Fighting Over What's 'Indie' And 'AAA' Harms The Industry, Says Sonic Mania And Cadence Of Hyrule Artist

AAA is basically big budget games.

Definitely something to think about for sure. Also... Whitehead-developed 2D Mario when, Nintendo?

@Ventilator Yeah, I always thought it meant the highest level of quality too, but these days I think of more as just meaning massive big budget games. And both AAA or indie games can be good or bad. So it's really all about great games that matters.

@Ventilator @impurekind Yeah, it's pretty much like it is with movies. Indie films tend to be lower budget than big-budget Hollywood films, but at the end of the day, how much money you pour into its development doesn't matter, as long as the quality of the product is good.

@Ventilator In which categorie does Devil's Third fall?

You can blame xbox and playstation, and you anal lovers of nice images for this problem. The fascination with how a game looks has been ruining the industry since PS1 introduced fmv sequences.

I had hoped that minecraft might have changed this a few years ago, but unfortunately not and I see comments daily complaining on how games look.

Didn't have this problem in the spectrum days...

@impurekind

I usually think of huge bloated out of touch studios.
With usually annual franchises and DLC up the wazoo.

BUT INDIE DEVS DON'T MAKE 4K 60FPS GAMES. I DON'T CARE ABOUT GAMEPLAY AS LONG AS I GET 4K WITH 60FPS!

All studios and developers are equal.
but some studios and developers are more equal then others. Apparently.

@dew12333 Perhaps but there were other issues around that era.
For me graphics peaked at Gamecube era and they're now just showing off.

@dew12333 how old are you? I'm 38 and distinctly remember the Spectrum being belittled for not having as good graphics as the C64..

Don't tell that to the big companies. I'm sure they don't want those low budget indies games (which I love) categorized with their millions of dollar games that have to sell 6 to 8 million copies to profit.....

If collaboration is the topic then I agree that we don't need to divide between AAA, indie or anything in between. If a big studio and a small one can make something unique togheter then it should just happen.

That said... there are many small developers that benefit from the playerbase understanding their limits; as much as big companies releasing broken products that shouldn't happen with the resources they have access to.

Personally I think is just good to keep the distinction up, if anything for public awareness of the reality and situation behind each game.

id Software were an "indie" company back in the day and they were making world-class games. DOOM was revolutionary back in 1993 and was put together by only a few people. And it's still every bit as fun now as it was 26 years ago.

The Switch port, however, has dozens, if not hundreds of names in the credits, and is still riddled with bugs of said 1993 game! In fact, the last "update" introduced some new bugs! As much as I love playing DOOM on Switch, those who have ported the classics ought to hang their heads in shame considering the sheer number of people involved.

It's not about the team or the budget, it's about the quality of the final product, and we have seen turkeys from the biggest of teams/budgets, which I suppose is a consequence of having the money without the talent. And we have also seen extraordinary quality from games made by as little as one person (shout-out to the talented Bertil Hörberg).

I would rather put them in A B or C category. A big budget companies. B not so big budget companies and still good decent 3d/2d games. C indie class with most simple 2D graphics that's between 8bit and 16bit and maybe a bit 32 bit

@Silly_G Well you have to start somewhere. I guess that counts for other indies as well. My main issue is with most indie studios most graphics are even worse than a good looking 2D SNES game. In 2019 we are now and they can't match up those graphics. I heard/read somewhere it's expensive to make those graphics that were on SNES I believe. The indie has more games like flash studio or something. Not quite the same 2D high quality if you know what I mean

@astrofan1993 Sure, I can't tell the difference when they both go on sale so often too.

@Savino

They've been called AA "double ay" this latest handful of years.
Signalling that it was a mid-size production. Which of cause begs the question of why "indie" isn't just A. Or the monikers really hide more considerations than this.

Back in the day, in the 90s, midsize productions were just called "games". And the indie games were called homebrew or garage development or just "one man efforts".

It's absurd that people act like those are the only two types.
Paradox strategies hardly AAA blockbusters, but they are not really indie either.
IMO it would be best if "indie" just meant "independent publishing". It kinda muddles the waters with companies like Chucklefish, but the sentiment is there. by this measure Sennua's Sacrifice would be indie.

I agree with Mr Paul Veer that we shouldn't make too much difference between AAA games and indie games, but not for the same reasons.

To me indie games get away with a lot of criticism precisely because they are low budget. As a gamer my ressources are limited, and by ressources I mean money and free time. Lots of indie games get stellar reviews while AAA games get tons of criticism and not always good reasons.

That said I'm not bashing indie games, in fact I love them, AAA games can't afford the luxury to innovate any more, and most indie games are fairly short which I appreciate a lot since I have less and less time as life goes on.

@Pod AAA was really just a marketing term to make the next CoD or Battlefield or whatever sound more bombastic than it was.

Look, we just don't want a good game to be ruined in a few months because it's owned by a super corporation that cares more about quantity than quality

@SmaggTheSmug
It came forth a good while before Call of Duty, and was mostly used by journalists rather than the actual marketing people. But it certainly stuck around in the capacity you mention.

It's a false dichotomy. Indie is about whether they're independent of a big publisher (mostly in terms of funding).
AAA is about budget. Completely separate issue.
There are plenty of games are neither indie OR AAA. Something like the Tales or Ys series is neither.

On the gamer side of things, it doesn't even matter. I care more about whether a game is fun to play and worth the money I paid for it than how many people worked on the lighting effects.

I think the distinction between 'AAA' and 'Indie' is almost strictly a scale and budget distinction. It's obvious what most games are AAA, Call of Duty, Destiny, God of War, there's no denying Fortnite itself is run by a big scale team to keep the whole thing running. Those games and Fortnite too take millions and millions of dollars and sometimes huge scale teams to create and its the budget and scale that truly makes them 'AAA'. 'Indie' itself can be as popular or widespread as it wants, or not, but the teams are generally small and the styles of the games are usually distinctly not on the graphical prowess of something like Call of Duty or God of War. It's like a Marvel big budget hollywood blockbuster, compared to that low budget incredible festival film you heard about and watched. I think when you try to draw the line between 'AAA' and 'Indie' like most things where there even is a line to be drawn, the line can be blurred, and the definition could be misconstrued and argued. But from my point of view, its clear what is 'AAA' and what is 'Indie' and being either is not a defining characteristic of the games quality as entertainment. I don't think either label should lead anyone away from a quality game, I don't think the line drawn between the two is very confusing, and I hope other gamers share in my nonpartisan view of games labeled 'AAA' or 'Indie'.

You know what harms the industry.

Overpriced 3-5 hour indie games.

@TechaNinja What's "Overpriced" in your mind for 3-5 hours? Because I can think of several amazing 3-5 hour indie games.

The way I see it a big AAA game is something that you look forward to playing, regardless what it is.

As many have pointed out, I take the term AAA as meaning large budgets and huge development teams more than anything. I do think there should still be distinction to a degree.

@TechaNinja : I agree with @roadrunner343 but regardless of whether such games are independently produced or if they are released by major publishers.

Not every game should require dozens or hundreds of hours of play time to be able to complete (or reach the end credits). Many such games can be very repetitive and tedious for a lot of people, and more often not, such reptitive game design is a way for developers to pad out the game's length with little effort. Length and content are not one and the same.

Sometimes it's nice to have short, sweet, and high quality experiences. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker and Kirby Star Allies being two such examples of non-indie releases on Switch with a relatively short length. I had more of a problem with Kirby's lack of originality/ambition more so than its length. Frankly, I probably would have been happier with a port of Planet Robobot, which explored some fun new mechanics, as opposed to Star Allies, which was very safe even by Kirby's standards.

Reading through the comments, it seems people are saying that big budgets separate indie vs AAA games.

My question is, where does a game like Splatoon 2 fall? I remember reading that Splatoon 1 or 2 had a very small budget relative to other triple A games. Doesn't that mean it should be considered an indie? This argument is so flawed in my opinion.

Treating AAA games and indie games as specific enough categories to use in comparison is foolish. They are far too broad and loosely defined terms in the first place.

@Savino Or a game like Astro bot Rescue mission which is a sony 1st party game made by japan studio but was made by less than 20 people.

Only playing SteamWorld Quest on Switch because I already played Witcher 3 and Dragon Quest.

Just like not playing RICO when Borderlands 3 is available.

Massive difference in both presentation and scope. Same as listening to the NY Philharmonic vs some small city Quartet.

When both playing at their best, not the same experience.

I appreciate the sentiment that you shouldn't be segmenting the industry, games are games, etc. But it's also incorrect to try to compare small in scope, simple games that indies produce on their budget to massive "living world" simulations with complicated systems etc as the "same" - they're not, and they don't represent the same value either.

It's not just big western cinematic blockbusters. Take something like FE. There are plenty of indie strategy games, but none come close in size, scope, presentation, depth, and a "world" to exist in. Indies and fans may not like segmenting the industry that theirs is "lesser", even if it is somewhat true, but on the flip side, if we were to compare the two categories as direct equals, they would almost always look the worse option. So it's as beneficial to indies as it is frustrating to be compared separately.

Fighting over the difference between AAA and Indie is like fighting over the difference between red and hungry. They're not even describing the same things.

Just using "Indie" and "AAA" is not accurate. There are quality to games and the industry would benefit from having a wider range of project scope definition.

Some of the best games I have enjoyed are smaller $30-40 remixes of existing "AAA" titles. Capt. Toad, Xenoblade Chronicles 2: Golden Country, Dragon Age: Origins - Awakenings, Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare, GTA: Episodes from Liberty City, Far Cry 3: Dragon Blood, and some others all were good standalone games using already available assets for lower production costs.

Indie's themselves need to be somewhat redefined as there is a difference between Wayforward vs a one or two person team. Shantae isn't "AAA" but it isn't really true to the spirit of the "Indie" title either. Same for Shovel Knight and a lot of the Nindies we all love.

@EdScissorshands Exactly! Also belittled because of it's keyboard and low memory. The superiority issue has been around since probably tool making started.

@Savino I rather play "Crappy EA" FIFA20 than something like GOLAZO! Any day of the week.

Hell, even the "legacy" switch version has better presentation and deeper gameplay.

@Savino
Most of Paradox' games are done by less than 20 people, but I like where you're going with this in general!

Are there even AA games? Or A games?? Or the one I was good at in school, C games???

Say what you will, but given the (well-deserved) bad rap that AAA is getting these days, if I was a game maker I'd rather be in the "Indie" camp.

@Darknyht That's very true, and while it's still not "AAA", yes, there's a huge difference between the mental image of an "indie" which is basically Toby Fox and a friend striving away in a dark bedroom 36 hours a day on a game, versus WayForward, Playtonic, etc, which is dozens, even hundreds of people in a large office building in a corporate park - Commercial studios that shop their product to publishers using the old book publisher model rather than the new fangled 1920's Hollywood "studio system" of signed internal teams at major "publishers' turned "mega studios."

@NEStalgia Video games need a reclassification more along with the standards used in film. A-Film are large budget affairs (in film they run in the $60-100 mil range), B-Film are budget films with smaller budgets ($5-30 mil), C-Film are straight to cable movies (Under $5 mil). Indie films are a mess currently because the big studios have attempted take overs, but mostly deal with things the studios avoid.

I wish we applied similar rules in gaming, so that "Indie" was reserved for small budget games from independent developers (small teams of less than a certain number with no corporate backing). Use whatever term you wish, but break studio games down by budget and price accordingly.

I miss the days of bargain bin surprises and reliable "good" series that have been replaced by "F2P loot box hellscapes". Asphalt 9 isn't a bad game (or series), it is just broken by all the F2P paywalls in it and would be better if there was a $20 or $40 price point for it to occupy.

Heck the revered Mega Man started out as a budget minded attempt to enter into the home console market by an arcade game maker.

If it's one thing I miss, it's those small teams that made near-legendary games, investors be damned. (Think of LucasArts in their heyday; Blizzard Entertainment when they were just a handful of people.)

It seems these days so-called "AAA" games are being made with the budgets of Hollywood movies. Is that a good thing or bad thing? I don't know. I just miss the intimacy of development teams making games because that's what they loved doing. Indie developers seem to be doing this but for some reason it doesn't have that same feel to me.

@Darknyht Definitely agreed. I think a lot of that also is inextricably tied to the death of retail and the rise of digital and how it changed consumer buying.

The so called "progress" seems more and more like a regression on nearly every front. All the gains and improvements of the 20th century have steadily eroded in the 21st century into some weird dystopia of nobody leaving their living room, yet spending money faster than a compulsive gambler, with every "service" plugged right into their credit cards, which, from there, erodes what they buy and how they assign value to it, as well.

@Iacobus I think it feels different in part because the standards of presentation are so much higher, than the cheaper standards are visibly poorer. And also because the indies aren't often forging new paths now like then. They're rehashing existing ideas on smaller scales, which isn't as exciting as those Blizzard and LucasArts guys doing something all new.

The lines or distinctions (to use a better term) are defitnetly blurred these days. Even amongst AAA titles, there seems to be some debate or confusion. Like, I've seen some refer to Nintendo's major first party franchise titles as not AAA simply because the graphics aren't realistic looking or 100s of millions of dollars weren't spent in developing them like a CoD or Halo.

But I agree at the end of the day, these debates are silly. And it's most important that we recognize how lucky we are as gamers to live in a moment where a lot more voices and visions can be heard

AAA now means big budget, big return games. Wether they have to throw in loot boxes, microtransactions, season passes, deluxe/gold/ultimate editions it doesn't matter. AAA games want to make A LOT of money. Sure there are some publishers that aren't scammy like but they are few and far in between.

The big difference I can say between indie and AAA developers? One is trying to make a game they are passionate about. The other is making a game to collect a paycheck.

AAA games aren't directed by game designers anymore and their gameplay are uncreative and all the same. Nintendo is one of the last big publisher who doesn't do AAA. That's why they want to favor indies. Because indies make videogames with the Nintendo method. Gameplay and game design first, rest is secondary.

@NEStalgia X as a Service is a very deceptive thing. People get caught up in it without thinking it through. Companies don't offer products where they don't come out on top. Netflix knows the allure of 100's of movies/shows will keep most subscribed even though you could purchase everything they are interested in for about the same cost (or less). We really stink collectively at making those sort of decisions.

Gaming companies likewise know that Games as a Service can capture a large segment of the market with perceived value. The average attach rate is 3.5 I think, so if they price the service at the cost of two games per year and keep you hooked for at least two years they have beaten the average. Plus most will still buy something else. Eventually the weight of walking away with nothing will keep them there to justify the expense.

I've been saying this for a long time on forums and been shot down. I always hated the term AAA, games are games the quality comes from the game play. Enjoy the games your playing let the developers worry about budget.

@Savino

https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/golazo-switch/

@Darknyht Yep. On the up side, we "hardcore" gamers technically could game it to our advantage. If we generally buy 25 games a year, we own nothing but we get to play far more for far less. I'm still not a fan, but in this case it's ironic that we, the ones who stand to benefit the most from it are the most vocal against it. You'd think that would tell people something.

@impurekind Yes. I still think it's wrong for Indies to charge almost AAA price for games with NES gfx.

@MaxlRoseGNR It were a full priced game atleast with a meaty online part, and had some of the most server heavy system ever made for a shooter.
Before servers were shut down, i took loads of pictures of it's online system. Only single player is left.

I wonder where the PC version is...

We should call them 'retro clone games' and 'not retro clone games'.

Many of these terms have lost their punch. Used to be AAA was only used for the top budget titles produced by any publisher. Call of Duty, Assassin’s Crees, the like.

B titles with lower budgets never had much of a label to them.

Used to be that “indie” was just a label for the garage-band kind of developed game. Nowadays it seems any studio that happens to publish stuff themselves grabs on to the label. In my mind, indie does not mean “independent” and won’t ever mean that.

Wirh current third party engines, though, even the indiest of game can look fantastic, and thanks to the current retro trend, even the biggest names are making pixel-art games.

@Damo The game's called 'Cadence of Hyrule', not 'Cadance of Hyrule'.

While I do agree with his comment on "everybody makes games in the end" I don't agree with the rest of what he says. We need classification with games since there is so many of them. I know I will get bashed here for this but I tend to always stay away from most indie games because they just don't look good to me. Only 0.1% of them looks good to me while most of the indie games are too out there for me or doesn't even look like they are trying. I tend to go for AAA, AA, A and B rated games rather indie anyday. There are already so many of those games that I don't have time to be chasing indie games. And whether people like it or not, just because it is an indie game doesn't that it is automatically going to succeed like some people think. There are too many indie games out there for me to sit through each one and in my opinion a lot of indie games are no different then shovelware to me. Just my opinion but I do believe there should be some kind of classification for indies because pretty soon if not already, there will be too many indie games for anybody to notice or sit through.

What matters is the quality. Indie games can be very strong.