Should "indie games" be treated like AAA?

Atari Jaguar

I'm talking specifically in a review context. When I was reviewing games for what's a very small website, I often found that low scores on indie games were never received well.

We never got much traffic but occasionally we'd get a free indie game to review and I never treated it any differently than when I reviewed triple A games, which I also occasionally got copies of. But, aside from experiencing this first hand - I've also seen this argument used by pundits quite a lot. A critic doesn't like an indie game and they hate the independent devs, they are bullies, "yeah but you liked *place big budget game here*, you're a sell out!"

I often look upon those type of comments with despair. And yes, it's the internet and a fair chunk of these kind of people are just looking for an argument, but this goes beyond your usual troll looking for a fight. I've seen large amounts of people target critics like Jim Sterling, who even though I do find some of his views a little troubling and down right wrong, is one of the few well known critics who will take indie devs to task. Something that lacks in games media is the courage to just be brutal in a review, for fear of losing access.

Angry Joe for example in an interview with, Major Nelson some years back at E3 was the kind of thing you wouldn't see any games media person doing because they were going to be blacklisted before the conversation finished. I don't think Joe knew that to be fair to him, but he and a small minority of critics seems to just not care.

While on the other hand, there are outlets that tip toe around a review because the wrong PR person getting a look can mean that's the end of your publication receiving copies for review. Not such an issue with indie games, but it seems to feed into the wider issue of reviewing a game safely over full honesty.

I notice it all but too often people seem to just be kinder to an indie game for many reasons, some of which are:

Well, it's not very expensive is it?

Often no, but that's not really the point. A movie critic wouldn't review a movie based on what the cinema tickets cost, so why do games get reviewed on their price sticker? Take Dark Souls 3, that was €74.99 digital on launch, its now 29.99. Should reviews be amended to reflect the new price? No.

But they don't have the budget of a triple A studio!

Defiantly not, but you don't need millions of dollars to create a fantastic game. Games like Super Hot & Papers, Please, were not created on massive budgets with teams of devs from around the world, but they are no less amazing. A good game isn't created with endless funds. AC Unity, is first to mind, massive team and massive budget and they spat out a broken mess.

Its the studios first game

Don't sell it then. This I more often see as the game creators defence against criticism. There's many a place to put up your games for free, while you work on it and get feedback. But more often than not it's deemed the norm to just throw it up on Steam Greenlight and try and make some money off it.


There's a massive industry issue with games critics. No one likes to be criticised, to be fair, but how can anyone grow and learn when all that seems to happen is reviews are written to avoid the blacklist or potential hassle that can come with a bad or average review. It's becoming all too common & it sets a precedent whereby reviews can't be used to determine a products worth. That's a horrible place to be. On Amazon for example I see about 53 people have reviewed the Nintendo Switch based on the trailer. How can we use reviews anymore if this is how they're handled? It can only lead to bad times.

Retr0gamer

Back in the golden era of games journalism in the dot com bubble you would get a lot of reviewers putting out reviews and articles that did get them blacklisted by publishers but websites can't afford to do that anymore.

As for indie games, I think they definitely should be reviewed just like any other game and not given special treatment. However I think even if an indie game fails in areas if it's an interesting experience or does something knew it is a far more worthwhile experience than some safe triple A dreck and that should be taken into account as well.

I actually think that the bigger problem is Triple A games and publishers being reviewed far more leniently. There's so much hype over games these days and journalists seem to always get caught up in it. Look at the likes of Fallout 4, a very disappointing and mediocre game which somehow managed to garner great reviews but retrospectives now look upon it as a real disappointment. When one reviewer jeff gerstmann (who gets way more credit than he deserves but was on the ball in this case) dared to give it a less than perfect review the backlash from so called journalists was laughable.

It seems publishers are churning out safe, uninspired dreck at the moment and nobody is calling them out on it. At least indie games are offering something a bit different.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Back in the golden era of games journalism in the dot com bubble you would get a lot of reviewers putting out reviews and articles that did get them blacklisted by publishers but websites can't afford to do that anymore.

As for indie games, I think they definitely should be reviewed just like any other game and not given special treatment. However I think even if an indie game fails in areas if it's an interesting experience or does something knew it is a far more worthwhile experience than some safe triple A dreck and that should be taken into account as well.

I actually think that the bigger problem is Triple A games and publishers being reviewed far more leniently. There's so much hype over games these days and journalists seem to always get caught up in it. Look at the likes of Fallout 4, a very disappointing and mediocre game which somehow managed to garner great reviews but retrospectives now look upon it as a real disappointment. When one reviewer jeff gerstmann (who gets way more credit than he deserves but was on the ball in this case) dared to give it a less than perfect review the backlash from so called journalists was laughable.

It seems publishers are churning out safe, uninspired dreck at the moment and nobody is calling them out on it. At least indie games are offering something a bit different.

Agreed, all AAA means these days is the RRP and a Season Pass and that it can be bought in a b&m store.

Atari Jaguar

Jeff gets so much credit because people still feel like he's the people's champion after refusing to change a score that got him fired. (Allegedly)

Retr0gamer

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

Jeff gets so much credit because people still feel like he's the people's champion after refusing to change a score that got him fired. (Allegedly)

It was because of new management. Gamestop was under new owners, a threat came in to pull advertising which happens all the time for these publications. The management having no idea how the business runs over reacted when Jeff didn't agree to change his review and they fired him. Most good reviewers would refuse to change a score as they know it's an empty threat that could be sorted with a phone call to pr but the new management were clueless.

Shiminay

The fact that bad games get 7/10 scores (and the public also interprets this as a "bad" score) points at a much, much bigger problem at play with review metrics.

But to the bread and butter of OP's question? No, I don't think they should. Some reviewers think that cost should be a factor in their review, so that may come into play, but that's another argument I think and as long as the reviewer/critic is consistent and open about their scoring system, this shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

awec

To be honest I treat all game reviews these days with a huge pinch of salt. It's hard to trust them.

Earthhorse

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

Well, it's not very expensive is it?

Often no, but that's not really the point. A movie critic wouldn't review a movie based on what the cinema tickets cost, so why do games get reviewed on their price sticker? Take Dark Souls 3, that was €74.99 digital on launch, its now 29.99. Should reviews be amended to reflect the new price? No.

You're analogy doesn't really make any sense because movie ticket prices are standardised within a given cinema. A better analogy would be restaurant or product reviews which absolutely do take price into account in their reviews.

That aside, I believe Roger Ebert had it write in that he attempted to review movies for what they were setting out to do; so action movies were judged as action movies and not serious pieces of drama. Games should be the same. This isn't a special rule for indie games but rather a general rule that should also be applied to indie games.

Gregk961

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I actually think that the bigger problem is Triple A games and publishers being reviewed far more leniently. There's so much hype over games these days and journalists seem to always get caught up in it. Look at the likes of Fallout 4, a very disappointing and mediocre game which somehow managed to garner great reviews but retrospectives now look upon it as a real disappointment. When one reviewer jeff gerstmann (who gets way more credit than he deserves but was on the ball in this case) dared to give it a less than perfect review the backlash from so called journalists was laughable.

It seems publishers are churning out safe, uninspired dreck at the moment and nobody is calling them out on it. At least indie games are offering something a bit different.

Some great points there, especially fallout 4 getting top reviews despite being a mediocre disappointment. Nothing will ever top MGS 5 getting perfect scores with a lot of reviewers though. At best it was a flawed game that had no business getting perfect scores, personally i found it an overhyped piece of unfinished dog crap.

Atari Jaguar

Gregk961 wrote: »

Some great points there, especially fallout 4 getting top reviews despite being a mediocre disappointment. Nothing will ever top MGS 5 getting perfect scores with a lot of reviewers though. At best it was a flawed game that had no business getting perfect scores, personally i found it an overhyped piece of unfinished dog crap.

That's more to do with how publications were given the game to review. Being sat in a room for 8 hours a day with other journalists doesn't give you a proper experience. Many didn't get to the end for **** sake. People seem to just look at the score and call it an x review, but if you read the text you might find it's a y etc. Besides that a lot of big sites give higher scores than competition to be higher on meta critic page

EoinHef

I dont bother trying to catagorise games anymore other than genre. The line between what people used to call AAA and indie is getting more blurry all the time now.

Ill just look at a game,if it looks worth the asking price ill buy it. I dont think "oh wait this is an indie game it should be €5",i just judge the game on price and what it currently offers and thats about it. What "catagorey" that game belongs to is becoming less and less relevent,to me anyway.

Notorious

Gregk961 wrote: »

Nothing will ever top MGS 5 getting perfect scores with a lot of reviewers though.

I think you also need to consider when MGSV was released. It was released a year and a half into the PS4's life; just after the console received a price drop. With a lot fewer games in the consoles arsenal, MGSV was a marvel.

While the story is lacking (and unfinished) and some of the conversations are a drag, the game is absolutely stunning. It's Fox engine has flaws, but technically it's wonderful. I would've given it at least an 8/10 when I first played it. I might even stick with that score today.

Atari Jaguar

Notorious wrote: »

While the story is lacking (and unfinished) and some of the conversations are a drag, the game is absolutely stunning. It's Fox engine has flaws, but technically it's wonderful. I would've given it at least an 8/10 when I first played it. I might even stick with that score today.

+1

I'm a huge metal gear fan so maybe I'm being biased but I don't subscribe to the "MGSV is ****" club. Not as good as MGS or MGS3 but a fantastic game nonetheless.

Gregk961

Notorious wrote: »

I think you also need to consider when MGSV was released. It was released a year and a half into the PS4's life; just after the console received a price drop. With a lot fewer games in the consoles arsenal, MGSV was a marvel.

While the story is lacking (and unfinished) and some of the conversations are a drag, the game is absolutely stunning. It's Fox engine has flaws, but technically it's wonderful. I would've given it at least an 8/10 when I first played it. I might even stick with that score today.

I had no problem with MGS getting positive reviews(despite the fact I hated it), it broke new ground in a number of areas. My only issue is that it recieved perfect scores despite having so many obvious issues that a professional reviewer should have noticed. Quiet rolling around in her knickers should have been an instant -1 to the score in my opinion.

Atari Jaguar

Gregk961 wrote: »

I had no problem with MGS getting positive reviews(despite the fact I hated it), it broke new ground in a number of areas. My only issue is that it recieved perfect scores despite having so many obvious issues that a professional reviewer should have noticed. Quiet rolling around in her knickers should have been an instant -1 to the score in my opinion.

Right... first off no one reviews games on things like that. When I review a game I don't knock points off because a character wears a bikini. And again, they were shown a version of the game under some serious restrictions for a week. They had to play 8 hours a day in a room full of journalists and then sent back to a hotel room, those kind of situations make reviewing any product incredibly difficult. And even in my own playthrough of the game, there were no technical issues that I could notice aside from dodgy online and one mission that glitched on me. Most of the writers at the event didn't even finish the game as seen with some sites writing a review but not adding a score until they got the chance to finish the game, Konami were slow to send their save files though so they could pick up where they left off... Konami PR knew exactly what they were doing leaving critics into a situation like they did. Going back to your editor and saying "I didn't really get a feel for the game in those circumstances can I hold off my review?" Would've had you laughed at. If the review wasn't up for embargo day traffic is reduced and editors aren't happy. It's hard to get a real and proper feel for a game when you're put under pressure to finish as quickly as possible. You miss things that you'd usually see and you don't remember everything. Games critics aren't some super humans, don't blame them blame Konami.

K.O.Kiki

Gregk961 wrote: »

I had no problem with MGS getting positive reviews(despite the fact I hated it), it broke new ground in a number of areas. My only issue is that it recieved perfect scores despite having so many obvious issues that a professional reviewer should have noticed. Quiet rolling around in her knickers should have been an instant -1 to the score in my opinion.

How does Quiet being in a bikini affect the gameplay?

Do you not know the difference between objective & subjective opinion?

Retr0gamer

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

How does Quiet being in a bikini affect the gameplay?

Do you not know the difference between objective & subjective opinion?

Well there's subjective and objective. And then there's stupid.

However I agree with you, mgs V might have a crap story but it's still a great game outside of that.

I didn't get the mass effect 3 hate either. The ending was rubbish but the story was generic Bioware rehash from the start. Enjoyed the game though up to the end. In these triple A action games usually story really doesn't contribute a whole lot.

Gregk961

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

How does Quiet being in a bikini affect the gameplay?

Do you not know the difference between objective & subjective opinion?

Since reviews are not based solely on gameplay I dont see your point.

Of course it didnt effect the gameplay one bit but if a game can be praised for great story it can be critisised for poor story choices. For example having the only meaningful female character roll around in a bikini. Thats far from my biggest problem with the game anyway it was just a passing statement.

At any rate ive dragged this topic way overboard with my hatred of MGS5(I originally loved the game FWIW) I apoligise

Atari Jaguar

Gregk961 wrote: »

Since reviews are not based solely on gameplay I dont see your point.

Of course it didnt effect the gameplay one bit but if a game can be praised for great story it can be critisised for poor story choices. For example having the only meaningful female character roll around in a bikini. Thats far from my biggest problem with the game anyway it was just a passing statement.

At any rate ive dragged this topic way overboard with my hatred of MGS5(I originally loved the game FWIW) I apoligise

And why does it matter anyway? EVA was half naked most of the time you saw her as well, doesn't make MGS3 a bad game.

Mouseslayer17

Jackseptickeye has made a career out of it

Atari Jaguar

Mouseslayer17 wrote: »

Jackseptickeye has made a career out of it

Out of indie games or metal gear bikinis?

Gregk961

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

And why does it matter anyway? EVA was half naked most of the time you saw her as well, doesn't make MGS3 a bad game.

Well at least it made sense for EVA to be dressed provocatively seeing as she was a spy and seducing snake helped her mission. Quiet was dressed like a stripper to induce teenage gamers erections...oh and of course she..drinks through her skin.

Retr0gamer

Gregk961 wrote: »

Well at least it made sense for EVA to be dressed provocatively seeing as she was a spy and seducing snake helped her mission. Quiet was dressed like a stripper to induce teenage gamers erections...oh and of course she..drinks through her skin.

'When you find out why she dresses like that, you will feel ashamed.'

K.O.Kiki

Gregk961 wrote: »

Well at least it made sense for EVA to be dressed provocatively seeing as she was a spy and seducing snake helped her mission. Quiet was dressed like a stripper to induce teenage gamers erections...oh and of course she..drinks through her skin.

What's wrong with giving teenagers boners?

... wait, that came out wrong!

Atari Jaguar

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

What's wrong with giving teenagers boners?

... wait, that came out wrong!

OH MY GOD SOMEONE CALL ALL OF THE POLICE

kunst nugget

I have no problem saying that the presentation of the female characters in the MGS games is pretty cringe inducing. Maybe I would have gotten some thrill off it as a 12 year old but it's off-putting to me in my late thirties. I remember playing MGS4 and getting the raised eyebrow from the missus as I sat through another interminable cutscene with one of the female characters that seem to spend all it's time focused in on her baps. It made it feel all so junvenile.



Put me right off my fapping…

EoinHef

Well this thread descended into whatever this is quickly....!!

Atari Jaguar

kunst nugget wrote: »

I have no problem saying that the presentation of the female characters in the MGS games is pretty cringe inducing. Maybe I would have gotten some thrill off it as a 12 year old but it's off-putting to me in my late thirties. I remember playing MGS4 and getting the raised eyebrow from the missus as I sat through another interminable cutscene with one of the female characters that seem to spend all it's time focused in on her baps. It made it feel all so junvenile.



Put me right off my fapping…

It's made by a Japanese studio... not being racist but they love tits like.

Retr0gamer

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

It's made by a Japanese studio... not being racist but they love tits like.

Most straight guys do as well. Doesn't mean they make video games like this:

*Censored scene for hilarity*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87YXRvfMDlM