Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
FEATURES YOU LOVE IN INDIE GAMES
Posts
Pages:
1
Jpratt
659
Jpratt
View playlists
CloseThere are many ways to approach game design, but when it comes to RPG Maker and similar programs, we often see repeating features. It's unlikely you've played an indie game without a menu or some variation of an HP bar, for example. Though we sometimes break the mold and add unique features or mechanics, or execute old ones really well.
For some, overlays can make a game more immersive while others find them distracting. Radial menues are cool, but they aren't always necessary. One thing we probably all agree on is custom is usually better, as long as the game is well executed. Custom menues, battle systems, graphics and mechanics tend to be what makes games stand out. Still many, myself included, love the old school rpg vibes and low-res pixel graphics and sound effects. These days I consider them a selling feature.
Discussion!
What features make you fall in love with indie games? Which can turn you off from a game completely?
For some, overlays can make a game more immersive while others find them distracting. Radial menues are cool, but they aren't always necessary. One thing we probably all agree on is custom is usually better, as long as the game is well executed. Custom menues, battle systems, graphics and mechanics tend to be what makes games stand out. Still many, myself included, love the old school rpg vibes and low-res pixel graphics and sound effects. These days I consider them a selling feature.
Discussion!
What features make you fall in love with indie games? Which can turn you off from a game completely?
I played games without menus and bars. I played games without goals and I wondered: "Is this a video game, a piece of entertainment or art?"
Let's start with the negative. Bad humour can turn me off. Bigotry turns me off. Terrible mapping, hard controls and war on terrorism all turn me off.
I mostly play for 1. visual experience, 2. sense of space, 3. good pacing. If I play an rpg and it has a catchy soundtrack, the music can make me stick longer. I enjoy a good story, but I also enjoy a total narrative trash with good pacing.
So, it's a difficult question to answer, because there are so many different things I enjoy and I partially enjoy them for their diversity.
Let's start with the negative. Bad humour can turn me off. Bigotry turns me off. Terrible mapping, hard controls and war on terrorism all turn me off.
I mostly play for 1. visual experience, 2. sense of space, 3. good pacing. If I play an rpg and it has a catchy soundtrack, the music can make me stick longer. I enjoy a good story, but I also enjoy a total narrative trash with good pacing.
So, it's a difficult question to answer, because there are so many different things I enjoy and I partially enjoy them for their diversity.
Jpratt
659
I think you and I have a similar taste in what we look for, and the turn offs.
Bad humor, spelling mistakes and grammatical errors are huge turn offs, but I wouldn't consider them features. Maybe failed attempts at features.
I'm thinking more in terms of limit breaks, open worlds, various types of puzzles, or day amd night systems. Specific features you love or hate as opposed to poor design execution.
Bad humor, spelling mistakes and grammatical errors are huge turn offs, but I wouldn't consider them features. Maybe failed attempts at features.
I'm thinking more in terms of limit breaks, open worlds, various types of puzzles, or day amd night systems. Specific features you love or hate as opposed to poor design execution.
Acra
332
I don't think 'indie' does anything to change my opinions and desires. Soften expectations, maybe, but I don't see how it would outright change what three things I expect or look for.
Customization is the most important to me, especially regarding RPGs, and can be pretty make-or-break for them. Ideally this is about character growth and meaningful choices in creating, leveling, and equipping, but can extend to nonlinearity, branching dialogues, to physical customization or party choice. Some way to feel like I'm influencing my path through the game. Some personal goal or growth for me to reach, beyond what the story gives. If I feel like I'm being railroaded with no say, input, or influence on any matter, it's not gonna stick with me.
Challenge perhaps gives the wrong idea, but I don't think it's an inaccurate name. The game needs to have enough pushback that my customization shows fruit. That I need to think just a little bit. It doesn't need to be super-hard or anything, just so long as my victory isn't a foregone conclusion. Combine a low difficulty with no control over the situation and you've just created the worst-possible situation for me. It's definitely also possible to make something too difficult, too random, or requiring TOO specific of strategies, but I think those are far less irksome than the alternative.
The third, and by far the most nebulous, is Characters. I can't say I've ever stayed around just for a story, but I'm at least potentially liable to stick around if there's characters I like. What makes me like people? Dunno! But it can definitely be petty things like their design, and not strictly how they act or their role in a story. If I've created a character personally, I'm pretty much guaranteed to like them, even if they don't actually have a personality or speak or do anything, really. This can also apply to characters who are just fun to move around and play as... but that generally isn't applicable to RPGs.
Customization is the most important to me, especially regarding RPGs, and can be pretty make-or-break for them. Ideally this is about character growth and meaningful choices in creating, leveling, and equipping, but can extend to nonlinearity, branching dialogues, to physical customization or party choice. Some way to feel like I'm influencing my path through the game. Some personal goal or growth for me to reach, beyond what the story gives. If I feel like I'm being railroaded with no say, input, or influence on any matter, it's not gonna stick with me.
Challenge perhaps gives the wrong idea, but I don't think it's an inaccurate name. The game needs to have enough pushback that my customization shows fruit. That I need to think just a little bit. It doesn't need to be super-hard or anything, just so long as my victory isn't a foregone conclusion. Combine a low difficulty with no control over the situation and you've just created the worst-possible situation for me. It's definitely also possible to make something too difficult, too random, or requiring TOO specific of strategies, but I think those are far less irksome than the alternative.
The third, and by far the most nebulous, is Characters. I can't say I've ever stayed around just for a story, but I'm at least potentially liable to stick around if there's characters I like. What makes me like people? Dunno! But it can definitely be petty things like their design, and not strictly how they act or their role in a story. If I've created a character personally, I'm pretty much guaranteed to like them, even if they don't actually have a personality or speak or do anything, really. This can also apply to characters who are just fun to move around and play as... but that generally isn't applicable to RPGs.
My thing with indies is more related to my ideals than it is to game design. I feel like indies understand what I want out of games in a way the mainstream industry no longer does.
See, indies are developed to be fun, interesting, or otherwise compelling experiences, usually made by fans of video games for fans of video games, and usually made with love and a cohesive artistic vision.
In contrast, the mainstream video games industry nowadays has gone in the complete opposite direction. Microtransactions up the wazoo, "live service" mentality, design by commitee with no clear artistic vision, and games sometimes being purposefully made to be slow and obnoxious in order to pretty much force the player to buy "time savers" to actually be able to enjoy the game that they have bought. They also rely on tons of "FOMO" to make people want to play games even when they would normally not.
That isn't to say the mainstream industry does not occasionally launch good games without those predatory schemes, but they are becoming ever more rare. It feels like the mainstream industry has shifted focus from creating entertaining experiences to optimizing how to psychologically manipulate people into spending as much money as possible on their games.
So nowadays, if I want to play a fun game, I play indies. If I want to play a game with a deep narrative, I play indies. If I want an original gameplay idea that the mainstream industry would never dare try out of fear of losing revenue, I play indies.
Now, if I want a fast way to get a large sum of money out of my wallet as fast as possible, I just place my vacuum cleaner directly inside it. If my vacuum cleaner is being used, then I buy a triple-A game.
Call me an indie purist or whatever, but the mainstream games industry is losing me as a customer fast. Indies have been filling the game shaped hole in my heart in the last few years, and they'll probably be more necessary than ever down the line. The mainstream games industry is the reason why I do not call myself a "gamer" anymore.
I really hope I don't start a flamewar here, because that is not my intention.
See, indies are developed to be fun, interesting, or otherwise compelling experiences, usually made by fans of video games for fans of video games, and usually made with love and a cohesive artistic vision.
In contrast, the mainstream video games industry nowadays has gone in the complete opposite direction. Microtransactions up the wazoo, "live service" mentality, design by commitee with no clear artistic vision, and games sometimes being purposefully made to be slow and obnoxious in order to pretty much force the player to buy "time savers" to actually be able to enjoy the game that they have bought. They also rely on tons of "FOMO" to make people want to play games even when they would normally not.
That isn't to say the mainstream industry does not occasionally launch good games without those predatory schemes, but they are becoming ever more rare. It feels like the mainstream industry has shifted focus from creating entertaining experiences to optimizing how to psychologically manipulate people into spending as much money as possible on their games.
So nowadays, if I want to play a fun game, I play indies. If I want to play a game with a deep narrative, I play indies. If I want an original gameplay idea that the mainstream industry would never dare try out of fear of losing revenue, I play indies.
Now, if I want a fast way to get a large sum of money out of my wallet as fast as possible, I just place my vacuum cleaner directly inside it. If my vacuum cleaner is being used, then I buy a triple-A game.
Call me an indie purist or whatever, but the mainstream games industry is losing me as a customer fast. Indies have been filling the game shaped hole in my heart in the last few years, and they'll probably be more necessary than ever down the line. The mainstream games industry is the reason why I do not call myself a "gamer" anymore.
I really hope I don't start a flamewar here, because that is not my intention.
Jpratt
659
@Acra
I agree with all of that as a player. Though as a developer I tend to make games a bit harder than I usually play. Something about old school games, to me, is that they should be more challenging than the average game. These days games are often incredibly easy to pander to all age groups, and every action provides some kind of continuous reward. Ongoing rewards are great if they are the player feels like they've accomplished something to earn them. I can't stand 'trophy' systems that reward players for completing a tutorial or crafting a basic weapon. They lose me quick.
@Gretgor
It really depends on the developer. I kind of respect what Fortnite did with the free model. Sure people are drawn into spending money on customization, but they give the player the option to fair play at no charge. Everything they charge for is cosmetic.
Red Dead Redemption was a wild west game when wild west games weren't in. This is a massive single player focused epic with amazing design. It's clear this developer wanted to make their game first and think about profit (online play) second. Bethesda is another great developer who make games they want to play. Heck, when ESO was done it had thr potential for far greater profit but Bethesda handed the reins to another company because they love making single player games. The Witcher 3 is another well executed RPG.
I do know what you mean though. Call of Duty is thr puppy mill of gaming. Phone games are an uttrr joke.
When I'm an eccentric billionaire I imagine myself starting up an old school game development company that makes games for fun.
I agree with all of that as a player. Though as a developer I tend to make games a bit harder than I usually play. Something about old school games, to me, is that they should be more challenging than the average game. These days games are often incredibly easy to pander to all age groups, and every action provides some kind of continuous reward. Ongoing rewards are great if they are the player feels like they've accomplished something to earn them. I can't stand 'trophy' systems that reward players for completing a tutorial or crafting a basic weapon. They lose me quick.
@Gretgor
It really depends on the developer. I kind of respect what Fortnite did with the free model. Sure people are drawn into spending money on customization, but they give the player the option to fair play at no charge. Everything they charge for is cosmetic.
Red Dead Redemption was a wild west game when wild west games weren't in. This is a massive single player focused epic with amazing design. It's clear this developer wanted to make their game first and think about profit (online play) second. Bethesda is another great developer who make games they want to play. Heck, when ESO was done it had thr potential for far greater profit but Bethesda handed the reins to another company because they love making single player games. The Witcher 3 is another well executed RPG.
I do know what you mean though. Call of Duty is thr puppy mill of gaming. Phone games are an uttrr joke.
When I'm an eccentric billionaire I imagine myself starting up an old school game development company that makes games for fun.
orange-
1659
For me it's originality and seeing something I haven't seen before. That's the main draw for me be it an indie game or AAA game. I also really like ambitious projects. I don't mean ambitious in having AAA-level graphics or something, but games that try to make a big overall experience where equal amounts of effort has gone into story, graphics, gameplay and sound. I think it's pretty rare seeing this in indie games. Too often games fall into being one trick ponies. Like there are countless games that have one stand out feature. Those games rarely keep me invested longer than few hours. That's of course completely fine if you make a bite-sized little game, but too often I see that one trick being stretched for too long and wide.
My biggest issue with the current indie game scenes is that too many games try to replicate what some mainstream games have done before. Like how many metroidvanias can there be in this world? There are so many games in the world already, we don't need replicates of existing games with slightly different looks and feels. Especially these days as older games too are made more and more available to us.
My biggest issue with the current indie game scenes is that too many games try to replicate what some mainstream games have done before. Like how many metroidvanias can there be in this world? There are so many games in the world already, we don't need replicates of existing games with slightly different looks and feels. Especially these days as older games too are made more and more available to us.
Irog
4858
author=Gretgor
My thing with indies is more related to my ideals than it is to game design. I feel like indies understand what I want out of games in a way the mainstream industry no longer does.
See, indies are developed to be fun, interesting, or otherwise compelling experiences, usually made by fans of video games for fans of video games, and usually made with love and a cohesive artistic vision.
In contrast, the mainstream video games industry nowadays has gone in the complete opposite direction. Microtransactions up the wazoo, "live service" mentality, design by commitee with no clear artistic vision, and games sometimes being purposefully made to be slow and obnoxious in order to pretty much force the player to buy "time savers" to actually be able to enjoy the game that they have bought. They also rely on tons of "FOMO" to make people want to play games even when they would normally not.
That isn't to say the mainstream industry does not occasionally launch good games without those predatory schemes, but they are becoming ever more rare. It feels like the mainstream industry has shifted focus from creating entertaining experiences to optimizing how to psychologically manipulate people into spending as much money as possible on their games.
So nowadays, if I want to play a fun game, I play indies. If I want to play a game with a deep narrative, I play indies. If I want an original gameplay idea that the mainstream industry would never dare try out of fear of losing revenue, I play indies.
Now, if I want a fast way to get a large sum of money out of my wallet as fast as possible, I just place my vacuum cleaner directly inside it. If my vacuum cleaner is being used, then I buy a triple-A game.
Call me an indie purist or whatever, but the mainstream games industry is losing me as a customer fast. Indies have been filling the game shaped hole in my heart in the last few years, and they'll probably be more necessary than ever down the line. The mainstream games industry is the reason why I do not call myself a "gamer" anymore.
I totally agree with you Gretgor !
Darken
3952
This is going to come off as ignoring the topic question, but I'd say it's the willingness to regress features to get something interesting.
Some people despise walking simulators but I think of that genre as a chance to explore possibilities within a minimalist set of features. Something like Yume Nikki really resonates with people despite it ignoring most of RPG Maker's potential. RM2003 is only really capable of making FF4 clones but there's still some value in seeing what can be done despite the format.
I guess that's to say to find something that was there in a lot of games but we just didn't realize it. Like extracting mechanics from rogue-likes (by that I mean games that are actually clone of rogue) and putting them in where you wouldn't think they'd belong. As opposed to pushing the technological/production limits as much as humanly possible.
This is less what I like to see in an indie game and more what I think they accomplish well at though.
Some people despise walking simulators but I think of that genre as a chance to explore possibilities within a minimalist set of features. Something like Yume Nikki really resonates with people despite it ignoring most of RPG Maker's potential. RM2003 is only really capable of making FF4 clones but there's still some value in seeing what can be done despite the format.
I guess that's to say to find something that was there in a lot of games but we just didn't realize it. Like extracting mechanics from rogue-likes (by that I mean games that are actually clone of rogue) and putting them in where you wouldn't think they'd belong. As opposed to pushing the technological/production limits as much as humanly possible.
This is less what I like to see in an indie game and more what I think they accomplish well at though.
Oh, don't get me started on the thousands of FF7 fangames that were being made in RM2K3 in the late 2000s.
Are we derailing, guys? Cuz it looks like we're derailing.
Jpratt
659
Darken, I think you're spot on actually. It's similar to mixing genre's. Sure rock and classical are great on their own, but mixing an electric guitar solo escalation in with an orchestra is way more exciting.
Similarly with games, we can play a million clones or we can find the gems which decided a first shooter can be a puzzle game, horror games can be adorable, or RPG classes can be used in a Street Fighter style game instead. Look how popular Smash Bros was (is.)
Though I don't think simplicity is the only option. Mixing things up can be just as appreciated in the more complex games too, even if it's less explored.
There are a lot of subtle ways to stick out too. For example, make your standard, linear story RPG but each time the player dies they are taken to the next save point instead of the last one; missing out on story, important information and gear. This would be torture to a completionist.
Similarly with games, we can play a million clones or we can find the gems which decided a first shooter can be a puzzle game, horror games can be adorable, or RPG classes can be used in a Street Fighter style game instead. Look how popular Smash Bros was (is.)
Though I don't think simplicity is the only option. Mixing things up can be just as appreciated in the more complex games too, even if it's less explored.
There are a lot of subtle ways to stick out too. For example, make your standard, linear story RPG but each time the player dies they are taken to the next save point instead of the last one; missing out on story, important information and gear. This would be torture to a completionist.
author=Darken
This is going to come off as ignoring the topic question, but I'd say it's the willingness to regress features to get something interesting.
Some people despise walking simulators but I think of that genre as a chance to explore possibilities within a minimalist set of features. Something like Yume Nikki really resonates with people despite it ignoring most of RPG Maker's potential. RM2003 is only really capable of making FF4 clones but there's still some value in seeing what can be done despite the format.
I guess that's to say to find something that was there in a lot of games but we just didn't realize it. Like extracting mechanics from rogue-likes (by that I mean games that are actually clone of rogue) and putting them in where you wouldn't think they'd belong. As opposed to pushing the technological/production limits as much as humanly possible.
This is less what I like to see in an indie game and more what I think they accomplish well at though.
I second this so hard. It's something I wanted to express and I guess I failed. I don't really care about individual features but I prefer less. I think that even a pre-written story is a feature, having characters is a feature.
Walking sims can do a lot with very few features. Movement, first person view and environment.
author=orange-
My biggest issue with the current indie game scenes is that too many games try to replicate what some mainstream games have done before. Like how many metroidvanias can there be in this world? There are so many games in the world already, we don't need replicates of existing games with slightly different looks and feels. Especially these days as older games too are made more and more available to us.
I don't see this as an issue. The real problem is trying to follow everything. Even without big games, there are loads of new indie games every month. As someone, who usually plays only few games longer than 1 hour/year, I think the main problem is FOMO and lack of distance from the indie market.
Today, Metroidvanias could be the only type of game you play and I think you would have just the right amount of games to play, if you decided that they're the only jam you need.
Pages:
1
