next »

[Blaster]

Basically saying what others have said in slightly different words:

Trying to define some as vague and broad as 'Indie gaming' seems to be virtually impossible. Defining the spirit of it seems to be even more difficult.

But I have to agree that the communal spirit of it all seems to come down to the dirty, dirty passion for games. Really, that love for games seems to be the core of it all. Without that passion for games, I simply couldn't call something in the spirit of indie gaming. Every other ideal, goal or focus seems to be pretty optional, and isn't going to apply for everyone. Not every indie gamer or developer is out there to 'fight against the man', nor is every indie developer not concerned with money, you need to put food on the table! What it seems to come down to is.., forwantofadifferentword, love. xD

Similarly, the core of commercial games seems to be money. While that same burning vigour for games is also probably amongst the majority of commercial game developers, it isn't really the vital component that makes it commercial. There's always going to be that bunch of people just milking something for cash--that certainly isn't the spirit of independent gaming.

This aside, another important aspect, personally, to the 'Spirit of Independent Gaming' involves looking out for the underdog and not prejudging a game based on whether it was made by a couple dudes in a basement or a large powerhouse of a company. Independent gaming is an environment where everyone is somewhat equal, or has equal opportunity. This is what I love about the indie gaming scene :>


On 'Independent' vs. 'Indie': I use them both interchangably. 'Indie' is more colloquial, or almost like.. 'Independent Gaming scene' coinage, so it feels more...hoh-hum.. 'in'?
Distinguishing the the two from each other seems rather useless and confusing.

[Anthony Flack]

While that's true in a way since tech does keep changing pretty rapidly, I think it's kind of an absurd thing to say. If you want something done, and it takes years, then you should be willing to do it.

I think you guys have misunderstood my point here. It's not do do with advancing tech; a good game is a good game, now, tomorrow and in ten years. It's more that you end up being stuck realising a vision that you had years ago, and in the meantime you have other visions that you can't realise. And you've learned things since then so you feel like the work you are doing doesn't really represent you any more; rather it represents how you were years ago and you feel a lot older and wiser since then.

I'm speaking directly about my own, personal experience here. I have been working on one game for four and a half years and it isn't finished yet. I'll do it, but I don't think it's the best way to work. I think it's better to work faster and keep fresher, so that your work is closer to your current philosophy, not the stuff you were interested in five years ago.

[Kornel Kisielewicz]

I think you guys have misunderstood my point here. It's not do do with advancing tech; a good game is a good game, now, tomorrow and in ten years.

Makes me think about Frontier. I play recent games for a hour or so max, and then get bored. But I come back to Frontier regularly.

[ravuya]

Yeah, but Frontier was designed for hardware that wouldn't be released for another 10 years.  :D

[Gargantua]

I agree with you, Anthony, that you shouldn't work on something you aren't really interested anymore. People defintitely change philosphically, but I do think that there's a time when you atleast have to finish that one idea so you can move onto whatever point comes next for you philosphically.

[Anthony Flack]

Well... I'm not exactly saying you shouldn't work on them any more. I mean, I'd be crazy to stop after four and a half years when there is less than a year's work to go, and I still think the game is turning out fairly well. But it's definitely not the healthiest, happiest or most productive situation to be in and I will try to avoid it in future.

I think that will come partly from being a more clued-up designer in future, and partly about being less anal about doing everything myself, even though I can. Partnerships are good; I'm keen to experience some teamwork next time.

[Derek]

I think that will come partly from being a more clued-up designer in future, and partly about being less anal about doing everything myself, even though I can. Partnerships are good; I'm keen to experience some teamwork next time.

Teaming up is great!  Along with development going faster, it makes it sooooo much easier to finish.  I know so many solo designers that just keep starting new projects and never finishing them.  Either they lose interest in their idea or they get bogged down in little details.  Or feature creep!

Word of advice to anyone wanting to make games (or anything, really): at some point in the development cycle you WILL get tired of your idea and want to quit.  The ones who succeed are the ones who can plow through those tough times and get the job done.  The benefits of having a finished project outweigh an unfinished one to the point that I'd go as far as to say that a good finished game is worth more than a great unfinished game.

[Kornel Kisielewicz]

Teaming up is great!  Along with development going faster, it makes it sooooo much easier to finish.  I know so many solo designers that just keep starting new projects and never finishing them.  Either they lose interest in their idea or they get bogged down in little details.  Or feature creep!

Why do I feel like the target audience of that post ^_^

[Derek]

Teaming up is great!  Along with development going faster, it makes it sooooo much easier to finish.  I know so many solo designers that just keep starting new projects and never finishing them.  Either they lose interest in their idea or they get bogged down in little details.  Or feature creep!

Why do I feel like the target audience of that post ^_^

You're just one of them.

Actually, I really wasn't thinking about you!  DoomRL is what now, 0.98?  At least all your games get to a very playable stage.

[Kornel Kisielewicz]

The biggest horror are people who start, don't release anything playable, and move to another project, so I guess I can't feel that bad :/.

[Bezzy]

The biggest horror are people who start, don't release anything playable, and move to another project, so I guess I can't feel that bad :/.

Why do I feel like the target of that post  :D

<sub>For the record, I've never willingly ended my own projects. They've been ended for me.

's title screen has a little disclaimer saying something like "I wasn't able to finish this game to my satisfaction because my mum is throwing me out of my house, and I have to get a proper job now.".</sub>

[Anthony Flack]

A large part of my childhood was spent starting games and then abandoning them as soon as my fleeting attention moved on to the next idea or shiny object. I made an enormous daisy-chain of half-complete games over a period of several years, but then again it was probably for the best. There was no purpose to the exercise, no webspace to upload to, no audience waiting. It was just me messing about, and the only people who saw it were my despairing parents. I got to try out a lot of stuff; I taught myself the basics of how to program (sort of), and how to animate (fairly well). I had fun.

These days, I know better though. I will never start a new project until the last one is finished, because I know the whole castle will crumble into sand if I do that and I'll just be a kid messing about again. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I do have goals these days. Not to mention that webspace, that impatient audience...

I may go years without releasing anything, but there is never any question in my mind any more - unless the project is irredeemably fucked, I'm going to finish what I start. And a change in lifestyle isn't going to derail me, either; I started my current project as an unemployed bachelor - now I'm a married high-school teacher with a mortgage and a three year old daughter. It sure as hell slowed things down a lot, but it hasn't stopped my progress.

I have become like a glacier. Slow, but unyielding. Most people only notice the slowness, but to me it's the unyielding part that is key.

[Kornel Kisielewicz]

For me the road of game design is one that leads to that shining castle in the skies (Berserk fans, please don't kill me, as I don't intend to kill you in the process xD). And sometimes I see the need to make sacrifices on the road, but not always I have the strength to do so (the current pain is abandoning DiabloRL)...

[ZombiePixel]

I think the "indie ideal" is more about ego than money, which surprisingly means it's also more about the audience.

In the "indie" space, game development is about wanting to make a something that causes people to shit their pants and immediately boot up the nearest bulletin board to rave about it.  It's about impressing the audience and making something cool, thereby making yourself just a little bit cool as well. 

Coincidentally a few people have discovered that if you make cool games that people like, you can also make money.  But the dreams of a cool game came first.

"For me I think it hearkens back to being a kid and playing Amiga games for the first time... feeling like every random unmarked disk you pop in has a whole new world to dive into. Games like Cave Story and Knytt give me that kinda feeling."

That's exactly how it feels to me, too.  Like having a friend saying "You gotta try this Project Firestart game!" - or Maniac Mansion, or Rescue on Fractalus, or California Games, or Sex Olympics Okay, maybe not Sex Olympics.

[Dan MacDonald]

I like those observations about ego zombie, good post.

[BMcC]

I have become like a glacier. Slow, but unyielding.

What wonderful metaphor!  I think you're a glacier too, Anthony.  And soon enough you'll send tidal waves rushing across the world. 

[Anthony Flack]

Mm, and terrible destruction.

I'm not so sure about the ego thing. Again, talking about me personally, yes I do want to create something that people will get excited about but I have never really felt that correlation between making something cool and feeling more cool as a person. I'm more inclined to see game development as a subsuming of the ego; you sacrifice yourself in the service of the work. In the end it feels more like the game itself is dictating its own development, and your job is just to be a conduit for it.

Does that make any sense?

[Dan MacDonald]

I don't think he was referring to ego in the self aggrandizing sense, more that the ego is appeased by the appreciation of ones game by the intended audience. If the game is lauded and loved by it's audience then the creator feels satisfaction in his (or her!) creation and his ego is satisfied.

[Abadox]

All art is about ego in the sense that it is a part of your self that you are making into an external thing. (self expression). but it's not important how it is percieved by your audience. In other words it's not about wether people think you're cool or not. It's about the power of making something that otherwise would never have existed. Making a part of yourself permanent. Simply doing that for real, that's art, and independent game design. People are are always talking about wether games are art or not, well, if your game is an expression of yourself then it's art. When you make art you have to assume that you're a badass. an unstopable glacier. That no one could dislike what you've made, just like no one can stop a glacier. Then you stop worrying and just stand up next to the mountain and chop it down with the edge of your hand. far out.

[Anthony Flack]

Yeah, I'm a voodoo child, me.

But what I was getting at is, I feel like after I've gotten the ball rolling, the game starts telling me what I have to do and I'm just the poor shlub who has to do its bidding. So in a funny sort of way I don't quite feel like it's my self-expression at all. That might sound a little bit weird; but I often feel that way about playing music too - that things are most successful when I manage to suppress my own ego and stop dictating where I want things to go, and just become a machine that takes the stream of input and processes it into the correct output; just a part of the feedback loop.

I mean, I know it must be coming from me really, and that I am constantly making decisions that inform the direction things are going in. But somehow it doesn't feel that way. The only real pride or satisfaction I feel is knowing that I've done the hard work and didn't give up - the product itself feels more like it has grown organically and I just provided the nutrients.

Again, does that make sense or does it seem a bit weird? People often mention the arrogance of artists, but I'm inclined to think that you are most successful; that you make the best decisions in those rare moments when you are working without ego at all. The work itself has already dictated what the correct decision should be and you just have to pay attention and listen.