That’s wildly unfair. Even the games within those franchises are often wildly different from each other and many are widely considered hallmarks in game design. Plus, Nintendo doesn’t make Pokémon.

They can be fascinated all they want, but I don’t think that’ll help them much, because they’re after a different thing. Indie games are fun, because people who make decisions about them largely like games and want to make games. With AAA, the decision makers are soulless MBA leeches that largely like money and want to make more money…

So then sit back and let the makers make their shi–oh we don’t need so many MBAs anymore? Oops!

Indie games reasonably start with more fleshed out and committed to ideas of what the game will look like in the end than AAA games. Constraints of money and less cooks in the kitchen

AAA games sound like it’s years of expensive pitches for gameplay and narrative, can be years of that even after publicly announcing the game, and then picking one and then deciding nevermind the markets hot on this so pivot. Rinse and repeat until cancellation or a stir fry of what’s about to expire in the fridge

Yeah. You use data to target the most common factors to make your audience as broad as possible, and you end up making the most bland slop that nobody actually cares about.

I’d rather kill

I will give you that the first iteration of a series, like Mario Kart, is innovative, but the 16 next iterations, not so much. While Nintendo doesn’t make Pokemon, they are the publishers, technical platform provider and co-owner of the Pokemon Company, they would have all the leverage necessary to push the Pokemon games to innovate if they were interested in innovation.

There can be originality within franchises. Dr. Mario vs. Luigi’s Mansion vs. Mario Kart vs. Super Mario Maker (etc, etc). No, it’s not always an industry busting idea, but you can’t say it’s all rote repetition. It’s the same universe, but that’s ok. Not everything has to be a whole cloth original idea.

I will give you Pokemon, though. Outside of Snap and (kind of) Legends, it’s pretty clearly lazy, by the number installations, which is a shame. The universe clearly appeals to and inspires so many people. They deserve better.

Stardew Valley? At a certain point of the game, you start to genuinely care about the characters. Not just as in-game characters, but as virtual people with their own backstories, goals, dreams. You relate to them.

I just like to make the cute farm go brrrrrrrr. Honestly, I’m annoyed that marriage (or “roomieship” with the monster) is required to 100% the game.

Certainly not the worst, I think they have good quality control. Quite similar to Disney, they are makers of good quality and safe products, able to satisfy the mass.

In addition to a number of products that push boundaries of what’s possible in the industry.

Even in your case, it’s still about feelings—although different ones: you’re expressing yourself through your farm, instead of focusing on the romance. “See, myself, this is what I built! Good job, me.” and the likes.

Neither is the “right” or “wrong” emotion, mind you. But a game needs to trigger at least some within you, to be a good game. And that’s what corporations don’t get: they’re chasing mensurable things. More graphics, presence/absence of a mechanic, even gameplay length can be measured; but you can’t really measure someone’s emotional experience.

Donkey Kong Bananza just came out.

Mario and Zelda games are constantly innovating.

Your complaint doesn’t align with reality.

That star wars sequel really was something…

Which made billions of dollars for them, that they then put towards things like Andor and Encanto and at least a third to half of the more recent Pixar movies.

No one’s saying they don’t also produce shit, but often that shit bankrolls the things that aren’t.

So…Skyrim?

Idk why people are giving you shit on that, you’re right. Not necessarily indie-level right, but people hired to do the next Mario or Zelda are given remarkable freedom. I read up on the BotW development and they pitched their crazy idea, got green lit, and when leading their team they took suggestions from every part of the team (quite literally, artists, marketers, localization specialists, etc.). If I could remember the link I’d share it, but it’s straight up good AAA management.

Though, to be fair it’s really team by team and it’s quite possible they got lucky with some of these. There are plenty of misses, after all. I’m kinda glad I’m off the Nintendo bandwagon after the whole Yuzu/Ryujinx legal crap.

we don’t need so many MBAs anymore

Fixed it for you

Y’know, from a risk assessment standpoint, you can’t be too surprised they over rely on data since AAAs cost so much to make an a flop can lose millions, and sometimes even billions of dollars. Mediocre can still sell, and you and I both know they aren’t doing it for art or expression.

I do want to make one other point about survivor bias, though… there are plenty of crappy indie games, too. We focus a lot on the greats (and trust me, I hunger for the Silksong) but it makes up a pretty small percent in a world where everyone can make something. I sometimes will spin up a random game from regrettable purchases (like, indiegala bundles or those “mystery game” purchases) and some of them are really, truly horrible. I try to give is as much respect as I can, and sometimes I do find a few gems that nobody has played, but like… not every passion project is Undertale, lol.

Although tbh, I like streaming a bad game for friends because they can watch me suffer, haha, so I still appreciate the, uh, effort.

On that we can agree. The game is great at giving players a plethora of paths and options.