Indie games are overrated.

[yankii]

People who say stuff like "iNdIe GAyMeS >>> aAa" are either lying to themselves or the type that won't buy a game unless it's under a fixed $/h threshold.

Very few indie games have fleshed out gameplay mechanics or a well written story, instead opting to sell copies purely based on "vibes" or looks. Most indie games are indistinguishable from one another, just like most AAA games, but at least AAA games don't pretend to be better than they are.

A great example of this is Hollow Knight. It is all hype and no substance; like most indie games that get popular these days, it values Atmosphère and hype over actual gameplay and it shows.

 

[CMDreamer]

[...] but at least AAA games don't pretend to be better than they are.

And that's because most so-called aaa games are just super-duper-high-res-graphics and bad/repetitive gameplay. At least ones for recent gen consoles.

A great example of this is Hollow Knight. It is all hype and no substance; like most indie games that get popular these days, it values Atmosphère and hype over actual gameplay and it shows.

So then, you consider Astrobot the award winning "game of the year" (as Sunny of a Beach loves to call it), which is a direct clone of Mario Oddyssey, a better game than many indie ones, just because it is a aaa one?

Indie games bring something to the gameplay that aaa games love to copycat.

What do you think of Resident Evil series?, has it even improved the gameplay at all after say, Resident Evil 2/3?
Or all they did was increase the graphics resolution and do nothing else to make it as good games as they were in the beginning?

Best example of all this is Cyberpunk 2077, it was a flaw in every sense at release time (and still is). Do you consider that games like that one are better than Hollow Knight? Why? Please sustain it.

 

[yankii]

And that's because most so-called aaa games are just super-duper-high-res-graphics and bad/repetitive gameplay. At least ones for recent gen consoles.


So then, you consider Astrobot the award winning "game of the year" (as Sunny of a Beach loves to call it), which is a direct clone of Mario Oddyssey, a better game than many indie ones, just because it is a aaa one?

Indie games bring something to the gameplay that aaa games love to copycat.

What do you think of Resident Evil series?, has it even improved the gameplay at all after say, Resident Evil 2/3?
Or all they did was increase the graphics resolution and do nothing else to make it as good games as they were in the beginning?

Best example of all this is Cyberpunk 2077, it was a flaw in every sense at release time (and still is). Do you consider that games like that one are better than Hollow Knight? Why? Please sustain it.

AAA games are better to me simply because they don't pretend to be something they're not. They're mostly disposable "art", and that's fine.

Astro Bot is a decent platformer and nothing more, whereas Hollow Knight gets touted as the metroidvania despite being shit at everything except marketing stunts. GA are bs.

I don't like AAA games more than indies, I just dislike how indie games act like they're "better" as a whole when they're not.

And most indie games are copycats of older titles, be it copying Metroid or Harvest Moon.

 

[orangy57]

Indie games are super experimental which means that there's gonna be LOTS of duds, but having that many games means there's more opportunity for good ones to exist. Right now there's a handful of indie games that are beating out releases by big publishers because AAA studios have been pumping out abysmal dogshit 700 trillion dollar live service games that have to get shut down in a year.

There is definitely toxic positivity for some indie games though, people will say "this game has so much potential!!" with the keyword being potential. I'm not interested if a game can be good someday, I'm interested in it being good now. The manufactured hype reminds me of the same kind of astroturfing that you'll see in the indie animation scene. Someone makes a pilot for a show and it's super boring but everyone says, "wow, i love the atmosphere! There's so much potential" when everyone knows it's not interesting enough to stand on it's own. It's only good because "it's great... for a 2 person project!" when if it was actually cool, you wouldn't have to mention that.

Nickelodeon all stars brawl did this same thing: "It's made by a small studio, it'll get better after a few updates! Buy it so that they can make more games!" and then the game dies and it never gets better

 

[yankii]

Indie games are super experimental which means that there's gonna be LOTS of duds, but having that many games means there's more opportunity for good ones to exist. Right now there's a handful of indie games that are beating out releases by big publishers because AAA studios have been pumping out abysmal dogshit 700 trillion dollar live service games that have to get shut down in a year.

There is definitely toxic positivity for some indie games though, people will say "this game has so much potential!!" with the keyword being potential. I'm not interested if a game can be good someday, I'm interested in it being good now. The manufactured hype reminds me of the same kind of astroturfing that you'll see in the indie animation scene. Someone makes a pilot for a show and it's super boring but everyone says, "wow, i love the atmosphere! There's so much potential" when everyone knows it's not interesting enough to stand on it's own. It's only good because "it's great... for a 2 person project!" when if it was actually cool, you wouldn't have to mention that.

Nickelodeon all stars brawl did this same thing: "It's made by a small studio, it'll get better after a few updates! Buy it so that they can make more games!" and then the game dies and it never gets better

I haven't really played many experimental ones because, well, they don't get released physically. The few I did play were good and memorable, but they're incredibly niche, to the point no one talks about them online.

Mostly, I don't like the ephemerality of indie games. They act all high and mighty like "this is the next big thing" but all discussion around it ends in a few months or years and I doubt I'll enjoy it outside of the zeitgeist of when it released. I'm a fan of memorable experiences, which these big indie games get called despite not being so. This is also most AAA games, but you don't see people calling Assassin's Creed 17 memorable or "unique".

 

[UltraHurricane]

I haven't really played many experimental ones because, well, they don't get released physically. The few I did play were good and memorable, but they're incredibly niche, to the point no one talks about them online.

Mostly, I don't like the ephemerality of indie games. They act all high and mighty like "this is the next big thing" but all discussion around it ends in a few months or years and I doubt I'll enjoy it outside of the zeitgeist of when it released. I'm a fan of memorable experiences, which these big indie games get called despite not being so. This is also most AAA games, but you don't see people calling Assassin's Creed 17 memorable or "unique".

well no shit, a lot of indie games are made for a niche audiences, that's what's so awesome about indie games. There's always something for someone, which is better then something that's trying too hard to be everything for everyone (not just a problem for AAA games but mainstream entertainment in general)

no offense... but being overly concerned and critical of the general attitude of how people talk about games is a very easy way to suck the joy out of them. Just because you didn't personally enjoy Hollow Knight doesn't mean everyone else is wrong for enjoying it. I could give less of a shit about the "ephemerality" of indie games and ranting about it feels more pretentious then any of these actual games are

 

[yankii]

well no shit, a lot of indie games are made for a niche audiences, that's what's so awesome about indie games. There's always something for someone, which is better then something that's trying too hard to be everything for everyone (not just a problem for AAA games but mainstream entertainment in general)

no offense... but being overly concerned and critical of the general attitude of how people talk about games is a very easy way to suck the joy out of them. Just because you didn't personally enjoy Hollow Knight doesn't mean everyone else is wrong for enjoying it. I couldn't give less of a shit about the "ephemerality" of indie games and ranting about it feels more pretentious then any of these actual games are

I never said people are wrong for enjoying indie games, but the discussion around them is very biased just because they're cheaper or had a low budget, or because everyone hates corporations these days.

Also, games are an art form and they deserve to be more than disposable, which few indie games are. It doesn't take much money to make a memorable game but few devs can.

 

[balemoc]

Which 'Indie games' have you played and liked, and which 'Indie games' have you played and not liked?

Find the reviewers that you gel with and maybe there follow their recommends, but I never rely on new wrtiters that I come across; that I don't know their game tastes, and even then, they'll recommend duds you won't enjoy. Nothing is full proof, and you just have to play the titles yourself.

 

[yankii]

Which 'Indie games' have you played and liked, and which 'Indie games' have you played and not liked?

Find the reviewers that you gel with and maybe there follow their recommends, but I never rely on new wrtiters that I come across; that I don't know their game tastes, and even then, they'll recommend duds you won't enjoy. Nothing is full proof, and you just have to play the titles yourself.

I've tried basically everything "popular", i.e., with a retail release but except a few, the only ones I liked were the unpopular ones which no one covers. I wish more devs put up demos, lol.

And the popular ones I liked are pretty mediocre compared to their inspirations, so there's that.

 

[balemoc]

I've tried basically everything "popular", i.e., with a retail release but except a few, the only ones I liked were the unpopular ones which no one covers. I wish more devs put up demos, lol.

And the popular ones I liked are pretty mediocre compared to their inspirations, so there's that.

Titles. Mention the titles.
Someone may notice the game mechanics or genres you favor and may recommend titles you've not tried and may be missing on.

You've generalised the whole 'Indie' game scene like it's made of a few titles, when really, small or big, the game design just has to make sense and be fun.

 

[Flame]

This thread makes no sense. No guarantee an indie is going to be good. Everyone can make art. Doesn't mean every one is da Vinci?

 

[InsaneNutter]

You could probably sum it up as most games are overrated these days, doesn't matter if its AAA or Indie.

I do however think such opinions probably depend on your age. If you have been gaming since the 90s you have probably seen it all at this point, so it takes a lot for a game to grab my interest.

 

[FunkySnake]

This thread makes no sense. No guarantee an indie is going to be good. Everyone can make art. Doesn't mean every one is da Vinci?

It does when you consider the fact that many gamers associate indie games with quality by default, like people only buying food from farmer markets, ignoring that they can sell crap as well.

Most popular indie games get the big money by winning a social roulette and becoming a meme anyway. Stuff like Getting over it and QWOP that made more money than quality non-indie games does make you wonder.

 

[CMDreamer]

I've tried basically everything "popular" [...]

That's your main and huge mistake.

"Popular ones" doesn't necessarily mean best ones. That's how you've formed "your" opinion, by following what others have to say about indie games.

Myself, I've played many indie games, not just "popular" ones, and I can say that they provide a feeling aaa games can just only dream of, without fancy super-high-res-graphics, nor substance or innovative gameplay.

You mention indie games copy-cat classic gameplay, and I agree they do. And I'm not stating many indie games play and feel like many classic games (metroidvanias), but that's just a coined term, trying to make a comparison between two game series that have created by their own meanings gameplay styles that many devs seek to imitate while adding their own stuff on their games.

 

[UltraHurricane]

Nickelodeon all stars brawl did this same thing: "It's made by a small studio, it'll get better after a few updates! Buy it so that they can make more games!" and then the game dies and it never gets better

that's not even an indie game, that's a AA game that happens to be made by a smaller studio

 

[Nivium]

I haven't read all of these comments so I'm sorry if this has been addressed, especially by Flame and balemoc but here're my few cents that expand upon what those two users stated

"Indie games are overrated" is being VERY abstract. What defines a game being good, bad or anything in between is not based upon whether the developers are independent or with a group. Neither is their budget a valid reasoning in my opinion.
Being in a group or having a high budget MAY affect the resulting product but just because a game was developed by a group of individuals or not with or without a large budget doesn't definitively state the game is or will be good, bad or anything in between. Many OTHER factors do: mostly the exact ending product features that we can judge - Not HOW the results were produced.

With that being said, maybe "Indie games are overrated" as a measurement being "People are highly rating indie games FOR BEING AN INDIE GAME, regardless of it's quality, and I don't think that's fair" is maybe a more accurate statement (I guess to what YOU see, since I won't claim I know what the general consensus to things are relating to video game ratings. xD) and that may be so? In that case, I don't think it's fair to say "Most Indie Games" anything because I've played a LOT of video games that are considered "indie game" (For example, a lot of cool Flash games) and many of those were actually the complete opposite: They didn't have much atmosphere, many were stick men and the sort, but focused primarily on gameplay and fun (Many even with programmer art) than atmosphere and hype as you claim. I'm not using this as a claim to say most indie games are the opposite to what you say but only that you might be limiting your potentially broad vision on which indie games exactly you're focused on.


With that being said, here's your check list:
NO All or most Indie Games rely on atmosphere and hype but no gameplay.
NO All or most AAA games are just copies, but know that, and aren't trying to be something they aren't.
YES There are many Indie games that look just as high quality both gameplay and atmosphere, some even more so, than certain other big company games
YES The same as above can be said for big company games looking and feeling as if it was the stereotype of an indie game, even what you're claiming in this post about indie games (With the example being Hollow Knight) can be applied to many big company games as well.

Since there's pretty much the same argument on both sides, the silver lining here that doesn't change is that all games are different and who worked on a game, how much money they were paid, etc. isn't THE REASON it's overhyped, underhyped, good, bad or anything in between. It's the finished product. The reasons above can end up being justification for why the finished product is how it is, but those aren't the reason the game is good or bad. It's the factors of the actual finished product being the reason and both sides, indie and big company, can become victims to the tropes used and portrayed in the actual finished product that defined our lasting impression.

 

[JuanMena]

Yes... and no.
You gotta give credit to folks that loves games so much that they took the time to learn how to develop one themselves.
So kudos to anyone doing that, most do appreciate the effort and acknowledge the time it took to create an idea into reality.

That said, I agree they're overrated but for the wrong reason, that being, they've oversaturated the market... and while that's also true for "AAA" developers I think there's too many of the same. Double jump, wall sliding, rpg and farming seems to be the only gameplay mechanics Indie's have opted for.
It's very reminiscent to the Atari era of late 70's to early 80's... everyone is doing games, heck, even Quaker Oats made games during that era.

 

[Veho]

I don't think anyone really believes indie games are better by default. Take itch.io for example, it has 1,200,000 games listed, I would bet 99% of them are abysmal. A random AAA title has a much better chance of being an adequate game than a random indie title.

 

[sexually_inactive]

Indie-game successes are the exception rather than the norm. The vast majority of indie games are not the next Balatro or Dead Cells. But if you want to play a good game and that game happens to be an indie game then go for it.

Post automatically merged: Jul 27, 2025

A great example of this is Hollow Knight. It is all hype and no substance; like most indie games that get popular these days, it values Atmosphère and hype over actual gameplay and it shows.

Hollow Knight was a great game. I'm just sad I won't have the free time for Silksong when it comes out in 2030.

 

[orangy57]

that's not even an indie game, that's a AA game that happens to be made by a smaller studio

Hmmm true replace Nickelodeon all stars brawl with fraymakers then the same situation happened there too