I second bad console ports.

Examples:
Final Fantasy 8 (LOTS of graphical glitches that made it unplayable made me take it back to the shop back then in 2000)
Grandia 2 (some of the strangest compatibility bugs I ever saw and even some ingame vids are f***** up)
Blur (forces to use an X-Box controller or a third party program to simulate one with your proper controller... not the only game that does that)
Injustice - God's Among Us (I read horrible stuff about the controls)
etc..

+ Game design focused on console releases like in Fallout 3, Oblivion, etc...
Surely would have been better without consoles in mind.

So a bad game, meaning a game with shit game play but beautiful graphics, good music, good sound effects, good voice acting is no different than a bad game with shitty graphics, shitty music, shitty sound effects and even worse game play?
"Indie" is like the word "Troll". Everyone has their own definition of "Indie"...

Yep, most people here on GoG will tell you, that gameplay makes 90% of a game, me included.

Well for people who don't give a crap about graphics, sound effects, music and voice acting, then a bad game is a bad game. I get it now. But I care about these things so for me, a bad indie game is a lot worse than a bad game. Graphics, sound effects, music and voice acting matter very much to me. One of the things that made Vampire Bloodlines so good in my opinion is it's soundtrack. One of the reasons why I love the game Skyrim is because I like it's graphics. If the graphics of Skyrim were replaced with Oblivion graphics, I wouldn't love Skyrim anymore.

As PaterAlf nicely pointed out, bad game is a bad game, period. No, a bad game with expensive graphics and expensive voice acting (note that this does NOT equal good graphics and good voice acting, not by any stretch of the imagination) is no better than a bad game with cheap graphics and cheap VA. Why on earth would it be? They're both bad.

Besides, vast majority - like 99% - of non-indie games actually have terrible production values, bad music and at best average graphics, which makes the distinction even more pointless.

Fair enough. Don't Starve, Amnesia, Endless Space, Dust, Jets'n'Guns....

No, you're not, thus the 'basically' in the sentence. I'm trying to put things into perspective for you.

I aggree with the soundtrack of Bloodlines (it's really awesome and fits the athmosphere perfectly) and the voice acting of Bastion, so make it 80% gameplay importance for me, but sadly these two examples are quite exceptional.
The soundtracks of Fallout 3 (30s-40s classics) and Quake 1 (Nine Inch Nails) are great too.

And to add an open source example:
M.A.R.S. soundtrack is from Obsidian Shell (Symphonic Metal in a free game, wooohoo)
http://mars-game.sourceforge.net/?page_id=738

It seems some of you people fail to realize also that bad indie games usually have worse game play than bad non indie games. Why? Because people don't back a large team of people who suck at game development with lots and lots of money. So if a large team of gifted and skilled people with lots of money makes a bad game, it can't be as bad as a bad game made by a bunch of people who suck at game development but had a dream or wanted to make $$$ doing something they enjoy with very little money to start with. So a bad game isn't really a bad game in most cases. There is usually a difference between bad indie games and bad non indie games. Logic.

Nope.

First mistake you make is to assume that all people who work on big-budget titles are experienced, or even good, at game developmet, and that indies are inexperienced idiots. You'll find that progressively more and more experienced designers and developers are attempting to free themselves of publishers - mostly because of artistic feedom.

Second mistake you make is to assume that good developers make a good game. In big companies, good and experienced people will not even get heard. Small team development has the advantage that everybody's opinion is valuable, and everybody can contribute. Direction of big budget titles is centralized, and most of the experience of individual creators will not be taken into account.

Publishers do this way more often than community or private funders.

Examples:
Rock'n'Roll Racing 2
(The kickstarted Indie Successor was way better before it got taken from Steam due to licensing issues)

Black and White 1
(Expensive produced garbage)

Gothic 3
(It's ancestors had less money and the games were better)

Actually, big publishers care way less about gameplay issues than indies do.

You just don't care for expensive graphics, music, sound effects and voice acting. Fine but I do. So like I said FOR ME, a pest of modern gaming is horrible indie games. Because of my tastes, there is a difference for me between bad games and bad non indie games. For you? There is no difference or maybe you find bad non indie games worse. You've made that clear. So this discussion has come down to, my taste vs your taste and such an discussion is pointless.
Those are just 3 games. And those games are nowhere near as bad(when it comes to gameplay only) as most of the bad indie games out there...

Best examples: Brian Fargo and Tim Schafer!

What was wrong with FF8? I played it through on my laptop back then, and I don't recall any real issues. Maybe it depended which hardware you had.

I know the complaints towards Final Fantasy 7 PC release though, but I don't fully agree with them. Yeah the FMV parts are grainier, but depending on your sound card, the PC version music was superior to the Playstation original at places. Either way, the PC version of FF7 was also fully playable, albeit it was finicky about the PC system (e.g. I think it was quite hard to get it running outside of Windows 9x).

You realize that you start comparing apples with oranges? Not all large big budget teams are gifted and skilled (and most important wholeheartedly dedicated to their project) and not all indie developers suck at game development or want to grab some fast dollars.

There are often large teams that can't fulfill their vision of a game, because of their publisher or a stricht deadline that forces them to publish a game that is not of the quality they wished for. On the other hand there are indie developers that work on a game for years and come up with great results even if they do everything on their own (or with a very small team).

Don't get me wrong: I don't say that indie games are the better ones, just that you can terribly fail in both categories and that a bad game doesn't get better, because you had a big budget. As I said before: A bad game is a bad game. Nothing will change that.