that the best games that came out this year were all sequels prepare to open your mind. For those who believe that the best game this year was that badly named expansion pack that they have the nerve to call Halo 2, you are about to see a different piece of gaming than you are used to."

As one can see when he stops to obsorb the actual meaning of this paragraph, he can see that the author is addressing those whom believe the best games of this year were sequels such as _Halo 2_. saltydogdesign somehow takes this personally though he is obviously not the group that the opening paragraph is addressed to. The point of the linked Web site's author's writing of the column is to hopefully "wake up" those he considers "in the dark" about the other side of gaming, the small, independent studios' games rather than the large juggernaut publisher's games.

Albert Pussyjuice, saltydogdesign, and others like them would be better off if they would not attack Slashdot for posting opinions in the article summaries when they themselves don't read the article. Often the articles summaries are either partially or in whole taken from the original article anyway.

So I propose we all make a deal: when we as the Slashdot viewers start reading the featured sites' content before posting comments then we can complain about the admins duping and posting false stories and opinions because they did not RTFA themselves.