• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

RedSwirl

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,061
Every once in a while the question comes around as to whether "indie" games (which now basically just means smaller-scale games that aren't internally developed by employees of AAA publishers) are as good as the best games of the 90's or whatever, but I think I'm asking this more on a content and production level. At the very least I think this gen we just hit a point where the biggest indie games are on that level, but it still takes a ton of time to develop them.

Without internal game clocks and with the passage of years it's hard to remember exactly how many hours it took to beat Chrono Trigger or a Mega Man Zero game or something. A year ago when I beat Breath of Fire 1 and 2 on Nintendo Online it clocked my game time at 30+ hours for each, but honestly a ton of that time was padded out with random trash mobs. How does that compare with the content in a game like Undertale or Cosmic Star Heroine?

I ask because people seem to lament that dedicated handhelds were the last bastion of 2D games made with the full production muscle of major publishers like Square Enix or Capcom. I wonder if playing games like Hades and CrossCode and Hyper Light Drifter on a Switch Lite (or even a phone) makes up for that.

One issue is the time it takes to make these games. Capcom was able to pump out four Mega Man Zeroes and six Battle Networks on the GBA within like six years. A typical indie developer seems to take four years just to make one of those games. On the other hand there's a larger total number of indie developers pumping them out so the total number of releases doesn't feel that different to the end consumer.

Maybe the production level at which big publishers used to put out a Final Fantasy Tactics or an Igavania (how big is something like Axiom Verge in comparison?) just doesn't translate to 2D games with today's game development tools. Maybe the equivalent of that game today is Fire Emblem Three Houses or Valkyria Chronicles 4.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,107
How many indie games have to have reached that level to warrant a "yes" response? If it's a few, then of course yes. If it's all or most, then of course no.
 

stumblebee

The Fallen
Jan 22, 2018
2,504
I feel like the best ones have far exceeded that type of production, and even some of the not-so best ones.
 

Jobbs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,639
Yes? It's very common for modern indie games to far exceed the production of 90s games. Games in the 90s were extremely limited in tech and scope compared to what's possible now. This is a ridiculous question.

Games in the 90s were quite primitive. I'm not sure if you are remembering through rose colored glasses. The tools were primitive. The games were typically much smaller in scale too, usually being only 1 to 3 hours long. Even modern indie games that attempt to emulate those games (The Messenger, Shovel Knight, etc) still far exceed them in terms of production. Modern games that don't attempt to emulate a retro aesthetic, such as Ori And the Will of the Wisps, so dramatically exceed games of the 90s as to be something people living in the 90s would never believe or imagine would be possible to achieve.

In the 90s, tech was primitive, and the talent pool was also smaller. Games in general were just of a lower quality in the 90s, even setting aside the fact that tech was so primitive. While there are certainly some stand out games from that decade that are still pretty good, like Super Metroid, gaming in general has just come such a long way. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. We're really in a golden age of gaming right now.

TLDR what would be considered the most impressive and top tier AAA production in the 90s could now be easily and dramatically bested by a couple of talented people in their basement --- and frequently is.
 
Last edited:

Rosebud

Two Pieces
Member
Apr 16, 2018
43,599
Years ago.

And many indies have more content than AAA games on PS4/X1 too.
 

ghibli99

Member
Oct 27, 2017
17,817
Definitely, and it's been that way for a while. That being said, many of today's indies wouldn't exist without the best of those generations serving as inspiration to the developers of today.
 

werezompire

Zeboyd Games
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
11,378
Without internal game clocks and with the passage of years it's hard to remember exactly how many hours it took to beat Chrono Trigger or a Mega Man Zero game or something. A year ago when I beat Breath of Fire 1 and 2 on Nintendo Online it clocked my game time at 30+ hours for each, but honestly a ton of that time was padded out with random trash mobs. How does that compare with the content in a game like Undertale or Cosmic Star Heroine?

I did a comparison between CSH and Lunar: Eternal Blue on the Sega CD for my own amusement a while back. Lunar:EB takes about 35-40 hours to complete whereas CSH is more around 15 hours. From a pure gameplay asset perspective, I believe CSH has Lunar:EB beat, with a similar number of maps (but generally more detailed in CSH) and as many or more enemies. Character & enemies are generally more detailed & much more animated than Lunar:EB's are. Lunar:EB has more cutscenes and voice acting than CSH. I don't know which game has more music - probably Lunar:EB (although CSH has a long soundtrack, especially for an indie). I haven't done a script count, but Lunar:EB probably has a noticeably longer script since a lot of the NPC have multiple things that they can say depending on the main story progression.

I imagine most of the difference in completion time is like you said, because the old game has a slower pace & uses random encounters, whereas the newer game has a much faster pace and has preset battles. From a production level, I'd say the two games are similar or in CSH's favor, except for the cutscenes (CSH has Sega CD-style cutscenes, but not as many or as intricate as Lunar:EB's) and voice acting (CSH doesn't have any voice acting). Also, the programming in the older games is no doubt more advanced since they had to make due with much less powerful hardware, whereas CSH uses Unity and has more than enough power on modern hardware.
 

Deleted member 46804

User requested account closure
Banned
Aug 17, 2018
4,129
There's no comparison. So many indies have surpassed anything that existed during the 8 bit and 16 bit eras. This is true both from a technological standpoint as well as production value and gameplay. Going back to play some of the classics can feel downright archaic.
 

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,439
Katana Zero and Children or Morta are absolutely as good as or better than the best of SNES games in terms of graphics. 2.5D games that incorporate 3D (Bloodstained, Ori, etc) are pretty far beyond anything you would've gotten even in the PS2 era like Viewtiful Joe.
 

Deleted member 2620

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,491
There's definitely a fascinating tradeoff between what modern tools let you build versus the limitations that come with working with less resources. I don't think it's really worth flattening or generalizing these tradeoffs. There are areas that technology still can't brute-force a microscopic team through, and there are obviously things a single developer can do with modern technology that entire teams in the past couldn't dream of.

At the same time, "indie" means practically anything depending on who you ask and there are a lot of modern "indie" games that have larger teams/budgets/timelines than even the biggest old games. The budgetary ceiling keeps skyrocketing, but posters still insist on trying to talk about games as though they're either "indie" or "AAA".
 
Last edited: