Topic: Any military FPS on the one

Forza Horizon 2is big open world racer with lots of options, customisation and freedom - totally unlike the others apart from they features some representation of a vehicle. Call of Duty is a full 360, full control FPS with lots of customisation, options and freedom with a MP and story driven campaign - operation wolf was on rails with no control, no real options and limited control. Its not just the visual difference but sound also plays a part - whether that be the sound of the engines as you rev up the car exactly as much as you want with the analogue triggers acting like a proper throttle or the sound of the bullets whistling past you. The depth of these games far exceed those others mentioned in so many ways - not just visual. Games today are treat for all your senses, Visual, Aural, tactile (analogue thumbsticks and triggers with vibration feedback - means you can make the tiniest adjustments and feel the response) as well as the way these al work together. The difference is like trying to watch a football match in B&W between a team in green and one in blue, on a tiny travel tv with no sound compared to watching (or even playing) at Wembley stadium with a full crowd and full atmosphere.

I could go on

Fully aware of all of that. I kinda have to be, given my job.

The point I'm making is that the indie games that everyone is so casually writing off because they're "80's games" or "they look like a SNES game" do OFTEN contain an awful lot of depth. Depth that you can't necessarily see until you've actually played them. Whether it's a strong story, or tweaks to an already proven formula, they provide a lot more than the games of old. If a game came out that looked like Operation Wolf but (somehow!) played like Call of Duty, the indie-haters would write it off and never give it a chance.

Just because the developers don't necessarily have the money to employ people to spend tens of thousands of hours on graphics, doesn't mean that they're not making good, enjoyable games to play. It also doesn't mean that they're making bad looking games, either. Some of the effects we see nowadays in indie titles wouldn't have been even remotely possible back in the 80s, and it's just disrespectful to take the developers down in the way that is often seen. As for games being a treat for all your senses - yep, they sure are. They can also be a treat for the mind as a whole - and they should be. Some movies make us think and don't rely on over-the-top effects. Some are nothing but CGI effects to impress the people who love that sort of thing. Games have to be the same way in order to cover all bases.

It certainly doesn't make sense to just go "Yeah, there's nothing out" just because you've ruled out 60% of the available games based on how they look.

I think we're just butting heads here, if I'm honest. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. You don't like indie games, I think they're more than welcome at the table. Game of opinions.

I know we are all different and like different things - its what makes the world a more diverse place and leads to good discussions too. I don't see this as 'butting' heads but more an exchange of opinion.

As for indie games, its not like I haven't played them either or researched them. After all they are given away with GwG. I know they may have slightly better visual effects than 80's games but the overall look is still very dated. Its not just the visuals though from my perspective its the game play too. If an Indie developer re-made Operation Wolf with 1080p/60fps modern graphics, I would still find it 'lacking' and dated because of the game play. Its not just about the visuals but the whole package. Even those that fall into the XBLA type bracket - Games made by established companies like Ubisoft, I find dated even if visually they are much more of a step up than the majority of Indie games. For example Child of Light (as its free on GwG), the Game play itself is still very much stuck in the 80's with its 2D platforming and turn based combat. Admittedly it does have a semblance of 'Story' to it and the writing is, on the whole, quite good. I can't deny it does have a certain charm but comparing that to Ubisofts AAA range of games in terms of depth of story, options, controls etc. The games are worlds apart.

I know not all 'indies' are the same and that they should be considered in the same way. I know some have interesting concepts too whether that be artistically, like the Fleischer Cartoons inspired Cuphead, or Sin City inspired Blues and Bullets (certainly a game that visually looks more modern) or even in terms of story with 'Beyond Eyes'. Like all games they should be looked at on an individual basis and not grouped together and dismissed just because they are 'indie'

I am of course speaking generally when I say I dislike indies as in the majority of cases, that is true. I am also speaking generally when I say they are dated. I do think that the majority are not worth investing money in - even if they may provide a bit of 'fun' for a few hours. In terms of cost per hour, I think a lot of AAA games provide better value (again speaking generally and I know there are exceptions) and in the majority of cases I would rather buy 1 AAA game than 3-4 'Indie's as I know that 1 AAA game is likely to last a lot longer, deliver a richer gaming experience etc etc

For me (and I am again speaking personally), Gaming took a huge lap forward with the N64. I know we had 3D games before, but Super Mario 64 really nailed it. With its analogue control stick it also gave more control and the sound was a step up too. It was very liberating and set us on the path to the great games of today. Having that 360 degree of movement opens up much more than just adding a bit of depth. 2D just has left and right - I know you can jump/fly up/down but its still within the same 'plane'. It basically killed off 2D platforming for me - my favourite genre before - That freedom of movement opens up so many more possibilities and gameplay options. Goldeneye came along and that was another game that transformed the gaming landscape. It had a great story and an epic MP. I know by todays standards its lacking visually but it added a sense of realism - no longer cartoon but a real world and real characters. In terms of actually shooting too, being 3D it opened up more strategies, flanking for example. As consoles have moved on, those things have been refined - we now have 2 analogue sticks for better control and analogue triggers too. Racing games in the past had press A to move B to brake but games like Forza have a 'throttle' and the analogue stick allows for fine adjustment to steering. Sound is so much more immersive too and visuals have given us a much richer world to explore. The characters in many of the AAA games are more 'real' too and its not just about the visual effects - to compare it to movies. They are well acted and often well scripted too. Whilst it may look incredible, Tomb Raiders reboot made Lara feel like a real person. We felt (almost) as scared and vulnerable as Amanda Ripley in Alien: Isolation. We know the characters in these AAA games and their story just like we do any movie character - if not more as we played through a part of it.

At best for me an indie (again speaking generally) is a filler - a bit of fun if you only have a short amount of time to game and can't or don't want to get into something with more substance. If you only have 30mins you are not going to sit down and start watching the Lord of the Rings Trilogy but might put on some mindless TV.

But this is just my opinion and how I feel and I accept that you (and others) feel differently. Its a good job then that games of all type exist for us all to enjoy.

I'm a bit confused by...

In terms of cost per hour, I think a lot of AAA games provide better value (again speaking generally and I know there are exceptions) and in the majority of cases I would rather buy 1 AAA game than 3-4 'Indie's as I know that 1 AAA game is likely to last a lot longer

...simply because in terms of the maths of it all, indie games often provide a far greater bang for the buck than a lot of AAA games. Sure, they don't always - can't speak in generalities of course - but something like Terraria has a main story that lasts for 30+ hours, without going into the other areas of the game. I started reviewing a low-budget indie game two nights ago that will be £8 when it comes out. Isn't the best thing in the world, but I've had a good fun 7 hours out of it. Had a good 6 hours out of Fruit Ninja Kinect 2 (lol!) for a tenner, too - and more to come! If you're talking about the XBLA style of game as opposed to a straight indie game, then Child of Light's another 12 hours and Valiant Hearts is another 7.

So that's 32 hours of gameplay (without Terraria) and four different game experiences for less than the price of Assassin's Creed Unity (16 hours) or The Order (7 hours) or CoD: AW (15 hours at most - unless you love multiplayer.)

I'm not saying that the AAA titles aren't worth the money, but to say that indie games generally provide less of a bang per buck is a bit of a reach, in my opinion.

I paid £75 for Destiny (limited edition) and had around 1500hours worth so far - in terms of costs per hour its by far my best value game on XB1. CoD games I usually get around 1000 hours (campaign, co-op and MP), Titanfall around 150-200hrs, Don't know how many hours I have spent playing Diablo 3, Borderlands etc but a LOT more than 40-45 so less than £1 per hour compared to most (not all) indie games that cost more than £10 and you will be lucky to get 10hrs. You can often pick up AAA games for less money if you are prepared to wait a bit too - I bought Tomb Raider for £10 and in terms of 'Bang for Buck' I think that is much better than any indie game and has a much richer story, game play mechanics, world etc. I can't justify spending £10-15 on a game I could finish in less than a day and more often than not the games I play end up being played for months with co-op and/or MP options. The next game I am likely to be getting is the Witcher 3 - £45 for around 200hrs. The last game I bought was Borderlands: Handsome Collection for £36 (by shopping around) and according to trueachievements, already spent over 80hrs on just Borderlands 2.

I have some of those Indie games as well as XBLA games too and more often than not when I opt to play a game, I can't face playing these especially when I have AAA games to finish. Child of Light or Borderlands, Max and the Curse of the Brotherhood or Diablo 3, Halo Spartan Assault or Halo: MCC no contest! In terms of bang for buck you often get more for each hour in a AAA - better visuals, better sound, richer and deeper worlds etc Its more a pleasure for all my senses as well as the mental stimulation and in some cases emotional journey too.

I know some indie/arcade games have the same potential to be very good value for money - I hate to think how many hours people spent playing Minecraft. Like I said though its horses for courses and each to their own. I apply the same method to every game AAA, Arcade or Indie to decide whether or not I will buy. I look at game play, Contents, cost per hour, story/theme/concept, Visuals, sound etc and in most cases for me indies fall short. maybe when you do your assessment they pass what you look for and can justify purchasing. Not every AAA game passes these either - the Order 1886 is a recent example of a game that looks great, good sound, very poor cost per hour and terrible longevity, game play that isn't great, loved the concept and setting but ultimately came out as a 'will not buy'.

Like I said each to their own and in general I can't see myself buying indie games. Given the choice of buying 4 indie games or the Witcher 3 or Batman: Arkham Knight, I will pick the AAA games every time.

I can safely say I have never spent 1500 hours into any game, ever.

1500 hours?Wow

WOW you actually bothered to analyse and break it down like that I haven't played it for a few weeks now either as I have everything but will return when House of Wolves launches - according to trueachievements I have 1509hrs 56mins so far. I am sure I will get to the £1 a day value then. I have 580hrs on CoD Ghosts (XB1 version - no hours tracked on my 360 version) and these are my most played games. When MS did a break down of my game time (for the anniversary) I had managed 2,500hrs since March (when I bought my XB1) on around 8-10 games. Apart from Destiny (which included the Season Pass) all other games cost less than £40 and I effectively got some of them free as they were part of a 'bundle' that came with the console. This works out as an average of at least 250hrs per game...

Glad I could help

Wow, so I went away for a few days and came back to this. I'm going to throw in my opinion since I think I'm being a bit generalized into a camp of people who dislike indie games. That isn't really true, I actually love Shovel Knight. As a fan of the original MegaMan games Shovel Knight fills a niche. I also love Hotline Miami, and a handful of others. BUT I cannot bring myself to value them the same way as I value a big AAA experience like a Far Cry 4, Forza or a Tomb Raider Definitive Edition for example. I do get a lot of them free with Games with Gold but whenever I fire them up I wind up asking myself "Why isn't this a mobile Vita or 3DS game? Why am I playing this on my One when I could be raiding in Destiny or chasing a friend's ghost in Forza?" When I play indie games, even the ones I really like, I feel like I've had those experiences in the past, gameplay wise, and even though the graphics are a bit better and music is nicer it always feels like I'm playing a fan project. Like the person who made Shovel Knight loved Ghosts N Goblins and MegaMan so here is his fan tribute. Which is great and I definitely think they are cool, but it is difficult for me to say that they are equal to a Forza or Halo. They just aren't equal to a boxed AAA release. And I think it is deceiving when Microsoft and Sony say things like 'We have X number of games coming exclusively to our system this year!' but more than half end up being these smaller, low budget experiences that keep our next gen consoles in first gear. As much as I loved Shovel Knight, I essentially played that game before in the 90's. It is still a cool game but the shovel mechanic doesn't add enough for it to feel truly fresh. So while I think some indie games are cool, I find it deceiving and unrealistic to compare a Shovel Knight to a Batman: Arkham Knight and say they are both games and have comparable experiences of scale. I think too though that retro is in vogue now, and that maybe indie will evolve more into truly unique experiences as time goes on. I think game that innovated like Journey should be the path forward for indie rather than Shovel Knight fan tribute games. Just my two cents, which my being Canadian means it isn't even worth two cents!