next »

[PaulWv2.017]

Just curious as to what other folks think - how important is humor to making a game that is received well? Being "funny" seems to be a selling point for a lot of folks; I can't remember modern indie games that have sold without it and by being 100% straight with their material, though there are certainly a few exceptions like Darkest Dungeon.

Or is humor maybe a crutch, often used to cover up bad writing, or writing that's too self-conscious to try to play it straight?

[JWK5]

It doesn't help things that a lot of the "humor" content is quickly becoming just regurgitated or repurposed memes or it is appealing to belligerent YouTubers who like to overdramatically scream how mindblown they are over the stupidest shit imaginable. Subtlety is becoming lost ground.

[valrus]

The standard self-conscious, half-funny, mildly "wacky" indie game tone is a crutch, absolutely.  It's easier in a serious game for the flaws to become apparent, or for the writing to write checks the rest of the game can't cash; I've more often abandoned a serious game for bad writing than I've abandoned a half-funny game.

I don't think the tone is quite as common as we initially imagine it to be, though; more that when we think of the prototypical indie game, that's what we tend to think of, along with the rest of the Indie Videogame Consensus Universe.  As I look through my collection, the further I get from a "dungeon" full of pixel skeletons and block-pushing puzzles, the more the tone diverges from that standard self-conscious half-funny norm.

[PaulWv2.017]

I don't think the tone is quite as common as we initially imagine it to be, though; more that when we think of the prototypical indie game, that's what we tend to think of, along with the rest of the Indie Videogame Consensus Universe.

When I think of prototypical indie game, I think rather of Games That Made It - or Games That Have Attracted a Critical Review, just to position my viewpoint, not to take away anything from what you said.

Or In Other Words, I'm really strongly hearing about "humor" from "critics" talking about indie games, rather than things like innovation. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but I'm wondering if that's now a semi-prequisite, unless you're as hardcore and/or deep as, say, Darkest Dungeon. Critics don't necessarily want to talk about graphics when it's a one-man project or small team -- and that's fine, I'm just wondering if humor is the appropriate replacement.
I mean, a game like Kerbal Space Program has the humor baked into the animations and models, despite the obvious intellectual value and appreciation of KSP.

I guess the real question is - if you don't have humor or super-innovative gameplay to bring to the table, is there room for indie works? That's kind of a lot of reverse engineering, but I think it remains a big question.

[LilayM]

Humor helps in that it's easy to share, to play the game and joke about it with your friends. Is it a requirement? Absolutely not. Does it help? Yeah, it can.

Extreme humor lies right next to the shocking, the ridiculous. And now, in our data-saturated lives, anything less than extraordinary seldom makes the cut. I mean, what are you more likely to talk about with ur friends - another run-of-the-mill rpg/2d platformer/etc., or, say, goat simulator, or some other silly game you've found? Even if you don't like it as a game as much, it has the shock value needed for the word to get around.

Humor is easy to latch onto. And yeah, when it's the regurgitated kind, it can feel quite painful. But it's not necessarily the humor that's the requirement, it's novelty. It's what you offer, above and beyond the competition. Be new, or do sth old in a better way. Otherwise, why would a customer bother?

Still, I think you can reinvent the old without humor/super innovative gameplay. It has to be good though. It has to be much better than what came before (otherwise, why not ejnoy the old, cheaper games?). And yeah, you gotta market it well. Truth is, you don't need innovation in the game itself (so long as it's, ya know, good - for some ppl at least) as much as you need a strong (catchy, unique) selling point.

Another thing is WHY you're making the game you're making. Artistic/marketable is a balance - and somewhere, you gotta draw the line.

[josehzz]

I think there's always room for any kind of game including non-humor and non-innovate ones. There are others selling points that can be exploted like visuals, theme, franchise, music, and so much more... and we know that indies are more used to think outside the box and land on those kind of ideas.

[darkhog]

While the game I'm developing is funny/self-aware (virtually no fourth wall), I don't think this is required to make a good indie title. Yes, humor certainly helps, but it's absolutely not needed to make a successful title.

The way you make a successful title is to either have great graphics, story or gameplay. The best case is to excel at all the above, but you have to be great at at least one of them. Now, since most single indie devs are, obviously, programmers and not artist or writers, they mostly concentrate on good gameplay, with the story usually taking a backseat. But most of the time they have to make some story to go around with it, unless it's some sort of innovative puzzle game on a Tetris level of addictiveness, then they can forgo the story altogether.

And what's a better way to make story relatable than to make it somewhat funny/cute/heartwarming? Remember that most indie devs want to bring happiness to the players and what makes you happy? Humor.

So yes, having humor in your game isn't needed to achieve success, if you can get good graphics and gameplay (or are good at writing "serious" stuff without it coming out cheesy), but certainly it does help.

As for my game, I'm lucky that I have some writing experience and as such using humor was more of a conscious decision that came from the personality I've outlined for The Virus rather than something I've added because I didn't know what else to do regarding making story relatable. Truth is that the story of the game will probably go into some dark places, but still will be somewhat lighthearted so the players will enjoy the ride and be back for more.

[LyricalReverie]

Depends on the kind of game you are developing.

A game like Undertale was successful for many reasons and the humor played a big part on that. Shovel Knight is also quite funny at times and is a big title. Now that doesn't mean an indie game needs to be funny to be successful.

If you are developing, say, a horror game (like I am), humor should be used scarcely if at all.

Plenty of great indie games there have limited humor. Examples? Lets start with Cave Story, which is kinda the progenitor of indie games in many ways. It is a cute Metroid-like game with a kinda really kinda dark story and just the right amount of humor. Really, Pixel, the developer, didn't seem to bother adding a lot of humor to it and that is fine. And you know what? C ave Story still is one of the best indie experiences.

FEZ (Phil Fish) was successful and the game has negative amounts of dialogue, let alone humor.

Bastion and Transistor (Supergiant Games) aren't heavy on humor either. I can only think of two occasions where somefin was played for laughs in Transistor, for example.

Rain World has no humor, unless watching the silly animations count as humor.
Momodora games are kinda grim dark (but also cute because of the art). Given the obvious Souls inspiration, it makes sense.
Hollow Knight, Hotline Miami, Hyper Light Drifter, LIMBO, Axiom Verge... Little to no humor.

And those are only games I have on my Steam library.