next »

[William Laub]

Erm, by the by, what does the Pretentious Star in the middle mean? All the others are circles.


Also: La La Land never fails to scare the bejesus out of me.

It's the free space that applies to all indie games.

[Paul Eres]

There are lots of user-created levels for Knytt Stories and each, of course, has a different feel to it. (There are tags for this sort of thing, designating level genre and difficulty. If Knytt were released as a KS level it would be "Easy/Environmental".) The whole user-created content thing makes it so that basically it's not possible for KS to have one "feel".

yes, but that's besides the point -- by knytt stories i meant the game itself, not the user-created content. i've never played many of the user-created levels yet. i suspect they'd have a different feel since they are made by different people, yeah.

Heh, it irks me that being "indie" means making experimental games and anti-games. Instead of trying to be so avant-garde, I stick to rehashing themes and mechanics from games I grew up enjoying. It's a shame the public over glorifies the abstract as having the most substance, when this is almost never the case! But alas, we live in an age where substance is no match for style anymore

while i agree with this i also disagree with it. people can make the types of games they want. and knytt isn't really "abstract" at all, it's a fully concrete world with a lot of substance. it has a lot more playable game time than most traditional indie games do. besides, if you want a more traditional game, have you tried his game 'within a deep forest'? in any case, knytt is clearly not an "anti-game" in the way that, say, the graveyard is.

[Ness Kain]

I think if a game is based purely on mechanics (the substance), you'll get bored of it quickly.  You'll think, "Hey, why am I playing this game that is exactly like a classic I love, but is not nearly as provocative?"

If a game is based purely on style, you end up with: "What the hell is going on?  Why should I care about this?"

For me, I'll take anything in the sweet, sweet middle.

I don't think of it as a spectrum but rather two facets that can be emphasized on any level independently of one another; it's possible for a game to have a great deal of both style and substance.

[moi]

Heh, it irks me that being "indie" means making experimental games and anti-games. Instead of trying to be so avant-garde, I stick to rehashing themes and mechanics from games I grew up enjoying. It's a shame the public over glorifies the abstract as having the most substance, when this is almost never the case! But alas, we live in an age where substance is no match for style anymore

fucking seconded

[Inanimate]

Heh, it irks me that being "indie" means making experimental games and anti-games. Instead of trying to be so avant-garde, I stick to rehashing themes and mechanics from games I grew up enjoying. It's a shame the public over glorifies the abstract as having the most substance, when this is almost never the case! But alas, we live in an age where substance is no match for style anymore

fucking seconded

I just make games with a feel similar to the games I love, and throw in some awesome idea to help make it more unique. I make a game not to be philosophical or mind-bending, but to be fun to play. I wouldn't care if I didn't get paid, as long as I got to play my game in the end.

[William Broom]

Heh, it irks me that being "indie" means making experimental games and anti-games. Instead of trying to be so avant-garde, I stick to rehashing themes and mechanics from games I grew up enjoying. It's a shame the public over glorifies the abstract as having the most substance, when this is almost never the case! But alas, we live in an age where substance is no match for style anymore

Exactly what games are you talking about here? It seems from the context of your post that you're referring to Knytt, but nothing you say really applies to that game. It's not experimental (it's based on Seiklus, and even Seiklus wasn't exactly a huge leap into the unknown) and it's certainly not an 'anti-game' or 'abstract'. I also disagree that Knytt focuses on style over substance. It's longer and larger than most freeware platformers of its ilk, and that's not including the vast number of extra levels in Knytt Stories. It's obvious that a great deal of effort and consideration went into it. What does a game have to include for you to accept that it has substance? Is it just the number of game mechanics implemented that matters? Don't you think that there can also be substance in well-considered simplicity?

Lastly, you seem to think that you're in the minority and that 'the public' loves experimental and/or abstract games. Luckily for you, nothing could be farther from the truth, since the gaming community as a whole prefers exactly the same thing as you (repetition of trusted mechanics) and even on Tigsource you will probably find that appreciation of experimental games is in the minority.

[Moth]

I think the reason why people associate "indie games" with the more artsy or experimental releases is because they're closer to what the stereotypical idea of "indie" connotes. That is, comparatively eccentric or outlandish products that no one would expect mainstream companies to create. But in any case, I really don't think experimental games are preferred more than, or outnumber the traditional ones on this forum.

[Alec S.]

I think it's more of a square/rectangle relationship.

Most art games are indie games, but not all indie games are art games.  Art games seem to be, for the most part, a subcategory of indie games.  Indie games all together seem to fit into many categories such as art games, revivals of retro genres, games that experiment with gameplay mechanics, small games, etc...

[Zaratustra]

oh god here comes the discussion again

[Chef Boyardee]

Heh, it irks me that being "indie" means making experimental games and anti-games. Instead of trying to be so avant-garde, I stick to rehashing themes and mechanics from games I grew up enjoying. It's a shame the public over glorifies the abstract as having the most substance, when this is almost never the case! But alas, we live in an age where substance is no match for style anymore

make whatever you want.

[Dustin Gunn]

hy⋅per⋅bo⋅le
  /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
–noun Rhetoric.
1.    obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.    an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
Compare litotes.

Origin:
1520–30; < Gk hyperbol excess, exaggeration, throwing beyond, equiv. to hyper- hyper- + bol throw

Synonyms:
2. overstatement.

Antonyms:
2. understatement.

[Dustin Gunn]

http://indiegamebingo.blogspot.com/

Gravitation/Blueberry Garden bump.

I'm starting to run out of games here. Any suggestions? Braid might be doable so that's a fallback plan. Surely I'm missing some major indie breakthroughs.

[Paul Eres]

do my games

[fish]

i tried to make a fez one, but turns out it's not indie enough.

[Corpus]

Heh, it irks me that being "indie" means making experimental games and anti-games. Instead of trying to be so avant-garde, I stick to rehashing themes and mechanics from games I grew up enjoying. It's a shame the public over glorifies the abstract as having the most substance, when this is almost never the case! But alas, we live in an age where substance is no match for style anymore

By your standards, substance hasn't been a match for style for over a century, and even then it had been on and off for a very long time.

EDIT:
also, abstract games often have AS MUCH substance as, er, directly representational games. you're effectively arguing that substance isn't a match for substance AND style, which would be true.

I still don't agree with what you're saying, though.


EDIT FOREVER:
the reason for this is that it's bullshit.