What does it mean to be independent? "Independence" is the break of a bond between two elements, the end of domination; it is a concept related to freedom and autonomy. Some of the more anxious among you must be asking: what does that have to do with our favorite hobby?
Just like music and movies, there is an "independent" game developing scene - with less bonnet, I'll give you that, but still very interesting. This term, however, may sound a little bit awkward to some ears. After all, what's the difference between a "mainstream" game and an independent production? By definition, an independent product is published by the same company that develops it. The problem with this concept is that gargantuan companies like EA would be considered "independent", since they publish their own games. Taking some liberties, we're used to consider "indies" just those games made by guys that publish their own games and do not have full bank accounts or annual versions of sports games.Even I, who write crooked words along these straight lines, can be considered an independent developer. Just as the majority of Brazil's game companies, Magus is indie. See how indie can also be cool?
In fact, indie is not just cool. In my opinion, it's the secret item that was missing to help defeat the biggest Final Boss that the game industry has ever faced. I'll make myself clear: the whole thing works like in the movie industry. Making a movie is a trick that's getting harder and harder to pull, and the big studios will rather bet on a done-a-million-times-before action movie, or a big screen conversion of a teen novel, than risk their precious millions in some crazy idea from some garage writer.
Pretty much in the same way, everybody knows that making electronic games has become as (or even more) expensive as making a blockbuster movie. Away went the one-man-teams from the 80's, capable of developing an Atari 2600 game in a matter of months, and enter the legions of hundreds of developers that spend from 2 to 3 years working on a single title.Do you see what I'm talking about? This is the reason why, in '07 and '08, we reached the shameful mark of "3s" and "4s" em several titles. Ever heard of GTA 4, Elder Scrolls 4, Metal Gears Solid 4, Soul Calibur 4, Resident Evil 5, Street Fighter 4, Halo 3, Call of Duty 4 and 5 and so on?
This doesn't mean that the big publishers are evil. Well, some, are, but try to put yourselves on their shoes: if you had 100 million bucks to make a game (and it HAS to sell well), would you try something crazy and experimental in the likes of Katamari, or would you be happy in making a follow-up to your highly-successful Gears of War franchise? Putting it this way, it doesn't seem like a tough choice.
But still, big companies are having their share of problems. EA is closing studios, Midway is fighting against bankruptcy, Eidos and Atari can't find their big hit, and we are forced to see a motherload of generic and brainless games fighting for our attention during the holidays, while creativity and originality become secondary elements.
Or it would be like that, if I wasn't busy enough playing Braid, Castle Crashers, World of Goo, Audiosurf and many more to care. Besides the absence of a number at the end of their titles, what these games have in common is independent production and experiences far different than what we're used to buying in Wal-Mart. This is possible due to the same way of thinking I described above, but inverted: if you have 10 bucks to build a game, would you try to make a worthy competitor of Gears of War's throne, or would you implement a crazy, innovative and amazing ideia like Katamari? Putting it this way, it doesn't seem like a tough choice.I'm not saying that the independent scene is the best possible way to go to deal with the sequence-spree and games that underestimate our intelligence. However, recent cases (like the genious Portal as part of Valve's Orange Box) already proved that small games, as I like to call them, have a lot to add to the game industry, and they are here to stay.
