Question Of The Month Reader Responses: Issue #243
In issue 241, we asked readers whether they prefer playing indie games or triple-A blockbusters. While the majority favored indie games, some readers preferred blockbusters, while others found it impossible to choose. Here are some of the responses we received..
Infatuated With Indies:
- Indie gaming is tops, and it's not even close. Big publishers are no longer willing to pay for the risk of innovation, so instead we get an annual deluge of the same twenty properties, or lazy clones thereof. I can't even stomach another frame of Call Of Duty, especially when you can get a dozen well-crafted indies for the same price. Indies have the courage to put what little money they have into their dream; triple-A companies use their huge war chests to repeat themselves ad infinitum to a timid marketplace.
- I enjoy indie games more, probably because I grew up with relatively simple games that were cutting edge at the time. Sure, I enjoy a few of the blockbuster games, but I get frustrated when I have to press a million buttons in a specific order to get the result I want. Sure, it gives you more options and the results are cool, but I thoroughly dislike it. So indie games it is!
- I like indie games in a sense that it's easier to find some variety. It seems like most big-budget games are all different versions of similar games. I get more excited seeing interesting games like Amnesia: The Dark Descent or Limbo than seeing more COD and Halo. Heck, I'm more interested in seeing silly, pointless indie games than more COD and Halo.
- I proudly say indie games all the way! I still play games like Call of Duty, Borderlands 2, etc., but so many people don't recognize the amazing indie devs out there. Honestly, if I had to choose between, say, Call of Duty or Skyrim, or games like Terraria and the recent Cortex Command, I would choose the indie games. They are, in most cases I've seen, much more replayable, enjoyable, and exciting, because you never quite know what is going to happen going into them the first few times. Even after that, things still surprise me as to what people make these games like. The creativity of ambitious developers out there has spawned some amazing stuff.
- I honestly would pick to play an indie game only because trying something new provides an awesome, unmatched feeling. When you see no trailers for an indie game, you see it as an opportunity to play it, live it, and love it.
Triple-A All The Way:
- I would prefer a triple-A blockbuster because of the content, plain and simple. The big-production video games have high-quality voice acting coupled with amazing, in-depth plots and universes within the game. Take BioShock Infinite: You would often move seamlessly to a different reality and continue forging on as you learn a whole new back story for that world. Story is not the only thing I look for either; to my knowledge Borderlands 2 has an unparalleled arsenal and seems to have just as large a cast of voice actors. So I say go big or go home.
- I prefer a triple-A game to an indie game, hands downs. I think the triple-As have the ability to create a richer experience just by the sheer fact that they have the money. One thing that turns me off of indie games is that most seem like they are too short and most of them seem to resemble the others. I know everyone has to start somewhere and there are some great ones, but being a loyal console gamer, I need a game that looks like it took longer than a week to make it and takes me longer than that to play it. Angry Birds is good at work or in a waiting room, but it doesn't beat the 100+ hours I've spent chopping wood in Skyrim! (okay, so I didn't just chop wood, but there were more than a few hours doing it much like many other people I assume).
A Little Bit Of Both:
- I prefer indie games when it's a puzzle or exploration game, such as The Unfinished Swan. They seem to get more in-depth, and are peaceful in a way. But when it comes to shooters and action-adventure, blockbusters seem to have more pizzazz.
- I have no preference between indie and triple-A games, because they're each worth mentioning for their own reasons. Triple-A games often guarantee you a solid experience, while indie titles often provide a charming or unique one. Both sides of the spectrum are fun in their own way.
If You Had Fun, You Won:
- I don't have a preference for either. I have been playing more indie games lately, but not purposely. Regardless if a game is indie or not, as long as it looks fun I will play it. I've noticed a lot of people say lately they only play one or the other, and I think that's incredibly stupid. If a game is made by one person or 1,000 people, if it's fun, play it!
- The quick and dirty answer is, I prefer a game that is fun. While I love playing and replaying Fallout 3 and still haven't stopped searching for 100% in the latest Tomb Raider, I can still honestly say I love to play Limbo. A blockbuster title like Madden (which hasn't been good for me since the previous generation of consoles) doesn't automatically mean it’s a great game. Quality always trumps the size of the developer.
- I prefer games that interest me, whether they are indie games or top blockbusters. To me it doesn't matter how popular a game is...if I like it, I'll play it.
Do you have a preference for indie games or triple-A blockbusters? Share your reasoning in the comments below!