Agreed.
I know it’s lemmy and love to blindly praise indies… But a lot of indies just look like somone’s school project or are plain ugly, people say the gameplay is fucking great but they are honestly mid at best.
Like Schedule 1, Peak or Mega Bonk, like sure the potential is there but it just feels like it was never meant to be a full game and the graphics are… Not there.
Also a lot of indies with the edgy style like a Newgrounds animation from it’s early days, just plain grotesque and that is all they got going.
Not just a lot of indies, a lot of games in general. The only difference between a shitty indie game and a shitty big game is the marketing money that makes you belive the game is good even though it’s shit.
The CEO’s take here is actually pretty on-point. The article title over-simplifies, a bit.
The problem he points out is that a “failed” game that doesn’t sell well, or even sells moderately, is still a valuable game, and experience for the developer(s), but it also often means financial ruin for the studio. In his opinion, it’s that such studios aren’t recognizing when they’re releasing into an over-crowded genre, and need to adjust their budget expectations down.
Cause yeah, people SHOULD be able to make shit little games, without having to re-tool their entire career if it doesn’t do terribly well.
Also and I hate to say it, a lot of indie titles are shit.
Like yes I cant do it, yes its a big achievement for an amateur, massive respect for having a go but… Bruh this just isnt very good.
Agreed.
I know it’s lemmy and love to blindly praise indies… But a lot of indies just look like somone’s school project or are plain ugly, people say the gameplay is fucking great but they are honestly mid at best.
Like Schedule 1, Peak or Mega Bonk, like sure the potential is there but it just feels like it was never meant to be a full game and the graphics are… Not there.
Also a lot of indies with the edgy style like a Newgrounds animation from it’s early days, just plain grotesque and that is all they got going.
Not just a lot of indies, a lot of games in general. The only difference between a shitty indie game and a shitty big game is the marketing money that makes you belive the game is good even though it’s shit.
The CEO’s take here is actually pretty on-point. The article title over-simplifies, a bit.
The problem he points out is that a “failed” game that doesn’t sell well, or even sells moderately, is still a valuable game, and experience for the developer(s), but it also often means financial ruin for the studio. In his opinion, it’s that such studios aren’t recognizing when they’re releasing into an over-crowded genre, and need to adjust their budget expectations down.
Cause yeah, people SHOULD be able to make shit little games, without having to re-tool their entire career if it doesn’t do terribly well.