Films are stateless - they get made, people watch them, that's it. Games are not. Games are usually played in installments and online games can only be played that way. This brings the game-designer closer to the TV writer/director than to the film maker.

Indie TV is not exactly huge news. Probably the closest equivalent is something like South Park, and even that requires major-league distribution.

I wish i knew how to solve this problem. Sadly, i don't.

In a way, they don't.

On the other hand, getting recognition as an "indie" movie maker is easier than getting recognition as an "indie" game developer. My better half is a manager at a movie theater that runs mostly indie and foreign films. It's even more amazing when you consider that the parent company is a big theater chain. So, there's at least a bit of enlightened self-interest by these companies.

Second, the most prestigious awards in the industry include a lot of "indie" movies. Capote, Good Night, and Good Luck, and Transamerica all got nominations, and Capote even won an award! It's true that the awards usually degenerate into a bunch of self-congratulation between Hollywood elite, but at least the indie movies get mentions. When is the last time you saw a "top 10 list of the year" on even a game website that mentioned a game without retail distribution?

Third, there's some effort behind getting indie movies recognized. The Sundance Film Festival used to be a shining example here, but it's been co-opted by money and it has a hard time getting much attention for a true indie these days. But, I suspect we'll see something to replace it; in fact, it's probably happening already, just below the radar.

Finally, an indie film maker is still respected as a film maker. As I've said before, some people don't respect the work I've done on Meridian 59. It's too small, too old, or some other excuse given for why it's not a "real game". The industry has no incentive to reward the independents; in fact, they often view the indies as the enemy: trying to get people interested in something besides the newest and shiniest.

Sad to say, but Hollywood is a bit more enlightened in this regard.

In a way, they don't. Independents film makers languish in obscurity just like independent game makers. In another way, they do. There is a strong "Indie Films are better than mainstream crap" meme that pools together a large pool of critics and audiences. This is a small subset of the mainstream, but it does provide an ecosystem for Indie Films to develop in, and the best ones to be passed on to the mainstream for consumption.

I think the "Indie games don't suck" marketting is the right idea. We need to instill in people the idea that to a "real" gamer, independent games are superior. Fake gamers that care only about flashy effects can watch the hollywood blockbusters, but those that know the art will go to the Independent Games Festival to play and discuss those truly leading game design.

Perception is everything. You say that experience of crappy indie and crappy homebrew games has soured you? Then you must not be a real gamer! Enjoy that mass market pablum! With that message, you'll likely find some indie games that you like :>

This strategy won't make indie gamers rich. It will, however, help combat the "Indie games are inferior to Mainstream ones by definition" meme that is way too common right now.

I've mentioned the roguelike community in the past. That group is an example of such a self-sustaining independent genre. What is particularly nice is that, unlike the emulation groups which are usually only looking for remakes, there is interest in *new* games in the genre. Indeed, it is entertaining to see the health discussion about trying to decide *what* that genre is, and the inevitable process of canon formation that goes with any new field of study.

The goal would be to build that same sort of community around the idea of "Indie Games". And then spend some marketting dollars in suggesting to the world that the members of that community are l33t for forsaking glitz for gameplay. Indeed, such a community may already exist (we see bits of it show up in sites like this, no?) It may just be a matter of driving the meme to the mainstream.

The trick, for it to be useful rather than yet another portal, is to work hard to keep it a meritocracy rather than a plutocracy. I don't know how you get enough money to keep you honest running it. Government Art grants would seem the usual answer, but sadly games aren't yet art.

Given how short many "mainstream" games are these days, that's not an unreasonable assumption to make.

When Space Empires V comes out, I will pay full price and willingly, because it will last me a LOT longer than the vast majority of games.

Of course, Malfeodor is one the success stories of indy game design, and it draws heavily from Starfire, on which I used to work, but that's another story.

And even of those, I have bought perhaps 5 games per year the last few years, of which only a couple games held my interest for more than a week. One of those was Battlefield 2--a great game but the online experience was so depressing it made me understand for the first time why anyone would prefer something like XBox Live to PC gaming.

I recently quit Battlefield 2 in frustration and vowed never to play it online ever again. Because of the difficulty of finding a server that isn't so laggy its unplayable, and the long load times, and the random crashing right after finally connecting to a server and waiting through the long load time. And the giant memory leak that causes it to crash or slow to a crawl after about 3-4 hours of play. I found I was spending more than half my play time swearing in frustration at a "There is a problem with your connection" message or trying server after server to find one that was playable. Battlefield 2 has the longest loading times I've ever seen--so long they make Morrowind loading times seem short!

After my frustrating experience with Battlefield 2 I am on the lookout for better gaming experiences. I am starting to realize that short loading times, smooth framerate and enjoyable gameplay mean a lot more to me than shiny graphics. I can load up Super Mario Kart in an emulator and start playing it almost instantly. My new standard is this: in order for me to pay $50-$60 for a mainstream game, or more than $20 for an indie game, it must be at least as easy and fun to start playing as Super Mario Kart still is (even after all these years).

Before I dig into the wild ocean of my educated ignorance, I must say I am an outsider.
Indeed, I have not attempted to produce any game since the Amstrad CPC 464 bit the dust.
I thought I would shoot my credibility right away. :) I have no intention...

Well, start with baby steps. What are your reasons, and what could be done to overcome them?

Let me start. I distrust DRM and consider it a hassle to either download a huge game for just a brief demo, or have to enter information then wait for a CD to arrive. I think that indies could get around this more by having longer demos to make the downloads worth it initially. Then have a system that makes it easy to reinstall the games without cumbersome DRM. This is more of a technical question, I think, perhaps something I should think about a bit more.

Let me give a concrete example of what I mean about demos. The game Morning's Wrath looks pretty neat. It looks like a pretty decent isometric action/RPG (like Diablo), but with a lot more story. Yet, after 80 MBs of download all I got was a bunch of dialog (fairly well written, mind you), and one very, VERY minor combat. The demo basically just runs you through the introduction, but it stops right when you get to the main game. I didn't get a feel for how combat really works, and I didn't get any nifty items to try out in combat. By the time I got any items, I couldn't get into combat. Now, the purpose of a demo is to get you to want more, but a good demo should also get you invested in trying out the game. The game should have let me play more of the game, perhaps even 50% of it, then get me to buy the game. Make the save games compatible between the demo and the full game.

I'll think more about the DRM issue. There might be something we could do for that.

More thoughts,

However, we need to realize that we are not average gamers.

In terms of people who are driving the industry today, you are probably correct. In terms of people who may end up being the ones who make indie game development not suck, I think you may be overstating the case. But since you go on to say that the core problem you want to consider right now is fixing the current negative response to indie games, I'll accept this argument provisionally. *grin*

Unfortunately, that also means that I don't have a whole lot more to add. I don't know why average gamers mistrust indie games. I know why I do, but you've called all those reason out already.

I think the question to ask is "does my work need its own engine?"

Now, I'd LOVE it if NWN2 let anyone produce for-pay modules and VW's. I don't think it's going to happen, but that sort of toolkit and engine would give a small team something which they could use to *start* selling ideas. Certainly it'd be a risk, but if you managed to attract a deacent community (as the creator of the engine), and started selling art packs, and this and that...the synergy of everything would be a pretty deacent income source for all involved.

Bit pie in the sky, I know, but there is the potential out there these days. With the added notw that I don't think NWN2 will be it - simply put, the NWN scripting engine is too hard for the majority of people to get to grips with - a true scripting language like Lua is immensely easier for non-coders to tackle.

And yes, there'd be the danger of games becoming generic - but I feel that a large number of games allready out there feel generic anyway.

Neither am I. I've just been playing some games on an NES emulator, so to say I care about graphics is a bit of a stretch. However, we need to realize that we are not average gamers. Game developers tend to care about gameplay a lot more than graphical presentation. However, to think that we can apply this to the larger audience is a mistake. Unfortunately, most people consider anything short of cutting-edge 3D to be unworthy of their time.

In particular, in my chosen field of MMOs, I am very wary of people who want to enshrine heavy-duty innovation -- largely because I haven't yet seen us do the simple old stuff right, nevermind whatever the flashy new innovative thing may be.

I agree with you on this point. My post above deals more with indie games in general rather than MMOs. I absolutely agree that we need to learn to get the basics right first. Yet, I think there is still room for some innovation, particularly in the area of genre. Does everything need to be high fantasy or spaceship combat? I know you agree with me on this point from our previous conversations.

But it's really not clear to me which problem you want a solution for.

Fair enough. For me, the biggest issues is how do we make being an indie not suck. I think most of the other issues are related to that and the first step to solving them is to solve this basic issue. I still think the core problem is the negative response people have to the concept of the "indie" game, the automatic assumption that the game can't be good. If we could get the audience to judge a game based on gameplay and perhaps be a bit more forgiving in the other aspects, we might see some real innovation happening in indie games. Not that I expect people to embrace NES-level production values again, but not everything has to be cutting-edge. Until then, we'll keep seeing our industry travel in the same ruts it always has in recent memory.

My thoughts,