Today’s article will revisit a video I made earlier this year with regard to the launch and success of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. You can watch the video here if you want, but I will reiterate all the information here within this article, to the best of my ability.
I myself have been fooled by the marketing "30 people made this game" when it released. I even went to my friends to show them how this new "indie" game is better then most AAA. But after a month I started my own game dev journey realising it's not possible to create something like Claire Obscure Expedition 33 as your first game with team of 30, without heavily outsourcing and millions.
It's just crazy how easily people fall for marketing.
One thinks of Saelig or Bellwright oir even Mount and Blade, not this. This is ridiculous, can't believe they managed to turn Indie into a corporate genre.
Rebecca Black's video became famous because it was so terrible that people wanted to share it. It had nothing to do with her parents and the producer trying to make it a "thing"; they were sincere in trying to package it as worthy of fame, but their efforts weren't why it became a sensation. It was all down to how wrong and stupid they were.
The intersection of mass hate coupled with a corporate influence campaign in the background.
In fact, the mass hate may have been the goal, since extreme love or extreme hate are the only paths to vitality, especially back in the day. You never wanted to be in the middle.
I really don't understand what's the point of your comment.
Nobody said the game wasn't great. The quality of the game has nothing to do with this article. Why do people like you feel the need to lie to yourselves and to others?
The point is: the information you provide is accurate but I don't understand why it should be relevant.
Sandfall is a company that needs funding for their projects and its management works on a relational level in order to find those funds.
Are their way of funding illegal? It doesn't seems so, it's just how our world works today.
That's why I found difficult to understand the point of your article.
Maybe you find using the term "indie" something like a "lie" to the people, but that's something questionable based on what meaning the word "indie" means.
What does "indipendent" mean? Does it mean "low budget"? Does it mean "unrelated to the big AAA publishers?"
If you clarify on this definition, on what it means to you, maybe it would be easier to understand
Playing semantics isn't going to convince anyone that somehow pulling millions of dollars, hundreds of people worth of manpower, and funding from your local government and Chinese corporations is somehow just something your average bloke working from dad's garage is even close to being capable of.
Nobody in their right mind would look at this laundry list of elements that went into development and conclude there was anything legitimately "independent" about it.
Deeply cynical and assumptive, with very little actual substance. A developer’s statement of the game’s influences? Mere promotion. Business people running the business end of a publishing collective? Proof of full corporate control over the studios. These conclusions may seem obvious to people who share your highly specific, very online priors, but to anyone outside of your bubble, you’ve failed to even make a case.
Doctorate level exegesis on a game I've never heard of. Thank you sir.
I myself have been fooled by the marketing "30 people made this game" when it released. I even went to my friends to show them how this new "indie" game is better then most AAA. But after a month I started my own game dev journey realising it's not possible to create something like Claire Obscure Expedition 33 as your first game with team of 30, without heavily outsourcing and millions.
It's just crazy how easily people fall for marketing.
I always thought that the game's popularity seemed artificial and inorganic.
One thinks of Saelig or Bellwright oir even Mount and Blade, not this. This is ridiculous, can't believe they managed to turn Indie into a corporate genre.
Rebecca Black's video became famous because it was so terrible that people wanted to share it. It had nothing to do with her parents and the producer trying to make it a "thing"; they were sincere in trying to package it as worthy of fame, but their efforts weren't why it became a sensation. It was all down to how wrong and stupid they were.
People make terrible videos all the time. So why did this one go viral?
The intersection of mass hate coupled with a corporate influence campaign in the background.
In fact, the mass hate may have been the goal, since extreme love or extreme hate are the only paths to vitality, especially back in the day. You never wanted to be in the middle.
I really don't understand what's the point of your rant.
Is the fact that Sandfall is backed by investors that put their people inside the team?
Is the fact that Broche had networking links due to his father's work?
Is that "indie" is a marketing promotion?
I don't see how and why this is different from an "indie" band in music industry: it's a genre, nothing more.
The game is great, even just watching the gameplay is like watching a film, this is what's relevant to customers.
I really don't understand what's the point of your comment.
Nobody said the game wasn't great. The quality of the game has nothing to do with this article. Why do people like you feel the need to lie to yourselves and to others?
The point is: the information you provide is accurate but I don't understand why it should be relevant.
Sandfall is a company that needs funding for their projects and its management works on a relational level in order to find those funds.
Are their way of funding illegal? It doesn't seems so, it's just how our world works today.
That's why I found difficult to understand the point of your article.
Maybe you find using the term "indie" something like a "lie" to the people, but that's something questionable based on what meaning the word "indie" means.
What does "indipendent" mean? Does it mean "low budget"? Does it mean "unrelated to the big AAA publishers?"
If you clarify on this definition, on what it means to you, maybe it would be easier to understand
Playing semantics isn't going to convince anyone that somehow pulling millions of dollars, hundreds of people worth of manpower, and funding from your local government and Chinese corporations is somehow just something your average bloke working from dad's garage is even close to being capable of.
Nobody in their right mind would look at this laundry list of elements that went into development and conclude there was anything legitimately "independent" about it.
You're just lying.
I wish you a nice day.
I'm lying.
Deeply cynical and assumptive, with very little actual substance. A developer’s statement of the game’s influences? Mere promotion. Business people running the business end of a publishing collective? Proof of full corporate control over the studios. These conclusions may seem obvious to people who share your highly specific, very online priors, but to anyone outside of your bubble, you’ve failed to even make a case.
Too bad four you, everything I say here is sourced while your comment is just an empty assertion.
Opinions can’t be sourced, they’re either fully formed or they’re half-baked.
What does that have to do with anything?
lame