“‘Indie’ developers tend to make esoteric/niche games, often harkening back to the mid-80s when shoot-em ups ruled the arcades and action and RPG games dominated the C-64/Amiga markets.”
No, indies create innovative games. That’s something you casual dudes don’t

But it’s also the testbed zone. Democracy, Darwinia, Ragdoll KungFu, Galactic Civilisations 2, Dad&Me, Kudos, Puzzle Pirates, EVE and so on are all indie games too, and they’re all a hell of a lot more exciting than anything mainstream that has come out on PC in the last 2 years by a considerable degree.

Indie is the testbed of tomorrow? Have you LOOKED at most “indie” games out there? Have you noticed that GameTunnel.com (the “indie” games news & reviews site, with a de-emphasis on casual games) has an entire Category devoted to ONLY Aquanoid clones? Have you heard Jeff Tunnell complain about the number of unoriginal, crap-submissions they get at GarageGames that are nothing more than 3D Pac-Man games?

As Jason said above, casual games *WERE* the weird, out-there “niche” category only a few years ago. It caught fire, grew, and is starting to mature now. There’s still a ton of room for innovation, so long as you don’t restrict your definition of “casual” games to “match-three-color” games… though I’d expect there’s lots of room to innovate even within that narrow definition. Developers (big-budget or ‘indie’) who turn their nose up at what’s coming out of the casual game side of the fence do so at their own peril.

Maybe I’m just coming from a weird place, having been a “pro” for six years doing AAA console games (well, some were AAA at least…), and I’m now doing the indie-gaming thing as a hobby (but with a somewhat mercenary mindset, approaching it as a second job). I just can’t understand where this bile and name-calling is coming from.

The difference between indie and casual is not ‘hobbyist’ and ‘professional’. It’s ‘ambitious’ versus ‘complacent’. There’s no law anywhere that says all game developers have to be out there, forging their new tomorrow or whatever, but this is what they are. Casual and some indie developers are simply in it for the money, the mortgage-paying opportunities and so on. They’re generating only noise, and none of them are ever going to make anything of value (Zuma, for instance. Yawn).

Indie, on the other hand, is the testbed of tomorrow. When the industry does eventually finish it’s journey toward Hollywood aping and realises how completely out of ideas that leaves it, then they’ll turn to the indie sector. Indie is where new franchises and gameplay ideas and celebrities will come from. The Cliffski’s of today may seem fringe and obsessed, but tomorrow they’re the up-and-coming turks, then the year after they’re the interesting innovators. Until one day, they’re suddenly cool new game director that everyone seems to be talking about.

That’s the model that we’re heading toward, and that’s why casual is basicalliy an exercise in trading the present at the expense of tomorrow.

I think Phil, to be fair, the casual realm doesnt do itself many favours in the “clone” market. Not that there’s anything bad about cloning a game, just that you can I think fairly level the claim that people who view casual games as a means to riches tend to start off with clones on the mind (look at 1goodgame.com who actually does a great job of tracking those.

Personally, I’m more interested in what makes casual games “tick” and what mechanics I can use from the casual titles myself. Those tokens of gameplay are the meat and potatoes of game development so its well worth looking at them from that point of view.

I dont think there is any point in drawing a destinction between hobbyist and professional because it serves no purpose. Unless we are talking to the media and want to push that angle.

As for making concessions to put bread on your table. I can see where your coming from. Fortunately to me making games is genuinely a hobby. However I do find many games made today to be soulless (both independant and publisher funded) and I wonder if this is partially a result of people making games for others rather than themselves (as well as the larger team sizes).

I asked the question on my own site “What makes a pro” in response to Jeff Tunnell’s blog on making profitable games. Got a couple of intersting replies but I’m still not sure myself… so many angles you can look at it from.

We have hobbyist “casual game” developers, professional “retro remake” developers, and a broad spectrum of people doing none of the above. There are guys with professional mindsets making a go of game development on the side, and wishy-washy amateurs trying to make a go of it as a full-time ‘pro’ job.

I think there’s some real concern among the professionally-minded that the market for casual games is getting over-saturated, and so it’s better to try and catch the wave of the “next big thing” or forge their own trail than jump into a category that is becoming increasingly unfriendly and unprofitable to new entrants.

I think one of the sincere problems we’re facing as a community is the inflammatory use of the term “clone.” Too many people leading the argument (on either side) are taking a black-and-white position that things must be either 100% new and unheard-of to be innovative, otherwise they are a creatively bankrupt CLONE. That’s a gross simplification that’s not doing any of us any good (but it does spark a ton of discussion, on the basis of its inflammatory position). It’s like the argument over who does and doesn’t qualify as an “indie.” (Oooh, you got your game partially funded by an investor, that means you can’t call yourself an indie anymore, neener!)

Look at the developers over at Garage Games… we have both casual and non-casual indie developers releasing titles… some of us work in both the casual and non-casual space.

This isn’t a debate over indies vs. casual developers at all. =) That is just a easy oversimplification so we can all fall into nice little categories of ‘us’ and ‘them’ while we do our finger waggling at each other.

This is a discussion about creativity vs. business and where one draws the line. Tough questions… good stuff to be talking about actually.

This debate is happening throughout the entire game industry. Look on the store shelves and you will see that 90% of the titles are just knock offs or rehashes of other games. This is because publishers make decisions based off of statistics… how well they think something is going to sell based off of last years hits.

This makes good business sense but it is destroying our industry. Moreover, it is taking a bunch of highly creative, brilliant, and talented individuals and putting them to work in an assembly line.

I think I have some pretty good business sense, but I also know there has to be a better way. A way which embraces both creativity and entrepreneurship.

Of course, if you guys are saying that you are happy with the state of the game industry overall then maybe I am reading the wrong blog. =)

-Unk

>>I challenge anyone to look at what we’re doing with Determinance (my link) and tell me we aren’t shooting for actual originality.

Sure. From your website:

“Determinance is the first ever true swordfighting game… In 1998 Treyarch Software introduced Die By The Sword, the first game to offer direct control of your sword in a fighting game.”

>>…I think ANY debate of casual vs. indie is unproductive. We are all in the same boat… trying to earn a buck doing what we love for a living while getting the man off our back.

But we’re NOT all trying to earn a buck doing what we love. A purist often makes a game because he wishes to create something self-fulfilling. A professional develops with external factors explicitly in mind. In one scenario, the developer focuses development on his own self-centered desires. In the other scenario, the developer actively acknowledges his audience’s preferences and tastes. Yes, there is some overlap between hobbyists and professionals. But the divide is ubiquitous.