Jump to content

Talk:Indie game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 3194567 (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 30 August 2020 (→Cuphead in the lead?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games: Indie C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the indie task force.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:


Section

- Should we add a section about major indie games news sources or something like that? Some of the content of Independent video game development is also relevant here? What are your ideas? --IndieGamesGermany (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IVGD really needs to be merged here. I wrote this from scratch using only reliable secondary source material; so the progress towards merge has been going slowly, since IVGD is basically original research.
What news sources do you mean? There are a lot and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of things. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about places like TIGSource (mentioned in the other article). But you're right that there are many and making a representative list is difficult. I asked because there seems to be a lot of confusion about which sites are considered "major." --IndieGamesGermany (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know by what criteria sources like TIGSource were included in IVGD article; but definitely not based on secondary sources. So that is really original research. Unless someone independent makes a list of "major" Indie news sources, we should not speculate. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community Section

Do you think we should integrate information in the community section into the bulk of the article? Currently, the information in the Community section is quite sparse and an independent section isn't necessary. Any thoughts on this? Picklebobdogflog (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latter half of the 2000s

Does this not mean like 2500 and later? Like if your reading this in the holy year of the lord 3412, and you read "Latter half of the 2000s" one will probably assume somewhere between 2500 and 3000. I feel quite confident that one is meant to say between 2005 and 2010, or one is deliberately trying to be vague because one has no real data concerning the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.134.165 (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "the latter half of the 2000s" is implicitly the decade based on how that standard works in most English works; if we meant the century, we'd have used "21st century", or "2nd millennium" if that was the case. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indie game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No indy games in the 80s?

I know the term wasn't used in the 80s, but I am sure that half of the video games made in the 80s were games developed by independent video game developers - mostly individuals or friends. Or are you saying a game Jeff Minter made and published himself in the 80s is not an indie game, but a game he made and published himself in the 2010s suddenly is? ZhuLien (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.209.108 (talk) [reply]

Reliable sources, such as WP:VG/RS, do not retroactively apply the "indie" label to older games. Regardless if the term applies, we have no sources to support it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Different time. The term "Indie" didn't really exist as a distinct category back then, but neither did "Triple-A" - as you say, most games back then were made by small teams with small budgets, including the ones backed by big publishers like Nintendo. It was only with the emergence of Triple-A and the general "institutionalization" of video gaming into the big budget, Hollywood-style system we have today that indie games became distinct from the rest of the industry. Retroactively calling self-published games from the 80's and 90's "indie" lacks context of what the industry was like at the time. 82.16.49.231 (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Financially Successful

The sentence at the end of the intro paragraph listing an random assortment of games that made a profit seems unnecessary. It is unconnected from the rest of the introduction and seems out of place, nor does it really inform the reader of anything, other than providing an incomplete list of a few games. This could either be cut or expanded to be more like "While most indie games used to be small projects distributed for free, in recent years indie game development has become more commercial as notable titles such as *example*, *example* and *example* have been financial hits." I think that a more in depth paragraph about successful games could also be added to the Industry section as well. Jelephant (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages moved to titles proposed in nomination. Editors supporting the move have sufficiently made their case on common name grounds here. I have taken on board the remarks of those opposing on a precision and consistency basis, however even based on this, I don't see a consensus to endorse an undiscussed page move, hence my closing outcome. (I am aware that Indie game development had not been moved previously - I still see a consensus for the move as per my assessment of the discussion)

As a side note, I would recommend a further discussion on how to address other game areas that are considered indie (e.g. independent role-playing games) to ensure readers are able to reach those articles as well, whether by hatnotes or another method, but that's for another discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Starting an RM to establish consensus; this and list articles were moved recently to the "independent video game" form, while the dev article hasn't been discussed yet.

"Indie game" is the WP:COMMONNAME. This is what reliable sources use and what every source in the main article uses, which includes sources outside video game industry. "Independent video game" is the full term used before "indie game" became the standard, but--while still in active use--it is not the common name anymore in contrast to other industries that may primarily use the term "independent" or "indy". The term "indie" is used by media (VG-related and mainstream), industry sources, conferences and conventions, awards, other works, etc. (There are examples of "independent", such as Independent Games Festival, but these are mainly historical, such as IGF, which was founded in 1998.) A lot of links can be provided that use "indie game", and I'll refer to the main article's sourcing (which admittedly could use an update and inclusion of more mainstream sourcing). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Okay, so are you proposing indie video game? "indie game" is specific to video games only in some contexts. "Indie game" is used as an umbrella term, so as a Steam tag or similar it's going to be one usage, and at a board game store or event, it will mean something different. As an encylopedia, the article should should not assume readers belong to a specific group. "Indie game" is the common name for multiple types of indie games. COMMONNAME only applies if WP:CRITERIA is met, and the proposed name would be less precise. Grayfell (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for "nobody brought it up before", isn't that the point of having these discussions? If I had seen this earlier, I would've brought it up earlier. Grayfell (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Yes, it would have been nice to have a discussion before the article was moved.) I'm proposing "indie game" because that's what the vast majority of sources use. I'm not proposing adding "video", because it's still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by far and I was not aware other forms of games were anywhere close to warrant disambiguation. There's a source survey below and I guess the question is how many of those results are not for video games. But my primary argument is that it is "indie" and not "independent". I am unsure where your !vote stands on that, since you've used both forms. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky point, and I get where you're coming from, but I dispute that this is the PRIMARYTOPIC. This is a term which encompasses the primary topic... but that's absolutely not the same thing. The proposal is to move this to "indie game" and I am opposed to that, because I think it would misrepresent the scope of the current article. This article isn't about all indie games, it's about indie video games. That makes sense, and is more reasonable for an article, but it is what it is. It's a subtle issue, but I think it's an important one. Calling Cave Story an indie game is accurate, but Magic: The Gathering started out as an indie game too. Hell, so did Scrabble. The article's title should be both accurate and also precise.
Another issue is that the editors who are paying attention to the name of the article are very likely to be familiar with "indie game" in a specific context. The problem is that editors who are aware of the video game scene already know what this article is about, don't they? Wikipedia, as a project, should provide information about things outside of our prior experiences.
I have no strong opinion on renaming to "indie video game". It seem reasonable, but I would have to reexamine sources and think about it. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The proposal is to move this to "indie game"" This was already at "indie game". Technically, the proposal is to decide whether it should be elsewhere, specifically "independent video game". But due to the move being performed first, the discussion is now "backwards". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

User:Hellknowz, User:Zxcvbnm, User:Dissident93, and User:TheAwesomeHwyh using different words you have all claimed that indie game is the common name (WP:UCRN). Please provide evidence that this is true.

I have not bothered to review the books returned to see how they match WP:SOURCES, I will leave that to others, but assuming that they are much of a muchness, then it does not seem that "Indie game" meets the requirements of "common name" in that it is not the "most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" (WP:UCRN), so other naming criteria need to be considered. -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since when does a book search override a general Google search? Searching "indie game" nets me 15 million results overall, while "independent game" only nets me 900k. The vast majority of citations used in modern video game articles are web-based articles, not books or other printed media. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you restrict that to Google News, I get 78k for "indie game" to 13k for "independent game" and 7.5k for "independent video game". --Masem (t) 18:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Dissident93 to answer you question "Since when does a book search override a general Google search?" Since 2008. Wikipedia does not rely on unreliable sources to determine article titles (there was a change in policy on this back in 2008). It only relies on reliable sources, this eliminates most (but not all) web based publications. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, particularly the sections "Reliable sources" and " Sources that are usually not reliable". The reason why Google Books is used is because it is a useful proxy survey for what is used in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an extreme reading of WP:V. Web based sources can absolutely be potential reliable sources, as long as there is evidence of the same journalistic aspects we look for in newspapers or books. WP:VG/S exists to document that for the VG project based on our past discussions and consensus. There is nothing in WP:V that eliminates the use of web based sources broadly. --Masem (t) 19:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Using a custom Google search tool that only lists sources already listed as reliable per WP:VG/RS, "indie game" has 5 million results, while "independent game" still only nets 900k. "Independent video game" (800k) does have more results than the "indie video game" (170k) however, but including "video game" in these terms seems to not be that common outside of talking specifically about the development/business/industry side of things, if that matters. And when including the book results (which are valid), they really don't matter at all when compared to the vast web-based results. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dissident93 asked the question and I provided an answer. There is nothing in my answer that was "an extreme reading of WP:V" as I said "this eliminates most (but not all) web based publications." and with Dissident93's second search (s)he has eliminated 10 million hits "15 million" down to "5 million results" which would seem to me to be "most, (but not all)".
    user:Dissident93, your link to your second search does not return any links for me. So can you please either provide a link to you search results, or provide a count to how many pages are actually returned and the first 10 returns for the searches "indie game" and 10 for "independent game" (it is quite possible that games other than video games will be classified as "independent game", eg a none league football game), so that we can assess the quality of the sources returned by your search. -- PBS (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has almost 40 reliable citations that use "indie game" since its creation. Reliable video game source search returns 5.8 M hits for "indie (video) game" and 1.8 M hits for "independent (video) game". Google news has 90 K for the former and 20 K for the latter. Even assuming all those are valid hits, the former outweighs the latter. All recent industry sources use "indie", which can be seen by browsing any of the larger video game news publishers. And mainstream media now freely use "indie". Searching for sourcing for the article, the better features and article predominantly use "indie". I think this is more than sufficient to determine the more common use without spending hours of time to compile lists of examples (besides that the article itself already has a list of reliable citations). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cuphead in the lead?

Should cuphead be included in the list of critically acclaimed indie games that spurred on the "genre" in the lead. The others I understand for their significance in the genre (even Celeste, since it was nominated for many game of the year awards included at the game awards), but Cuphead feels out of place. Not that it wasn't critically acclaimed, but in terms of its significance. PixelMage (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It sold 5 million in two years and is receiving an animated series soon. Outside of the other indie games it's listed beside, could you name a few other ones with the same level of success? If anything, Celeste is the game I'm most willing to remove. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that's a good point in terms of sales, Celeste was more prominent, as I stated, for the fact that it was nominated for many prominent game of the year awards, including high-profile ones like for the game awards. While Cuphead was nominated for a fair amount, it wasn't in the same way that Celeste was. For example, at the golden-joysticks and game awards it was nominated for best xbox game/indie game of the year (respectively)[1], but in both of those shows celeste was nominated for the game of the year awards overall[2]. In that was Celeste was a big breakthrough. Cuphead, while very successful, wasn't a breakthrough in the same way. Still, I see and respect your point about Cuphead.PixelMage (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A game's impact on other media (I.E., spawning an animated show that would otherwise not have existed if not for the game's impact) is more notable than a few random award nominations, especially if it doesn't even win them. Celeste should probably be kept there for now, but it's definitely the weakest example listed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Celeste removed from lede and cuphead remains. PixelMage (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuphead#Awards
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeste_(video_game)#Accolades

Merger proposal

I suggest merging Independent video game development into Indie game, as about 75% of the info on the former is duplicated in essence (not in content, there is content mergers to be done) on the Indie game page. And the indie game article is short enough to accommodate that. --Masem (t) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should be merged.-Splinemath (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask why you think that - what is unique in terms of general content on the "development" page from the current "indie game" page. --Masem (t) 02:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support cut down on the cruft (maybe half of it could go, but I only skimmed through it) and it should merge without issue. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always felt that separate article can be spun out from here, because there are enough sources and enough content can be written for a split. But obviously the current version of the dev article is not great and not focused solely on development. It's repeating the main article and has a lot of unsourced and questionable content. I would support merging but without prejudice for a future split if and once the content grows in size. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Games in the Lead

One problem with the second paragraph in the lead is that it provides a very abbreviated history outside the history section. Not only that but the content excludes indie games during the early 2000s with massive popularity, including Cave Story, Corpse Party, Yume Nikki, and the Touhou Project.-Splinemath (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are no mentions of the Humble Indie Bundle or Itch.io, two massively important parts of indie gaming.-Splinemath (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have to provide sources first for this. And not add it to lead, but in the main prose. Then if it's a significant part of content, lead can summarize it. The current examples were only 3 originally before more and more were being added because "they are also important". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples are cult games, not million selling milestone titles. However, I don't see why Humble Indie Bundle or Itch.io couldn't be added to the article somewhere. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article for cult games beyond List of cult video games and a redirect to Cult following. Should there be? -Splinemath (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of cult video games is not much different from other cult works in other media, so there's really no need for a special article on it beyond the above two. --Masem (t) 15:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indie games across the globes

Are indie games a primarily English language phenomenon? What about Dōjin soft? What distinguishes English-language indie games and Indie game development in English-speaking countries from Japanese-language games and games from other parts of the world that exist outside of the Anglosphere?-Splinemath (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dojin should be mentioned, and I got some sources for that, but it should be noted that there is a sufficient distinction here between the terms dojin and indie. --Masem (t) 16:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indie_game&oldid=975807527"