I'm all for indie games, but I agree with YOG for the most part. A lot of indie games are either not-indie (IE; Bastion, which was funded by Warner Brothers and stamped INDIE on itself for some reason) or clones of other, more successful games in some form (OH LOOK! ANOTHER ZOMBIE SURVIVAL GAME! OH LOOK! ITS TETRIS WITH DIFFERENT COLORS! OH LOOK! ITS MINEBLOCKER! Oh wait, it's basically MINECRAFT with less features!) But occasionally indie developers come up with something entirely new and creative, which is what keeps me looking at them. For the most part though, they're shovelware I'd expect to find in a $5.99 CD rack in a convenience store in the early 2000s.
As an artistic medium, I think some games succeed on that level but fail as a game - as far as I'm concerned the purpose of a game is to provide a challenge to occupy the mind without being simply a puzzle, but having some other feature - a story, an objective, other than completing a puzzle with the given parameters. It's why I rarely play standalone puzzle games but enjoy a game like Legend of Zelda, that tells a story while also offering a challenge.
I think the best personal example I have of this 'clash' between artistic vision and the will of the gaming community is Mass Effect. I love the franchise, but I absolutely despised the ending of ME3 and even their "fixed ending" didn't appease me. But would anything have appeased me? Probably not. The end to my favorite game series ever was always going to be the end, and no matter what that end was, I'd still have been upset. I guess what I'm really asking is if you guys think game devs should bend to a fanbase in a situation like that, or if it's right to stand their ground and say "this is what we intended from the beginning, if you don't like it, tough." Where should that line in the sand be drawn?
As an artistic medium, I think some games succeed on that level but fail as a game - as far as I'm concerned the purpose of a game is to provide a challenge to occupy the mind without being simply a puzzle, but having some other feature - a story, an objective, other than completing a puzzle with the given parameters. It's why I rarely play standalone puzzle games but enjoy a game like Legend of Zelda, that tells a story while also offering a challenge.
I think the best personal example I have of this 'clash' between artistic vision and the will of the gaming community is Mass Effect. I love the franchise, but I absolutely despised the ending of ME3 and even their "fixed ending" didn't appease me. But would anything have appeased me? Probably not. The end to my favorite game series ever was always going to be the end, and no matter what that end was, I'd still have been upset. I guess what I'm really asking is if you guys think game devs should bend to a fanbase in a situation like that, or if it's right to stand their ground and say "this is what we intended from the beginning, if you don't like it, tough." Where should that line in the sand be drawn?