The world he's talking about is called business.

Of course there are exceptions to everything; I really enjoy Shank for example. The big picture though is that most indy games fall in one of the two categories, just watch the WTF is... series by TotalBiscuit on YouTube, very few games look exciting.

Well trust me, it isn't when you see so many people talking nonsense because they can't be arsed to do things properly <.<

And the reason I know all this, is because I've worked on a handful of mods and projects in the past and all this was done for free and even though we rarely met in person, it didn't matter. If the project had a good leader, everyone else was motivated. If the project's leadership was flaky, people started to leave and the project sunk. It's not hard, not complex, but some of you just make it out to be.

Running a project well isn't that hard either - just manage things realistically, set defined goals, properly oversee every member and give constructive criticism. DON'T hire friends because it just won't work and just be firm but friendly. If you can't handle that, try to find someone you can work for who is. Bad things can happen and do happen, that's besides the point - if you look at the history of PC gaming, many games got cancelled because the dev team fell apart for this or that reason - but the end goal is that you must want to make a game that is as good as possible and for me, sacrificing looks and music/sounds doesn't fit into that picture so if you want to sacrifice those, I don't think you're doing it right.

I'd rather have devs take a little bit more risk and responsibility and come up with a game that not only plays well but also looks the part, than a series of technically sound but visually simplistic and unimaginative game.

So what are you suggesting, that people who are quite simply not good leaders / are bad managers / whatever just stop developing?

The thing with retro art is, that you actually have to know how to create it in order it to look good. Many younger devs have only seen and played the games they try to emulate, but they don't know how to actually technically create the similar art style, so it does lead into rather ugly art decision now and then.

The lower the resolution and the color count goes, the higher the skills needed I'd say.

I think that a major part of the issue is that indie games don't aim to conquer the world. They want to write something they like and hope there will be enough other people who do. You need to invest a lot less effort to appeal to 1% than you do to appeal to 20%.

Not really. At lower resolution you need to be a good judge of what works, but you also need a loss less drawing talent. I think it's silly to claim that a detailed high-res portrait requires less skill than a 16x16 pixel portrait.
What would you call the graphics on Spate? I'd call them beautiful, and they're the work of one person (he now has another doing programming). He's an artist, and obviously a good one.

I also like the style of this one. There are also quite a few adventure games and hidden object games which are well drawn.

Indie games aren't inherently ugly, but there are tons of them, and there aren't good artists in all of them. It's easy to find the bad examples, it's easy to find the examples whose style you don't like, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any that look good.

As long as they're aestetically pleasing I don't mind low graphics but I don't like nintendo 8-bit/reto style at all, I much prefer SNES and whatever came after it.

Some indie game looks really awesome but it is true that some of them looks really bad, I mean BAD BAD, so yes, in some cases "indie" is just an excuse.

Agree with the OP on this particular indie trend and MacGuffin's Curse, i got it from one of the latest bundles and , well.. Ugly game.

Have you played Mc Pixel yet?

http://calmdowntom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/McPixel2.png

I'm an even older gamer, but I think I always was a graphics snob. When I compared Lemmings on my Amiga to the PC version for example, that PC version looked crappy (and sounded crappy). I have no nostalgia whatsoever to the graphics of the past, nor to the unreadable fonts that some games still try to mimic.

I hear you, i was sooo jealous of the SNES version of Street Figther II and its blooming colors against my grim Genesis version at the time, haha.. Now i do have plenty of retro games and oldies but really, i only look for clever design and pleasing run of the game. I don't care much for shaders and post processing and anti aliasing stuff, but as long it is correctly optimized (looking at you Metro 2033 / Witcher 2) doesn't get in the way of a smooth experience and enhance the visuals, why not?

I don't think you got my point, which I supposedly countered. You were saying that there is no excuse to not get an artist involved. I'm saying there is. I wasn't saying that you shouldn't hire anyone. I was saying it isn't risk free. I didn't mention anything about hiring friends, either. Perhaps you are so competent that you fail to see that not everyone knows how to write contracts that hold water (I mean, even if you make them sign a napkin that tells them to act nice, it won't mean a thing. I guess I'll just find a lawyer that wants to prove himself), hold work interviews (now, I'm obviously incompetent when it comes to art, what am I supposed to ask this guy. "Are you the best artist? Yes? You are hired!"), or manage artists in a project. The game might look butt ugly, and it will lower the sales since the people who care don't buy it, but that doesn't make it inexcusable. You yourself ask people to manage their projects realistically, and if you can't handle having an artists, a physicist, a musician, a dog trainer and a Swedish chef in your team to make sure every aspect of it is top notch, it's better to not have 'em. An ugly but good game is better than no game at all, and if you get Johnson the Great Manager to manage your project in your stead, the game will probably be very different from the one you imagined, and visual artists/musicians aren't the only ones with their own artistic visions.

Also, maybe it's just me, but I think having loads of people who do a good job for free would suggest that people who pay their artists use their money unwisely.

Nothing is risk-free. What if a company has a lead designer and he runs in front of the bus and dies? If you want to run a business you need to be willing to take risks and you need to be prepared for bad things to happen. You will always lose money, the goal is to win more than you lose. For example a backup solution drains money, but when something happens the money saved by not having to start over makes up for it. If someone leaves the team for whatever reason you have to make sure prior to that that the poject can still continue and that you can find another person to fill the spot.

Clearly the unique group, both of them. There is the expression of "trying too hard" and both games look more obsessed with being artsy than good games. Being an artist is worth nothing in games, you need to be a good craftsman. No one cares how fancy or unique your artstyle is if it makes people fall asleep. Imagine a carpenter being more obsessed with putting all sorts of fancy ornaments on the furniture he produces than making sturdy well crafted and comfortable furniture

Just wondering where this hatred is coming from. Has an indie game bit your behind when you were young? Have you even looked at the gameplay of these games before you pronounced judgement?