We've noticed that you've been inactive for over 10 minute(s). We've stopped running the Shoutbox due to your inactivity. If you are back again, please click the I'm Back button below.
As soon as I figure out how to restore it. Sorry, I know I said it'd be done by now, but I didn't expect to have to put up with this DNS crap and other issues that popped up.
Or it might be because Bluehost *finally* got around to that server wipe (one week after we'd asked for it) and that wiped out our DNS settings. I'm not sure which and I don't really care. In any case, we've severed our last ties with Bluehost, so this will not happen again.
No kiddin' about that "Finally!", Shadow. I am *so mad* at Bluehost for never responding to our support ticket. I submitted it early Friday morning and they *still* haven't answered it!
Straight to the point: This thread is about the whole appreciation, analysis, and critque of Interactive Media and Fiction. From the retro to around the corner, to the sucky to the sucessful, to the pitfalls and promises, to limtless and limiting creative aspects of the media, we will ask, debate, and ponder all we can about one of our most cheerished forms of entertainment and artistic expression.
Our first topic of discussion is...
Indie Game development and its subversions of mainstream gaming. How do you think the rise of Indie-Gaming has changed the way we view, play, and purchase a game industry that has been commonly accused of being overcommercialized (pandering C.O.D clones, rushed development, ect.)?
On the whole it's good, because the game industry was seriously stagnating before the influx of indie games. Most of the games I play now are indie, some more than others. My current favorite game of all time, Bleed, is indie. Following close behind is Spelunky, which is also indie. Paradox strategy games are among my favorites and they're arguably indie (they've been around a good while, but they're a small studio).
That said, there's a bad trend in indie gaming: Steam Early Access. A lot of developers seem to get their game just good enough to go up there and then they abandon the game because they're already making money off it. Prison Architect has been in this state for ages and there's no sign of the game actually being finished anytime soon. I think people are starting to catch onto this trend, though, and hopefully that means it will soon disappear.
But of course, what matters to the customer isn't whether a game is "indie" or not. The important thing is, is it a good game? I'd suspect the batting average is no higher or lower than for more mainstream games, but at least if you pick up a turkey, you probably got it for cheap.
I feel Indie games have liberated the First Person POV and the survival horror genre. For example. Haunt, Amnesia, Slender Series, Slender Shadow Series, Outlast are essentially anti-FPSes in tone and in mechanics. It really makes us rethink our approach and what games can illicit from us mentally and emotionally. If one good thing is coming from Indie, it's innovation and expansion of identity. Compare Perfect Dark and Perfect Dark Zero and you can see how things have rusted over the years in the FPS genre. The First C.O.D actually had some heart warming characterization, but now it's all cliche machismo and ten years old yelling at each other.
Thoughts on Minecraft (which started out all Indie)? And the creativity-factor of Indie games?
Minecraft: If i ever needed to explain to somebody how every video game isn't for everyone, Minecraft would be my first target. Minecraft just has so much going against it for me: lack of a clear objective, lack of a basic tutorial, enemies aren't a major concern for most of the game... but it's remarkable in that it's detracting qualities also have rather good sides: there's no objective, so make one. (I personally set myself the "find diamonds" goal and literally squee'ed when i did). Lack of a tutorial means you have to find stuff out for yourself (which still isn't that good of a point, but my patience ran out even faster with Dwarf Fortress, so Minecraft isn't the most inaccessible indie game out there) and enemies CAN be a major concern and focus if that is your playstyle. Miner, Farmer, Nether-Knight or jack-of-all-trades, there is something for everybody in Minecraft and that is just what's genius about it.
And the creativity of indie games. Two Words: Stanley Parable. in terms of modern first person indie games, you can't get more imaginative, creative and memorable than that. If we're talking other types of indie games, Gunpoint, Thomas was Alone, Braid and The Binding of Isaac are also very creative and do so without sacrificing the most important aspect of a game: Gameplay.
Though it is the creativity aspect, among other issues, why many Indie games that sound/look like good ideas more often than not just plain pure suck for a large multitude of reasons. I shouldn't continue without mentioning Guise of the Wolf, and how that game can highlight every problem with Steam Greenlight. But that is not the debate for this forum.
In conclusion, Indie games are a candle-lit dinner of interesting, possibly even innovative ideas. Gunpoint tried the whole direct-utility hacking thing before Watch_Dogs, and i'm sure some other game has already done something similer. But i think what needs to be done is just a pinch of dedication from the developer to deliver us a perfectly functional game, because games like Guise of the Wolf and Day One: Garry's Incident seem like they're making a profit from "woah-my-god" ideas and concepts rather than being a genuinely good gaming experience that will stay with the gamer for a long time.
But i think what needs to be done is just a pinch of dedication from the developer to deliver us a perfectly functional game, because games like Guise of the Wolf and Day One: Garry's Incident seem like they're making a profit from "woah-my-god" ideas and concepts rather than being a genuinely good gaming experience that will stay with the gamer for a long time.
I think everyone, Indie and ....non-indie developers alike seem to have this problem. Right not the two goals seem to be "wow factor" and "recreate". They'll either try to recreate the "glory days" of a genre which is okay but they usually recreate the game completely making it either too hard or too easy, or they don't make anything new so you feel like you've played this game before.
The other side is the "wow factor". They try making games so amazing, so stand-out-ish, that they forget what the purpose of a video game is. While these elements may bring in fans to try it, most of these games fall flat when people turn away. Worst still is many magazine or online reviewers praise these games because of the wow factor being "original" (honestly their is nothing original anymore....just not used in the lime light very often) or unique (see previous) but the game falls flat again for a lack of anything but the wow factor.
It seems that you guys have a common contention with the Indie phenomena. It can be idealistic but ill-executed. And is still praised. If consumers do not become critical of execution...
Also here is another issue:
Minecraft
Forestcraft
Mine Castle Z
Slender Source
Slender The Nine Pages
Slender Shadow Series
Slender Haunt
There seems to be a lot of slapdash clones out there. But are these clones all slapdash cash grabbing knockoffs? Or the growth of new genres? Could there be genre-innovative jewels admits the xeroxing?
But MineCraft was something unique... then people tried getting rich off of it.
Same with Flappy Bird
Some say that he knows 2 facts about ducks, and both of them are wrong. And that 61 years ago he accidentally introduced Her Majesty The Queen to a Greek racialist. All we know is, I'm going to the tower now to have my head cut off, and he is called The Stig.
But MineCraft was something unique... then people tried getting rich off of it.
Same with Flappy Bird
Is this comment on the Voxel/Crafting genre in general or a dis on Mojang?
I would agree that copycats have cheapend things with generics. But the question is if there can be only one Voxel-style sandbox crafting game? Are there more that could achieve and further the genre on the horizon, or the current market?
Both. They started off as new genres but now have been reduced to Cash Grabs.
Which do you find as good? Which do you find as cheap and derivative.
I find that regardless the reason for the game, if you enjoy it, it's good. I enjoy X-Men Destiny and it is a game design nightmare, glitches, missing graphics, incomplete feel, lack of things to do in the game. I even include it in my top 10 favorite PS3 titles.
So even if games are quick cash grabs, if you like 'em, they are still good.
But not good for the industry and such. We are trying to more objective. And even then, we must ask why do people like these questionably designed guilty-pleasures? I want to get a larger feel for why these "copycat" games are widely considered the way they are.
And does this concern you that the Indie-genre can into nicely fall into the same pitfall the big industry has with games like C.O.D? Talk about becoming your own monster...
But MineCraft was something unique... then people tried getting rich off of it.
Same with Flappy Bird
Is this comment on the Voxel/Crafting genre in general or a dis on Mojang?
I would agree that copycats have cheapend things with generics. But the question is if there can be only one Voxel-style sandbox crafting game? Are there more that could achieve and further the genre on the horizon, or the current market?
Former. Mojang created something simple and fun that turned into a phenomenon. But of course everyone tried copying it in order to gt a slice of the pie.
Some say that he knows 2 facts about ducks, and both of them are wrong. And that 61 years ago he accidentally introduced Her Majesty The Queen to a Greek racialist. All we know is, I'm going to the tower now to have my head cut off, and he is called The Stig.
There are hundreds upon thousands of movies out there that are so bad that they aren't worth the packaging they are contained in, yet the industry is still going strong.
While these guilty pleasure games and horribly designed games might effect the company or even a genre of games greatly, they hardly harm the industry.
Indie game in themselves do more damage than badly designed games. The difference lies that they provide better chance of improving the industry when successful.
Besides, from the industry point of view, as long as the game sells so many copies it's first week, regardless on how many people actually like it, it was a success.
What a gentle, respectful, and friendly way to put it. :/
I think you have misunderstood my meaning. I have been to vague. What I mean is the long-term decline, loss of quality, and the overall squandering of potential within the industry. Imagine, Red, what could have been if Sega made sound business choices for their hardware and promoted more quality software instead like Nintendo? We like these guilty games not because of what they are, but what we project into them, what potential we see within their frame work that others might not see from their vantage point.
There are hundreds upon thousands of movies out there that are so bad that they aren't worth the packaging they are contained in, yet the industry is still going strong.
But it could have been stronger if things were done better. And it has effected the film industry. Hollywood once had 82% of the global film market during the Golden Age of Cinema from the 1920-1960's . But bad business practices, the questionable Studio System (which caused The Supreme Court to develop anti-trust laws in 1948 over the industry), and a glutting supply of over 800 annual feature-films shattered the quality and demand of the Hollywood monopoly and opened up the doors to Asian Cinema and Independant Cinema (which did more on location than cramped in a studio). Eventually TV and other film producers nearly killed the industry, leading to the radically revised "New Hollywood." Mediocrity is also the main reason for piracy, which plunders the box-office nowadays. People don't want to see several "guilty-pleasure" medicore movies on the big screen or their home theaters so they just rip it off PirateBay and half watch it to keep occupied on their laptops and such, justifying it by claiming it is to expensive for it's worth (and tough piracy is stealing from common joes like boom-mic holders who have to feed their kids, they are partially right in saying there is no bangs for certain films bucks). Also remember that long-term wise, the industry has been surviving but by no means profiting the way it use to. There has been a gradual erosion and loss of ground in the industry.
While these guilty pleasure games and horribly designed games might effect the company or even a genre of games greatly, they hardly harm the industry.
When a company dies, it effects the stocks of industry...And it remember when this happend:
Besides, from the industry point of view, as long as the game sells so many copies it's first week, regardless on how many people actually like it, it was a success.
This is a unique take on the classic Broken Window Fallacy of business:
There is a difference from breaking big and breaking even. You stagnate and loose potential ground if you keep making D-grade games in a world filled with competing media.
How about next time we ask for clarification and be a bit more socratic in our questioning before making accusations of being "wrong." It really stirs up an unecessary stink. Let's all work on that, shall we?
You are exactly right. It is a slow boiling of the console frog...
The supply will inflame like a spider-bite and the demand will erode less and less and we will have another eventual crash. Some people already forecast another just like the one in 1983 as PC's are becoming cheaper because the tablet/smart-phone market is swallowing up their more casual/work demographic, therefore they are having to dedicate Desktops to selling to the hardcore crowd that require big systems that can out perform these more compact devices. Just like the early TV, cable, sattalite, foreign-films, independant films, and now the internet have eaten away at Hollywood, just like the Commador 64 and Desktops before stabbed at the failing Atari, Colecovision, and the Intellivision during the Crash, so will the more avaiable casual Smartphone/tablet app games, Alienwares, CyberPowerPC, and custom hot-rod gaming desktops will stab at the Xbox One, PS4, and Wii U.
Luckily like Pixar, something smart and revolutionary can happen when a void is made. When something rots and burns away, something grows in the fertile ash of new oppurtunity (Like the Nintendo saved the industry and good ole gimmick R.O.B bating and switching the toy stores.) Maybe all of this all happening for a reason.
Besides, from the industry point of view, as long as the game sells so many copies it's first week, regardless on how many people actually like it, it was a success.
This is a unique take on the classic Broken Window Fallacy of business:
I don't see how this relates to the broken window fallacy at all. The broken window fallacy is, as the video states, that destruction creates prosperity. That isn't RedAuthar's argument at all. Red's just saying that, from a business perspective, it doesn't matter how good something is so long as it generates money. Now, if the public gets sick of being treated this way and they stop buying stuff, then yeah, that could lead to downward spiral, and in fact that's what happened in 1983, but I don't see how that has any relation to the broken window fallacy.
Besides, from the industry point of view, as long as the game sells so many copies it's first week, regardless on how many people actually like it, it was a success.
This is a unique take on the classic Broken Window Fallacy of business:
I don't see how this relates to the broken window fallacy at all. The broken window fallacy is, as the video states, that destruction creates prosperity. That isn't RedAuthar's argument at all. Red's just saying that, from a business perspective, it doesn't matter how good something is so long as it generates money. Now, if the public gets sick of being treated this way and they stop buying stuff, then yeah, that could lead to downward spiral, and in fact that's what happened in 1983, but I don't see how that has any relation to the broken window fallacy.
Think about the "what is not seen" part, the loss of realizing the loss of potentiality in such misfortune. This is what I’m really focusing on. Better said: “similar to” rather than “unique take.” This was my original intent (sadly executed by a man that is very preoccupied with moving and juggling his job, upcoming school, and life).
Notices how these bad business practices are inherently self-destructive in themselves. It is the company breaking their own windows in a sense and people saying that at least people will purchase them for the sake of a guilty pleasure and that there is some silver lining to profit from. Yet that is by no means realizing potential or sustainable marketing in the incredibly competitive market. I wasn’t trying to say it fit to a tee, and I’m mostly focusing on the mentioned essays point of reducing potentiality.
With all that said that point has been made and it is not a matter of if, but when. In a competitive market someone will pounce and they will fall prey to some extent. There will be a fresher product put out that steals customers. And the uncritical consumers will be bandwagoned or get wise of frauds and flakes like EA (EA actually has won the "Worst Company in America" award twice by The Consumerist). They will have to innovate and improve to endure let alone grow. Yet a lot trust is shattered...I don't think you can recover from that. Perhaps a crash would be good for the glutted industry.
