Dan’s been on a kick to equate “indie” with “creative” for some time… something about not liking the definition of the word independent and wishing it meant something else. Fact is, “indie” is short for independent, and independent already HAS a definition. If one wanted to use it in the sense of “independent from any known source”, or “independent from influence”, then perhaps a new word is in order. By itself, independence does not speak whatsoever to creative merit…

Some of the most creative games I’ve played were under the heavy thumb of a publisher’s creative constraints (publishers can be creative too! Imagine!), and much of the work coming from those who are independent of any financial burden or publisher lacks severely in the creative department. We can be indie despite (even) cloning… I am indie, GBGames is indie, Keith is indie, and Dan is indie. If we want to talk about the creativity or passion or disregard of financial stability, we’ll need more words than that one to differentiate us, methinks.

You only lose your “indie-ness” when someone else is calling the shots, and I would extend that to a company. Even if you’re working on your own design for a company, that’s not independant, because they believe you’ll make money for them, otherwise they’d find someone else to use.

Keith

That said, I think McDonald has a good argument. If you do make a change, yes it was your choice, but ultimately if you are making the choice for your customers, then they have some amount of control over the creative process. Making a great game for the sake of making it should still result in a game that the customers would want to play.

My question is: how do you define a “great” game? Is it your own personal definition or are your customers allowed to chime in? I think that Nethack is a great game, but someone unfamiliar with computers, and probably Unix specifically, would find it unintuitive and confusing. My friend hates real-time strategy games because they apparently give him too much choice. He prefers mission-based games: give him an objective and he’ll do it. Clearly he would think Starcraft is not a great game while singing the praises of Starlancer. It goes beyond different preferences in game types, of course.

It’s subjective. You might think your work is great, but your customers might disagree. Do you keep your opinion and work on more games that you like even if the world hates them? Do you change your mind and start working on things that your customers would also appreciate? Have you really lost your indie-ness if you do so?

In retail games a programmer or artist or whatever is working for the company they work for making art or games for someone else, doing what someone else wants. Sure there’s always crossover. I may like what i’m working on, but never-the-less it’s usually someone else’s vision. Or it’s usually driven by money.

Now you can personally be driven by money, but you’re still an indie because you can make the choice to make the money or make the choice to pursue a unique vision.

You can also work for a big company and work on your own game designs or ideas, however this wouldn’t be indie because the publisher has the ultimate creative control. Can they market it, is there a market for it, etc — it’s just they’re trusting you to deliver even though it’s your own design. But in the end it’s the money that matters to the company and not to you.

I don’t really understand what problems people have with this concept. If someone else is dictating what you do in anyway it’s not independant, if you’re able to make the choice between risking your career on some strange “yellow” game or the latest bejeweled clone then that’s creative freedom, that’s independence.

So doing what your customers like isn’t non-indie because ultimately you have the last word. If you want to completely offend them or if you want to totally suck up to them it’s your choice, you’re independent, do what YOU want.