Hot takes

[dropsmegamega]

I'm not saying that any of these games don't develop or alter (or even improve!) elements of the games that they're based on. But I am absolutely saying that, from their conception, they're unoriginal – and, by definition, repetitive and tedious.

I'd go even further and say that 99% of these are actually worse than the games they are inspired on. You can have something like Deedlit whose movement technically flows better than Simphony of the Night, but completely missing the point because you can move so fast that you simply kill 99% of the enemies before they can even attack you. Undertale is objectively a much shorter and lazier game compared to Earthbound in pretty much everything, only that it hides the repetitiveness of the combat with that awful bullet hell gimmick. Most of these famous 2D indie plats are a one gimmick thing with little variety. And yet everyone talks as if they are the saviors of gaming.

That being said, there are a few more unique indie games, or at least original enough, one that comes to mind is Hypnospace Outlaw, but they are as rare as the good AAA.

 

[Zemus]

I don't have many words for the indie scene because I hardly know any of the games being mentioned. Even throughout thousands of hours of free time in every corner of the Internet imaginable I never felt compelled to pick one up. I figure that's telling of something.

But while we're on hot takes, the word annoys me whenever I see it. If it's independent, it's not part of a scene. If it's part of a scene, it's not independent.

 

[MasterEn]

It's more of a re-make/new viewpoint kind of thing.

huh. i didn't recall much about it. i saw that the game grumps played it but i never got around to watching them play it. hopefully its interesting to play.

 

[vitad00d]

I think the indie gaming space is fundamentally broken – just as much, if not more so, than the modern AAA space. And there's one big reason for it: lack of originality. Think about whenever you see a modern indie game get really big and popular, like Undertale (spit), Stardew Valley, or even UFO 50. Isn't it funny how about 95% of them are based on an older game? Undertale is Earthbound. Stardew Valley is Harvest Moon. UFO 50 is Action 52. Every modern Metroidvania is Super Metroid and/or Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Lethal League/Bomb Rush Cyberfunk is Jet Set Radio. Minecraft is Infiniminer. Again and again. The same games. Repeatedly endlessly. FOREVER.

Every interesting medium has a golden age where it is authentically generative and vital––then that period ends, and there's a long postmodern/dancing-on-the-grave period, where old ideas get recycled with an ironic or self-reflexive coat of paint. Irony and self-reflexiveness keep mediums alive when they've quietly exceeded their natural life. My feeling is that we're in that stage with videogames. There was a premodern period, spanning roughly from like 1975-1984, then an essential/peak period, running from, like ~1985-2010, and now we're in the afterglow,where it's hard to envision anything new, and so the best things that come out are a backwards-looking synthesis of existing ideas, forms, feelings, and images. Work that is still new-feeling can emerge, but it's like the light of heaven has gone elsewhere, and it's a much rarer event. Whether or not videogames can move forward as an industry and artform/entertainment medium will depend on whether devs can envision a new way forward, or even imagine the need to. The industry may need to hit rock bottom first and completely fail to connect––then, potentially, a renaissance stage/golden age 2.0 might emerge.

 

[RageBurner]

Yeah, we may need a new Atari levels of market fracture to see a re-emergence. I was E.T that got consigned to the landfill back in the day, both literally and figuratively. I have to wonder what it will be this time. Probably something by EA, Ubisoft or Bethesda that will finally crack the market's weave.

 

[Gorse]

First of all, let me just say that you guys were way kinder than I thought you'd be! Reading your replies has been fantastic, and I'm pretty sure we're all on the same wavelength. In reply:

While I agree with the rest of your post, would like to point out that Minecraft, unlike the rest of your examples, presented a proper expansion of Infiniminer's formula.

Minecraft is the sticky wicket to my argument, because I genuinely believe it is a medium-defining, progressive game that absolutely deserves to exist. But I had to list it because, like it or not, it's a game built on Infiniminer's foundation – Notch admits as much, and Zachtronic (developer of Infiniminer) agrees. At the very least, I'll say that Infiniminer, at the time, wasn't as heavily "inspiration overdosed" as something like Earthbound or Super Metroid is today.

I agree with you on a fundamental level, but Id like to offer a gentle counter point.

Let me give you an example: take Wargroove and its sequel, plus some other upcoming Advance Wars likes. At face value you could say that there are too many of those and the market is saturated and unoriginal, but consider that N hasn't done anything with it since Days of Ruin; people miss it, people want to relive it in a new way.

I've got no problem with people wanting to continue playing older games, but level with me here: do you really think the target audience of Wargroove is people who've already mastered all the previous Advance Wars games and are looking for a new challenge? Or do you think it's people who aren't Advance Wars experts, but have heard of the series and are looking to try a game like it? If it's the latter, why not just recommend them... Advance Wars? We're living in the future – you can play these games for free if you really want to, and anyone who's interested in a niche genre like turn-based strategy games based on 40-year-old Nintendo franchises can figure out how.

Yes, accessibility is an issue – if it were up to me, I'd want Nintendo to release all of their past games on modern consoles. That way, if you wanted to play a game like Advance Wars, you wouldn't have to settle for a (presumably) inferior clone – you could play the original, high-quality created by professional, full-time game designers. I'd hate for someone to play one of these indie clone games, dislike it, then write off the whole genre based on an incomplete experience.

Take a game like Balatro. You would probably (not without reason) scrunch your nose at the fact it has roguelike elements; yes, those are a tired thing and a crutch for lack of proper design in many cases, yet Balatro is a fresh, brainy take on poker that absolutely deserves its explosive fame.

I was also going to mention Balatro, but I haven't played the game yet and really know very little about it, so I didn't want to say anything either way. That being said... it's a card game/roguelike. As clever and good as it is, it's still a member of two of the most bloated genres in the entire indie game scene. Again, not saying that's a bad thing, but it's more than a little repetitive.

All that said, it's obvious emotional investment is a big factor and if one doesn't like the basic premise and structure, nothing os going to change that, and that's fine. Maybe when someone properly iterates on a game you love, you'll fall in love with the scene again, haha.

Unfortunately, I hate all video games, so this will never happen. ;)

Yes, you mentioned your examples improved upon the originals, but I think creating something themselves that no one else would [...] should be viewed as a victory of indie game development.

Should it? If I create a homebrew version of Ocarina of Time and release it on Steam, is that a victory? Nintendo will never do it, and there's most likely a market for it. But what, aside from adding another game to the pile, have I achieved? If it's a victory, what has been won? Being the environment that Steam is (and this goes for any digital distribution platform), chances are that people won't even give my game a second look, so why wouldn't I want to do something unique that stands out, instead? Maybe that could be a "victory"... in a creative sense.

and that millions of people clearly didn't know they wanted desperately

But this is kind of the crux of my argument – if you asked people what kind of car they wanted, they'd tell you a faster horse. Millions of people didn't know what they wanted during the third to sixth generation of games, so developers introduced a bunch of original new ideas, and they ended up being the best video games ever made. If you asked people what games they wanted in 1984, they'd have said better versions of Donkey Kong and Pac-Man, and the medium would have stagnated. (Which is part of why the 1983 crash happened!)

There's fewer bespoke game engines in use with each passing year, CD Projekt Red is retiring their in-house solution from Cyberpunk in favor of Unreal Engine 5, for example.

I dunno how much I buy this point. I'll reference Flash games again – every single one of those was built on the same engine, but they were all (well, they were mostly, but stick with me here) wildly different from not only each other, but from every other kind of "proper" video game on the market. I'm sure that certain engines do limit what kinds of games you can make, but in an era where essentially all of them are accessible, I don't think I'll accept engine limitations as an excuse – a poor craftsman blames his tools.

No borders. No walls, no fences. (That you didn't build yourself anyways.) Of course my little brother wants to show off his redstone-powered torture chamber, but most (younger) people I know seem to want games where they can pick a direction and travel at their leisure.

I agree with this whole-heartedly, and, personally, think it's the way the medium should be going – open-ended games that keep you in control, always. We all love linear games with a good story, of course, but when I play Minecraft, I get a feeling that no liner game can give me: That it's my story. I control the pacing. I control the characters. I control where it starts, where it stops, and what direction it's going in. The game developer provides the set dressing, but, really, it's my game. You can't do that in any other medium.

Undertale is objectively a much shorter and lazier game compared to Earthbound in pretty much everything, only that it hides the repetitiveness of the combat with that awful bullet hell gimmick. Most of these famous 2D indie plats are a one gimmick thing with little variety. And yet everyone talks as if they are the saviors of gaming.

GOLD STAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (UNDERTALE SUCKS)

That being said, there are a few more unique indie games, or at least original enough, one that comes to mind is Hypnospace Outlaw, but they are as rare as the good AAA.

I agree 100%. My take is that these are the games we should be celebrating, not "millennial Earthbound".

But while we're on hot takes, the word annoys me whenever I see it. If it's independent, it's not part of a scene. If it's part of a scene, it's not independent.

I agree with this, too, but I don't think we can do anything about it at this point – video game culture terminology solidifies very quickly. (I still kind of dislike the term "roguelike", but whatever.) There's really no equivalent to an "indie game" in any other medium, because they don't have the level of distribution and societal recognition that games do. (This is even true in my world, literature, because self-published books have a massive stigma against them and are never celebrated.)

Every interesting medium has a golden age where it is authentically generative and vital––then that period ends, and there's a long postmodern/dancing-on-the-grave period, where old ideas get recycled with an ironic or self-reflexive coat of paint.

Beautifully put.

The industry may need to hit rock bottom first and completely fail to connect––then, potentially, a renaissance stage/golden age 2.0 might emerge.

I have no idea what's going to happen in the future, but I do think that a "revival" is definitely what the medium needs to maintain relevance with newer, younger audiences. The 2020s have been a horrible decade for video games across the board (again, in my humblest of opinions), and industry people are getting laid off left and right, so it's hard not to think that we're currently in a low period.

Whether or not we see another 1983-style crash is up in the air, but I do think that AAA and indie developers alike could use a long break to refresh, reset, and re-discover this medium's potential. Personally speaking, I could just play old titles for the rest of my life, but it's a shame to think that this medium might just be repetitive indie games and exploitative big-budget games for eternity.

 

[ATenderLad]

Should it? If I create a homebrew version of Ocarina of Time and release it on Steam, is that a victory? Nintendo will never do it, and there's most likely a market for it. But what, aside from adding another game to the pile, have I achieved? If it's a victory, what has been won? Being the environment that Steam is (and this goes for any digital distribution platform), chances are that people won't even give my game a second look, so why wouldn't I want to do something unique that stands out, instead? Maybe that could be a "victory"... in a creative sense.

Well of course, is iterating on things that inspire us creatively not worthwhile artistic endeavor? It's hardly a knock-off, and was a monumental effort by a single person, how could they (ConcernedApe) not call it an achievement? Heck, it's entertained millions, and inspires creative output every day for the last decade, from people sharing their farm designs, to countless modding projects, to fanwork, art and ficiton.

But this is kind of the crux of my argument – if you asked people what kind of car they wanted, they'd tell you a faster horse. Millions of people didn't know what they wanted during the third to sixth generation of games, so developers introduced a bunch of original new ideas, and they ended up being the best video games ever made. If you asked people what games they wanted in 1984, they'd have said better versions of Donkey Kong and Pac-Man, and the medium would have stagnated. (Which is part of why the 1983 crash happened!)

Yes, also exactly my point for why Stardew succeeded, I agree with you.

I dunno how much I buy this point. I'll reference Flash games again – every single one of those was built on the same engine, but they were all (well, they were mostly, but stick with me here) wildly different from not only each other, but from every other kind of "proper" video game on the market. I'm sure that certain engines do limit what kinds of games you can make, but in an era where essentially all of them are accessible, I don't think I'll accept engine limitations as an excuse – a poor craftsman blames his tools.

Not exactly what I was saying, it wasn't a blanket excuse for familiarity, simply a contributing factor. (3D models in Unity games for example all tend to have "paper doll" design that irritates me to see, for example, regardless of the quality of the game itself.) Yes, the engines are accessible, but when there's only so many in use it's going to objectively limit possibilities.

Flash games weren't "on the market" so to speak, which no doubt helped. Newgrounds, or what I remember from 2000 or something when I used it, had some advertising but most of it was just pure creative endeavor, art without the profit motivation. I dunno, bring about a socialist revolution, might improve games a bit.

 

[Deleted member 20081]

Which is part of why the 1983 crash happened

I'd say the 1983 to 1985 crash happened because developers had pushed the Atari 2600 to its technical/gamedesign limit. Games like Pitfall or River Raid were the best you could get out of the Atari 2600.
Now instead of introducing a successor console Atari instead just tried costing along on its outdated tech and since the pinnacle of Atari 2600 game design already had been reached by 1982 the best a new game for it could be from that point on was being as good as already existing games which most new games released weren’t even close to.

Innovation back then wasn’t stifled by a customer base that only wanted repeats of games they already played, just compare the amount of innovation that was happening both in the arcade/home computers which continued to financially thrive, but actually by the, by then crushing, technical limitations of the only relevant console in the USA.

 

[Dyne]

Here's another "hot take" opinion: (lets see if I get another Dislike )
Minecraft isn't a video game.
Legos is a toy, not a game. You can play with it, but there is no win or lose state. No goals. Just a thing to play with.
Minecraft is just video Legos. Sure you can "beat" the ender dragon but that isn't really the goal. Its just one thing you can do.
I'm not saying it is a bad product; it's not. I'm just saying "game" is the wrong word.

 

[RageBurner]

Here's another "hot take" opinion: (lets see if I get another Dislike )
Minecraft isn't a video game.
Legos is a toy, not a game. You can play with it, but there is no win or lose state. No goals. Just a thing to play with.
Minecraft is just video Legos. Sure you can "beat" the ender dragon but that isn't really the goal. Its just one thing you can do.
I'm not saying it is a bad product; it's not. I'm just saying "game" is the wrong word.

Actually that's how I used to approach it when I was actually interested in playing (a couple of aeons ago), it's a virtual sandbox building toy, and that's how it was fun for me back then.

 

[Boo Man]

Vigilante 8 & V8 2nd Offence are wayyyy better than any Twisted Metal game

 

[RageBurner]

Vigilante 8 & V8 2nd Offence are wayyyy better than any Twisted Metal game

View attachment 8848View attachment 8849

I thought I was the only carbon based life-form that thought that way!

 

[Lena CE]

OK, you guys want a really hot take – i.e., something controversial that probably only I agree with? I'll fucking give you one so hot it'll melt your little ears off:

I think the indie gaming space is fundamentally broken – just as much, if not more so, than the modern AAA space.

This has to win the thread because I've never disagreed with every syllable of such a long post before (had to delete most of the quote to stay within the character limit because I got carried away typing a response). Bravo, I'm attaching a $20 bill to a neighborhood squirrel and sending them your way as a prize.

I wanna poke around a bit and ask some questions in good faith if you're down to talk about it more. I know your post was intentionally silly and hyperbolic and it definitely got some good chuckles outta me, but there is an interesting discussion to flesh out I think!

The moment we start acting like Lethal League and Jet Set Radio are connected by anything other than certain aesthetic choices or that Undertale and Earthbound aren't extremely unique experiences from one another despite the former's obvious inspiration, ya lose me. I don't see a Lethal Company, Balatro, Inscryption, VA-11 Hall-A, Mouthwashing, Furi, Dwarf Fortress, Papers Please and plenty other big indie hits as anything but unique experiences even if - as you pointed out - you can recognize the influences just like with every game.

Pikuniku, Nidhogg, Projections, The Longing, World of Horror, Lovely Planet, Cruelty Squad, Risk of Rain 2, Return of the Obra Dinn, Kenshi, Echopoint Nova and just sosososososososo sooooooo many more titles are just oozing unique art styles, mechanics and wholly unique gimmicks within their respective genres. There is endless innovation happening within the indie space and impossibly diverse selections of aesthetics and sensibilities. I honestly struggle to understand how anyone could look within the space and come away thinking that any other sector of the industry is half as ambitious or inventive. If you do any kind of modest digging into the space you'll be amazed at just how many incredibly unique projects are sitting on storefronts with less than 500-1000 reviews that you'll feel deserve the world.

Like even if you hate pixel art you have every other aesthetic to shoot for from low poly PS1/N64 style games that are starting to really take off or more standard production values albeit generally with more polished art styles. In both gameplay and aesthetic you are absolutely spoiled for choice and it feels odd to come down so harshly on indie games for having inspirations or specific genres that they pull from. Have the last 10ish years of AAA video games not been the most homogonous, spineless era for that sector of the industry? Did the 5-6 years prior to that not become infested with endless FPS slop that chased the Call of Duty bandwagon?

I say all of this because despite the length (and of course intentionally silly tone) of the comment I still come away not really understanding what your standard or general expectations for indie games even are. What would one have to do to not get instantly slapped with the label of lazy or derivative in an industry where almost every unique concept and new(ish) genre of game for the last 10ish years has come from or had its biggest hits within the indie space?

Nowhere but the indie space will create Lorn's Lure, Swordcar, Teocida, Fumes, Hyper Demon, 500 Caliber Contractz or Elation for the Wonder Box 6000. You mention tons of Undertale-inspired games releasing in the wake of its success but I struggle to think of many. Quirky RPG is a pretty broad subject that has been around for decades anyways so it isn't like Undertale invented the concept. I guess you have Omori, Oneshot, YIIK and Knuckle Sandwich but all but the latter of those were in development around the same time so it isn't remotely fair to act like they're purely trying to ride the wave, especially when they're each so unique from each other in gameplay and aesthetic. This is a minor point though, doesn't really matter.

Acting as though even the not-so-groundbreaking stuff like your Shovel Knight's or your Castle Crashers aren't also stellar and filling some kind of niche feels odd. I struggle to see how another farming sim - as oversaturated as that space seems to be nowadays - is doing anymore harm than the 50th over-the-shoulder AAA game or the 100th AAA live service multiplayer fad. Again I can appreciate that you just don't care for older aesthetics and that's totally fair, but it all comes back around to the big question.

What exactly are you looking for and can you give any examples of that being done?

Sorry for the essay, I just had to respond given how interesting of a rant it was. Again, I hope I'm not coming off confrontational or anything <3

 

[RageBurner]

Some excellent points here, @Somnia you put my thoughts better than even I myself did on my own response above.

I know your exposition wasn't addressed to me specifically but I'd like to add that I don't see any problem with being iterative. Creativity being an unlimited wellspring our species can tap into is a bit too idealistic, perhaps. I'm not advocating sameness or boredom, but even within iterative designs excellence can be found.

Sticking exclusively to original concepts would ultimately mean for example that Sonic is derivative and boring just because Mario was a platformer before it, and that would be patently false, even if taste is subjective and some people hate Sonic (I'm talking 2D here).

Similarly, and partially addressing @Gorse 's comment on my Advance Wars/Wargroove example, it's true that more savvy people can find ways to enjoy Advance Wars regardless of circumstances, but N's effort isn't necessarily excellent just by virtue of existing nor does it invalidate other games in the same space.

I do believe that, yes, there is overlap between Wargroove fans and Advance Wars fans, and you could draw similar parallels between Shovel Knight/Mega Man and countless others.

Are there overused themes/genre combinations in indie games? absolutely! for every Into the Breach (such a gem), there are half a dozen Slay the Spire likes, I won't deny that, but even among the indies that number among the heavily iterated types, there are fine standouts that shine above them (Griftlands and Monster Train for example).

Card games tend to be a highly contentious topic in general, but again, there are some incredible indie standouts I can name: Cross Blitz and Wildfrost. Are they 100% original? no, some aspects are derivative, but we don't want to spend the rest of our lives playing Old Maid, do we?

And, lastly as was said, the AAA industry is infinitely more guilty of derivatism and repetition.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

Here's another "hot take" opinion: (lets see if I get another Dislike )
Minecraft isn't a video game.
Legos is a toy, not a game. You can play with it, but there is no win or lose state. No goals. Just a thing to play with.
Minecraft is just video Legos. Sure you can "beat" the ender dragon but that isn't really the goal. Its just one thing you can do.
I'm not saying it is a bad product; it's not. I'm just saying "game" is the wrong word.

I'd argue that it's like how GTA and Shenmue allowed you to not actually do the main mission and mess around.

Sandbox is as much as a video game that a narrative based one like a Point 'n Click or a Visual Novel can be one.

 

[Gorse]

PART 1:

I've never disagreed with every syllable of such a long post before

I wanna poke around a bit and ask some questions in good faith if you're down to talk about it more

Of course I do, and I really appreciate how much thought and effort you put into your response! (I’ll also thank you for not devolving into passive-aggressive pablum, as is common with discussion about indie games.) Yes, I was clearly goofing around with my harsh tone, but I genuinely do believe everything I wrote and continue to. As such:

The moment we start acting like Lethal League and Jet Set Radio are connected by anything other than certain aesthetic choices or that Undertale and Earthbound aren't extremely unique experiences from one another despite the former's obvious inspiration, ya lose me.

But think about it: Lethal League (and Bomb Rush Cyberfunk) don’t just re-use some elements of Jet Set Radio — they are built from the ground up to reference that game in every element of their design. You can’t play LL or BRC without thinking about the JSR. You can’t describe the former without referencing the latter. These games re-use the visual style, the control scheme, the camera angles, the literal same composer, all to make you think: “Hey, this is Jet Set Radio!”

But it isn’t Jet Set Radio — it’s a copy. JSR introduced those iconic, recognizable aspects. That’s the game that’s been remembered by time. The other games are just copying its homework. If they do have a unique game mechanic, why dress it up in an existing game’s set dressing? Why not remove all that reference nonsense so the original mechanic can shine through?

The answer, of course, is that the gameplay of LL and BRC doesn’t really matter. What matters is reminding the player of Jet Set Radio — an established, popular, original game in its own right — which is why they re-use so many elements from it wholesale. It’s leeching off that game’s creativity and inspiration, because the developers likely don’t have any of their own. (If they did, they’d use their own aesthetic sense.) I think that is truly something to be abhorred — it would be in any other medium.

Undertale is a game that’s so unoriginal that it quite literally plagiarizes music from previous games outright — Megalovania is from a Brandish game, the winter area theme is from Kirby’s Block Ball, some of the music in the Omega Flowey fight is from Touhou, etc. etc., so it already loses any sympathy I’d be willing to grant it on a creative front. (I’m on mobile, but if I weren’t, you can bet I’d be linking these.)

Aside from that, it too is a game built from the ground-up to be like Earthbound. The camera angle is the same as Earthbound. The player character design is, too. On the original PC version (which is the one I played), you literally interact with the game world using your Z, X, and C keys, because those are the default keys you use in a SNES emulator. The second anyone looks at a screenshot of Undertale, they’ll think “Oh, it’s trying to be Earthbound.” That’s ridiculous, and you won’t find me celebrating it (among other reasons, but I digress).

Again, I’m not saying that these games don’t iterate, alter, or even improve on the original games, but the fact that they’re so close to previously-established ideas from usually completely-unrelated developers betrays the indie creators’ own lack of creativity and originality. (In my opinion.) That’s what I find regressive.

I don't see a Lethal Company, Balatro, Inscryption, VA-11 Hall-A, Mouthwashing, Furi, Dwarf Fortress, Papers Please and plenty other big indie hits as anything but unique experiences

Really? Maybe I’ll be kind and grant you Mouthwashing and Papers Please, but every other game in that list is hardly what I’d call unique! Let’s take Dwarf Fortress or Vallhalla (not doing that stupid name, I’m talking about that anime drinking game) as examples. When you see either of those games, you immediately know what they’re taking influence from — Nethack in the former case, and PC-98 games in the latter.

As long as you have a somewhat detailed knowledge of the video game scene — which I think is fair to grant to someone interested in an independent download-only pixel art PC game in the first place — you can see the “influence” immediately. These games just can’t exist without those references, because the references are, essentially, the whole point.

Could Dwarf Fortress (especially the roguelike mode) exist without specifically referencing Nethack in its ASCII visuals? (The tiled version came way later after the game was released.) Could Vallhalla exist without the PC-98 games it’s so obviously drawing from? Of course not, because neither of these games are original enough to stand on their own without, essentially, copying another game’s ideas.

I know that, in the modern world, the term “plagiarism” has kind of been downplayed, and nobody really cares about it anymore. But I’ll also posit that, in the modern world, new video games tend to suck (IMHO), and I’m pretty sure there’s a correlation, there.

What would one have to do to not get instantly slapped with the label of lazy or derivative

Very simple: Create a video game that uses a unique, original sense of gameplay and aesthetics that isn’t so similar to another game that it can be immediately identified as a copy. They did it before the modern indie space for at least 30 years — I know it can be done!

where almost every unique concept and new(ish) genre of game for the last 10ish years has come from or had its biggest hits within the indie space?

And what concepts would those be? (10 years ago was 2015, so let's think from there.) The buggering dialogue system from Undertale? The… I was going to mention some other mechanic from an indie game that’s been introduced as a snarky aside, but I can’t even think of one in jest.

The last 10 years of video games have mostly been awful (with some exception, and of course only in my opinion), so you’ll get no agreement from me on indie games being a net positive for the industry — the “low point” that I cited in an earlier post would suggest they haven’t.

Nowhere but the indie space will create Lorn's Lure, Swordcar, Teocida, Fumes, Hyper Demon, 500 Caliber Contractz or Elation for the Wonder Box 6000.

I ain’t never heard of even a single one of those games and really have zero desire to look them up because I can already guess pretty easily what they’ll be and what they’ll look like from the names and today’s general indie environment alone, but if they are truly original and creative — and I doubt they are — then they get a pass.

I know that’s not fair and unnecessarily cynical , but that's just the way it is. Indie games aren’t in my good graces, so I’m not interested in granting them any favours.

You mention tons of Undertale-inspired games releasing in the wake of its success but I struggle to think of many.

Here are literally ten of them. And those were just off the top of my head — I didn’t even mention Everhood, which plagiarizes Undertale! Oh my god, what a nightmare — see what I’m talking about when I say the word “ouroboros”? ??

I hit the character limit too, so more to come very soon!

 

[Karnik]

At the urgent request of @Gorse: [faartttt!] Yours truly ?

 

[Gorse]

PART 2 (love you Karnik and Fake):

Pikuniku, Nidhogg, Projections, The Longing, World of Horror, Lovely Planet, Cruelty Squad, Risk of Rain 2, Return of the Obra Dinn, Kenshi, Echopoint Nova and just sosososososososo sooooooo many more titles are just oozing unique art styles, mechanics and wholly unique gimmicks within their respective genres.

Bad news: Pikuniku is based on the PSP game Locoroco, down to the bloody title. (With added millennial politics writing, of course.) This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. Even Lovely Planet is clearly pulling from Katamari Damacy (I actually like that game, but it still counts) and World of Horror is straight-up meant to be an old Apple II point-and-click a la Uninvited or Deja Vu.

Again, with some exception on that list, why would I celebrate these games? They haven’t achieved anything — they’ve just repeated what’s come before. They may even be better than the old games they’re copying — World of Horror almost definitely is — but they’re still unoriginal and, yes, tedious.

is doing anymore harm than the 50th over-the-shoulder AAA game or the 100th AAA live service multiplayer fad.

Whether or not it’s doing more harm (the fact that we’re using that phrasing speaks for itself) is debatable, but think of what you wrote above — if innovation is supposed to be coming from the indie space, shouldn’t we hold it to a far higher standard than AAA gaming? Shouldn’t we be more strict and critical of it, not less? It’s like I said at the start: I think gamers are much, much too forgiving of these games, for all sorts of dumb reasons.

What exactly are you looking for and can you give any examples of that being done?

Simply put: I’m looking for unique, creative, original games that don’t rely on directly pulling from another game’s aesthetics or gameplay to be fun, entertaining experiences in their own right. To wit, here are five examples:

1. Grow (the flash game series)
2. WTF: Work Time Fun
3. What Did I Do to Deserve This, My Lord?
4. Tecmo’s Deception: Invitation to Darkness
5. Patapon

You’ll note that every one of these games is at least 17 years old and that only one of them could be described as “indie”. I rest my case.

Again, I hope I'm not coming off confrontational or anything <3

Mate, the fact that you’re willing to respond to my post in good faith and not just petty, passive-aggressive snark shows how much of an angel you are. I’m harsh about this stuff because it truly and legitimately annoys me, but I wouldn’t be writing all this if I didn’t believe it, and I really appreciate all your thought and effort.

I know that a lot of my criticisms here are unfair or only valid to my tastes, but, hey… this is a hot takes thread! ? I’m 100% on the losing end of these arguments, because gamers do like these modern indie games, clearly… BUT I DON’T

Sonic is derivative and boring just because Mario was a platformer before it,

Sonic does inspiration the right way — it uses its own unique aesthetics and gameplay to create an original game in a genre, not just copies what Mario did with a few token alterations. Sonic has undeniably its own visual style and mechanics that are completely distinct from Mario, and you don’t immediately think of the latter when you see a screenshot from the former. Sonic is a platformer — it isn’t a Mario clone.

we don't want to spend the rest of our lives playing Old Maid, do we?

That’s my point — if we embrace unoriginality like so many indie developers do, Old Maid is what we’ll be playing… forever. I want to play newer, better card games, not Gold Maiden: A Quirky Post-Modern Card RPG developed by Johnny Simpbrain for release on Steam.

And, lastly as was said, the AAA industry is infinitely more guilty of derivatism and repetition.

I won’t disagree (even though I kind of secretly do), but, again, I think we should hold indie games to a higher standard. I’m not willing to give either section of the industry a pass.

I think you have a very broad definiton of plagiarism that most dictionaries wouldn't agree with.

I'm not actually arguing that most of these games are plagiarizing each other to a criminal degree (Undertale 100% is, but the Japanese don't care), but seriously – they re-use a lot.

 

[bobobobo2]

early access is good, in fact they should start selling the games at concept art stage

 

[Lena CE]

Minecraft isn't a video game.
Legos is a toy, not a game. You can play with it, but there is no win or lose state. No goals. Just a thing to play with.

This is interesting to me because I remember being a kid and not beating FF7 for over a year because the story for that game was just "something I could do". Nearing the end of disc 2 I would just endlessly explore the overworld and find new optional areas, grind out materia levels, breed chocobo or play minigames. In Shenmue I get sidetracked all the time just snuggling into a routine and enjoying the day-to-day life in a time period and region I will never get to experience for myself. Whenever I play Old School Runescape I am constantly playing sub-optimally by doing things haphazardly or spending more time exploring rather than doing suggested content in the suggested order.

Hell with Bethesda RPGs - especially Skyrim - you are constantly seeing people joke about how they spent hundreds of hours in-game doing whatever they felt like without ever finishing the main quest.

The only real distinction I can think of is that in a game like GTA or the above examples, the game will tell you where it /wants/ you to go but allows you to ignore that because they are not wholly linear games. Is the presence of explicit instructions of how to progress an ultimately optional narrative in these games really worth making the distinction between them and toys?

Fwiw, when you get a set of Legos you are explicitly given instructions on how to build the set you just bought, but you can also of course just ignore that and do whatever you want with them. Is that no different than choosing to ignore the main quest in Skyrim or the next story beat in Final Fantasy?

Bad news: Pikuniku is based on the PSP game Locoroco, down to the bloody title. (With added millennial politics writing, of course.) This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. Even Lovely Planet is clearly pulling from Katamari Damacy (I actually like that game, but it still counts) and World of Horror is straight-up meant to be an old Apple II point-and-click a la Uninvited or Deja Vu.

Again, with some exception on that list, why would I celebrate these games? They haven’t achieved anything — they’ve just repeated what’s come before. They may even be better than the old games they’re copying — World of Horror almost definitely is — but they’re still unoriginal and, yes, tedious.

I honestly think your standard is just unattainable. If you look at Lovely Planet and call it derivative of Katamari despite existing in an entirely different genre just because it has smooth textures and bright colors then it almost feels like you are just really intent on being discontent, if that makes sense. If Pikiniku is derivative of Locoroco despite being a vastly different gameplay experience because the art styles both feature 2D shapes then I really don't know what you're asking for. If you are demanding that every indie game somehow both invent new modes of gameplay AND have an entirely unique art style then I'm afraid that 99% of video games released /at any point in time/ can be deemed unworthy.

Whether or not it’s doing more harm (the fact that we’re using that phrasing speaks for itself) is debatable, but think of what you wrote above — if innovation is supposed to be coming from the indie space, shouldn’t we hold it to a far higher standard than AAA gaming? Shouldn’t we be more strict and critical of it, not less? It’s like I said at the start: I think gamers are much, much too forgiving of these games, for all sorts of dumb reasons.

My point is that I see neither as harming anything unless someone feels entitled to have a game appeal to them specifically for it to justify its existence. The reason people are too forgiving of these games is because ultimately there is nothing to forgive. The games that are extremely unique have their obvious place but so does the 50th card based roguelike. If I ask my friends who love that genre to distinguish between One Step From Eden, Slay the Spire or any other examples they could do just that either in setting, story or mechanics.

Giving Sonic a pass feels kind of arbitrary to me. Again I can bring up your Lethal League and Jet Set Radio comparison. The only similarity is cel shaded visuals and composer. So Lethal League is derivative but Sonic taking the very concept of a platformer isn't? Neither of them are ripoffs in my mind but the foundation that Sonic is built from is far more central to the experience than Lethal League's use of cell shaded characters (that have completely different design principles mind you).

Fwiw I don't think innovation /should/ be coming from anywhere because I don't necessarily see innovation as the goal of art. I see expressing yourself and creating what you want to be the intent, whether that does end up being an extremely unique experience or it ends up being just a somewhat fresh-if-clearly-inspired take on an existing genre.

Also for your list of 10 quirky RPGs. All of those are extremely unique experiences and half of them released /before/ Undertale did anyways. No two of those games share the same battle system, art style or storyline and you could pick them all out of a lineup instantly. Some of them share themes or a single one of the above attributes, but that has been true of storytelling as a medium for thousands of years. Is Earthbound the only video game that is ever allowed to have been a quirky RPG? Is that avenue for expression just locked away forever because someone already did it? Is every rock band after the 60s derivative? Is every subgenre of rock pointless because it all technically did spin-off from rock. Is every comedy released just derivative because someone already made a comedy?

It just feels overly harsh and extremely reductive to so many amazing games to just write them off for extremely surface level comparisons to other games.

Wrote this up quickly before heading to work so apologies if it sounds overly mean. Again I'm just tryna have a good faith discussion <3

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

Honestly I'd forgive an indie game for being inspired by something else more than an AAA company making a 1:1 copy of their previous game with a new coat of paint because they have the money to do more but of course they won't take risks.

I'd even say that I'm glad that indie devs are actually giving us sequels of dead series that are no longer supported by companies. I mean F-zero inspired indie games are quite scarce (Aero GPX and XF Extreme Formula are the only two current games on PC that are arcade like sci-fi hover racers).

Same with how Ex-Zodiac, while looking like SNES StarFox, still has its own mechanic of multi lock-on (that is similar to Panzer Dragoon and perhaps Galaxy Force) while the original Starfox series is pretty much dead after how Zero was received.


I would even argue that while inspiration can be clear I cannot seriously tell that Freedom Planet is a copy of Sonic because of what the game added and changed (especially with things like touching enemies often won't hurt you and how you have attacking moves while Sonic only has jumping to attack enemies). Same with Noitu Love 2 being like a Treasure Co. Ltd game while being its own thing.

Even in other media there's always a groundwork that set up the rest of the genre, most of the zombie movies are there thanks to Romero or how you couldn't have Rock and Metal without Jazz.

I'd advocate for more original concepts for indie gaming but only as long as it's good or else it won't.

 

[RageBurner]

Fwiw I don't think innovation /should/ be coming from anywhere because I don't necessarily see innovation as the goal of art. I see expressing yourself and creating what you want to be the intent, whether that does end up being an extremely unique experience or it ends up being just a somewhat fresh-if-clearly-inspired take on an existing genre.

Also for your list of 10 quirky RPGs. All of those are extremely unique experiences and half of them released /before/ Undertale did anyways. No two of those games share the same battle system, art style or storyline and you could pick them all out of a lineup instantly. Some of them share themes or a single one of the above attributes, but that has been true of storytelling as a medium for thousands of years. Is Earthbound the only video game that is ever allowed to have been a quirky RPG? Is that avenue for expression just locked away forever because someone already did it? Is every rock band after the 60s derivative? Is every subgenre of rock pointless because it all technically did spin-off from rock. Is every comedy released just derivative because someone already made a comedy?

It just feels overly harsh and extremely reductive to so many amazing games to just write them off for extremely surface level comparisons to other games.

Wrote this up quickly before heading to work so apologies if it sounds overly mean. Again I'm just tryna have a good faith discussion <3

That's a big part of my argument, actually. I too believe innovation isn't and shouldn't be a goal; video game is art, and art is about self expression, first and foremost. Innovation CAN happen, but save for very specific cases (I can think of two, which I will detail further below), there's rarely a fundamental shift in the medium.

That's not inherently at negative thing, it is just how it goes. What I'm trying to say is that innovation for its own sake isn't necessarily a net positive.

As for those examples, let's analyze them now.

Example 1: Resident Evil.

I shouldn't need to detail this to anyone; even as someone that hates the genre, it is undeniable that it had a massive influence and was innovative.

It also created a deluge of similar games (some even by Capcom themselves!) and it's true they have been successful to varying degrees, depends on who you ask. Are these games on the bleeding edge compared to where its inspiration once was? probably not, but that shouldn't be a factor that denies their existence. Ultimately quality is the decider.

If we are going to be strict, then Sweet Home (the game that inspired RE) is the only game that matters in this space, but that stance is untenable.

Example 2: Monster Hunter.

My favorite franchise, I have much to say about it, but I will try to condense it. It did something to the Action RPG space that no other game had quite done before, even though it contains elements we've seen before (fighting monsters, crafting with materials, exploring 3D environments). The series is 20 years old now, still going strong (next game coming out next month).

Because it created something new, it obviously inspired many games that tried to follow its general framework but do their own thing (God Eater, Lord Of Apocalypse, Soul Sacrifice, Freedom Wars, Wild Hearts, Toukiden to name but a few).

As a fan, I tried almost all of these. Did they resonate with me as strongly as Monster Hunter? do I like them as much? not at all, but they are trying new things within a known framework and I like them for that reason; that's iteration, experimentation.

As a curiosity, let me propose a tail end of argument example:

Let's compare Pokémon and Monster Rancher.

The former is... well you guys know what it is; it's probably the worst case of excessive self iteration there is, and I personally abandoned the franchise a long time ago (after gen 6) so in this specific case, I can completely get behind @Gorse's point.

And then you have Monster Rancher, it itself iterated not only on Pokémon on some level, but also Digimon with its focus major on raising, rather than battling; it's pretty cool and fresh despite its long dormancy (I believe the last entry was on the DS. I know there's that Kaiju crossover thing on the Switch but I don't count it).

The thing is, others have tried, and have done better in different aspects (there's even Monster Hunter Stories 1 and 2, pretty fun games!), so are they less worthy because of a derivative phenomenon? honestly I think not.

Ultimately, developers are faced with something of maniqueist dilemma - they have to create something that sells that still fits within what they would like to make. It's one of the reasons that derivatism is inevitable.

Creating and iterating are inseparable sides of the same coin. What you have is a piece of art, but also a product.

 

[dropsmegamega]

Giving Sonic a pass feels kind of arbitrary to me. Again I can bring up your Lethal League and Jet Set Radio comparison. The only similarity is cel shaded visuals and composer. So Lethal League is derivative but Sonic taking the very concept of a platformer isn't? Neither of them are ripoffs in my mind but the foundation that Sonic is built from is far more central to the experience than Lethal League's use of cell shaded characters (that have completely different design principles mind you).

I think one clear difference is intention. Let's not be innocent here: Lethal League is purposely made to look like Jet Set Radio. The character designs and music are made to instantly give you a Jet Set Radio vibe. While Sonic clearly wanted to be known as its own thing, with its own identity. PS2 era had plenty of 3D platformers for example, but Jak & Daxter, despite taking inspiration on Mario 64 clearly wanted to be known as its own brand. And Lethal League is still comparatively less derivative than the average indie, at least it doesn't instantly announce itself as an "spiritual sequel of" like 99% of then.

Fwiw I don't think innovation /should/ be coming from anywhere because I don't necessarily see innovation as the goal of art. I see expressing yourself and creating what you want to be the intent, whether that does end up being an extremely unique experience or it ends up being just a somewhat fresh-if-clearly-inspired take on an existing genre.

It's not but when your art is derivative from the start is hard to believe you have anything to say at all. There is a reason most directors used to refuse directing the sequels to their films and why most series start decaying after some time.

But at the end of the day, if you want to keep playing the same game forever, that's fine, what is being questioned here are all these claims that the indie scene is so creative and whatnot

Also for your list of 10 quirky RPGs. All of those are extremely unique experiences and half of them released /before/ Undertale did anyways. No two of those games share the same battle system, art style or storyline and you could pick them all out of a lineup instantly. Some of them share themes or a single one of the above attributes, but that has been true of storytelling as a medium for thousands of years. Is Earthbound the only video game that is ever allowed to have been a quirky RPG? Is that avenue for expression just locked away forever because someone already did it? Is every rock band after the 60s derivative? Is every subgenre of rock pointless because it all technically did spin-off from rock. Is every comedy released just derivative because someone already made a comedy?

I agree with this in part, games like OFF and Space Funeral are fairly unique experiences and creative even if both made on rpgmaker. But I won't turn a blind eye on all these other games of the list that are clearly bait for people starved for a Earthbound-like.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

Speaking of indies why not seeing Lethal Company as it was quite original conceptually?

I'd even add some games like Vividlope (while it has a Dreamcast aesthetic it also didn't try to replicate any specific game, perhaps Q*bert but then again tile filling isn't exclusive to that one)

 

[YuriSukiSan]

Uh.. I actually, genuinely, wasn't upset when Raiden got to be the protaganist over Snake in MGS2, I might be biased because I thought he was incredibly hot but my point still stands! Snake is a great character but I really love Raiden.

Second has to be that Elden Ring is everything Matthewmatosis said would happen to the franchise, I don't think it's a 'bad' game. I just think that what the game is meant to be has been lost in favour of chasing after a broader audience but I doubt that's a very controversial thing to say here. It's not exactly sloppy yummy slopslop but it's not what it should be in my opinion. It's a mess. It's a rolling simulator now with bosses that feel like parodies from a webcomic.

Third, hmm.. Uh, hmhn.. Monster Hunter died after World. I don't hate World or anything I just don't like that they westernized the game, streamlined it and so on. I think that the preperation before the hunt should be important, whether that's preparing things to track the monster, potions - which you shouldn't be able to chug while moving! - and generally old stuff like that is important. I miss the ecology videos. And the old aesthetic!

Finally something like Clair Obscur crossed with traditional turn based FF gameplay is what FF7 remake (and 16) should have been in my opinion, (both of which are heavily overrated) the series needs to return to it's roots to understand what made it great. I think if XIV wasn't printing cash shop money Square would be in trouble. (Even if I have a love-hate relationship with XIV) Yoshi-P's obsession with making everything in to an action-movie game (if that's right way of describing it?) is absolutely awful. He's a Westaboo that needs an intervention.