next »

[SilverSpoon]

What happens if you start working on a game, then get an offer by Sony or MicroSquishy and start to develop your game for their platform?
Are you now working for them?

Oh dear, methinks I'm a little confused.

[GregWS]

I'd say it's simple enough: you're still indie as long as they have no creative control over the design, and don't heavily market it.

If the design stops fully being yours, or if it receives marketing more akin to a mainstream game, then it isn't indie; simple enough I think.

[SilverSpoon]

Thanks for clarifying.
Seems like the line that you cross that puts you in the bracket of not 'indie' is long and wibbly sometimes but you talk sense.

[superflat]

I think we spend too much time discussing what is Indie, not enough being Indie... Surely in a real-world sense there should be two categories only:  Self- and Externally-Funded.  In that sense there Q Games weren't in the wrong by submitting their work, but they could have given up their spot for the benefit of those less fortunate I suppose.  But they are a company, not a commune, and naturally want the maximum exposure for their work. 

I suppose part of their problem is there isn't a suitable category in which to throw them - too low-key for the AAA awards, too big for 'Indie' awards.

Personally, I consider them utterly in the 'Making-Games-For-The-Love-Rather-Than-What-Will-Sell' category, and that's my personal, sentimental view of what being 'Indie' means, and what I believe guides Q Games, which I wouldn't normally feel is even worth sharing... But we certainly can't categorise that way, as it's far too subjective!

Do we need a middle class?  :D

[Rudolf Kremers]

I heard somebody say that the IGF awards are the only awards that matter at GDC because they can completely change somebody's life. This is true for pretty much everybody in the competetion, EXCEPT for Q-games. While Q-Games have every right to be there they themselves have to feel comfortable with the idea that by entering they stand to gain very little relative to somebody who is struggling to get their games played or covered etc. In a way they are denying somebody the chance to break through and forge a real future making games, while at best Q-games just gets a bit of extra exposure on top of what is already a well established and successful career. It is their call to make, but I think they made a dubious one. This has been exasperated by the fact that they clearly don't care much about these things (See the monitor thing), or even the nomination itself, or else mister Cuthbert would be there proud as anyone else demoing the game.

Right, I am going to stop commenting on this now, I actually wish Q-Games well. They make very interesting games and as a company I wish them best luck. I just think it was ill conceived to try to place themselves in the "same boat" with people to whom this generally means much more in practical terms than to them.

[ShawnF]

Personally, I think a budget cap is the way to go.  Yes, this means that you'll be excluding some "real" indies, but I think that's okay - those guys have been successful enough to find a large budget game, so they probably don't need the help.  Anything else, and I think you just open it up to too much of a mess, which gets you arguments like this one.  Enforcement could be an issue, but meh... you don't actually have to police this until you've at least gotten it down to the finalists. 

Anyway, even if Eden had won, that wouldn't have been nearly as bad as some past IGFs.  Better a quirky grappling hook game than some of the multi-million dollar past winners, like Savage, which was just a rehash of a HL mod (Natural Selection) or Shattered Galaxy, which was pretty much a huge generic mess. 

That said, I don't actually think this is the biggest problem of the IGF.  The much more screwed up thing imo is that judges get to self select at least some of their games.  If you stop and think about the consequences of this, it goes something like this:

1) Judge plays his assigned 10 games.  Hurray!

2) Judge then picks more games to play.  Nearly every time, he will select games he's heard about and is interested in trying.

3) These games are much more likely to get high scores this way that they would by random assignation, since judges are going out of their way to pick games that appeal to their gameplay and aesthetic biases.

4) Basically, it's a system that tends to really favor the chances of the games with the most exposure, which seems to me to really go against the spirit of the IGF.

[Matthew]

2) Judge then picks more games to play.  Nearly every time, he will select games he's heard about and is interested in trying.

3) These games are much more likely to get high scores this way that they would by random assignation, since judges are going out of their way to pick games that appeal to their gameplay and aesthetic biases.

Um, data please?  "Nearly every time"?  Really?  You've got numbers here?

Judges are shown random games with low amounts of scores to judge when they work through their queue.

[Valter]

I think even "marketing more akin to a mainstream game" is kind of BS. If you're making the game yourself or with your own bunch, it's indie. I think control of your design choices is the only qualifier you need to enter.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

A budget cap wouldn't solve anything.
Restrictions wouldn't solve anything.

There's no good way to define "Indie".

Q-games were douchebags for entering and bringing the giant monitor as a kick in the nuts to the people next to them.

Rather than whine about it, why don't we spend time making games good enough to show these middle-budget companies who's really boss? That's what I'm doing all summer at least.

[aeiowu]

There's no good way to define "Indie".

Q-games were douchebags for entering and bringing the giant monitor as a kick in the nuts to the people next to them.

Rather than whine about it, why don't we spend time making games good enough to show these middle-budget companies who's really boss? That's what I'm doing all summer at least.

I totally agree. And to be honest, the first time I ever played Eden was at the IGF pavilion. I wasn't impressed. And it's not sour grapes at all, I just don't think it's that great of a game. I think Eden gets a lot of attention because of its art design, which is essentially just a minimalist, clean, graphic-designerly look with decent taste in color palettes. But frankly it feels pretty obtuse, lacks depth, and really what's the ultimate take-away? The game part of the whole thing is pretty damned shallow. Granted I spent about 10 minutes with the thing, maybe I'm missing something...

But oh well, Blueberry Garden won and for that I am very happy! I can't wait until the whole world can play that game.

[Zaphos]

I would be very hesitant to judge any game based on 10 minutes of expo floor time.  That has to be one of the worst environments for enjoying a game, especially one that's focused on the audio-visual experience.

[aeiowu]

I would be very hesitant to judge any game based on 10 minutes of expo floor time.  That has to be one of the worst environments for enjoying a game, especially one that's focused on the audio-visual experience.

That's exactly my point though. A game that's focused on the audio/visual but doesn't really focus on the actual _game_ makes for a poor game IMO but hey it's pretty and it looks impressive in a trailer.

ps. i didn't like Rez, so it's probably just not my kind of game...