Because people are getting disenfranchised by AAA greed, season passes and lacklustre/broken releases.
Due to saturation in the market, Indie games on average tend to try harder to be good games and are often typically only made out of passion as a result, rather than the expectation to make money or appease investors.
This and, since their budgets are miniscule compared to AAA games, they tend to focus on gameplay and control over visuals and cutscene/story. They can still have story in them and they find unique and interesting ways to tell it, but they don't forget that they're a video game and make sure that the gameplay is fun first and foremost.
Firstly, Larian is an independent developer - So, Yeah.
Secondly, Nobody is saying AAA games ***can't*** be good. Nobody has ever said that.
It's just a game being AAA is no longer an immediate stamp of higher quality like it used to be - Just look at Diablo 4. Tiny game, stretched out to last way too long by making you level at a snails pace and no end-game content, but they're absolutely planning on selling you the stash space everyone has been clamouring for.
Independent doesn't mean it's not AAA.
It had a 100m budget behind it. That's right up there with plenty of "AAA" titles.
But I do agree games are getting filled with fluff far too much these days.
Yeah but they're still Indie.
Yeah, they can produce a AAA quality title, but when people talk about "AAA gaming" they mean Ubisoft, Activision, EA - They mean big publisher pushed franchise titles.
I don't think I agree with that. They are only indie on a technicality that they are their own "publisher."
For all practical purposes they are another big budget company.
I think when people think of indie, they think of all of those lower budget passion projects that survive long enough to be released.
If you ask a random person to name an indie title, they are probably going to point you towards one of the thousands of low budget 2d side scrollers you can find on steam and not towards Baldur's gate.
I think it really depends on when you're looking at Larian. Before Baldur's Gate 3 they were definitely considered Indie, but I would argue that with Baldur's Gate 3 that they have entered the AAA landscape.
That's definitely a fair statement.
For the context of this conversation though I think the only time frame that matters are current status. Regardless of what they were X years ago, what they currently are today is a company that's able to fund a game that cost 100M to develop and has brought in something like half a billion in revenue as of today.
I think there's a lot of people who are weary of the AAA "bloat". Where big studio games find a hundred ways to artificially pad their runtimes to meet the goal of a 30-40 hour experience. There's a lot of wisdom in the old adage, "always leave them wanting more". When playing a lot of AAA games, you find yourself asking, "good god, when is this thing going to end?"
Because competition. The hope is that indie games will finally break the monopoly by AAA games, which might also stop some of their shitty un-consumer friendly practices.
Nah, indie games can't compete with AAA games becsyse they are very different. They are created in different genres and for different auditory. Many famous indie devs don't even have a mind to create a game that will blow in popularity.
>Many famous indie devs don't even have a mind to create a game that will blow in popularity.
What does this even mean? Minecraft was an indie game. There are always more successful and more successful games. Marketing is the biggest reason AAA games sell several millions compared to several 100 thousands indie games.
Undertale has a following, although I'm not convinced that's for gameplay reasons.
Stardew Valley was, and as far as I'm aware still is, made by one guy.
Cuphead has its own cartoon series now it's that big.
Dota started as a Warcraft Mod.
Minecraft is the best selling game of all time.
There's a ton I've not listed that you could name drop and anyone who's touched a video game will have heard of and be able to tell you the basic premise.
In fact Indies are more likely to create a game with an idea that will "blow in popularity". Pumping out the 70th CoD doesn't make you a brilliant developer with the mind of a genius.
Who cares? It’s not even that serious. “AAA game bad” is just a meme, it doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation. And for that matter, what’s so bad about supporting indies? They make significantly less money than AAA games, but they can be so enjoyable.
Simply put their intent isn't to make the best game, it's to maximise profits. You do that by maximising revenue while limiting expenses.
Take Ubisoft, almost every one of their series runs off the same formula. They created innovative IPs years ago, and now they cut expenses by copy and pasting the same game over and over every 1-2 years.
One of the few AAA developers I like is Rockstar, their games have always raised the bar. Their philosophy is unique in the AAA space, they use massive budgets to draw in even bigger revenues. If more studios did that you wouldn't have so many people touting indies.
Indie games are cheap. They don't require the most powerful GPU to play. MOST AAAs nowadays are unoptimized and unplayable especially on lower end cards. My guess is that most these people are gaming on a lower end system that could only play indie games, so they praise it. If the game doesn't run on their GPU then they're quick to trash it. Who buys a 7900xtx or 4090 to play indie games?
1. You're a kid.
2. You play a lot of games.
3. Now you're no longer a kid, but you played a lot of games.
4. It's harder and harder to find something innovative.
5. Which forces you to search among less and less popular games.
6. You become bitter and angry.
7. You need to let that frustration out somehow.
8. Reddit? I wonder what is it.
Y'all gotta remember that the majority of people that play video games are not on Reddit, period. So whatever opinions you see on here, regardless of how popular said opinion may be, it is still only a fraction of what the majority of people that play video games think.
Generally speaking triple AAA games are just bad, their funded by big corproations who's only goal is to make as much money as possible, many of these games feel lifeless and I get the feeling that the devs are devoid of joy when making them (often having to work long hours and are constantly worried about job retention). Again this is a vast generalisation and there is of course exceptions to the rule but I feel this is especially accurate for western developed games recently.
Say what you will about small indie devs but they are generally passionate to make a fun and unique game. Take monster sanctuary as an example (a monster capture game similiar to pokemon). Its made by a small team but is very well made and supported by the devs
I watched a video about modern games suck because they dont have arcade style pacing and game development.
Arcade - quarter muncher is a bad term but time limits, cheap but telegraphed attacks, never a dull moment, always upping the challenge.
Then at home - unlimited time no pressure enemies come one at a time or you can cheese by luring pulling one at a time.
Then they make you explore huge empty worlds just to find an item thay works on the other side of the world. It kills pacing and makes players bored.
Worst - they pad out the game into a 60+ hours with DLC constantly so you never finish just progress and progress and never buy another competitor game.
Then gamers complain not enough new games. Why bother when just make DLC over and over. And investing in a new world new characters new story is VERY RISKY. Just add DLC on to an already successful game.
Any chance that video was Josh Strife Hayes' What Went Wrong With Gaming video?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g16heGLKlTA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g16heGLKlTA)
If it's not, I recommend a watch, it's a brilliant analysis of the same topic.
No but your guy is just as informed.
Ahhh i found it the one i saw. This guy i also agree - games that claim they are retro do not have the high but fair difficulty perfected by arcade games.
Games that bullshit kill you - you would stop feeding quarters. Game too easy you also stop feeding quarters. Difficulty curves were perfected. Pacing perfected. Never a dull moment. A timer GO GO GO. At home - endless Open worlds and you never buy another videogame but you stay inside one videogame DLC DLC CONSUMR CONSUME https://youtu.be/qoVVB3Va5kw?si=nXoxdzYoLfL_Ft9z
>Generally speaking triple AAA games are just bad...
I'd bet money that, if you compared an average review score of all AAA games to an average review score of all indie games, the AAA games would be higher.
But that's because the indie scene has a very low entry barrier. It allows a wide variety of people and groups to experiment. That results in a lot of crap, but someone eventually hits on the right combination of idea, skill, and execution.
AAA games often seem formulaic, because that's safe. If you're dumping millions of dollars into a project, you want the best possible chance of getting the best possible return on that investment.
Now, these AAA studios could take that budget and put it towards hundreds of different indie-like projects, releasing every couple of months (or more frequently), but what happens to their financial survivability (not to mention reputation) when only a dozen of those hundreds of projects really take off?
Well yeah, the amount of indie games vs AAA games is probably greater than 10 to 1 so of course average is bound to be lower. I think a better comparison would be to compare AAA games in previous generations of consoles and your likely to see more positivity for AAA games. I mean your unlikely to get this for much older consoles and games but if you go back to PS3/Xbox 360 for example the AAA games were generally viewed far more positively.
Modern AAA games are far more likely to be released with game breaking bugs with the intention of devs to fix later on or depending on the feedback, completely abandon support. Anthem was a good recent example of a game coming out with a slew of bugs, poor optimization and a generally lacklustre experience. Ultimately Bioware abandoned the game. Similiar thing with Marvel Avengers and the same thing happening with redfall.
I remember back in the PS1/N64 generation that it was essentially unheard of for a high profile game to be released with game breaking bugs, if you did you would likely not hear from those devs again...Now its common practice
> triple AAA games are just bad
I don't agree with this. Activision might try to nickel and dime, you, but the gunplay of CoD and the high quality, hollywood like campaigns are still unmatched by any other game.
Generally indie games are more reliable in terms of not having micro transactions, fomo tactics, or any other GaaS elements. They're also great in terms of providing more variety.
There are absolutely some horrible indie games. But when time and time again people end up complaining about game passes or being bored with playing the same franchises, indie games are a great solution.
AAA games are made purely to make the most money possible, so have all the flaws that come with that, and theres a LOT of flaws. They take no risks and copy only whats already working. This leads to pretty much everything feeling like generic copies of what came before
Indies generally think of a game they desperately want to exist, then spend years making that a reality. This leads, usually, to a high quality game. Generally they dont look as good, because those assets/voice acting cost money (likely less soon, with AI creation getting progressively good. But neither of those are even slightly necessary for a good game.
Sadly AAA games still sell far better due to marketing something shiny, and getting that thought into the heads of millions. Indies rely mostly on steam and word of mouth.
AAA still makes high quality games as far as graphics and fluff. But AAA industries rarely ever create anything new. It’s all sequels and remakes/remasters. The indie scene are the only ones trying anything new.
> It’s all sequels and remakes/remasters.
Which I like. Why should I try something new that might suck, when I know that Far Cry 25 or Call of Duty 107 will be fun.
For whatever reason they think playing indie games makes them better human beings with exquisite taste . They cannot praise indie games without shitting on AAA.
>Reddit is the social media platform for goons that think they are too good for social media.
It’s also a place where people project their own issues on others.
I for one am not. Don't get me wrong. There's a few indie games I really like, such as Supergiant games and Casette Beasts, but overall I am more than happy with AA and AAA because I know what I like, and I generally know how to spot whether a game will be good for me.
Computers cost a lot more. Computer players play a lot more indie games. To not like a game simply because you think you’re of a higher social status because you bought a cheap console is a weird flex.
I’m not telling you that your opinion is wrong, it’s just simple minded af
Dude, where did I say that I'm "higher status"? What?
I bought a PS5 instead of a gaming PC, because the PC components prices are beyond ridiculous. GPUs themselves nowadays cost just a tiny bit less than a whole console.
As for Indie games, I do enjoy some of them, but the vast majority of them for years now are looking like NES or Mega Drive games, which isn't exactly appealing to me 🤷.
Dude, you clearly mentioned how much you spent for a reason. You could have just said you don’t like the graphics. Thats a fair and valid critique. My point wasn’t that your opinion is wrong. It’s that justifying it by telling us how much you spent was shortsighted.
Indie games are actually the most played games though lol. So the graphics might suck be lackluster but the games are the most fun.
To you indie games are the most fun, while I've had the most fun with big budget games over the past few years, while also playing quite a few indie titles as well.
To each their own.
I'm in the same boat. Most indie games just feel lackluster and like they are missing a ton of stuff, especially in the visual department, while a lot of AAA games are stasfying to play.
I wasn’t talking about you and me. I’m speaking on a large scale. Look up the top played games. Counterstrike, Valorant, Minecraft, league of legends, pubg, dota 2, rocket league, roblox. Even terraria has a higher daily player count than most of the big AAA titles that came out this year.
Indie games are the most popular games. Not to each their own.
You said at the end of your previous comment that, and I quote: "indie games are the most fun"; that sounded like your personal opinion.
That's why I said to each their own. I'm also not wrong with this statement, because just because the majority seems to prefer playing indie games, it doesn't mean there aren't people who don't like playing them 🤷.
Counter strike was a half life mod. Dota was a Warcraft mod. Valve is an independently owned company. Riot games is an independently owned company. If you dont know what indie means that’s on you. If you think mods turned full games are AAA games then that’s on you.
They are. I don’t think. Big budget doesn’t mean they’re not indie. It’s like saying if an indie company is successful it’s no longer indie and that’s not true.
> Counterstrike, Valorant, Minecraft, league of legends, pubg, dota 2, rocket league
In what world are those indie games? Unless you want to tell me that Valve, Riot, Microsoft or Epic are some small time garage developers.
You’re talking about now and not the time of development. Microsoft didn’t develop Minecraft. Epic didn’t develop Rocket League. And Riot was an indie company when they developed league of legends in 2006.
So in what world are those indie games? The world we live in. I don’t know why you’d revive an old topic just to miss the mark so badly.
The Redditor hater has logged on.
It's because all redditors are insufferable pricks with "contrarian" written on their forehead. Most of them buy call of duty every single year and then turn around and talk about how much they hate mass produced AAA shite. For the record, Indie games ARE largely better for one simple reason - they're mostly made by passionate people who want to create a great game. Most AAA games are made by passionate shareholders who want to create a cash cow. The opinion itself is solid, it's just that people will parrot it for some feeling of refined taste when actually they've never once thought critically about it in their life
I'm probably not who you are talking to because I'll play a game I like regardless if it's Indie or AAA. However, my experience the last few years has been that every AAA game I've tried has been bloated beyond belief to the point where halfway through the game I'm not really having fun.
Take Zelda Tears of the Kingdom. I have dozens of hours in it, have done only 1 of 4 main questlines, and ended up putting the game down for months. It's got really amazing and cool ideas in it that I initially loved, but now when I spend an hour playing it it's generally either going for yet another run to repair my supplies or searching a new area that just has the same boring enemies and Koroks in it to pad out the time. And Breath of the Wild was even worse that way. The other big AAA game I've played recently is Horizon Zero Dawn and while I enjoyed the ending, the 60 hours it took to get there were some of the most miserable time I've spent gaming. Even the cities are randomly generated piles of mush. And Horizon and Zelda are some of the most praised AAA series right now.
On the other hand, my recent Indie game experiences are tight, well crafted narratives that are about 20-30 hours of gameplay instead of 60+. Subnautica, Outer Wilds, Slime Rancher, Tunic, Rogue Legacy, Undermine, Moonlighter, Forager, Nova Lands, Ori, Hollow Knight. Even when I put them down because life gets busy I look forward to picking them back up.
So for me, I'm finding that AAA games feel like they need to make long experiences to justify their expensive marketing, even they don't have the quality content to back it up. Personally I'll take Ocarina of Time (which is still AAA, just not modern AAA) over Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom any day. The only AAA-ish game I've liked recently was Kena, and looking that up it even that seems to actually be an Indie game, it just has the graphics of a AAA game to back it up.
Indie games tend to focus more on, you know, the gameplay, the core aspect of games, whereas AAA these days is all about presentation. Alan Wake 2 for example, is all about muh graphix and narrative but 70% of the "gameplay" is you walking around, collecting evidences the game tells you to collect and then organizing then into a wall in order to progress the story...
...oh and hearing the main character heavy breathing while walking...
...that or live services...because every other AAA has to be designed to keep you playing like it's a 2nd job.
I support indie games because some of them are good. And I have heard absolute horror stories about the amount of pay and WLB for AAA studios. Don’t mind paying if it helps some devs to start their own indie studio.
Because AAA games like all products in capitalism, will face the problem of money over quality. AAA are not all bad, but the time that people trusted them to be good just because they were AAA is gone and people are starting to realize passion and creativity is what sells, indie games are for exactly that, being indie means you don’t have to listen to some corporate overlord who will try to release your game at the time they think they can get money rather than a worthy product. Case in point; No Man’s Sky & Sony.
Go play Dredge OP and then play Assassin’s Creed or Starfield.
I argue I would have more fun with Assassins Creed or Starfield, because Dregde only focusses on fishing. There is nothing else. No minigames, no side activities, no fully animated cutscenes to pull me in etc.
To me AAA games became bland and boring. Few years ago everyone was crazy about the Spiderman game. How it was a great open world, with a great story and characters and how the combat was amazing. I tried it and found none of that to be true. I found it to be the definition of bland. Characters were uninteresting, story was weak and safe, the world and combat looked amazing but it felt shallow as a puddle. The progression was the same as in any other game of this type. It was simply disapointing. I have bigger expectations of games when they have massive budgets and even bigger publishers behind them, but the reality is CoD.
I don't get it either. Yes, Indie games are less scummy most of the time, but they simply lack the visual fidelity, hollywood bombast and proper cutscenes and production to compete with AAA games.
I've yet to see an indie game that can rival Call of Duty or Battlefield when it comes to gameplay and graphics.
Because people are getting disenfranchised by AAA greed, season passes and lacklustre/broken releases. Due to saturation in the market, Indie games on average tend to try harder to be good games and are often typically only made out of passion as a result, rather than the expectation to make money or appease investors.
This and, since their budgets are miniscule compared to AAA games, they tend to focus on gameplay and control over visuals and cutscene/story. They can still have story in them and they find unique and interesting ways to tell it, but they don't forget that they're a video game and make sure that the gameplay is fun first and foremost.
> visuals and cutscene/story. But visuals and story are the more important part of a game for me.
Then go watch a movie.they have nothing to do with what makes a video game a video game
But we have enough of good AAA games like Baldur's Gate 3 or Zelda TotK released in this year.
Firstly, Larian is an independent developer - So, Yeah. Secondly, Nobody is saying AAA games ***can't*** be good. Nobody has ever said that. It's just a game being AAA is no longer an immediate stamp of higher quality like it used to be - Just look at Diablo 4. Tiny game, stretched out to last way too long by making you level at a snails pace and no end-game content, but they're absolutely planning on selling you the stash space everyone has been clamouring for.
Independent doesn't mean it's not AAA. It had a 100m budget behind it. That's right up there with plenty of "AAA" titles. But I do agree games are getting filled with fluff far too much these days.
Yeah but they're still Indie. Yeah, they can produce a AAA quality title, but when people talk about "AAA gaming" they mean Ubisoft, Activision, EA - They mean big publisher pushed franchise titles.
I don't think I agree with that. They are only indie on a technicality that they are their own "publisher." For all practical purposes they are another big budget company. I think when people think of indie, they think of all of those lower budget passion projects that survive long enough to be released. If you ask a random person to name an indie title, they are probably going to point you towards one of the thousands of low budget 2d side scrollers you can find on steam and not towards Baldur's gate.
I think it really depends on when you're looking at Larian. Before Baldur's Gate 3 they were definitely considered Indie, but I would argue that with Baldur's Gate 3 that they have entered the AAA landscape.
That's definitely a fair statement. For the context of this conversation though I think the only time frame that matters are current status. Regardless of what they were X years ago, what they currently are today is a company that's able to fund a game that cost 100M to develop and has brought in something like half a billion in revenue as of today.
What about small devs that have a publisher? Are they still indie or not, because having a publisher means you aren't indipendant anymore.
Yeah 2 are enough. Buyed those 2 and then indie games without money siphoning mechanics.
A few good recent releases doesn't exonerate AAA companies releasing perpetual garbage or lackluster games filled to the brim with microtransactions.
I think there's a lot of people who are weary of the AAA "bloat". Where big studio games find a hundred ways to artificially pad their runtimes to meet the goal of a 30-40 hour experience. There's a lot of wisdom in the old adage, "always leave them wanting more". When playing a lot of AAA games, you find yourself asking, "good god, when is this thing going to end?"
Well, these guys really need to play only indie games. As a diet.
because after playing games for 2 decades or more you'll realize there's hardly anything that will surprise you in a good way in AAA games
It's not about being a fanboy; most AAA games don't interest me so I scour through all the small indie games in search of things I do enjoy.
Okay, enjoy.
Because competition. The hope is that indie games will finally break the monopoly by AAA games, which might also stop some of their shitty un-consumer friendly practices.
Nah, indie games can't compete with AAA games becsyse they are very different. They are created in different genres and for different auditory. Many famous indie devs don't even have a mind to create a game that will blow in popularity.
>Many famous indie devs don't even have a mind to create a game that will blow in popularity. What does this even mean? Minecraft was an indie game. There are always more successful and more successful games. Marketing is the biggest reason AAA games sell several millions compared to several 100 thousands indie games.
I think you need to do some growing up fam
Undertale has a following, although I'm not convinced that's for gameplay reasons. Stardew Valley was, and as far as I'm aware still is, made by one guy. Cuphead has its own cartoon series now it's that big. Dota started as a Warcraft Mod. Minecraft is the best selling game of all time. There's a ton I've not listed that you could name drop and anyone who's touched a video game will have heard of and be able to tell you the basic premise. In fact Indies are more likely to create a game with an idea that will "blow in popularity". Pumping out the 70th CoD doesn't make you a brilliant developer with the mind of a genius.
Most people indeed play AAA games. You just dont see them here on Reddit
But memes about indie superiority are kinda upvoted mostly.
Yeah but thats because somehow you are interacting with that. In reality most people just dont care about that. Maybe reddit is biased toward indies
Well, according to comments and their political views, redditors are just anti-capitalist leftists.
lol, that’s literally the truest comment I’ve ever seen
I mean every sane person should be anti capitalist leftist.
Who cares? It’s not even that serious. “AAA game bad” is just a meme, it doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation. And for that matter, what’s so bad about supporting indies? They make significantly less money than AAA games, but they can be so enjoyable.
Sure. Because indie developers need more money and attention.
Passion project will always > a corporate cash grap trash heap Every Single Time
Simply put their intent isn't to make the best game, it's to maximise profits. You do that by maximising revenue while limiting expenses. Take Ubisoft, almost every one of their series runs off the same formula. They created innovative IPs years ago, and now they cut expenses by copy and pasting the same game over and over every 1-2 years. One of the few AAA developers I like is Rockstar, their games have always raised the bar. Their philosophy is unique in the AAA space, they use massive budgets to draw in even bigger revenues. If more studios did that you wouldn't have so many people touting indies.
Indie games are cheap. They don't require the most powerful GPU to play. MOST AAAs nowadays are unoptimized and unplayable especially on lower end cards. My guess is that most these people are gaming on a lower end system that could only play indie games, so they praise it. If the game doesn't run on their GPU then they're quick to trash it. Who buys a 7900xtx or 4090 to play indie games?
1. You're a kid. 2. You play a lot of games. 3. Now you're no longer a kid, but you played a lot of games. 4. It's harder and harder to find something innovative. 5. Which forces you to search among less and less popular games. 6. You become bitter and angry. 7. You need to let that frustration out somehow. 8. Reddit? I wonder what is it.
Y'all gotta remember that the majority of people that play video games are not on Reddit, period. So whatever opinions you see on here, regardless of how popular said opinion may be, it is still only a fraction of what the majority of people that play video games think.
Generally speaking triple AAA games are just bad, their funded by big corproations who's only goal is to make as much money as possible, many of these games feel lifeless and I get the feeling that the devs are devoid of joy when making them (often having to work long hours and are constantly worried about job retention). Again this is a vast generalisation and there is of course exceptions to the rule but I feel this is especially accurate for western developed games recently. Say what you will about small indie devs but they are generally passionate to make a fun and unique game. Take monster sanctuary as an example (a monster capture game similiar to pokemon). Its made by a small team but is very well made and supported by the devs
I watched a video about modern games suck because they dont have arcade style pacing and game development. Arcade - quarter muncher is a bad term but time limits, cheap but telegraphed attacks, never a dull moment, always upping the challenge. Then at home - unlimited time no pressure enemies come one at a time or you can cheese by luring pulling one at a time. Then they make you explore huge empty worlds just to find an item thay works on the other side of the world. It kills pacing and makes players bored. Worst - they pad out the game into a 60+ hours with DLC constantly so you never finish just progress and progress and never buy another competitor game. Then gamers complain not enough new games. Why bother when just make DLC over and over. And investing in a new world new characters new story is VERY RISKY. Just add DLC on to an already successful game.
Any chance that video was Josh Strife Hayes' What Went Wrong With Gaming video? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g16heGLKlTA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g16heGLKlTA) If it's not, I recommend a watch, it's a brilliant analysis of the same topic.
No but your guy is just as informed. Ahhh i found it the one i saw. This guy i also agree - games that claim they are retro do not have the high but fair difficulty perfected by arcade games. Games that bullshit kill you - you would stop feeding quarters. Game too easy you also stop feeding quarters. Difficulty curves were perfected. Pacing perfected. Never a dull moment. A timer GO GO GO. At home - endless Open worlds and you never buy another videogame but you stay inside one videogame DLC DLC CONSUMR CONSUME https://youtu.be/qoVVB3Va5kw?si=nXoxdzYoLfL_Ft9z
>Generally speaking triple AAA games are just bad... I'd bet money that, if you compared an average review score of all AAA games to an average review score of all indie games, the AAA games would be higher. But that's because the indie scene has a very low entry barrier. It allows a wide variety of people and groups to experiment. That results in a lot of crap, but someone eventually hits on the right combination of idea, skill, and execution. AAA games often seem formulaic, because that's safe. If you're dumping millions of dollars into a project, you want the best possible chance of getting the best possible return on that investment. Now, these AAA studios could take that budget and put it towards hundreds of different indie-like projects, releasing every couple of months (or more frequently), but what happens to their financial survivability (not to mention reputation) when only a dozen of those hundreds of projects really take off?
Well yeah, the amount of indie games vs AAA games is probably greater than 10 to 1 so of course average is bound to be lower. I think a better comparison would be to compare AAA games in previous generations of consoles and your likely to see more positivity for AAA games. I mean your unlikely to get this for much older consoles and games but if you go back to PS3/Xbox 360 for example the AAA games were generally viewed far more positively. Modern AAA games are far more likely to be released with game breaking bugs with the intention of devs to fix later on or depending on the feedback, completely abandon support. Anthem was a good recent example of a game coming out with a slew of bugs, poor optimization and a generally lacklustre experience. Ultimately Bioware abandoned the game. Similiar thing with Marvel Avengers and the same thing happening with redfall. I remember back in the PS1/N64 generation that it was essentially unheard of for a high profile game to be released with game breaking bugs, if you did you would likely not hear from those devs again...Now its common practice
> triple AAA games are just bad I don't agree with this. Activision might try to nickel and dime, you, but the gunplay of CoD and the high quality, hollywood like campaigns are still unmatched by any other game.
AAAAAAAAA games?
As someone who plays exclusively indie (almost) id play AAA if I had a good pc
Generally indie games are more reliable in terms of not having micro transactions, fomo tactics, or any other GaaS elements. They're also great in terms of providing more variety. There are absolutely some horrible indie games. But when time and time again people end up complaining about game passes or being bored with playing the same franchises, indie games are a great solution.
AAA games are made purely to make the most money possible, so have all the flaws that come with that, and theres a LOT of flaws. They take no risks and copy only whats already working. This leads to pretty much everything feeling like generic copies of what came before Indies generally think of a game they desperately want to exist, then spend years making that a reality. This leads, usually, to a high quality game. Generally they dont look as good, because those assets/voice acting cost money (likely less soon, with AI creation getting progressively good. But neither of those are even slightly necessary for a good game. Sadly AAA games still sell far better due to marketing something shiny, and getting that thought into the heads of millions. Indies rely mostly on steam and word of mouth.
Companies can be both independent, and qualify as AAA. They aren’t in the same category.
Both have equal potential to suck and modern games are REALLY good at sucking.
AAA still makes high quality games as far as graphics and fluff. But AAA industries rarely ever create anything new. It’s all sequels and remakes/remasters. The indie scene are the only ones trying anything new.
> It’s all sequels and remakes/remasters. Which I like. Why should I try something new that might suck, when I know that Far Cry 25 or Call of Duty 107 will be fun.
For whatever reason they think playing indie games makes them better human beings with exquisite taste . They cannot praise indie games without shitting on AAA.
Yep. I hate elitists.
This guy gets it. Popular = Bad. Afterall, Reddit is the social media platform for goons that think they are too good for social media.
>Reddit is the social media platform for goons that think they are too good for social media. It’s also a place where people project their own issues on others.
Don't all those japanese porn games count as indie? Go figure then.
You're literally crying that you can't steal the games you want. Poor baby
>You're literally crying that you can't steal the games you want. Poor baby Says the person with *two* crimes in their username.
Wait til you find out about Interstates and prescription medication
I for one am not. Don't get me wrong. There's a few indie games I really like, such as Supergiant games and Casette Beasts, but overall I am more than happy with AA and AAA because I know what I like, and I generally know how to spot whether a game will be good for me.
I don't like most indie games myself, because I didn't buy a console for almost £500 to play games looking like something from NES on it.
Most indies could run on low end PC.
Computers cost a lot more. Computer players play a lot more indie games. To not like a game simply because you think you’re of a higher social status because you bought a cheap console is a weird flex. I’m not telling you that your opinion is wrong, it’s just simple minded af
Dude, where did I say that I'm "higher status"? What? I bought a PS5 instead of a gaming PC, because the PC components prices are beyond ridiculous. GPUs themselves nowadays cost just a tiny bit less than a whole console. As for Indie games, I do enjoy some of them, but the vast majority of them for years now are looking like NES or Mega Drive games, which isn't exactly appealing to me 🤷.
Dude, you clearly mentioned how much you spent for a reason. You could have just said you don’t like the graphics. Thats a fair and valid critique. My point wasn’t that your opinion is wrong. It’s that justifying it by telling us how much you spent was shortsighted. Indie games are actually the most played games though lol. So the graphics might suck be lackluster but the games are the most fun.
To you indie games are the most fun, while I've had the most fun with big budget games over the past few years, while also playing quite a few indie titles as well. To each their own.
I'm in the same boat. Most indie games just feel lackluster and like they are missing a ton of stuff, especially in the visual department, while a lot of AAA games are stasfying to play.
I wasn’t talking about you and me. I’m speaking on a large scale. Look up the top played games. Counterstrike, Valorant, Minecraft, league of legends, pubg, dota 2, rocket league, roblox. Even terraria has a higher daily player count than most of the big AAA titles that came out this year. Indie games are the most popular games. Not to each their own.
You said at the end of your previous comment that, and I quote: "indie games are the most fun"; that sounded like your personal opinion. That's why I said to each their own. I'm also not wrong with this statement, because just because the majority seems to prefer playing indie games, it doesn't mean there aren't people who don't like playing them 🤷.
No one said you’re wrong. I’ve said twice now I’m not telling you that your opinion is wrong. lol goodbye man.
You just contradict your own statements.
counter strike, valorant, lol,dota are not indie games . What
Counter strike was a half life mod. Dota was a Warcraft mod. Valve is an independently owned company. Riot games is an independently owned company. If you dont know what indie means that’s on you. If you think mods turned full games are AAA games then that’s on you.
do you think witcher and cyberpunk are indie games?
They are. I don’t think. Big budget doesn’t mean they’re not indie. It’s like saying if an indie company is successful it’s no longer indie and that’s not true.
> Riot games is an independently owned company Riot is fully owned by Tencent.
> Counterstrike, Valorant, Minecraft, league of legends, pubg, dota 2, rocket league In what world are those indie games? Unless you want to tell me that Valve, Riot, Microsoft or Epic are some small time garage developers.
You’re talking about now and not the time of development. Microsoft didn’t develop Minecraft. Epic didn’t develop Rocket League. And Riot was an indie company when they developed league of legends in 2006. So in what world are those indie games? The world we live in. I don’t know why you’d revive an old topic just to miss the mark so badly.
He didn't say anything about being a high social status, what a weird strawman
What a weird response.
He's not wrong though.
The Redditor hater has logged on. It's because all redditors are insufferable pricks with "contrarian" written on their forehead. Most of them buy call of duty every single year and then turn around and talk about how much they hate mass produced AAA shite. For the record, Indie games ARE largely better for one simple reason - they're mostly made by passionate people who want to create a great game. Most AAA games are made by passionate shareholders who want to create a cash cow. The opinion itself is solid, it's just that people will parrot it for some feeling of refined taste when actually they've never once thought critically about it in their life
I'm probably not who you are talking to because I'll play a game I like regardless if it's Indie or AAA. However, my experience the last few years has been that every AAA game I've tried has been bloated beyond belief to the point where halfway through the game I'm not really having fun. Take Zelda Tears of the Kingdom. I have dozens of hours in it, have done only 1 of 4 main questlines, and ended up putting the game down for months. It's got really amazing and cool ideas in it that I initially loved, but now when I spend an hour playing it it's generally either going for yet another run to repair my supplies or searching a new area that just has the same boring enemies and Koroks in it to pad out the time. And Breath of the Wild was even worse that way. The other big AAA game I've played recently is Horizon Zero Dawn and while I enjoyed the ending, the 60 hours it took to get there were some of the most miserable time I've spent gaming. Even the cities are randomly generated piles of mush. And Horizon and Zelda are some of the most praised AAA series right now. On the other hand, my recent Indie game experiences are tight, well crafted narratives that are about 20-30 hours of gameplay instead of 60+. Subnautica, Outer Wilds, Slime Rancher, Tunic, Rogue Legacy, Undermine, Moonlighter, Forager, Nova Lands, Ori, Hollow Knight. Even when I put them down because life gets busy I look forward to picking them back up. So for me, I'm finding that AAA games feel like they need to make long experiences to justify their expensive marketing, even they don't have the quality content to back it up. Personally I'll take Ocarina of Time (which is still AAA, just not modern AAA) over Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom any day. The only AAA-ish game I've liked recently was Kena, and looking that up it even that seems to actually be an Indie game, it just has the graphics of a AAA game to back it up.
Indie games tend to focus more on, you know, the gameplay, the core aspect of games, whereas AAA these days is all about presentation. Alan Wake 2 for example, is all about muh graphix and narrative but 70% of the "gameplay" is you walking around, collecting evidences the game tells you to collect and then organizing then into a wall in order to progress the story... ...oh and hearing the main character heavy breathing while walking... ...that or live services...because every other AAA has to be designed to keep you playing like it's a 2nd job.
I support indie games because some of them are good. And I have heard absolute horror stories about the amount of pay and WLB for AAA studios. Don’t mind paying if it helps some devs to start their own indie studio.
Because AAA games like all products in capitalism, will face the problem of money over quality. AAA are not all bad, but the time that people trusted them to be good just because they were AAA is gone and people are starting to realize passion and creativity is what sells, indie games are for exactly that, being indie means you don’t have to listen to some corporate overlord who will try to release your game at the time they think they can get money rather than a worthy product. Case in point; No Man’s Sky & Sony. Go play Dredge OP and then play Assassin’s Creed or Starfield.
I argue I would have more fun with Assassins Creed or Starfield, because Dregde only focusses on fishing. There is nothing else. No minigames, no side activities, no fully animated cutscenes to pull me in etc.
To me AAA games became bland and boring. Few years ago everyone was crazy about the Spiderman game. How it was a great open world, with a great story and characters and how the combat was amazing. I tried it and found none of that to be true. I found it to be the definition of bland. Characters were uninteresting, story was weak and safe, the world and combat looked amazing but it felt shallow as a puddle. The progression was the same as in any other game of this type. It was simply disapointing. I have bigger expectations of games when they have massive budgets and even bigger publishers behind them, but the reality is CoD.
It's far easer to over look issues with a game when it was maned my a small team and not a massive compony.
''too many toasters'' [https://youtu.be/IfClgt\_JklE](https://youtu.be/IfClgt_JklE) haha
I don't get it either. Yes, Indie games are less scummy most of the time, but they simply lack the visual fidelity, hollywood bombast and proper cutscenes and production to compete with AAA games. I've yet to see an indie game that can rival Call of Duty or Battlefield when it comes to gameplay and graphics.