Hot takes

[Somnia]

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]

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]

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.

 

[RageBurner]

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.

I confess I didn't play MGS 2 because of this, even though it's wrong to act this way.

My opinion of Monster Hunter is similar but different: World was poised to kill it (I also dislike the Western push) but Rise was a return to form in many ways. I'll still play classic over modern any day of the week, though.

 

[Gorse]

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

Dude, don't worry at all – I'm loving this, and your replies are excellently thought-out and phrased! I really appreciate the good faith you're putting in me, because contrary to popular belief, I actually don't hate everything for no reason. I just have high standards and give zero slack to people selling me things. To wit:

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.

Again, I'm not saying that taking influence from games is in itself a bad thing, but I do think that celebrating repetition, nostalgia, and previously-tread ground to the extent that the indie space does is absolutely stifling the medium's potential – especially when that indie space so eagerly touts itself as being somehow more "forward-thinking" than AAA games. I don't need every game to appeal to me specifically, but I also don't need yet another indie Metroidvania clogging up digital storefronts. I want something different – something new. (I'll get back to this point later in this post.)

Giving Sonic a pass feels kind of arbitrary to me. Again I can bring up your Lethal League and Jet Set Radio comparison.

dropsmegamega gave a great explanation for this, but I'd like to add my own, as well. Sonic is a game that, despite also being a 2D platformer like Mario, has:

• Completely different visuals (in terms of both art direction and colour palette)
• Completely different music (in both style and complexity)
• Completely different gameplay mechanics (from movement to power-ups to the "health" system)
• Completely different level design philosophy
• Completely different gameplay structure
• A completely different setting, aesthetics, and premise
• Completely different supplemental mechanics (through Sonic's bonus stages)

Sonic is a game that took inspiration the right way – it was directly inspired by Mario (the creator admitted as such), but it defined it's own unique, individual identity in every single aspect of itself. Lethal League did the opposite – it was designed specifically to remind people of Jet Set Radio, or to capitalize on people who didn't know that Jet Set Radio was an existing game. That's the difference.

Compare this screenshot and this screenshot, then this screenshot and this screenshot. Doesn't the latter entry in the two pairs look more creative alongside the former, and more original? You don't even need to hear the music or see the gameplay in motion – you already know that one pair is more of a copy than the other.

Also for your list of 10 quirky RPGs. All of those are extremely unique experiences and half of them released /before/ Undertale did anyways.

I know, I know, I was being slightly snarky and overly-reductive in that thread for the sake of hilarious internet comedy. But isn't the fact that I could name not two, not three, but ten different games that could all be described as "quirky indie Earthbound-inspired pixel art JRPGs" somewhat telling of how tedious these games are from a conceptual level alone?

Is "Earthbound-like" a genre? It might as well be, these days. If it isn't, though, I can't think of how it's anything but fair to criticize these games for unoriginality. (And that's putting aside the fact that some of those games absolutely do share gameplay mechanics, visual styles, and music – Toby Fox alone composed songs for at least four of 'em.)

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?

Certainly not at all, but there are ways to make quirky RPGs that don't immediately identify them as being derivative of Earthbound. If Undertale were a full-3D game set in Yugoslavia that didn't use chiptune music at all and had the player character move around in first-person, I wouldn't be deriding it for unoriginality. (I would be deriding it for other things, but that's beside the point.) Good iterations on a genre define themselves as utterly distinct in all aspects, even when they take influence from previous titles.

Fwiw I don't think innovation /should/ be coming from anywhere because I don't necessarily see innovation as the goal of art.

This is the crux of my argument – I don't think innovation should be the sole goal of art, but I do think that:

• Originality and creativity should be encouraged, nurtured, and celebrated, even when it's taking place in previously-established genres, and
• Yes, sometimes the wheel should be reinvented, because some level of continuous innovation is necessary for the growth and quality of the medium.

If we keep praising nostalgia and discouraging originality, the video game industry as a whole is going to stagnate, and games are – despite becoming more numerous – going to get worse. Many would argue that's exactly what's happening right now.

I think we can all agree that the most recent incarnation of the indie gaming scene – the scene that brought us Undertale, Stardew Valley, Metroidvania #71892, and many more indie games that draw excessively from older Japanese console games – is at least a decade old. And where has that gotten us? The 2020s are half-over – what's the big innovation from this decade? Have new video games really gotten better – was 2024 a better year for games than, say, 2004? What's been improved? If these modern indie games are really so progressive and influential, then I have to ask: What's gotten better?

A game that came out in 2004 was Katamari Damacy, which was a game that quite literally no other game was even remotely similar to in any aspect of gameplay or presentation. Katamari Damacy is such an iconic game that, when you type it in on Google, you can literally play it on the results page. What's the 2020s equivalent to that? Where's the modern cultural equivalent to Katamari Damacy? Or Echochrome? Or Scribblenauts? Or Rez? Or Flower...?

Is there even one example? I certainly can't name one. But there are lots and lots of Earthbound-likes, and Metroidvanias, and farming simulators. That's my issue with indie games.

What you have is a piece of art, but also a product.

Wonderfully put, RageBurner, and I fully agree with you. I know that, really – in my secret heart – indie games copy other games because that's what sells. BUT IT WON'T SELL TO ME

 

[Somnia]

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.

So what though? Like ignoring that half of Lethal League's characters could be mistaken for Megaman characters and not JSR-esque if not for the cel shading, why is that a bad thing? It is so nebulous to draw that line like that, especially when the only qualifier is "Sonic clearly wanted to be its own thing". Lethal League clearly did too, hence the extremely unique gameplay and character designs that pull from multiple sources of inspiration. This is what I mean when I say so much of this line of critique is surface level.

And to be fair, the vast majority of the time that "something announces itself as a spiritual successor" it is journalists or people desperate to make the comparison doing it. The devs will rarely come out and say "We are basically making legally distinct X" even when you have examples like Bomb Rush Cyberfunk. Of course, with Bomb Rush anyone pretending that it isn't just trying to be JSR3 would be lying, but I again ask why that is somehow an inherent negative? It isn't like Sega seemed like they were planning a third game (though it is funny that now we are getting one) or that anyone else was filling the void for people who wanted that type of game. I've already made my claim that I'm fine with works being derivative or extremely unique, all that matters to me is that it is true to what the creators want to make. I could say something like "that it's good" but I'm enough of a weirdo to even not really care about that cause even if I personally dislike something that's fine and I don't wanna come off like I'm the arbiter of if something succeeds in what it set out to do or not.

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

Honestly, it's kinda weird to regurgitate the most reductive and uncharitable reading in response. I'm really trying to be patient and understand what is being said but it really does come off as so detached from reality to me at this point. So many words yet nothing is really being said other than "This game has surface level similarities to something else and that makes it derivative" or as you say here /the same game/. How is Lovely Planet Remix the same game as Katamari outside of extremely surface level visual similarities?

Again I loop back around to the vapid defense of Sonic (again I don't think it needs one anyways) as finding its own identity despite Sonic 1 being a game where you run, jump and do nothing else. It's primary distinction is in its presentation, with it sounding and looking unique from its contemporaries. But considering that every single time a comparison has come up between games the only argument I've been given is "They have surface level similarities" it becomes difficult to really think that anything of substance is being said. Obviously saying that about Sonic vs Mario is absurd of me, because when digging down into the level design philosophy and gamefeel they are extremely unique products. But when we are willing to say that Pikuniku is derivative of Locoroco purely because of aesthetics I fail to see how saying Sonic is derivative of Mario in terms of gameplay is any different. All of these examples share surface level qualities with each other either visually or mechanically before sprawling out into very unique styles of games. The fact that Gorse wants to say that games /in entirely different genres/ are derivative purely because of aesthetic similarities says it all to me.

Once more, we can't simultaneously say "we're just questioning how creative indies are" and then turn around and try to spin that indies are openly derivative. Which is it? The answer is clearly that indies are both creative and steeped in inspiration to various degrees on a game-by-game basis. Same way that within a genre of film/music/whatever you can find works that are both far more derivative of an existing work or find new wrinkles of expression to help them standout despite being within the same genre as someone else.

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.

To be perfectly honest if someone looks at a game as sincere and unique within the "weird RPG" space as LISA, Yume Nikki or Omori and say they're just bait for Earthbound fans I don't think there is any hope for us to agree on anything. It is so disrespectful and disingenuous as a statement to me that I have to assume the person saying it knows almost nothing about those games. Again, it is surface level to look at any RPG that decides to buck genre conventions and just lump it in with Earthbound. It shows such a shallow understanding of the potential of adventure or RPG games to just look at anything deviating from the path as Earthbound-like. Games discussion is plagued with this kind of thing where the main way that people describe things isn't by describing the thing, but just by listing whatever it reminds them of.

That has utility in many ways, but when we start using that as shorthand to write off a game's originality it feels absurd. Anyone who went into Earthbound and Undertale in good faith would see countless differences in design philosophy, themes, aesthetics and so much more. You don't have to like them, but there is a huge difference in going "I don't really care for unconventional RPGs" and trying to discount the immense heart and soul these games have by reducing all of their unique qualities both on the surface and deep down as just "bait for Earthbound fans".

These games all have their own voices if we're willing to actually open up our ears and listen to what each is saying individually. Looking at just surface level characteristics and deciding that it isn't unique enough just feels like you're cheating yourself out of so many amazing experiences. If you're able to play Sonic 1 and Mario and recognize that despite having /the exact same base mechanics of running and jumping/ they are extremely unique then you should be able to look at Omori vs Earthbound vs Undertale and recognize just how many visual and mechanical differences they have on top of the bevy of themes, story and writing style differences.

But we just won't, for some reason. We'll just list Katamari as a one-of-a-kind game when in the context of this discussion means very little imo. Bat Boy being a Mega Man style game did not stop Lethal Company from being a one-of-a-kind experience. Wargroove being a fantasy take on Advance Wars did not stop Fall Guys from blazing a new path for battle royales or PlayerUnknown from making the mod that started the genre in the first place. There is no opportunity cost to lament, no problem with some games being more or less unique than one another.

 

[dropsmegamega]

stuff

This seems like a combination of both you don't really caring about these things as you say many times in your post(how can one truly discuss or defend a game's originality if you don't truly care either way at the end of the day?) and a severe underestimation of the importance story and presentation can have in games. Undertale specifically is a extremely derivative game in much more ways than superficial ones and even some die-hard fans of it would agree regardless of it adding bullet hell mechanics(for a game such as undertale can we really say presentation is the secondary thing?) and furry characters, but if you can't even see that indeed I doubt we can agree in anything at all at this point.

 

[Somnia]

This seems like a combination of both you don't really caring about these things as you say many times in your post(how can one truly discuss or defend a game's originality if you don't truly care either way at the end of the day?) and a severe underestimation of the importance story and presentation can have in games. Undertale specifically is a extremely derivative game in much more ways than superficial ones and even some die-hard fans of it would agree regardless of it adding bullet hell mechanics(for a game such as undertale can we really say presentation is the secondary thing?) and furry characters, but if you can't even see that indeed I doubt we can agree in anything at all at this point.

Gonna ignore the bit in parentheses because it is very silly to say. The difference is that I'm not thinking about this as a binary. I'm able to recognize all of the little things that something does to be unique within its space and I take each thing as its own unique experience. You can call Undertale derivative all you want but anyone who has looked at it honestly knows that the sum of its parts are unique. There is no game that both looks, sounds, plays and is structured the way that game is. You can absolutely find specific games that are similar in any one way but you could quite literally do that with any game, even ones you'd swear were truly one of a kind.

It genuinely comes off as desperation to disparage that style of game specifically because you don't like it or something if all we can do is vaguely throw the label of "Earthbound-likes" around and act like that is somehow supposed to mean something. You can say vague things like "even die-hard fans will tell you it is extremely derivative" but if that is all anyone can say about the game without giving a single example there really isn't anything we can discuss. If you want to look at two unique experiences like Earthbound and Undertale and just write the latter off as derivative of the former because it is quirky then idk how to engage with that. Undertale's inspirations are numerous, it clearly pulls from a lot of different places whilst still putting its own stamp on many of the conventions it borrows from.

Consider that Earthbound itself was inspired by many things. The art is pretty reminiscent of Charlie Brown (this has been admitted), various music tracks have western analogs that clearly inspired various melodies, the story pulls from classics such as The Sirens of Titan, I could go on. We can act like Earthbound was made in a vacuum, but it would be foolish to think so. We could lament games inspired by other games, but really what is the difference between that and games that are inspired by other forms of media? Everything will be inspired by various things both within their medium and externally.

And who said presentation is secondary? I'm just saying that presentation is only part of a game's whole. Two things can look similar but be different in a myriad of ways both big and small. In terms of color palette, character design, enviornmental art etc. Even then many aspects of Undertale's pixel art is more reminiscent of 8-bit games than 16-bit games so if you were serious about comparing it to anything you'd go with Mother as the primary source, not Earthbound (and the same issues would apply).

As a game it is undeniably inspired by Mother, I'd be shocked if Toby himself hasn't already admitted that. But if you're being honest you will look both at the base presentation and what's under the hood and appreciate that both are very unique experiences from one another in tons of ways.

Post automatically merged: Jan 7, 2025

I know, I know, I was being slightly snarky and overly-reductive in that thread for the sake of hilarious internet comedy. But isn't the fact that I could name not two, not three, but ten different games that could all be described as "quirky indie Earthbound-inspired pixel art JRPGs" somewhat telling of how tedious these games are from a conceptual level alone?

Certainly not at all, but there are ways to make quirky RPGs that don't immediately identify them as being derivative of Earthbound. If Undertale were a full-3D game set in Yugoslavia that didn't use chiptune music at all and had the player character move around in first-person, I wouldn't be deriding it for unoriginality. (I would be deriding it for other things, but that's beside the point.) Good iterations on a genre define themselves as utterly distinct in all aspects, even when they take influence from previous titles.

This is baffling to me, personally. You say "isn't the fact that I could list games I arbitrarily deemed as derivative" as a response to me trying to talk about how unique those games are as whole experiences. Like I could say this about almost every band, movie, game, painting, sculpture etc etc by listing things it is similar to but it doesn't really mean anything at the end of the day.

Like ok you listed 10 different games released over the span of roughly 15 years that share a common source of inspiration. Reality is gonna crumble when I describe how many beloved stories release every year that are inspired in some way by ancient greek fables, knowingly or not. Oh man wait until you hear how many bands both new and old acts like The Beatles or Michael Jackson inspired.

Also the whole "If Undertale were *blank* I wouldn't be deriding it for being unoriginal" just feels kinda hollow as a statement. What would be anymore unique about it just because it chooses 3D? We have had tens of thousands of 3D games over the years, what does it matter if the game is 3D or not?

YIIK was 3D and yet you added it to your list. Hyclics has one of the most unique art styles I've seen in a game and yet you had it on your list. Omori also has a pretty unique art style, I can't think of any other games with that crayon-drawing aesthetic. It still made the list. Eastward is a brilliant looking pixel game with a unique visual identity and some of the greatest lighting/shading I have ever seen within the space. It is also an action RPG, yet it made your list.

I honestly do not buy it. I also just do not buy that taking the exact same Undertale that most people know and adore and suddenly making it 3D adds anything to the experience. How does that service the game aside from *allegedly* appeasing the part of you that finds it so derivative? Does it improve the presentation, does it allow for the same gameplay possibilities? Could it have even been made by 1 person within the same timeframe? Same question can be aimed at the first person suggestion. What does it really matter at the end of the day?

This is also why I don't really buy your list of reasons Sonic somehow passes the sniff test for you. Almost every bullet point could be applied to those 10 games listed on some level. Maybe you don't notice the fine-tuned differences in combat or progression from one game to the next, but many can and will. Maybe you somehow miss the huge differences in art direction, music or overall structure but it definitely isn't lost on many who have experienced both Earthbound and a game from that list.

To me it is the understanding of the indie scene that comes from only watching Nintendo Directs or something.

This is the crux of my argument – I don't think innovation should be the sole goal of art, but I do think that:
Originality and creativity should be encouraged, nurtured, and celebrated, even when it's taking place in previously-established genres, and
Yes, sometimes the wheel should be reinvented, because some level of continuous innovation is necessary for the growth and quality of the medium.
If we keep praising nostalgia and discouraging originality, the video game industry as a whole is going to stagnate, and games are – despite becoming more numerous – going to get worse. Many would argue that's exactly what's happening right now.

Where is this not happening? Also if there is anyone to blame for stagnation it would be the AAA space, would it not? We can lament farming sim oversaturation all we want but that ignores the thousands of indie games across dozens upon dozens of genres that release every year. What has happened in the big publisher space (the ones that gave us Rez and Katamari)?

What has the big innovation in movies been in the last 10 years? The last 20? Is it HD? 3D? Digital overtaking film? What about within the digital drawing arts? Physical painting? Sculpting? Honest question because while I understand your point of view that innovation matters I struggle to see it as so deeply important.

We can wonder all we want about why we haven't gotten a game as singular of an experience as Katamari since it released, but the reality is that you can count the number of games that unique across 40+ years of video games on your fingers and toes. That's no reason to disparage it all and ignore the bevy of ludicrously unique experiences that do exist just because a couple surface levels aspects of the game are clearly inspired by something else. Show me a game like Cruelty Squad, Psychopomp, White Knuckle, Projections, Detuned and many other modern day indies and I'd maybe be a little more sympathetic to the notion of indies lacking creativity. What it really feels like is that just like every other artform for as long as humanity has existed, most works end up being derivative of each other in some way (and of course that is not a bad thing) while only a select few works can truly create an experience that feels like it did not exist as a whole until that moment.

 

[dropsmegamega]

Gonna ignore the bit in parentheses because it is very silly to say. The difference is that I'm not thinking about this as a binary. I'm able to recognize all of the little things that something does to be unique within its space and I take each thing as its own unique experience. You can call Undertale derivative all you want but anyone who has looked at it honestly knows that the sum of its parts are unique. There is no game that both looks, sounds, plays and is structured the way that game is. You can absolutely find specific games that are similar in any one way but you could quite literally do that with any game, even ones you'd swear were truly one of a kind.

It genuinely comes off as desperation to disparage that style of game specifically because you don't like it or something if all we can do is vaguely throw the label of "Earthbound-likes" around and act like that is somehow supposed to mean something. You can say vague things like "even die-hard fans will tell you it is extremely derivative" but if that is all anyone can say about the game without giving a single example there really isn't anything we can discuss. If you want to look at two unique experiences like Earthbound and Undertale and just write the latter off as derivative of the former because it is quirky then idk how to engage with that. Undertale's inspirations are numerous, it clearly pulls from a lot of different places whilst still putting its own stamp on many of the conventions it borrows from.

What are you talking about, people already have gave you plenty of examples, from artstyle to music to narrative structure and several other decisions. Even if the Earthbound-like label means nothing to you personally, it is a thing that exists and wasn't created by Gorse or me, its there and you can search for one right now on google, people are discussing it and easily identifying aspects borrowed from Earthbound. And Indie developers often choose one of these labels when producing their games and make then accordingly. And no, the parentheses is not a silly thing to say because at the end of the day your argument is that the game is unique enough, and that's fine, but I am sure people that buy the yearly open world ubi game also feel like that about their games.

Consider that Earthbound itself was inspired by many things. The art is pretty reminiscent of Charlie Brown (this has been admitted), various music tracks have western analogs that clearly inspired various melodies, the story pulls from classics such as The Sirens of Titan, I could go on. We can act like Earthbound was made in a vacuum, but it would be foolish to think so. We could lament games inspired by other games, but really what is the difference between that and games that are inspired by other forms of media? Everything will be inspired by various things both within their medium and externally.

You say I think things as a binary, but then use the typical argument "everything takes inspiration on something else nothing is truly original" to defend games being extremely derivative. It's simply not the same.

And who said presentation is secondary? I'm just saying that presentation is only part of a game's whole. Two things can look similar but be different in a myriad of ways both big and small. In terms of color palette, character design, enviornmental art etc. Even then many aspects of Undertale's pixel art is more reminiscent of 8-bit games than 16-bit games so if you were serious about comparing it to anything you'd go with Mother as the primary source, not Earthbound (and the same issues would apply).

As a game it is undeniably inspired by Mother, I'd be shocked if Toby himself hasn't already admitted that. But if you're being honest you will look both at the base presentation and what's under the hood and appreciate that both are very unique experiences from one another in tons of ways.

But who defines what are superficial similarities? If someone where to remake a game identically only changing its combat from action to turn based I am not allowed to say its derivative anymore? I've played both Earthbound and Undertale and no essay could make me change my opinion on its derivativeness. Is there other influences? Sure. Just the fact it was released several years after it will naturally change its influences. But at the end of the day its the EB of its time.

And honestly what else can I say? Maybe to you these typical games that flood the new & trending section of steam's main page are all unique and interesting experiences. I in all honesty could never agree with that, so this discussion goes nowhere.

 

[Ikagura]

Is this a hot take to say that no, playing harder games don't make someone more valid as a gamer?

 

[WolfOfPersia]

Is this a hot take to say that no, playing harder games don't make someone more valid as a gamer?

no man, this is actually my biggest problem with soulsborne community, I play 80% of the games on harder difficulties, you don't see me mocking people for having problems with janky games

 

[therealRonneberg]

Is this a hot take to say that no, playing harder games don't make someone more valid as a gamer?

If you want to comment on a games difficulty then yeah you should be good at the game. There are games which difficulty arises from bad design but for the games discussed when this (Git Gud) topic comes up that usually isn't the case and these debates are the result of people playing games with two differentiating objectives in mind. I don't think that either approach to playing games is wrong or invalid.

Type A: Completionists
People who play games once. Usually they value a good story as well as a long runtime highly but don't like to have to replay parts of a game often.
Type B: Musicians
People who treat games like an playing instrument. If you want to play a song you you will have to rehearse the song multiple times to be able to play it properly. This person plays a game in a similar way as if he is practising to play a song properly. They value being challenged highly but dislike if the gameplay is constantly interrupted by cutscenes and backtracking/walking sections or if the game is so long that for example a no death run gets impossible unless you cheese the game.

Let me explain it via a concrete example by using the game Virtua Cop.
Type A would play the game by giving himself infinite continues and comes away disappointed since it only takes 20 minutes to complete the game this way. If he then tried to 1CC the game he would get annoyed at the high difficulty which forces him to replay the game multiple times.
Type B would, since its an arcade game, decide to 1CC it. Due to the difficulty of playing the game that way he has to replay it for hours until he is good enough to actually achieve this. He would come away satisfied since the game was designed well to challenge him if he wanted to complete it properly.

Virtua Cop is a game designed exclusively for gamers of Type B.
Resident Evil 2 (1998) accommodates both Type A and B. Type A can just plays it once on normal and follows the story, while Type B plays it on Nightmare, skips all cutscenes and tries to S-Rank the game.
Final Fantasy 7 (1997) is designed with Type A in mind. Its long, frequently interrupts its gameplay to focus on the narrative and the difficulty is low so you won't end up having to repeat parts of the game to get better.

Now if a Type A gamer critiques Virtua Cop for its short length (''it costs 50 bucks but takes 20 minutes to finish what a scam'') and high difficulty (''enemies appear way to fast so its impossible not to get hit unless you just memorize the whole game'') a Type B won't find that criticism insightful since those are the aspects that make the game good from him.

(Also both of these archetypes aren't absolute. Most people will fall in between these two extremes thou nowadays 99% of games are designed with Type A in mind)

 

[RetroLaw]

The Devil May Cry reboot is a great game.

DLC is a really good concept, just badly executed.

Master Splinter is stronger that Mr. Miyagi.

 

[therealRonneberg]

Resident Evil Mercenaries 3D is the best game on the 3DS.
It's criminal how overlooked it is, especially since mid RE Revelations got so much publicity back in the day.

 

[Ian Naxieas]

This is a dangerous topic for me. I have things to say.

- I think this will go over better here than with my friends, but I think both hacks and mods are totally acceptable when playing a game for the first time. I don't see how making QoL changes, fixing bugs and even going as far as changing UI and other clunky stuff is anything but a positive. Going even further, there are some games that I have never played without mods. I haven't played any Bethesda game (except Fallout 3, I only had it for the 360 when it was released) vanilla ever. I'm really picky, but as long as it fits in with the style of the game, hell yeah baby. Gimme them new weapons and armor and shit. Even games I like way better than Bethesda games (a big list) can't escape this. Like Darkest Dungeon, XCOM 2, the Civilization games, the Total War games, the Larian Studios RPGs, World of Horror and many others. Quality fan content can be even better than vanilla. Anyway, I think you get my point.

- Speaking of Bethesda games, I have never understood the massive appeal of Skyrim. I don't even have much to say on it. It's always felt like a big step backwards from Oblivion and I wasn't even a huge Oblivion fan. Everything it is and does is mid at best. I guess it looked kinda pretty for it's time? I just don't get it and likely never will. And I tried! Dear god have I tried to make Skyrim fun for me with many mods, modpacks, everything. I've put at least 200 hours into that fucking game trying to like it but I guess at the end of the day you can't polish a turd, just roll it around in glitter.

- Hey, while I'm thinking about Skyrim, boy can open world games take a long walk off a short pier. Except the Forza Horizon games, open world works fantastically for that type of racing. It's not just open world games either, there's also survival, crafting, sandbox, building and the worst of them all, procedural generation. If a game checks all those boxes, it's probably not for me (sorry Minecraft). The worst combination has to be open world and procedural generation. Fucking barf. I'm already well past tired of big empty open worlds. It gets even worse when it's a big empty world and everything either looks the same or like shit. Fuck procedural generation. Everything looks samey and boring. It might make every game different, but I'd rather take well crafted over different any day.

That said, there are plenty of great games with one or more of those elements. Subnautica? Hell yeah. The Long Dark? I always wanted to die in Canada! Enter the Gungeon? Lock and load, baby! And so on. I kind of just tolerate those elements, not seek them out. Elden Ring though... I can't tell you how excited I was for that game. It's not a bad game either, it's quite good, I just really hated the move to open world in the end. It perfectly encapsulates what I dislike about open world games. Lots of empty space, lots of nothing dungeons with little to no meaningful rewards and tons of repetition in enemies and bosses. I know it's become an annoyance/meme to bring this up, but the size and interconnectedness of Dark Souls was far better. I will always prefer smaller scale areas with stuff to find everywhere.

- Uh oh, this is going on too long. What is this stupid furry gonna say now? Well, my last hot take involves the Nintendo 64. Let me start off by saying that the N64 had some super important and influential games and the console itself is a certified classic. THAT SAID, it was Nintendo's worst important console (yes, the Virtual Boy is the worst, blah blah blah).

For me at least, the controller is no small part of this. It is the most baffling and uncomfortable design out of any first party controller. Yes, you get used to it, I've owned a 64 for a very long time and have a sizable library of games for it. None of those games feel particularly great, especially the FPS and fighting games. The tendency for the analog stick to basically kill itself because of how it's designed is terrible too. Yes, I'm sure some have a N64 controller from 1996 that has no stick problems at all. I have four and they all have the loose stick issue to a significant degree. I'm sure I could purchase a new stick and install it, but a shit design is a shit design. The design also makes mapping it for emulation a nightmare. What do you do with the six face buttons? A and B should be on the front, but that means half the C buttons cannot be. Where do they go? The bumpers or triggers perhaps? I guess you could put A and B on the bumpers, have the face buttons be the C buttons and keep the triggers as the, well, triggers. But what about the Z button? Your best option is to buy the 8BitDo mod kit to make it a bluetooth controller with a Hall Effect stick. This complaint is a little unfair because of course they didn't take emulation into account when designing it, same with bringing up N64 emulation being kinda bad, but it's still an issue.

Ultimately, it comes down to the games. This one is just a huge difference in opinion though. Most of it's library, even the famous stuff, just isn't for me. I've played tons of Star Fox 64, GoldenEye and Perfect Dark. I happily deal with the insane controller because those games rule. I don't care for 3D platformers so there goes Mario 64, the Banjo Kazooie games, Donkey Kong 64 and probably many others I can't think of off the top of my head. I can tolerate Conker's Bad Fur Day, but I'd just rather watch someone play it. Blah blah blah. I was gonna say more, but I think I made my point, I don't need to dissect or complain about every game or series I don't like. TL: DR, there's a handful of games I love but I just don't care for the rest. I've never been a big fan of most of Nintendo's flagship franchises and if you remove those, you don't have much good stuff left.

Anyway, that's that. Please be gentle on me, I'm old. :<

P.S. Breath of the Wild and especially Tears of the Kingdom blow!

 

[RetroLaw]

Is this a hot take to say that no, playing harder games don't make someone more valid as a gamer?

It's a hot take for elitists only.

 

[Ikagura]

It's a hot take for elitists only.

Yeah I guess so.

I used to be in that mindset during my teen years (and because of how casual AAA games got around the PS360 era with "cinematic experiences" games as well as gimmicky and simplified Nintendo's Wii was when I grew up with retro gaming) so that I started to play on PC most of the time.

But after a while I just ended up accepting that video games aren't just arcade experiences and that thanks to indies they still exist anyway.

There isn't just one type of gamer either, some people are more into RTS while others are better at shoot'em ups so difficulty also depends on what someone can be good at.

It's like saying that only mathematics matter in science so that people more versed in linguistics are not real scientists.

 

[Tonberry]

Video games do not "age".

(I understand what people mean when they claim they do, I just don't agree)

 

[Tonberry]

To me it is the understanding of the indie scene that comes from only watching Nintendo Directs or something.

I don't want to egg on this discussion or anything because I had a similar reaction as Somnia's initial post after reading all this particular exchange, but I really feel like I need to add that I agree with this quote.
I feel like most of the arguments presented in @Gorse 's posts against indie games here come from (I assume) willful ignorance? I don't want to call you a contrarian, because you still establish why you think this way. You're allowed to not like something for just about any reason, but I think the arguments presented lack substance because the examples given simply aren't niche enough, and it feels like you're trying to sort of imply that your subjective takes have objectivity to them, even if it's probably unintentional. Comparing something like OFF to both Undertale and Earthbound because either you, or someone else, has made a connection just reeks of superficial analysis. OFF is an RPG Maker game and people oftentimes use engines like it because it simply lets them tell the story they want to tell. OFF has just as much in common with Earthbound (which I don't really agree with at all to begin with) as it does Final Fantasy 6 but you don't see people claim that it's somehow plagiarizing that game. It's sort of like demanding that there should only exist two games per genre; the one that came first and the game made by someone who really liked that one.

I used to be similar when it comes to remakes, that I denounce them automatically because I feared they would replace the originals in the zeitgeist (which so far has literally never happened), unless they met my hypocritical "actually this one is okay because I think it is" test, which made me realize that I simply care too much about something I didn't care about. Disliking indie games because "then no one will want to discover the classics anymore" is something I don't really think is a real issue, because there will always be people interested in old media.

I don't know anything about you, but I've come to realize that arguments like these often depend on your outlook as a person, notably if you view yourself more as a consumer, an enthusiast, or an artist.
I've been an artist my entire life, and I don't think there are any rules to what constitutes a video game, nor do I think there should be any, other than maybe the fact that they're interactive.

The indie "scene" is massive, and listing the biggest selling indie games as an indicator of how "bad things are" is like listing only one's personally approved AAA games as an indicator of "actually everything's fine".
The fact that indie games are able to become popular in the industry's current something that should be celebrated, because it allows for works that people create solely for no other reason than that they wanted to make something they'd like, and it shows that people are still interested in more traditional ways of epxression, even though time may have moved away from the technology or limitations they mimic. The vast majority of these people aren't carreerist game developers in a traditional sense, they're artists who want to express themselves in the medium they like the most.

If it wouldn't be "easy" to make games by yourself nowadays, you'd have nothing but a post-apocalyptic hellscape of yearly release service games, with the occasional "cinematic experience" thrown in there. You don't see this sort of pushback in things like indie comics or movies.

You've already made your points in the discussion above and you don't have to respond if you think I'm just repeating what others have said (but you're of course welcome to) but I felt the need to add my two cents regardless.

I apologize if I'm coming off as confrontational or abrasive anything, but it's more just that I'm reacting to the entire discussion in one post. I do not have anything against your opinions, other than that I think you sort of worded them weirdly aggressively but that's been covered in earlier posts already.

(If there's one thing that I dislike about indie games, it is when the games market themselves as being "inspired by such and such" on store pages, because in that case it tells me that you're not as confident in your product as you might think. It's fine to wear your inspiration on your sleeves but you shouldn't have to use that as a way of convincing people to try it out either.)

 

[Gorse]

@Bjorvy , I truly do appreciate you for writing all that, and I'll thank you for entertaining my opinion in good faith. (And if you actually read through all of my previous posts, I apologize.) There's not really much I can add that I haven't already earlier in the thread (or that other people like dropsmegamega have put extremely well), which is why I eventually stopped following up. Frankly, though, I can address every one of your points with a single reply, itself a hot take to the extreme:

I don't know anything about you, but I've come to realize that arguments like these often depend on your outlook as a person, notably if you view yourself more as a consumer, an enthusiast, or an artist.

I agree 100%, and in as clear a manner as possible: I consider myself a consumer of video games, because video games are products. I have precisely zero emotional connection with video games (beyond having fun with many of them, of course), and I especially have zero empathy for indie developers (or non-indie developers) of any sort, for any reason. I truly do not care if you put out a game that you've been wanting to make your whole life – if I have to pay money for it, I'm going to judge it as rigorously as possible, as I do with everything I buy. It's not an "art project" to me – it's a piece of consumer software to be bought and sold.

I'm certain I'm in the minority in that viewpoint, but it absolutely is what I think, and I can't really relate to anyone who thinks otherwise. (I'm not saying you're wrong or stupid for doing so – just that I simply cannot agree.) Even if I did, I would never give a modicum of sympathy to indie developers who post things like this (Undertale), this (Fez), and/or this (Minecraft). Why would I? If they can't even be decent, humble individuals in a public arena, why would I ever give them the benefit of the doubt?

I don't care if anyone says anything in those tweets is true, either – the fact that they were made at all reveals plenty about their creators' character, and eliminates any "emotional connection" I could ever have with them, their work, or their culture. (I know that last point may seem unfair, because some successful indie devs probably aren’t that egotistical, but that’s just how it is in the real world.) If you disagree with me on this point, there really won't be anything I can say to convince you.

Call me heartless! Call me evil. But, please – don't call me a contrarian, because I can explain every one of my opinions in triplicate.

AND BEFORE ANYONE SAYS IT: The above text is meant specifically to reply to Bjorvy's point (and those of others in this thread) about the role emotional engagement plays in responding to indie games, not how I view quirky Earthbound-inspired pixel art JRPGs as being similar. (I think my perspective on that point has now been well and truly made.) If anyone responds to this post with a smug, passive-aggressive "Ah, so that's why he dislikes these indie games – HE'S JUST JEALOUS!!!!!!", I'll give you three smacks straight on the bot-bot.

 

[Tonberry]

Call me heartless! Call me evil. But, please – don't call me a contrarian, because I can explain every one of my opinions in triplicate.

Thanks alot for the reply, you'll find that I didn't infact call you a contrarian for the same reason you expressed here (I don't think you're heartless or evil either for that matter)

the fact that they were made at all reveals plenty about their creators' character, and eliminates any "emotional connection" I could ever have with them or their work.

This is true for many. For some, it's impossible to separate a creator and their creation, and some can do it without a second thought. I think either way is valid as everyone's experiences and impressions are their own. I prefer reserved creators more (because that's what I am) than those who toot their own horn a little too much.
Anecdote: My friend was obsessed with a swedish artist called Simon Stålenhag who creates fantastic artwork blending science fiction with day-to-day-life, but said friend sort of dropped him entirely because he thought he was "whiny on Twitter". Now, Stålenhag wasn't "whiny" about his art or his work, which all your examples are, he was "whining" about the importance of gay rights, which made my friend uncomfortable for some reason, but it was still the man's personal twitter account, because he's a human too at the end of the day.

I'm certain I'm in the minority in that viewpoint, but it absolutely is what I think, and I can't really fathom anyone who thinks anything otherwise.

I think this is interesting, because I'm not sure I understand what the point of fathoming someone elses viewpoint is, other than that it might be a differing one or not. But then again, you recieving "pushback" (not the correct term but I can't think of the proper word) for your seemingly personal vendetta against indies also proves that it goes both ways of course. Good hot takes aren't 'angry takes for the sake of appearing interesting', they're more 'interesting takes that can make you angry' and I think you scored an A+ with yours.

if I have to pay money for it, I'm going to judge it as rigorously as possible, as I do with everything I buy.

I kind of want to play devil's advocate here a bit, but shouldn't freeware games be treated differently then? OFF and Cave Story, for example, are both freeware games, there's no financial incentive to factor in there.

It's not an "art project" to me – it's a piece of consumer software to be bought and sold.

But can't it be both? Or even neither? Like with all other forms of expression, I feel that video games can be several different things, and that they also can be judged accordingly based on different factors. I don't see how games also can't be freed from the confines of its toy origins, especially when it comes to critique and analysis. You're clearly for the notion that it's "different strokes for different folks", but I guess my initial reaction (from the earlier posts) came from how you presented yourself kind of matter-of-factly at the same time. No skin off my nose, though, it's all opinions at the end of the day.

Again, thanks alot for the reply, and I'm sorry to have to back-and-forth you even more, but I think this discussion is really one of the best I've had in years, and I'm really interested in your point of view.
It certainly beats trying to have a civil discussion with the orcs on /v/ or similar places.

 

[Gorse]

Thanks alot for the reply, you'll find that I didn't infact call you a contrarian for the same reason you expressed here (I don't think you're heartless or evil either for that matter)

Don't worry, I'm was just being a goof.

For some, it's impossible to separate a creator and their creation, and some can do it without a second thought.

I kind of can, but, y'know... once I've seen something the creator says that annoys me, I'm probably not going to forget it when I'm playing the game. (Especially with indie games made by a single creative voice, because then the creation essentially is the creator.)

Anecdote: My friend was obsessed with a swedish artist called Simon Stålenhag who creates fantastic artwork blending science fiction with day-to-day-life, but said friend sort of dropped him entirely because he thought he was "whiny on Twitter". Now, Stålenhag wasn't "whiny" about his art or his work, which all your examples are, he was "whining" about the importance of gay rights, which made my friend uncomfortable for some reason, but it was still the man's personal twitter account, because he's a human too at the end of the day.

You know, it's funny, because when I was looking up that Notch quote on Google Images, I also came across several tweets by Johnathan Blow (Braid and The Witness) about women in programming. Even though they were kind of political (and I sort of mildly disagreed with them), I didn't mind them at all, because he wasn't being intentionally provocative or smug about them, and they seemed well-made and legitimate. Personally speaking, I don't mind what a creative's own ideological bents are, as long as they aren't being insufferable about them. (Most are, of course.)

I'm not sure I understand what the point of fathoming someone elses viewpoint is

There isn't any, and I don't expect anyone who does have an emotional connection with games to understand my viewpoint, either. I don't think either one is right or wrong.

Good hot takes aren't 'angry takes for the sake of appearing interesting', they're more 'interesting takes that can make you angry' and I think you scored an A+ with yours.

I kind of want to play devil's advocate here a bit, but shouldn't freeware games be treated differently then?

Yeah, I guess I should give freeware games a bit of slack because you don't have to pay for 'em, but you probably aren't going to find those on major digital distribution platforms (certainly not consoles) or really being celebrated by the industry at large, so they're honestly pretty easy to ignore.

(I'm not giving Cave Story any slack at all, though – that game's been sold a million times! )

But can't it be both? Or even neither? Like with all other forms of expression, I feel that video games can be several different things, and that they also can be judged accordingly based on different factors.

Of course it's all a matter of opinion, but at the end of the day, they are products – maybe moreso than any other medium – and, speaking personally, I can't really judge them differently than how I would judge, like, a table or a lamp or a hamburger. If I buy something and it turns out to be of poor quality (to my tastes), I'm going to criticize it, maybe even harshly, and I really won't care about the feelings of the person who made it. Again: mean, unfair, whatever, but it's the truth.

You're clearly for the notion that it's "different strokes for different folks", but I guess my initial reaction (from the earlier posts) came from how you presented yourself kind of matter-of-factly at the same time.

My initial post about indie games in this thread was meant to be intentionally provocative and overzealous – that's why I included a Ren and Stimpy .gif in it – but I do legitimately believe everything I've written here. I don't think anyone's an idiot or wrong if they disagree – if anyone fits that description, it's me, because derivative indie games sell like hotcakes. But, well, I don't like (most of) them, and I do think they've helped make the 2020s industry into something I don't really like, either.