• TPoppaPuff - December 12, 2012 10:49 p.m.

    Dan Teasdale is right: the term has been so misused it's lost all meaning. If I had to course-correct this term going forward, I think fair guidelines to being an indie game is that the title must meet these criteria: -No major-publisher financial backing. If you recognize who funded the project, odds are it's not indie. -Total contributers to the game does not exceed 18 developers. Everything from code to art to design must be done by those 18. Does not include testing or crowdsourcing contributions like feedback, etc. -No PR guy. If a game has someone whose sole purpose on the project is to talk the game up and has zero influence on the game itself, it's not indie. And finally, the one exception to all those rules; the game was developed by a total of five developers or less (as defined above), none of the other rules apply. When everyone on the team contributes and average of 20% or more to the game, it's an indie game.
  • shawksta - December 12, 2012 6:47 p.m.

    Nice views from all the different devs
  • Darkhawk - December 12, 2012 12:35 p.m.

    I think that any developer who starts with a small team and small budget, but who then gets picked up by the masses and published by a major producer... is still indie. Compare it to someone like Kevin Smith, who made Clerks on a shoestring (compare with flOw and Jenova Chen) but then went on to work with big money and big producers. He's still indie, and he still does highly personal projects without corporate guidance. In other words, "Journey" for Indie AND Game of the Year!
  • Redeater - December 12, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    You misspelled Grimrock at the end there. :)

Showing 1-4 of 4 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000