• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

It's time for us to stop calling games "indie" (Kill Screen)

M

Messofanego

Banned
It's time for us to stop calling games "indie" (Jamin Warren, Kill Screen)


Video accompaniment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8iwDkE8mw4

Read all of it (ESPECIALLY the "It's impossible to define indie games" section), great read. Comparisons to indie music and films with input from people in those industries.

The marketing and commercial advantage of having "indie" games separated from the rest doesn't seem as obvious when Steam is no longer as curated.

It's a catch-all that doesn't work for how varied videogames are, compared to something like indie rock or indie films. Then there's people who turn their nose up at indie games, even though "indie" games have been with us since the 90s (and probably even earlier).

I'll even disagree with one of Jamin's point: I don't think we even need a new language. We have enough compartmentalisation for genres as it is. I'm trying more and more to catch myself from describing some game as indie and instead just the genre itself. Size and production values are now so big with flourishing game engines like Unity or Cryengine that it's not as easy to tell the difference.

indie_inline_star_citizen.jpg


Watch PBS Game/Show, it's real good (if you're into shows like Extra Credits and Errant Signal) and Jamin is a cool dude.
 
I'll agree we made need a new language, or at the very least new terms to include the broader spectrum of video game development/publishing that exists, but I don't think the term should be abolished.
 
Yeah, we should drop the indie term. Especially now it seems to mean entirely different things to different people.

When you have a game such as Journey - a game funded by Sony and the development supported by Sony Santa Monica - commonly called "indie", something is very wrong.
 
Agreed. I would still like to retain the term "indie" as it pertains to development teams, because I think it's important to distinguish and recognize when something was made by a team of 4 people.

But games are games these days - that's all it is.
 
It's a pretty disingenuous article that argues against a term and doesn't even acknowledge its origin, i.e. "independent of a publisher". The term originated to describe a subset of games that is driven by craft and vision without the compromise of a third-party interested in maximizing returns, and I think it's still a valid distinction today.
 
Too bad nobody gets to just decide how words are used and bend the world to their will.

Understand exactly what about indie games makes people label them that way and adjust your understanding of what the word means. Otherwise, prepare for a lifetime of telling the rest of the world how they are using a word incorrectly while nobody cares.
 
It's time for us to stop making videos about games that try to make us look smart
 
Remachinate said:
It's a pretty disingenuous article that argues against a term and doesn't even acknowledge its origin, i.e. "independent of a publisher". The term originated to describe a subset of games that is driven by craft and vision without the compromise of a third-party interested in maximizing returns, and I think it's still a valid distinction today.
Click to expand...

Boom.

And I'd bet everyone has a different definition for "role playing games" too, but it doesn't mean that an actual definition doesn't exists.
 
Remachinate said:
It's a pretty disingenuous article that argues against a term and doesn't even acknowledge its origin, i.e. "independent of a publisher". The term originated to describe a subset of games that is driven by craft and vision without the compromise of a third-party interested in maximizing returns, and I think it's still a valid distinction today.
Click to expand...

shampoowarrior said:
Too bad nobody gets to just decide how words are used and bend the world to their will.

Understand exactly what about indie games makes people label them that way and adjust your understanding of what the word means. Otherwise, prepare for a lifetime of telling the rest of the world how they are using a word incorrectly while nobody cares.
Click to expand...

These two.
 
In the case of games, I feel the term self published or something similar could work. Or maybe it's an awful idea, idk.
 
Remachinate said:
It's a pretty disingenuous article that argues against a term and doesn't even acknowledge its origin, i.e. "independent of a publisher". The term originated to describe a subset of games that is driven by craft and vision without the compromise of a third-party interested in maximizing returns, and I think it's still a valid distinction today.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. I'm sure that there are plenty of developers that are independent of a publisher who still have a profit-motive for making their game. Rather, the indie distinction only really serves to make them a " lesser" quantity as compared to "real" games. Look at some of the derisive posts in older ps4 threads where many dismiss the indie games as not counting, etc.
 
I think of games that are 'indie' to be games that do not have a publisher. However, I see that term used by gaming journalist for indie games that do have publishers and that just make no sense. They're a licensed 3rd party developer for that publisher at that point.
 
ZackieChan said:
I don't agree. I'm sure that there are plenty of developers that are independent of a publisher who still have a profit-motive for making their game. Rather, the indie distinction only really serves to make them a " lesser" quantity as compared to "real" games. Look at some of the derisive posts in older ps4 threads where many dismiss the indie games as not counting, etc.
Click to expand...

Any word or series of words you use to replace indy is going to have a negative connotation.

"Cheaply made"
"Few developers"
"Dudes and/or dudettes in their garage"

Even "Artists whom seek no profit" comes off as elitist and worse.

"Indie" is probably the best term to use.
 
I agree, but honestly, sometimes you need to separate those smaller games in a discussion from the full AAA games. In those cases, it's literally easier to say "indie" than something like "digital-only". I do think that it's not fair to most of these smaller devs making these great games to be relegated to this "indie game" label, and in a lot of cases it's not even accurate, with some of these small games being made by studios like Ubisoft and Sony themselves. I just don't know what a proper substitute would be when you need to make that distinction.
 
Mashing said:
I think of games that are 'indie' to be games that do not have a publisher. However, I see that term used by gaming journalist for indie games that do have publishers and that just make no sense. They're a licensed 3rd party developer for that publisher at that point.
Click to expand...

I don't get it either. "Indie" seems to be seen as the look or the agenda of a game now a days according to them.
 
Remachinate said:
It's a pretty disingenuous article that argues against a term and doesn't even acknowledge its origin, i.e. "independent of a publisher". The term originated to describe a subset of games that is driven by craft and vision without the compromise of a third-party interested in maximizing returns, and I think it's still a valid distinction today.
Click to expand...

This is a very articulate and factual post that sums it all up, really.
 
adamantypants said:
Much like "indie" music and "indie" movies, "indie" games doesn't mean anything anymore.
Click to expand...

Sure it still means something. My roommate has a band, I'd call it local independent music. He only gets paid a bit from local venue ticket sales and CDs that they sell independently. It gives you a good sense of the scale. Small, not well known. Sure the terms can be misused... but that doesn't mean they aren't worth using.

Look at Toma's indie games thread. Lots of small games made by a single or few people which are independently sold or free. Not sure how 'indie' is the wrong label for these games.

He's basically arguing "I dislike this adjective because everything is subjective!" Indie shouldn't be the end all descriptor of a game, but it can be perfectly informative and useful.

Remachinate said:
It's a pretty disingenuous article that argues against a term and doesn't even acknowledge its origin, i.e. "independent of a publisher". The term originated to describe a subset of games that is driven by craft and vision without the compromise of a third-party interested in maximizing returns, and I think it's still a valid distinction today.
Click to expand...

Good post. Totally agree.
 
People now treat 'Indie' and 'AAA' like genres, and that's the main problem. I'd be happy letting developers call themselves independent, because they are, but games should not be divided by budget or the status of the developers.
 
bigbaldwolf86 said:
We should also stop calling games beta and just use the original name

demo
Click to expand...

Betas and demos typically refer to very different things. You can blame publishers for the rebrand.

Beta typically refers to a piece of software that is feature complete but not "finished". Bug fixes, balance changes (for games at least), and a lot of other things still need to be done.

A demo is well... a demo. It serves as a sample and nothing more.
 
Personally I use "Indie" as a way to distinguish between my big budget work that I have done for publishers and the smaller titles that I make in my spare time. I don't think I will be changing this anytime soon either, as it's a neat and seemingly self explanatory way to label my work. I also use "AAA" as a term for not only games like Watch_Dogs, but my lesser known titles, like Wheelman.

However I am pretty sick if seeing Alpha and Beta used as marketing terms. No company in their right mind would even dream of releasing such code to the public. They're just polished pre release demos or at a push, a project's vertical slice.
 
gngf123 said:
Betas and demos typically refer to very different things. You can blame publishers for the rebrand.

Beta typically refers to a piece of software that is feature complete but not "finished". Bug fixes, balance changes (for games at least), and a lot of other things still need to be done.

A demo is well... a demo. It serves as a sample and nothing more.
Click to expand...

I think he means in recent years. Many things can change before release that is true, but in recent years a good chunk of games say they are in beta for the longest time, then the release happens and barely anything changes.

Also regarding to what you say about bug fixes and balance changes. Before they could update easily on the internet that would be correct, but in the age of the internet seeing some companies release unfinished or broken games on release and say "We will patch it, trust us." now a days is a tad annoying.
 
Remachinate said:
It's a pretty disingenuous article that argues against a term and doesn't even acknowledge its origin, i.e. "independent of a publisher". The term originated to describe a subset of games that is driven by craft and vision without the compromise of a third-party interested in maximizing returns, and I think it's still a valid distinction today.
Click to expand...

This is how I've always thought of it. The association with low production values/small teams came later.
 
We should but people will still call them that because it's an easy way to dismiss a game. Just remember the arguments around Journey when goty awards were being discussed.
 
I've always thought of an "indie" game consisting of a few developers (not hundreds like a AAA blockbuster) and free of any big-named publisher like EA, Ubi, etc.
 
Mashing said:
I think of games that are 'indie' to be games that do not have a publisher. However, I see that term used by gaming journalist for indie games that do have publishers and that just make no sense. They're a licensed 3rd party developer for that publisher at that point.
Click to expand...
Rain World is being made by two guys. It's being published by Cartoon Network. Broforce is being published by Devolver Digital. Sheltered is being published by Team17. Pixel Piracy is published by Chucklefish. I still consider them "indie"

I think saying that if a game has a publisher then it's not "indie", doesn't apply anymore considering that studios like Devolver and Chucklefish are giving support to small developers

Personally I feel "indie game" is defined by the context and content of a game. While many AAA games seems to only represent gaming as entertainment, the indie side of gaming has embraced the medium as an art form and in this way, continue to deliver unique original experiences that just can't be found anywhere else and certainly wouldn't be attempted by AAA publishers. Indie developers are free to express ideas, values, narratives that just wouldn't be profitable or perhaps be deemed unfit for mainstream gamers. Would Rockstar or Ubisoft seek to tackle the subject of cancer and its effect on family (That Dragon, Cancer) or lead a player through a world crafted from the history of typography (Type:Rider)? Would a game about a troubled girl's childhood (Journal) focus test well enough to see release or would an experience about building massive self-sustaining autonomous factories on alien worlds (Factorio) be considered too complex and complicated to be released without hand-holding and myriad tutorials and tips? Indie developers are able to breathe life into their wildest concepts and most personal experiences, unfettered by the restrictions and barriers of AAA development, able to tackle concepts and themes that big mainstream developers can't or won't.

In my opinion, that's what makes a game "indie", not factors like publisher or no publisher

Also it should be noted just because a game has a publisher, doesn't mean the developer gets funding. The publisher helps with things like beta testing, press exposure, getting onto Steam, etc
 
ZackieChan said:
I don't agree. I'm sure that there are plenty of developers that are independent of a publisher who still have a profit-motive for making their game.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make them any less independent from a third party figure tho.
 
Remachinate said:
It's a pretty disingenuous article that argues against a term and doesn't even acknowledge its origin, i.e. "independent of a publisher". The term originated to describe a subset of games that is driven by craft and vision without the compromise of a third-party interested in maximizing returns, and I think it's still a valid distinction today.
Click to expand...

This. That is all the term means. It doesn't matter if they are backed by a big or a small publisher. It doesn't denote skill level, size of team, creative focus, profit model or other teams they work with. It doesn't determine success level and it certainly doesn't hinge upon the emotions of console warriors debating terms to fuel an imaginary war.

goldenpp72 said:
I'd rather call it 'game developed by people without a publisher footing the bill'
Click to expand...

That is not what it means. It simply means the development team is not own by a major publishers. Major publishers though can back projects or hire the team to create or work on established IP. Biggest example.... Insomniac Games. They are a large independent dev whose games have been published by Sony, EA, and Microsoft.

TTP said:
That doesn't make them any less independent from a third party figure tho.
Click to expand...

It is funny how people try to say the term is confusing even though it has a pretty solid definition.
 
Why cant we all just agree on the DBZ power level system? Seriously though, the only thing that makes sense is price. $60 games should be weighed and measured against other $60 games. $5 games should be weighed against other $5 games. I think the idea that games should only be weighed against other similar games on the same platform is out dated. People really want to know which is best: Driveclub, Project Cars, or Mario Kart 8. All are $60. One is a publisher backed PS4 exclusive, one is a multiplatform "indie", one is a WiiU publisher backed exclusive. I say, if they are all going to charge $60, they all should be on the same rating scale. But they won't be, now will they?

Driveclub will be held against the strictest standard as PS4 first party exclusive. PCars will benefit from its indie status, thus getting more forgiving review scores. MK8 benefited from the medias clear goal of fueling the console war, and was absolutely NOT held to the same standard as the other two will be.

Review scores and indie tags are more useless than ever.
 
Remachinate said:
It's a pretty disingenuous article that argues against a term and doesn't even acknowledge its origin, i.e. "independent of a publisher". The term originated to describe a subset of games that is driven by craft and vision without the compromise of a third-party interested in maximizing returns, and I think it's still a valid distinction today.
Click to expand...

I liken this to independent films as well. Having a subset of content that isn't relegated to the "money-making" content is great. Shovel Knight is such a terrific game that wouldn't have been made otherwise. I like both "blockbuster" games/films and lesser-known games and films. I don't really think one is superior than the other. I had more fun with Shovel Knight, or at least just as much fun as games from bigger studios. Transformers: Age of Extinction is getting ripped apart in the film scene, but I went to see it, paid money for it, and had a fucking blast with it. It was problematic as hell and Michael Bay does what Michael Bay wants to do, and sometimes I think that's okay, just like I think that the likes of Call of Duty is okay; if people have fun with it, so fucking what?

I can enjoy something like Transformers just as well as I can enjoy independent or more "grounded" content. I generally prefer smarter, more well-made and thought-provoking fare, but there's nothing wrong with having some fun either. The biggest problem with that film was that it was about an hour too long, but most of it was still pretty entertaining so I'm not that hard on it. I can enjoy stuff like that at the same time that I can enjoy and love something like Lost in Translation. Likewise I can enjoy Call of Duty and Silent Hill. They're both very different things that offer very different experiences.
 
Trickster said:
I remember demo's, they were popular back when cheat codes didn't cost money and weren't called dlc. Aah, those were the days
Click to expand...

Yeah those were the days.

Leafhopper said:
In wake of the Destiny thing, that Alpha wasn't an Alpha either, especially if you game comes out 3 months almost 4 months after and most of it is clearly done.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That 'Alpha' was only marketing to generate hype. I still enjoyed it though :p

Phades said:
Who are you referencing here? Beta means gold release to some publishers...
Click to expand...

A lot of publishers who hide behind the beta status. If you have a store front and the game is in beta for 2 years then that's bs. Also betas like Titanfall that was clearly a demo.
 
Is it really a big deal? I think in the end there is just an obvious difference between what most perceive as indie and the AAA market. We could expand upon that with many different names and such but in the end does it really matter? Its just a group of games that are going against what use to be the norm thanks to digital distribution and such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Jez] It's time for Xbox to stop apologizing for its existence
2
96
1K
Thebonehead replied
Roguelite FPS Reveal | KILL BREACH
Trailer Indie 
1
149
Branded replied
'Stop Killing Games' movement gains momentum: California Assembly passes game protection bill
2 3
148
1K
SomeGit replied
It is time for devs to stop treating console gamers like babies
2 3 4 5
210
3K
Boss Mog replied
Whirlight: No Time To Trip - Official Launch Trailer
Trailer Indie 
1
105
mdkirby replied
Top Bottom