BossLackey
Gold Member
Since the inception of the AAA video game in the late 90s, games slowly evolved into several different camps. But in 2025, it's plain to see the two big ones: AAA & Indie.
What I find interesting about this is that while AAA games have largely become more and more realistic graphically and mechanically, indie games have done anything but in most circumstances. But more than that, they seem to have continued where the big developers left off in the late 90s. With of course many exceptions, a lot of indie games are very transparently standing on the shoulders of developers from a bygone era.
Pixel graphics serve the purpose of easing development for super small dev teams with modern tools while also tapping into the nostalgia of old visuals (whether you lived through that era or wish you did). And now, low-poly, low-res "PS1" graphical styles are super popular, leaning into the same advantages of pixel graphics. (there of course exists many other visual styles in indie games)
Game mechanics have also been heavily co-opted from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, often with a high degree of "arcadey" feeling.
While nostalgia can only get you so far, tons of indie games have found massive success with anachronistic genres and styles through a younger audience that either opted out of AAA altogether, or simply supplement with indie titles. Either way, to this large audience, indies have what AAA don't in some respects.
I feel like the medium is at an interesting time. Sony's signature single player experience is to me the current extreme example of AAA. Super high budget, graphically intensive, usually a "realistic" art style, and more technically driven than artistically or mechanically driven. Because of this, I'm simply not interested in these types of games (though they are impressive feats in and of themselves).
And while games like God of War and Spiderman garner large sales numbers, video games seem to be bumping up against a ceiling. Making a game more realistic involves cutting out a lot of what I love about games. You start to feel like you're guiding your character rather controlling them because of all the extra frames inserted for "realism". Give me a floating attaché case in Metal Gear over manually searching drawers in Red Dead any day of the week. Give me a hand-crafted corridor over a checklist open world.
It's nice to know that no matter how much money is dumped into games like Grand Theft Auto (and I will absolutely play it), that there will always exist the need for games that are small, quaint, cheap to make and cheap to buy, mechanically genius, and above all else, pure fun.
I think it's very special that one person or a small team can, even in 2025, create experiences that rival and sometimes even dominate the big guys. I guess what I'm saying is, the very essence of video games cannot be elevated by budget and technology alone. Even in a medium literally powered by technology, it's the ideas that make a great game.
Sorry for making GAF my diary today.
What I find interesting about this is that while AAA games have largely become more and more realistic graphically and mechanically, indie games have done anything but in most circumstances. But more than that, they seem to have continued where the big developers left off in the late 90s. With of course many exceptions, a lot of indie games are very transparently standing on the shoulders of developers from a bygone era.
Pixel graphics serve the purpose of easing development for super small dev teams with modern tools while also tapping into the nostalgia of old visuals (whether you lived through that era or wish you did). And now, low-poly, low-res "PS1" graphical styles are super popular, leaning into the same advantages of pixel graphics. (there of course exists many other visual styles in indie games)
Game mechanics have also been heavily co-opted from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, often with a high degree of "arcadey" feeling.
While nostalgia can only get you so far, tons of indie games have found massive success with anachronistic genres and styles through a younger audience that either opted out of AAA altogether, or simply supplement with indie titles. Either way, to this large audience, indies have what AAA don't in some respects.
I feel like the medium is at an interesting time. Sony's signature single player experience is to me the current extreme example of AAA. Super high budget, graphically intensive, usually a "realistic" art style, and more technically driven than artistically or mechanically driven. Because of this, I'm simply not interested in these types of games (though they are impressive feats in and of themselves).
And while games like God of War and Spiderman garner large sales numbers, video games seem to be bumping up against a ceiling. Making a game more realistic involves cutting out a lot of what I love about games. You start to feel like you're guiding your character rather controlling them because of all the extra frames inserted for "realism". Give me a floating attaché case in Metal Gear over manually searching drawers in Red Dead any day of the week. Give me a hand-crafted corridor over a checklist open world.
It's nice to know that no matter how much money is dumped into games like Grand Theft Auto (and I will absolutely play it), that there will always exist the need for games that are small, quaint, cheap to make and cheap to buy, mechanically genius, and above all else, pure fun.
I think it's very special that one person or a small team can, even in 2025, create experiences that rival and sometimes even dominate the big guys. I guess what I'm saying is, the very essence of video games cannot be elevated by budget and technology alone. Even in a medium literally powered by technology, it's the ideas that make a great game.
Sorry for making GAF my diary today.
