Submitted by PostMesmeric 482d ago | opinion piece

Why Indie Gaming is the Next Generation of Video Games

Default Prime's Alex Carlson waxes philosophic on the strength that the indie gaming circuit has on game development. Could independent game developers be furthering gaming's evolution more than their AAA counterparts? (Braid, Dev, Minecraft, Next-Gen, PS3, Super Meat Boy, Wii U, Xbox 360)

Kos-Mos  +   482d ago
Why this and why that.
The headline is a "fact" statement and then you question the topic right after.
How do you expect to be taken seriously by the intellectual minds?
sashimi  +   482d ago
come on give em a break, you know most gaming journalism is a joke. Its not like people take them seriously anyway.
buckley  +   479d ago
A proper argument asks a question and then answers it, examining both sides. I guess the writer assumes that intellectual minds understand that.
#1.2 (Edited 479d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
DeadIIIRed  +   482d ago
I'm having a hard time agreeing or disagreeing with the article in its entirety. I believe developers need to be given more creative freedom, but the actual evolution of the industry will always be tied in with technological advances since it offers developers more to play with; even if they don't make full use of the advances.
jmc8888  +   482d ago
The trifecta of gaming denotes excellence. They aren't. Sure mobile, tablet, and social gaming have a place, but they've been blown way out of proportion. Why? Because people make money when they get suckers to believe something is much bigger than it really is. The greater fool theory. See the tech bubble, or our the entire world financial markets now.

The 'trifecta' games have some major limits on them. Fine for a free/cheap distraction when you wait somewhere with a mobile game. Social games are mostly fads, as you see Zynga is basically a worthless company..utilizing an almost worthless Facebook. How can people even think Zynga is a big deal? Because it makes games that have been done better over 10 years earlier...but suddenly because they are on facebook....that makes them worth billions and ready to take on traditional games? Please. They have X users....FREE users, that are ditching them in large numbers. Farmville is like a 1990's game. Facebook will end up like myspace.

Tablet gaming has limits too, because quite frankly if I'm in my home I'd rather use a console or a PC, as most would, BUT there has always been a niche for the Gameboy/Game Gear/Lynx/PSP/Vita/3DS...etc,e tc. So really it's tablet versus handheld, which isn't really a growth but a competition between two sections that are really one. Even then you see Apple jumping the shark and releasing iPad mini's which is a saturation product that Steve Jobs never wanted created.

The tablets have bigger screens and an OS that makes them more functional in other ways. The handhelds are dedicated gaming devices with great games, ip's, and much better controls. It's much easier to make the handhelds with a bigger screen and give some more functionality to send and receive emails, read books, and surf the internet then it will be for tablets to alter their defining shape to include controls and develop successful ip's.

Only with consoles/PC's do you get the full experience. When casual people play these games they can enjoy them, but they'll tire of them (see Farmville) and leave. Either to a different, newer casual game, or for many of them, they'll move up the ladder towards consoles or PC's. You see these games are more of a stepping stone then an endgame. People keep saying well all these people like these games...yes, and I once though Pac-man and Ikari warriors was great. Then I moved on. Alot of these people will too.

Indies will be a bigger force, because they can keep the costs down yet come up with very imaginative games that wouldn't be made by the likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc.

One of the best things for indie games is kickstarter. Here you can have people get funding for games they want to make, but the big corporations wouldn't make. As a backer you get benefits, like a 60 dollar game for 30-40. Or a 30-40 dollar game for 15-25. Some games you'll get your name in the credits...like Strike Suit Zero. You can get other rewards, and sometimes a bump in in-game currency when you start....stuff like that.

Look around kickstarter and you find quite a bit of games proposed by people who made some great games in the past, but want to do something that wouldn't fly under a big corp label. The people that made previous successes but got out of the business because Wall Street took it over.
jmc8888  +   482d ago
You already see games like Star Citizen, Strike Suit Zero, a sequel to Elite (can't remember the full name). You see people coming out of the woodwork trying to fund a dinosaur simulator to make a much improved sequel to a game the guy made and sold very well 25 years ago. All sorts of crazy games and sequels you may never have gotten, now at least have a chance they might be made. A sequel to The Ship...that's there.

We've already seen some decent games come out of kickstarter, like the great indie game FTL. Seriously, check out FTL, it's a fun little game. But on the other side you have games like Star Citizen, which will use the Cryengine 3. Man, does that look awesome. Of course it won't be out for two years, but still, it already looks amazing.

Of course technology is the future. Here's a clue to those that say tech is dead. Human beings know about a grain of sand in the Sahara desert of knowledge. We're a primitive species. Nuclear bombs aren't even firecrackers compared to what's possible.

Games aren't art or a science. They make use of science, they may recreate physics in game, and create eye pleasing graphics...but they aren't science or art. Even most Art isn't art, because unless it's more of the classical renaissance type of art or realism, it's ugly pictures that captures the eye. Interesting, but not true art.

So while many see the slowdown of the current direction of tech as a reason to say 'technology is not the future', well sorry it is. You can increase technology AND foster gameplay. Nothing is written saying you have to go for either but not both at the same time. We have holographic tv and VR coming, along with better tech, and eventually new tech pathways and some people still feel the need to say...technology won't take us much further.

Those people are nuts. If we choose not to progress, that's a choice, not a destined reality. There's a universe to explore but we're concerned with what happened on Jersey Shore or some idiot Kardashian. Forget the physical economy lets go with a paper/digital derivatives one. These are choices. Wrong ones. Wrong priorities. So I guess I could see why people would go down the wrong path, because they've been denied their whole lives to see how humans progress. So they accept stagnation and try to say it's good. It isn't, you're lying to yourself if you think that. If we're not progressing, we're regressing..and we are and have been for decades. Now even gaming is starting to feel the pressure and yet no one sees where it comes from, where the root lies. Amazing.

Add comment

New stories

Review: Titanfall | Stevivor


Dark Souls 2 – Review | Progress Bar


Yaiba: Ninja Gaiden Z screenshots


PlayDevil: Dead Rising 3 DLC Operation Broken Eagle Review


Start Making Games for the PS4


Project Galaxy game has been announced

Related content from friends