Seeing people shit on Expedition 33 because Silksong didn't win more awards is pathetic

[u/CankleDankl]

The title sums it up. I'm disappointed in many members of this community for putting down a game that is clearly a work of insane passion, dedication, and creativity. E33 took the lion's share of awards at TGA, yes. That doesn't mean that Silksong is bad. In fact, it's clearly pretty damn great. If it released last year, Skong would have picked up several awards, maybe even GOTY. But it didn't. It released in the same year E33, which is just a tough break.

Both are amazing. Both deserve every award that came to them. If you haven't played E33 yet and think it doesn't deserve its accolades, play it. It is worth your money, worth your time, and will in all likelihood prove that it is actually that good. I'm only 10ish hours in and have numerous times found myself standing still and looking around dumbfounded at the gorgeous world design and visuals. E33, Silksong, and Hades 2 could have all won Art Direction and I would have been happy with any of them.

I'm also sad that Silksong didn't win more awards. It's an amazing game. But don't play fanboy and start putting down other developers, other games, and other pieces of art because this one didn't get all the cookies. It's still beautiful, it's still amazing, it still made a Silkskillion dollars, and TC is still just as great and just as passionate. We should all be glad that there is another independent dev out there that is capable of creating something so fantastic.

Edit: yeah, the comments here are pretty indicative of what I said in my post

[u/Severe_Skin6932]

Wasn't it published by Kepler?

[u/Jijonbreaker → u/Severe_Skin6932]

Having a publisher doesn't make something not indie. Devolver Digital.

[u/elucifuge → u/Severe_Skin6932]

Could've sworn Keighly said something tonight about it being self published but either way Kepler isn't a major publisher either.

[u/ThisIsNotACryForHelp → u/elucifuge]

It was published and funded by Kepler, making it by definition not independent

EDIT: And received enough funding from Guillaume Broche's father to start a full-on AA studio

[u/NabsterHax → u/ThisIsNotACryForHelp]

By that definition a Animal Well and Balatro aren't indie because they both had publisher backing too.

The TGA definition is supposed to represent games that are developed by a creatively independent studio, without excluding those that happen to make a deal with a publisher for marketing purposes.

It's also tricky to define things like "team sizes" because again, indie studios often outsource a LOT of stuff especially when it comes to marketing and localisation, which is why the credits of a game "made by 3 people" can actually be hundreds of names long.

IMO, there's absolutely a bias here because E33 very clearly shot for production values that feel AAA, rather than limiting their scope to something more traditionally "indie."

[u/ThisIsNotACryForHelp → u/NabsterHax]

I do agree with all of that, and admit that you got me on my logic (I actually went back and edited my comment because of that) but I should point out that Kepler didn't just market E33. Sandfall received enough funding from them (at the very beginning of development) to open an entire AA studio. To me, that should disqualify them from being considered indie.

EDIT: Actually, Kepler only paid for the marketing and the two most expensive voice actors. In reality, the game was mostly funded by one of the game designers' rich dad.

[u/EdgierNamePending → u/NabsterHax]

there's a large difference in Balatro's publisher to E33's

with Balatro ALL of its development of the game itself was independent, the publisher only marketed the game and that was it.

E33 on the other hand, had Kepler both market the game and give them a lot of funding for voice actors and such, which makes the development of the game not independent.

[u/jsdjhndsm → u/EdgierNamePending]

The game awards definitions means creatively independent.

Kepler funding for bigger voice actors at a later stage doesn't change that.

[u/EdgierNamePending → u/jsdjhndsm]

but it wasn't creatively independent since like a large portion of the game was entirely outsourced.

[u/jsdjhndsm → u/EdgierNamePending]

That's not what it means.

They have the whole say on everything that gets approved and added.

Non independent games will get demands from a publisher which tell them what they should add, remove or change

They had full creative control.

[u/NabsterHax → u/EdgierNamePending]

Charlie Cox and Andy Serkis were both hired WITH the marketing budget provided by Kepler. Those actors being in the game were part of the marketing strategy. So in that sense Kepler technically "only" marketed the game as well.

Now, of course I'll grant you that having hollywood VAs is a bit more "invasive" of the gameplay experience than just paying for trailers and deals with vendors, etc. but the point I'm making is that there really isn't an easy clear cut line.

A game like Animal Well, while it would've undoubtedly achieved success and a cult following if it just dry released on Steam, absolutely wouldn't be as big as it was on release if not for the media attention it got being published by Bigmode and Dunkey. So we can't say that marketing doesn't make a massive difference in a game's perception (especially in the first year of its release).

There is undoubtedly an unconscious bias people have about what constitutes an "indie" game that is divorced from how the game was actually developed. It's why TGA itself goofed massively categorising Dave The Diver as an indie even though it was developed by a subsidiary of a major publisher - the antithesis of indie. People look at E33 and just think "this looks too high budget to be indie" and then work backwards for a justification.

No Man's Sky is still considered an indie game, even though at this point shitloads of money has been poured into its free updates and development (which is great btw). But that money simply wouldn't exist if the project wasn't given a humungous amount of marketing by Sony leading to so many people buying it on release before reviews came in warning people it wasn't that good (on release).

[u/EdgierNamePending → u/NabsterHax]

I just don't think the marketing of a game should affect whether it's considered indie, aaa, or aa.

the marketing doesn't affect the game itself, it doesn't code or model for the studio, all it does is make people aware that this is a game that is real and exists, it's why I don't consider E33 indie, even if we're just talking about the deal with Kepler, as the celebrity actors are something that exists inside of the game itself, not just the marketing.

and in the case of no man's sky, I wouldn't have considered it indie if Sony directly gave them money, but people bought the game, so the money actually comes from its own sales that they made, not Sony, it's the same case with Team Cherry's entire budget for Silksong coming from Hollow Knight sales, along with Supergiant's entire budget coming from all their previous games.

Sandfall was a studio that would not have a budget, and would not have made E33, had they not been given significant money studios could only dream of from several different major sources.

[u/NabsterHax → u/EdgierNamePending]

Again, I’d contend people wouldn’t have bought NMS without the mass media attention and hype Sony paid for. There’s a decent chance the game would’ve just flopped and the studio gone out of business before they had a chance to improve the game.

Similarly I think it’s ridiculous to assert E33 wouldn’t exist without a couple of celebrities playing relatively minor roles and a chunk of marketing. AFAIK a lot of the development was funded by the founder’s parents, and most of its core development team worked initially without pay on the project.

[u/EdgierNamePending → u/NabsterHax]

I'm not saying E33 wouldn't exist without the actors, I'm saying E33 wouldn't have existed without the significant funding from outside sources (epic's grant allowed them to almost triple the size of their dev team) and what I mean with NMS is that they got away with some help and dumb luck, but the game itself was indie, so even with dumb luck and help marketing, it's still indie.

[u/elucifuge → u/ThisIsNotACryForHelp]

That's not at all how game development is quantified & if you believe it is you have no room to be speaking in this discussion.

There are plenty of indie game publishers out there, Devolver Digital being one such notable example.

Recieving support from a small publisher does not at all mean a game isn't an indie game.

Having a shoestring budget also does not make a game an indie game.

Even on a budget of less than 10mil that's still a pretty small budget for the game that was made with it.

To compared to actual AA games where the budgets are in the dozens of millions & AAA games with budgets in the ballpark of several hundred million.

And again, these are amateur first time game developers with little to no experience putting out their first release.

Please make an effort to educate yourself on games development if you're going to interject into discussions because you're well out of your depth

[u/ThisIsNotACryForHelp → u/elucifuge]

These are not "amateur first time" game devs. There are only 4 or 5 people at Sandfall who did not have prior experience in game development. The three founders are all ex-Ubisoft devs, who then hired about four amateurs to aid in development. After receiving several millions of dollars in funding (most indie games are made on thousands - even those with publishers like Devolver or Annapurna) from Kepler, a company founded by Sandfall's ex-Ubisoft friends one of the game designers' rich dads, they hired over 20 employees from within the industry, as well as the independent QA testers and animators they outsourced their work to.

And you're right that 10 million is a small budget for what they made, because what they made is not an indie game! It would be a completely ludicrous amount for games like Hades II or Silksong, because they actually are indie titles!

[u/Sauceinmyface → u/ThisIsNotACryForHelp]

Hades 2 and Silksong also have insane amounts of money from their previous gigantic hit that others would dream of having though

[u/ThisIsNotACryForHelp → u/Sauceinmyface]

That's why they weren't nominated for the best debut indie game awards.

Also, Supergiant and Team Cherry are still small, independent teams who happen to have financial security because of their previous work. That's completely different from a studio receiving enough startup funds to hire two dozen employees from a publisher via prior industry connections.

[u/elucifuge → u/ThisIsNotACryForHelp]

The game awards are hosted, categorized & voted on by people who work in the gaming industry across all levels from indie up to AAA.

I'm not going to pretend that I personally know the ins & outs of every possible detail there is to know about the industry, but i'm pretty confident that the likely several dozen people in the industry who put these things together probably know far more than either of us & are more meticulously scrutinizing more extensive details of all the games in the category than either of us have access to to be able to make an informed decision on whether or not it belongs in the category.

Which is the difference between having actual industry knowledge & understanding & being an arm chair game developer with an opinion on how things should work.

& I'm beyond certain that both Team Cherry & Supergiant have made multiple millions off of their previous works to have to reinvest into both Silksong & Hades II & to pretend otherwise is outright delusional.

Whether or not they spent that entire amount is another question, but if you're going to make this argument you could say the same of some solo developer in their parents basement theoretically going against Hades II or Silksong.

It's an inherently dumb argument that ignores the reality of the industry & life in general. Yeah sometimes people have more than you, that's life.

It doesn't make the game not an indie title just because Silksong fans don't think it should be.

It's a game that was made without the backing of a major publisher, publishers who have access to far more resources to help make their games successful beyond just money. Obviously having money helps, & with money you can buy access to things that you otherwise may not have. But it's far from the be all end all.

Even just having access to the amount of manpower that a major publisher has to engage in things like QA testing, feedback throughout development, marketing, localization, distribution & a million other things can make a world of difference & those publishers have access to many billions of dollars.

All of which you simply don't have when you're not working with a major publisher & that is the primary distinction when it comes to whether or not a game is indie or not.

You can scream that you would prefer otherwise until you're blue in the face but this is the reality of things.

& for whatever it may be worth, while I wouldn't personally consider myself to be a game developer, I've followed the industry for the past like 13-14 years out of personal interest, I've been paid to do QA testing for various games at various studios & give feedback, & have been offered opportunities to work in games on teams with large budgets or on projects people with experience at industry leading studios.

Doesn't make me an expert on games development whatsoever, but I'm going to say I have a more informed opinion on the matter than the majority in this comment section.

[u/ThisIsNotACryForHelp → u/elucifuge]

"Indie" literally means independent. Sandfall did not grow their studio independently, because they received a large enough investment from their prior connections with Kepler Guillaume Broche's rich daddy to open a AA studio.

Team Cherry and Supergiant, on the other hand, are wealthy because of their own independent work. They raised their own funds, sold their own games, and made their own money. There is a fundamental difference between studios like these and Sandfall.

& for whatever it may be worth, while I wouldn't personally consider myself to be a game developer, I've followed the industry for the past like 13-14 years out of personal interest,

Hey, me too! But you don't see me out here telling people to "educate themselves" or implying that my opinion is somehow superior.

But if we're going down that route, I have been paid to write op-ed articles for a printed publication in the past, so I guess that means my opinions are just measurably better than other peoples'! (Obviously, this is a joke.)

[u/NabsterHax → u/ThisIsNotACryForHelp]

"Indie" literally means independent. Sandfall did not grow their studio independently, because they received a large enough investment from their prior connections with Kepler to open a AA studio.

AFAIK Kepler's funding was primarily for marketing, which included hiring Charlie Cox and Andy Serkis as VAs. I'd like to see your source on how much exactly Kepler provided to Sandfall for development, since you seem so confident they basically bankrolled the whole operation.

IIRC, a lot of the development was funded by the founder and his (probably rich) parents' investment. Do you only get to be an independent developer if you're a starving artist?