• GrayBackgroundMusic@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Game - Factorio. Literally broke my 5 year gaming fast. I’ve spent over 1000 hours in it.

    Film - Boondock Saints. Not a fan of the gore in it, but damn is the rest of it amazing. Willem Dafoe, excellent as usual.

    Book - I honestly don’t know if I’ve read any indy books. I don’t know the production status of books.

  • M137@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    This post kinda implies that OP thinks the default is that blockbusters have more soul and hits people harder than indie and passion projects, which is the opposite of the truth. Art made by fewer people generally has more soul and a stronger personality which translates to feelings by the person experiencing the art. They aren’t put through a grinder of corporate bullshit to not be offensive or say anything of actual value.

    • Olkiss@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      M137 to Ask Lemmy • Which “small” indie game/film/book hit you harder than most blockbusters? 4· 1 day ago This post kinda implies that OP thinks the default is that blockbusters have more soul and hits people harder than indie and passion projects, which is the opposite of the truth. Art made by fewer people generally has more soul and a stronger personality which translates to feelings by the person experiencing the art. They aren’t put through a grinder of corporate bullshit to not be offensive or say anything of actual value.

      I think you misread me 🙂 I wasn’t implying blockbusters have more soul by default. I’m genuinely curious which indie projects hit people as strongly (or even harder) than blockbusters. Just a straightforward question.

  • SwearingRobin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 days ago

    Before Your Eyes. I was going through some major stuff at the time and I’ll associate the game with that summer forever. It has a very unique mechanic and it ties into the game really well without feeling like a gimmick. Takes about 3 hours to complete, so not a huge investment either.

    • VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      This game singlehandedly destroyed my negative perspective on walking simulators. Legit must-play for everyone. Lewis’ scene still makes me tear up.

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      This was such a good interactive story. Took me less than a day to go through it, but there are some sections I will never forget. The bathtub and the fish plant created some crazy emotions, I was happy to piece together what was happening, but then I had to see it through without any way to avoid the inevitable.

      (Trying to stay ambiguous for anyone who wants to check out it. You totally should!)

    • Olkiss@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Maybe. I consider Greedfall as indie game as not really known. I love it. So, maybe, yes. the “small” is little bit too much… 😅

  • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Most indie games will end up better than pretty much every AAA title. The best games I’ve played in the last decade were either indie or AA.

    Roboquest, Pathfinder WotR, Dyson Sphere Program, Outer Wilds, Balatro, Helldivers 2, Deep Rock Galactic, Rogue Trader, Darktide, Abiotic Factor, Rimworld, Stellaris, DV Rings of Saturn, Hardspace Shipbreaker, Voices of the Void, Expedition 33, Blue Prince, Tiny Glade, Witchfire, Instruments of Destruction, Heart of the Machine, Tainted Grail Fall of Avalon, A Webbing Journey, Planet Crafter, Kenshi, X4, Ultrakill, Schedule 1, the list goes on.

    All amazing games, none of them AAA.

  • tiramichu@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    Applying the term “Indie” to a book feels interesting to me, because almost all books, even ones that are part of intensely popular franchises, are written by a single author - so in a sense, all books are Indy.

    Of course team size is only one aspect. There’s also budget and commercial involvement. But budget doesn’t have to be a constraining factor for books the way it is for movies. And if you’re the only person pushing the keyboard keys then you are the one with ultimate creative control.

    If you are a penniless author and publish a hit and get rich, does your next book then stop being indie, even though it’s still just you? Or maybe it’s no longer indie because your circumstances have changed.

    • AMoralNihilist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Many books are managed by a publisher, however. To varying degrees of control. The publisher can have significant sway in the process of writing and editorial control, depending on the contract.

      I think the indie part is mostly to do with size and influence of the publishing house. As well as if the art comes first or market appeal. I think A24 in film are a good example of that question.

      On further thought, I think one possible criteria may be: Was this work completed independently and then subsequently published, or did this work have a publisher prior to completion?

      To your question, if the author gets big off of an indie work, then writes another, independently, which gets published again, then it’s still indie. But if that author agrees a contract to write said book with the publisher before it is written, then it is no longer indie.

      Basically, has the creator taken it on their own risk to make this thing and then tried to publish it later? Or did a publisher take the risk by funding it and then therefore may have some degree of control?

    • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      I disliked the second one specifically because they gave it a decent budget. The original is genius for how it does so much with so little.

      The third is an oddball. Made-for-TV budget and quality. It’s interesting for fans of the series, but nothing special.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’m sure the others had a bigger budget, but yeah, the first one was hardly anything.

        Of course they only needed to build one room, part of another, and then just change the lighting over and over.