|
Does anyone else always end up feeling silly after buying indie games? I buy it to support the idea in hopes that its a good game, but it never is. Its never a game I'd play a month later. So while it feels cheap and good etc, it always ends up feeling like a waste 
|
On July 16 2013 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:Does anyone else always end up feeling silly after buying indie games? I buy it to support the idea in hopes that its a good game, but it never is. Its never a game I'd play a month later. So while it feels cheap and good etc, it always ends up feeling like a waste
Indie games may not be for you, then. Some of us buy them because we are looking for a certain kind of style/control/challenge that just isn't offered anymore mainstream - not since everything went casual.
|
On July 15 2013 23:52 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 23:10 Tobberoth wrote:On July 15 2013 22:29 0x64 wrote:On July 15 2013 21:39 Tobberoth wrote:
I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc. You can't disagree, you don't have anything in what I said that could be worth arguing about. I was pointing at the art direction, which is the strong point of Binding of Isaac whereas Binding of Isaac weakness is in its game design and playability. That's why I am confident anyone who loves binding of Isaac will love Don't Starve. Your description of Don't starve is accurate and I see why my comment could be misleading. Minecraft is actually just as misleading (also because there is so many different minecraft) even if both game have crafting as their core mechanics. Both in Binding and Dont starve, player's game will change very much depending on the generate map, yet in Binding, you can't really do anything about it while in don't starve, you have a reason to explore more the world. I disagree 100%. In Binding Of Isaac, it doesn't matter if the map generated is a weak one, i'm confident good players can beat the game without picking up even a single upgrade (at least beat Mom). You can technically dodge anything and there's no time-limit, the upgrades and items really just make the game easier. The art direction is IMO the weakest point of Binding Of Isaac (not so much the art direction itself, which is OK, but rather that it looks like a flash game). I would have easily prefed the same game in pure pixelart. Of course, it does matter, it's a question of game balance. If the map doesn't matter, you, as a player will end up making less interesting choices. You have no tension structure. It does matter for many, it may even stop someone from buying it because those are design flaws that end up in reviews. "there are also more than a few things—broad fluctuations in difficulty and enemies that shoot/jump through barriers when you can't, for instance—that undermine the fun. " -IGN While this aspect is not brought in every review, it will still stop many players from playing long enough to discover the game. The controls are not spotless + useless stuff in levels + a randomly generated too hard map the first few time with repeating main monsters. The frustration will alienate many player but if you give the game 10 hours or so, you also will start enjoying it. Before that, it is very random in a bit bad way. Still, the lack of controller support was a huge disappointment, but anyway, for the price, it's sure a great game.
Personally, I'm one of those people who prefer games that don't dumb themselves down to people without attention spans. That's why Dark Souls is one of the best games in modern time: It doesn't care about being perfectly optimized and spoon-feeding everything to the player, it makes you fight for it, which is why it's worth playing more than once and gives ridiculous amounts of satisfaction.
The controls of the Binding of Isaac are simple and to the point. Hell, the controls are in fact so simple that the whole manual to controlling the game is written in the first room of the game, that's pretty sick. The fact that the map is "too hard" is irrelevant since it's a roguelike, it's supposed to be that way. Roguelikes are games which force the player to "enjoy the journey", you can't look for a quickfix trying to beat the game on your first try. This is a feature of the genre, not a bad aspect.
I'll give you that a lot of players will give up on the game, not giving it a chance. I, however, call that a fault of the gamers in question, not the game, and I'm glad that developers still dare to make games like that.
|
I wish I had more time and money to find good indie games to support. There's a lot of cool innovative stuff out there that fills a nice niche. As an added bonus, I don't hate myself for a good week as I do after buying the latest NHL or battlefield that's no different form the last four installments. Thanks EA!
Def agree about hotline and super meat boy. I gotta reinstall steam on this comp but Ill come back with some other cool ones.
|
On July 16 2013 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:Does anyone else always end up feeling silly after buying indie games? I buy it to support the idea in hopes that its a good game, but it never is. Its never a game I'd play a month later. So while it feels cheap and good etc, it always ends up feeling like a waste
To answer your question: I can't believe that I bought Surgeon simulator in the same discount period, worst 3 Euros ever spent. To be honest it felt much worse than accidentally smashing an expensive wine bottle earlier this week.
But it's true, most Indy games are hard to appreciate. I still feel there some gems: I've had a lot of fun playing Reus. Which is also in steam discount now.
|
|
|
On July 15 2013 21:59 Amestir wrote:
Your blogs are so infuriating to read. Every time. Instead of just telling us what games you bought and if you liked them or not you made in to a not so subtle brag about why you always support the small business man.
I really wonder what you did in the past to get you featured.
yah 30 years after release he spends 50 cents on super hexagon
such a patron of the arts
|
United States33565 Posts
|
I don't have binding of isaac and probably never will but the premise sounds hilarious
tried to play thomas was alone, got bored, will probably watch a let's play instead. that happens to me depressingly often.
|
On July 16 2013 03:28 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 23:52 0x64 wrote:On July 15 2013 23:10 Tobberoth wrote:On July 15 2013 22:29 0x64 wrote:On July 15 2013 21:39 Tobberoth wrote:
I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc. You can't disagree, you don't have anything in what I said that could be worth arguing about. I was pointing at the art direction, which is the strong point of Binding of Isaac whereas Binding of Isaac weakness is in its game design and playability. That's why I am confident anyone who loves binding of Isaac will love Don't Starve. Your description of Don't starve is accurate and I see why my comment could be misleading. Minecraft is actually just as misleading (also because there is so many different minecraft) even if both game have crafting as their core mechanics. Both in Binding and Dont starve, player's game will change very much depending on the generate map, yet in Binding, you can't really do anything about it while in don't starve, you have a reason to explore more the world. I disagree 100%. In Binding Of Isaac, it doesn't matter if the map generated is a weak one, i'm confident good players can beat the game without picking up even a single upgrade (at least beat Mom). You can technically dodge anything and there's no time-limit, the upgrades and items really just make the game easier. The art direction is IMO the weakest point of Binding Of Isaac (not so much the art direction itself, which is OK, but rather that it looks like a flash game). I would have easily prefed the same game in pure pixelart. Of course, it does matter, it's a question of game balance. If the map doesn't matter, you, as a player will end up making less interesting choices. You have no tension structure. It does matter for many, it may even stop someone from buying it because those are design flaws that end up in reviews. "there are also more than a few things—broad fluctuations in difficulty and enemies that shoot/jump through barriers when you can't, for instance—that undermine the fun. " -IGN While this aspect is not brought in every review, it will still stop many players from playing long enough to discover the game. The controls are not spotless + useless stuff in levels + a randomly generated too hard map the first few time with repeating main monsters. The frustration will alienate many player but if you give the game 10 hours or so, you also will start enjoying it. Before that, it is very random in a bit bad way. Still, the lack of controller support was a huge disappointment, but anyway, for the price, it's sure a great game. Personally, I'm one of those people who prefer games that don't dumb themselves down to people without attention spans. That's why Dark Souls is one of the best games in modern time: It doesn't care about being perfectly optimized and spoon-feeding everything to the player, it makes you fight for it, which is why it's worth playing more than once and gives ridiculous amounts of satisfaction. The controls of the Binding of Isaac are simple and to the point. Hell, the controls are in fact so simple that the whole manual to controlling the game is written in the first room of the game, that's pretty sick. The fact that the map is "too hard" is irrelevant since it's a roguelike, it's supposed to be that way. Roguelikes are games which force the player to "enjoy the journey", you can't look for a quickfix trying to beat the game on your first try. This is a feature of the genre, not a bad aspect. I'll give you that a lot of players will give up on the game, not giving it a chance. I, however, call that a fault of the gamers in question, not the game, and I'm glad that developers still dare to make games like that.
It may be irrelevant to you, but in the context of what he is saying (ie suggesting games for other people to try out) it's very relevant.
Some people just don't want to be challenged, or at least not challenged too much when they play games. Some people will just quit if they find something too hard straight away. So even if Roguelikes are supposed to be like that, it doesn't mean they will appeal to everyone.
|
I too prefer "worse" graphics. These new hyperrealistic games look like bad action movies.
|
On July 16 2013 10:33 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 03:28 Tobberoth wrote:On July 15 2013 23:52 0x64 wrote:On July 15 2013 23:10 Tobberoth wrote:On July 15 2013 22:29 0x64 wrote:On July 15 2013 21:39 Tobberoth wrote:
I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc. You can't disagree, you don't have anything in what I said that could be worth arguing about. I was pointing at the art direction, which is the strong point of Binding of Isaac whereas Binding of Isaac weakness is in its game design and playability. That's why I am confident anyone who loves binding of Isaac will love Don't Starve. Your description of Don't starve is accurate and I see why my comment could be misleading. Minecraft is actually just as misleading (also because there is so many different minecraft) even if both game have crafting as their core mechanics. Both in Binding and Dont starve, player's game will change very much depending on the generate map, yet in Binding, you can't really do anything about it while in don't starve, you have a reason to explore more the world. I disagree 100%. In Binding Of Isaac, it doesn't matter if the map generated is a weak one, i'm confident good players can beat the game without picking up even a single upgrade (at least beat Mom). You can technically dodge anything and there's no time-limit, the upgrades and items really just make the game easier. The art direction is IMO the weakest point of Binding Of Isaac (not so much the art direction itself, which is OK, but rather that it looks like a flash game). I would have easily prefed the same game in pure pixelart. Of course, it does matter, it's a question of game balance. If the map doesn't matter, you, as a player will end up making less interesting choices. You have no tension structure. It does matter for many, it may even stop someone from buying it because those are design flaws that end up in reviews. "there are also more than a few things—broad fluctuations in difficulty and enemies that shoot/jump through barriers when you can't, for instance—that undermine the fun. " -IGN While this aspect is not brought in every review, it will still stop many players from playing long enough to discover the game. The controls are not spotless + useless stuff in levels + a randomly generated too hard map the first few time with repeating main monsters. The frustration will alienate many player but if you give the game 10 hours or so, you also will start enjoying it. Before that, it is very random in a bit bad way. Still, the lack of controller support was a huge disappointment, but anyway, for the price, it's sure a great game. Personally, I'm one of those people who prefer games that don't dumb themselves down to people without attention spans. That's why Dark Souls is one of the best games in modern time: It doesn't care about being perfectly optimized and spoon-feeding everything to the player, it makes you fight for it, which is why it's worth playing more than once and gives ridiculous amounts of satisfaction. The controls of the Binding of Isaac are simple and to the point. Hell, the controls are in fact so simple that the whole manual to controlling the game is written in the first room of the game, that's pretty sick. The fact that the map is "too hard" is irrelevant since it's a roguelike, it's supposed to be that way. Roguelikes are games which force the player to "enjoy the journey", you can't look for a quickfix trying to beat the game on your first try. This is a feature of the genre, not a bad aspect. I'll give you that a lot of players will give up on the game, not giving it a chance. I, however, call that a fault of the gamers in question, not the game, and I'm glad that developers still dare to make games like that. It may be irrelevant to you, but in the context of what he is saying (ie suggesting games for other people to try out) it's very relevant. Some people just don't want to be challenged, or at least not challenged too much when they play games. Some people will just quit if they find something too hard straight away. So even if Roguelikes are supposed to be like that, it doesn't mean they will appeal to everyone.
Again, I acknowledge that, but it's not like his post was "Binding of Isaac is quite difficult, if you prefer something more casual Just Starve might be a nice game", it was more along the lines of "If you like Binding of Isaac, Just Starve is a superior game you can try out" which I just don't find possible to agree with.
|
On July 16 2013 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:Does anyone else always end up feeling silly after buying indie games? I buy it to support the idea in hopes that its a good game, but it never is. Its never a game I'd play a month later. So while it feels cheap and good etc, it always ends up feeling like a waste
How many games do you really end up playing a month later in general?
Usually it's only going to be the kind of muitiplayer competitive-ish games you play with your friends and have some sort of regular connection with (SC2, Dota, and the similar) or MMOs. Most other games are really a one-off experience.
Even so, I think I played Minecraft and FTL longer than most single-player games I can think of.
|
Is borderlands 2 indie anymore? I'm playing it now!
|
On July 16 2013 15:30 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 10:33 Myrddraal wrote:On July 16 2013 03:28 Tobberoth wrote:On July 15 2013 23:52 0x64 wrote:On July 15 2013 23:10 Tobberoth wrote:On July 15 2013 22:29 0x64 wrote:On July 15 2013 21:39 Tobberoth wrote:
I disagree with 0x64, Binding of Isaac is not comparable to Don't Starve in any way and Don't Starve is definitely not a better game (though a good one). Don't Starve is like a 2D minecraft, with far less creativity but far more "actual gameplay". Some people will find it very addicting, others will find it to be a boring collect-a-thon.
Binding of Isaac is something very special, it's a roguelike mixed with shoot-em-up mixed with Zelda. It's one of the few roguelikes where it's not just about luck and knowledge/experience, but skill is also a big component, learning boss-patterns etc. You can't disagree, you don't have anything in what I said that could be worth arguing about. I was pointing at the art direction, which is the strong point of Binding of Isaac whereas Binding of Isaac weakness is in its game design and playability. That's why I am confident anyone who loves binding of Isaac will love Don't Starve. Your description of Don't starve is accurate and I see why my comment could be misleading. Minecraft is actually just as misleading (also because there is so many different minecraft) even if both game have crafting as their core mechanics. Both in Binding and Dont starve, player's game will change very much depending on the generate map, yet in Binding, you can't really do anything about it while in don't starve, you have a reason to explore more the world. I disagree 100%. In Binding Of Isaac, it doesn't matter if the map generated is a weak one, i'm confident good players can beat the game without picking up even a single upgrade (at least beat Mom). You can technically dodge anything and there's no time-limit, the upgrades and items really just make the game easier. The art direction is IMO the weakest point of Binding Of Isaac (not so much the art direction itself, which is OK, but rather that it looks like a flash game). I would have easily prefed the same game in pure pixelart. Of course, it does matter, it's a question of game balance. If the map doesn't matter, you, as a player will end up making less interesting choices. You have no tension structure. It does matter for many, it may even stop someone from buying it because those are design flaws that end up in reviews. "there are also more than a few things—broad fluctuations in difficulty and enemies that shoot/jump through barriers when you can't, for instance—that undermine the fun. " -IGN While this aspect is not brought in every review, it will still stop many players from playing long enough to discover the game. The controls are not spotless + useless stuff in levels + a randomly generated too hard map the first few time with repeating main monsters. The frustration will alienate many player but if you give the game 10 hours or so, you also will start enjoying it. Before that, it is very random in a bit bad way. Still, the lack of controller support was a huge disappointment, but anyway, for the price, it's sure a great game. Personally, I'm one of those people who prefer games that don't dumb themselves down to people without attention spans. That's why Dark Souls is one of the best games in modern time: It doesn't care about being perfectly optimized and spoon-feeding everything to the player, it makes you fight for it, which is why it's worth playing more than once and gives ridiculous amounts of satisfaction. The controls of the Binding of Isaac are simple and to the point. Hell, the controls are in fact so simple that the whole manual to controlling the game is written in the first room of the game, that's pretty sick. The fact that the map is "too hard" is irrelevant since it's a roguelike, it's supposed to be that way. Roguelikes are games which force the player to "enjoy the journey", you can't look for a quickfix trying to beat the game on your first try. This is a feature of the genre, not a bad aspect. I'll give you that a lot of players will give up on the game, not giving it a chance. I, however, call that a fault of the gamers in question, not the game, and I'm glad that developers still dare to make games like that. It may be irrelevant to you, but in the context of what he is saying (ie suggesting games for other people to try out) it's very relevant. Some people just don't want to be challenged, or at least not challenged too much when they play games. Some people will just quit if they find something too hard straight away. So even if Roguelikes are supposed to be like that, it doesn't mean they will appeal to everyone. Again, I acknowledge that, but it's not like his post was "Binding of Isaac is quite difficult, if you prefer something more casual Just Starve might be a nice game", it was more along the lines of "If you like Binding of Isaac, Just Starve is a superior game you can try out" which I just don't find possible to agree with.
You got provoked because I freely gave a quite bold statement, which the important part was the if thedeadhaji like Binding of Isaac, he will totally love Don't Starve.
Both game are permadeath games. Both have twisted humor. Both have a dark esthetic. Both have an awesome original soundtrack.
Sure they are from different genre and might be that thedeadhaji hates minecraft from the bottom of his heart and I am very wrong.
When I play a roguelike and I get very little joy from loot, I feel cheated. There are antipatterns used on purpose in the design of the game and I don't buy in that. I really love the guys that made it, I know they master many aspect of game design, and they actually told this was not something they'd expect to be a success, yet it was and the reason for that comes from two big things, 1. They have a cult status in the indie community, 2. The great things I listed in my list of similarities with Dont Starve.
|
Isn't Don't Starve just a single player copy of island troll tribes the war3 mod?
|
McPixel is an amazing game. The humor and brief format make it one of the best "adventure" games I've played in years. I think the length was part of the reason why I can't get into point-and-click adventure games anymore, but McPixel is so short that it takes seconds to finish a screen. And you can come back multiple times to see all the gags.
|
On July 16 2013 21:56 Burrfoot wrote:
Is borderlands 2 indie anymore? I'm playing it now!
No, BL2 is published by 2K Games, developed by Gearbox.
|
On July 17 2013 06:57 PrinceXizor wrote:
Isn't Don't Starve just a single player copy of island troll tribes the war3 mod?
Pretty much, multiplayer would be much fun.
|
Too bad i have never heard of any of these games before, but i guess i am not in the indie game in-crowd.
But hearing that you got those games for only $12 makes me interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
