[Juichiro]

Both games are quite successful and both share the same formula: both are simple and addictive. Does this mean that the indie industry might turn away from jaw-dropping visuals and head towards a Minecraft-approach to games?

[Jimbo1234]

Nope - they are just the flavour of the month (or few) that will be gone within a few years and forgotten about, especially when the next gen arrive. Many people I know have stopped playing MC once they realised there is little you can do with what you make, and I know of no one playing Realm of Mad God and from looking at it, why would I want to play something which is almost identical to what I played 15 years ago?

[Juichiro]

(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Nope - they are just the flavour of the month (or few) that will be gone within a few years and forgotten about, especially when the next gen arrive. Many people I know have stopped playing MC once they realised there is little you can do with what you make, and I know of no one playing Realm of Mad God and from looking at it, why would I want to play something which is almost identical to what I played 15 years ago?

Because it is highly addictive and addiction answers to no reasons.

[Jimbo1234]

(Original post by Juichiro)
Because it is highly addictive and addiction answers to no reasons.

...addictive because? All I see is horribly dated gameplay which I, and many people were happy to see relegated into the past decades ago, and graphics that I was also happy to see turn into the past.

[Juichiro]

(Original post by Jimbo1234)
...addictive because? All I see is horribly dated gameplay which I, and many people were happy to see relegated into the past decades ago, and graphics that I was also happy to see turn into the past.

So visuals is your main factor when judging a game. If every gamer thinks in this way, I am no surprised that the game industry nowadays is some more full of fillers and lack original games than back in the days.

[Jimbo1234]

(Original post by Juichiro)
So visuals is your main factor when judging a game. If every gamer thinks in this way, I am no surprised that the game industry nowadays is some more full of fillers and lack original games than back in the days.

Because graphics was the first and only thing I mentioned Sorry, but that **** won't fly here.
The reason why games are not original any more is due to the cost of making a game, the unfortunately adolescent and not too bright market, the not too bright and adolescent developers, and very limited hardware of the consoles. Solve any one of those problems and game quality will improve.

[Juichiro]

(Original post by Jimbo1234)
The reason why games are not original any more is due to the cost of making a game, the unfortunately adolescent and not too bright market, the not too bright and adolescent developers, and very limited hardware of the consoles. Solve any one of those problems and game quality will improve.

So how is the situation any difference from 20 years ago?
Wasn't back then making games also costly? We might say that back then the games had no awesome visuals, but also back then the computers were not so powerful.
I thought that computers and software development went along. Eg: windows 95 occupied 45% of the HDD of a non-modified computer. Windows 7 occupies 45% of the HDD of a non-modified computer.
What is so different now, Jimbo?

[Psyk]

(Original post by Juichiro)
So how is the situation any difference from 20 years ago?
Wasn't back then making games also costly? We might say that back then the games had no awesome visuals, but also back then the computers were not so powerful.
I thought that computers and software development went along. Eg: windows 95 occupied 45% of the HDD of a non-modified computer. Windows 7 occupies 45% of the HDD of a non-modified computer.
What is so different now, Jimbo?

Games cost way more to make now than they did back then. Probably about 100 times more.

Also he's right that the current consoles are very limited compared to what you can do a modern PC. The difference this time round is the current generation of consoles has lasted much longer than any other generation has. So the gap between console and PC is much bigger than it ever has been before.

[Jimbo1234]

(Original post by Juichiro)
So how is the situation any difference from 20 years ago?
Wasn't back then making games also costly? We might say that back then the games had no awesome visuals, but also back then the computers were not so powerful.
I thought that computers and software development went along. Eg: windows 95 occupied 45% of the HDD of a non-modified computer. Windows 7 occupies 45% of the HDD of a non-modified computer.
What is so different now, Jimbo?

So you know that little on this topic then yet still comment?

Games cost far more to make nowadays, as in roughly $150m. This is due to a longer time needed and far more people....which is obvious seeing that games can now last 100hrs + rather than 30 mins, the gameplay is more complex, there is a storyline, and you have voice acting etc.

Actually hardware has improved far faster than the software has in recent years as proc power increases exponentially. Yes, Epic games have managed to keep up, but due to every publisher wanting games to be multiplatform, it means the most recent game is dated on release. As for windows 7 taking up 45% of a HDD? Where did you come up with that idea, and what does "non-modified" mean?! Windows 7 would only take up 40GB and your average HDD is now 1TB so that is less than 5% let alone 45%

[Juichiro]

(Original post by Jimbo1234)
1-So you know that little on this topic then yet still comment?

2-Games cost far more to make nowadays, as in roughly $150m. This is due to a longer time needed and far more people....which is obvious seeing that games can now last 100hrs + rather than 30 mins, the gameplay is more complex, there is a storyline, and you have voice acting etc.

Actually hardware has improved far faster than the software has in recent years as proc power increases exponentially. Yes, Epic games have managed to keep up, but due to every publisher wanting games to be multiplatform, it means the most recent game is dated on release. 3-As for windows 7 taking up 45% of a HDD? Where did you come up with that idea, and what does "non-modified" mean?! 4-Windows 7 would only take up 40GB and your average HDD is now 1TB so that is less than 5% let alone 45%

1- I never claimed to be an "expert" on the games industry. I merely ask people's opinion on the future of indie games. Read the thread title again.

2- I see. That makes sense and is a plus of time needed when compared to games software development back then.

3- For God's sake. It was only an example to illustrate the idea that as computers HDD increase so does the space required by the OS. And so, I thought there was always a proportion that remained between OS space requirement and HDD capacity. That was the idea behind using the arbitrary quantity of 45%. Non-modified means standard computer bought straight from the shop without increasing any of the computer original specs.

4- You are right. I was only trying to illustrate the idea of a propertion between HDD space and space required by OS. It is obvious that the proportion is getting wider.

You know, there are ways and ways to reply, before trying to get this arrogant you can try and see what is wrong with my statements. Be humbler, sir.

[Jimbo1234]

(Original post by Juichiro)
1- I never claimed to be an "expert" on the games industry. I merely ask people's opinion on the future of indie games. Read the thread title again.

2- I see. That makes sense and is a plus of time needed when compared to games software development back then.

3- For God's sake. It was only an example to illustrate the idea that as computers HDD increase so does the space required by the OS. And so, I thought there was always a proportion that remained between OS space requirement and HDD capacity. That was the idea behind using the arbitrary quantity of 45%. Non-modified means standard computer bought straight from the shop without increasing any of the computer original specs.

4- You are right. I was only trying to illustrate the idea of a propertion between HDD space and space required by OS. It is obvious that the proportion is getting wider.

You know, there are ways and ways to reply, before trying to get this arrogant you can try and see what is wrong with my statements. Be humbler, sir.

You made a thread with a very strong opinion so don't be surprised when that opinion is challenged

The comment about hardware was decades out of date. HDD capacity has not been an issue for games for at least a decade now, and certainly not since bluray was developed.
You can't use the term non-modified because all computers vary. One might have a 500GB HDD, the other might have 2TB HDD. It is not like Apple where everything is the same for years.
This is why I think Indie gaming is just a fad which will die out as soon as the next gen start to appear. People want something new/have not seen before and as new AAA games are just the same as their prequel and these people have also never played crappy snes games before, they are willing to play old styled games for a bit of time.


Also I'm not arrogant but confident due to my degree, thus have good reason to display this confidence in the topic

[lubus]

(Original post by Jimbo1234)
So you know that little on this topic then yet still comment?

Games cost far more to make nowadays, as in roughly $150m. This is due to a longer time needed and far more people....which is obvious seeing that games can now last 100hrs + rather than 30 mins, the gameplay is more complex, there is a storyline, and you have voice acting etc.

I disagree, you can make a much higher quality game these days for less, there are free assests (music/models/textures) on the internet, free IDE's, free engines (eg unity). If you have a good idea, you can make a hugely sucessful and quality game with very few people (world of goo, minecraft, super meat boy, etc etc). In a sense , OP is right, indie games will need to follow that formula, simple addictive and original, because they cant compete with the big studios in making fps/rpgs etc.

Maybe some AAA titles cost studios alot (150) cause they are run badly as all big corporations are... but surely if everything is just outsourced to india, you could make them way cheaper.

[Jimbo1234]

(Original post by lubus)
I disagree, you can make a much higher quality game these days for less, there are free assests (music/models/textures) on the internet, free IDE's, free engines (eg unity). If you have a good idea, you can make a hugely sucessful and quality game with very few people (world of goo, minecraft, super meat boy, etc etc). In a sense , OP is right, indie games will need to follow that formula, simple addictive and original, because they cant compete with the big studios in making fps/rpgs etc.

Maybe some AAA titles cost studios alot (150) cause they are run badly as all big corporations are... but surely if everything is just outsourced to india, you could make them way cheaper.

Define high quality.
If you want an actual high quality game eg AAA rating standard, you need a lot of money. If you want something that feels free, then yes, you can just use cheap stuff.
Most indie games as I have said before are just fads or people like them because it is indie, not because of the quality. Many are not original, most are copies of games that are 20 years old with a few changes however the average 15 year old has never played a ****ty SNES game before so they think it is original or "a n art style"

You could not out source games due to the skill required, and the way games are made and developed. Culture has a huge impact on how games turn out, look at western rpg's and jrpgs as an example. If games went to India the same would happen.

[lubus]

(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Define high quality.
If you want an actual high quality game eg AAA rating standard, you need a lot of money. If you want something that feels free, then yes, you can just use cheap stuff.
Most indie games as I have said before are just fads or people like them because it is indie, not because of the quality. Many are not original, most are copies of games that are 20 years old with a few changes however the average 15 year old has never played a ****ty SNES game before so they think it is original or "a n art style"

You could not out source games due to the skill required, and the way games are made and developed. Culture has a huge impact on how games turn out, look at western rpg's and jrpgs as an example. If games went to India the same would happen.

businesses outsource their IT ops to cheap countries all the time. no reason why games shouldnt do it

[jacketpotato]

Indie games have been around for years. They are definitely here to stay, they are getting more popular because of broadband internet. It is now very easy for people to find out about and download games through the web. A few years ago most people just read gaming magazines and would only play indie games if they were on the demo disc which came with Official Playstation Magazine. But I think indie gaming will only stay widespread on the PC. Sony and Microsoft are keeping tight control over the content in their stores which limits the potential for indie gaming on consoles.

Look at something like DayZ. A concept developed in someone's bedroom only a few weeks ago is now probably the most talked about game on the web and has hundreds of thousands of players, and its not even out of alpha. Also look at counter-strike, DoTA and minecraft - three of the most popular PC games of all time and they all started in someone's bedroom.

(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Nope - they are just the flavour of the month (or few) that will be gone within a few years and forgotten about, especially when the next gen arrive. Many people I know have stopped playing MC once they realised there is little you can do with what you make, and I know of no one playing Realm of Mad God and from looking at it, why would I want to play something which is almost identical to what I played 15 years ago?

The biggest recent mainstream releases were Uncharted 3, CoD 7, Battlefield 4, Batman 3, Assassin's Creed 3 and Final Fantasy XIII. Indie games are far more original than the mainstream.

[Jimbo1234]

(Original post by lubus)
businesses outsource their IT ops to cheap countries all the time. no reason why games shouldnt do it

And there is a reason why those places fail to solve anything . IT ops just read off a check list and have absolutely no idea what the hell they are saying.
Game devs on the other hand have to understand complex dev kits along with how came construction works. That is far harder than a giant call centre.

(Original post by jacketpotato)
The biggest recent mainstream releases were Uncharted 3, CoD 7, Battlefield 4, Batman 3, Assassin's Creed 3 and Final Fantasy XIII. Indie games are far more original than the mainstream.

Not at all, you just need to go further back in time. Many indie games are sequels/very similar to games not a year old, but 15 yrs +.

[Psyk]

I don't think outsourcing games programming work to places like India is very common. I think it's more often the artwork that is outsourced. They hand off detailed concept art to outsourcing and they turn them into 3D models. Also I think they would normally do general environment assets.

I think programming a game is too complicated to outsource much of it. Very little is self contained enough to just hand off to loads of to a different location and let them get on with it. Not that development across multiple sites doesn't happen, it's very common. But there has to be a lot of communication between them. Maybe you might get more Indian studios programming games, but I don't think studios in the rest of the world are all going to disappear any time soon.

[markybhoy999]

I think the reason we are seeing such success with indie games in the last few years has been because of an increase in exposure. Steam is a great example of this, as it has become more popular more and more people have had access to them so more people are buying them. More people buying them, more indie devs trying to get in on the action. The whole indie game scene really has Minecraft to thank for that, it has shown how much fun a game can be without all the cutting edge graphics and other stuff.

Don't get me wrong, the industry needs the big AAA games as well. I love playing blockbusters like Assassins Creed and Skyrim, I also love playing Minecraft, Limbo, Terraria, Binding of Isaac, Bastion etc. Balance is important! :P

[TheKieranC]

i think indie games are essentially the future. Look at OUYA an indie console for indie games (as well as published ones of course) just because minecraft isn't on a shelf doesn't mean its worse than any other game. All you have to do is look at the sale figures and now its no mediocre piece of crap. People love it