Someone please point me to a game made by a small team (in the last 10 years, since all games back in the day were small teams) that broke new ground and was hugely influential for games moving forward (in a positive way of course).

Ah but see, you have given yourself all the power and all of us who disagree none. Several people have named games that were revolutionary, and good games to them (along with millions of others that agree). The fact that you dismissed Minecraft alone proves your bias.

Let's look at minecraft:

Graphics are terrible.
The building part is better done in 3D software or CAD.

So what does it have going for it again?

Because it took what would've previously required 3D software or CAD to do and made it into a game, an enjoyable game at that. Using CAD and 3D software is not fun without hours of learning to use it (and not everyone will enjoy it even after that), but building a crappy wood house in Minecraft is immediately fun because of a well designed world and crafting system.

You can argue all you want, but me and more than 54 million people disagree with you. It may not be some kind of 'high art' but it's a game that has already and will continue to inspire people when they make games.

Someone please point me to a game made by a small team (in the last 10 years, since all games back in the day were small teams) that broke new ground and was hugely influential for games moving forward (in a positive way of course).

Ah but see, you have given yourself all the power and all of us who disagree none. Several people have named games that were revolutionary, and good games to them (along with millions of others that agree). The fact that you dismissed Minecraft alone proves your bias.

Let's look at minecraft:

Graphics are terrible.
The building part is better done in 3D software or CAD.

So what does it have going for it again?

Use some imagination.

The biggest dreams require the most work to make reality…

Cody I'm surprised to see you take this attitude of bigger is always better given your stance about Destiny and how it needs to be fixed. It was made by a pretty large group.

I think what he means to say is that to make innovative gameplay a likely result, a certain level of resources are required, *but not sufficient*.

I'm not sure I agree, but I do think that criticizing Destiny and other "AAA" games with faults is not automatically contradicted by a stance that smaller teams have a smaller chance of producing games that are both high quality AND innovative. Assuming that word has an actual meaning anymore.

Well whatever highwire ends up doing it will probably have a pretty rad soundtrack :p.

I reallt abhor the notion that a good game requires a large budget. Some games do, while others dont, but neither is inherently superior.

Im not a big fan of Phil Fish, but Fez was kind of wonderful. The moment-to-moment gameplay/platforming was solid, the general mechanics and 3d "gimick" were well executed and interesting, the narrative was subtle but intrigueing, and the art was (arguably) gorgeous.

Bonus points for a wonderful soundtrack and you get a game that I play through quite regularly.

It can definitely help, but it's not compulsory.

Does that make sense?

Yep! I feel the same way. :)

A big budget only means you get better graphics and movie-tie-in-themed games. It does not equate to stronger narrative or gameplay.

Check out Save the Date, Papers, Please!, and The Swapper for some awesome indy games from the past year.

Can't speak for the other 2, but Papers please was also pretty dismal. I think I went over why a while ago here. How much cooler would it have been, if it had an LA Noire style questioning of the travelers, where you could actually see their emotions?

I mean, it would have been a different game. I'm sorry you didn't like it, but I did. Save the Date was my personal favorite game of last year. It's just so META, you know? Like, way more meta than you think, even after you think it's super meta. You absolutely must play it several times, and I can't tell you why without spoiling why.

Okay, I played it. Several times. I feel like I wasted my time. Feel free to email me and tell me what I missed. ;)

(I read this, so I know the stuff that annoyed me was intentional. I guess I'm looking for a reason why it shouldn't annoy me. :) )

Big budget means a greater chance to be innovative etc. I think that is being used here. Of course the chance is better when you have more money, I have a better chance to get laid too if I had more money. Doesn't mean I will. I also get laid without money enough (not really). Chance does not mean it happens (just take Destiny for example)

I would argue that Destiny is extremely innovative. It has plenty of faults, sure, but I don't think there is another game out there that delivers this kind of experience.

I'd agree, to a point. Destiny has innovated a server-matching service unlike any we've seen before, and fantastic art and sound, but they're not the first FPS MMO (Tabula Rasa), they're not the first Halo-style PvP (Halo, duh, or Tribes if you really want to go back), they're not the first RNG based loot system (every slot machine ever, and - sadly - that's not a joke), they're not the first raid/strike concept game (WoW), they're not the first FPS (Wolfenstein 3D), etc etc. There's zero innovative gameplay here. They just borrowed from lots of other successful games with a modicum of success. I'm not saying it's derivative, but it's also not new.

I'll grant, though, that "new" is extremely hard to come by in the video game market these days. It takes a huge amount of vision to design something that is truly new. An inordinate amount. Almost otherworldly. Someone needs to step up and say "we're going to do this crazy thing and I have no idea if it's even possible, but screw it, we're going for broke." And then they follow through. This is not typically a thing that major corporations would fund because it's hugely expensive if it doesn't work out. And you know what? Destiny's server architecture totally worked out. They really nailed it. Could it be improved so you don't have to go to orbit between every single activity? Hell yes. But still, it's an incredible feat that the server structure feels relatively seamless and all that matchmaking happens in the background throughout patrol modes. Simply walking from a private strike into a public space and then back again during the Omnigul strike is a major feat of engineering, and it's one that people will often overlook.

Sadly, however, the game totally fails to capitalize on this engineering marvel and seems more likely to be designed around encouraging server convergence than it is designed to take advantage of it. Probably because they knew it was so bold that it just might fail. Destiny 2, hopefully, takes the engineering here and uses it to further the gameplay.

A big budget only means you get better graphics and movie-tie-in-themed games. It does not equate to stronger narrative or gameplay.

Check out Save the Date, Papers, Please!, and The Swapper for some awesome indy games from the past year.

Can't speak for the other 2, but Papers please was also pretty dismal. I think I went over why a while ago here. How much cooler would it have been, if it had an LA Noire style questioning of the travelers, where you could actually see their emotions?

I mean, it would have been a different game. I'm sorry you didn't like it, but I did. Save the Date was my personal favorite game of last year. It's just so META, you know? Like, way more meta than you think, even after you think it's super meta. You absolutely must play it several times, and I can't tell you why without spoiling why.