How indie is Bastion?

[Daniël]

Anyone who has played the game must have seen the big Warner Bros logo at the start. Bastion is promoted as an independant game, but the fact that Warner Bros is involved makes me kinda wonder how indie Bastion really is.
I'd like to hear your opinions on this matter and if you have any essential information on the subject, please share.

Edit: Since this thread is still somewhat active, I'm gonna quote the reply that pretty much answered the question to me, to save you th trouble of going through all comments.

Originally posted by kid_zomb:

I don't know how to measure "indie" but I can confirm that we self-funded Bastion out of the living room of a house in San Jose. We wanted the game to be on console as well as PC and for that reason we needed a publisher -- all XBLA games are published either by Microsoft or a third party, and we decided to go with Warner Bros. because they were the most willing to let us continue development without interruption, and finish the game on our own terms. We're an independent studio. Whether we're "indie" I guess is for other people to decide.

[brent]

From the wikipedia article: Development started in 2009, with the game having WB sign on to distribute in March of 2011, and the game being released four months later in July 2011.

The argument about whether or not something is "indie" or not usually revolves around how much influence some "huge corporation" had in the content of the game. I'd probably say WB had little to no direct influence on the actual game, and I'm kinda puzzled why the even signed with them given that the game was enormously successful on both Xbox Live and Steam, both of which need no outside publisher...

[kid_zomb]

I don't know how to measure "indie" but I can confirm that we self-funded Bastion out of the living room of a house in San Jose. We wanted the game to be on console as well as PC and for that reason we needed a publisher -- all XBLA games are published either by Microsoft or a third party, and we decided to go with Warner Bros. because they were the most willing to let us continue development without interruption, and finish the game on our own terms. We're an independent studio. Whether we're "indie" I guess is for other people to decide.

[Daniël]

Thanks for the insights kid_zomb, it's nice to know developers get in contact with the crowd and actually answer these kind of questions.

[<M.o.K> Samurai]

Daniel, it is a truly excellent game with amazing music, great visuals, wonderful voice narration, and pretty fun gameplay.

The story is also proving to be very interesting. It is indie enough :)

[s p a c e j a n i t o r]

Originally posted by kid_zomb:

... I can confirm that we self-funded Bastion out of the living room of a house in San Jose...

That is my definition/understanding of indie. To be clear, the house in San Jose part ;p just coincidence that you also happened to fund it yourself. All indie's must be funded out of a house in San Jose.

[Daniël]

Originally posted by <M.o.K>Samurai Jack-ing Off:

Daniel, it is a truly excellent game with amazing music, great visuals, wonderful voice narration, and pretty fun gameplay.

The story is also proving to be very interesting. It is indie enough :)

I'm not sure if your definition of indie is very true, indie means independant and has nothing to do with the actual quality of the game.
Though i agree that it's a fantastic game.

[BrokenSlants]

There seems to be a range, from having it being a small operation to a company being independently owned.

I think the importance of that "indie" title is to distinguish where the ultimate decision-making process takes place. Does a developer have the independence to make what THEY want regardless of its investors? Are they, then, answering to their own tastes as well as those of its audience directly? Supergiant, in that sense, more than fits the bill. But Valve, in that case, would also fit that criteria, and I know people are wary of extending it to a company of that size.

Personally, I think that's really the strength of an "indie" title. Regardless, or rather independent, of the the size, it's the ability of a company to make what it and its consumers (however small or niche it may be) wants.

[Melodic Oak]

It doesn't matter. Long story short, judging a game based on how independent its creators are is being ignorant of the fact that quality should not be judged by things that do not effect its quality. Ergo: hipsters should never be allowed to judge anything ever.

[Daniël]

Originally posted by Albert Chamomile Tea (2 lumps):

It doesn't matter. Long story short, judging a game based on how independent its creators are is being ignorant of the fact that quality should not be judged by things that do not effect its quality. Ergo: hipsters should never be allowed to judge anything ever.

I think you're missing the point here, this is not about quality, this about being independant, the fact that you're assuming there's a direct link to the quality and it being indie is really your problem.
Either way, I have been convinced that Bastion is indeed indie and that Warner Bros is nothing but a third party for practical issues.

[Melodic Oak]

But... Why would you CARE? It doesn't MATTER, in any way, shape, or form. I shudder imagining a future where the people judge things based on their dependency for funding. It's not so much I'm claiming that's what you're doing (claiming that I was claiming, lawl), but it strikes me that you wouldn't be asking the question if it didn't matter to you. So in a way, most of your previous statement is bunk. Either way, it's a great game, why even bother with the semantics of whether or not it's technically “indie”.

[Larry]

Albert, the issue here is that large corporations often influence things that they can get their noses into with what will make them the most money, there's a lot of prime examples out there. Let's take Call of Duty, for example. Infinity Ward had a great game that they created, Call of Duty, and when Activision got ahold of them they started to milk the franchise because it was insanely popular. They did the same to Tony Hawk, Guitaro Hero and now presumably WoW, judging by the quality of the last two xpacs. Mind you, I'm just using Activision as a great example. EA was the same way, for another good one.

In the end, by supporting these companies you are in essence allowing them to continue these poor practices, which often end poorly for the studios and developers they hire on. They are in this market to make as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time, often without regard for their employees.

[BrokenSlants]

Originally posted by Albert Chamomile Tea (2 lumps):

But... Why would you CARE? It doesn't MATTER, in any way, shape, or form. I shudder imagining a future where the people judge things based on their dependency for funding. It's not so much I'm claiming that's what you're doing (claiming that I was claiming, lawl), but it strikes me that you wouldn't be asking the question if it didn't matter to you. So in a way, most of your previous statement is bunk. Either way, it's a great game, why even bother with the semantics of whether or not it's technically “indie”.

Michael had a great response to this about the problems of larger-scale gaming.

It's not elitism. There ARE indie games that are catering to a different crowd than your standard FPS/GTA field.

But indie companies have the freedom to do so. That's really what makes the name and label important for any reason, and to be honest it's a particularly strong reason.

[Sparse Dunes]

Indie really just depends on the budget the developers have.
Compare most indie budgets to most Triple A titles

Because you see indie games being published by companies like Capcom.

[Daniël]

Originally posted by Basket of Fruit:

Indie really just depends on the budget the developers have.
Compare most indie budgets to most Triple A titles

Because you see indie games being published by companies like Capcom.

I disagree, there are some indie groups that have quite the starting budget, though some don't and have to work through their savings. To me it really depends on whether they have to meet deadlines and are controlled by other companies and such.

On an other note, I edited the first post.

[Aliapoh]

Originally posted by Daniël:

Anyone who has played the game must have seen the big Warner Bros logo at the start. Bastion is promoted as an independant game, but the fact that Warner Bros is involved makes me kinda wonder how indie Bastion really is.
I'd like to hear your opinions on this matter and if you have any essential information on the subject, please share.

Edit: Since this thread is still somewhat active, I'm gonna quote the reply that pretty much answered the question to me, to save you th trouble of going through all comments.

Originally posted by kid_zomb:

I don't know how to measure "indie" but I can confirm that we self-funded Bastion out of the living room of a house in San Jose. We wanted the game to be on console as well as PC and for that reason we needed a publisher -- all XBLA games are published either by Microsoft or a third party, and we decided to go with Warner Bros. because they were the most willing to let us continue development without interruption, and finish the game on our own terms. We're an independent studio. Whether we're "indie" I guess is for other people to decide.

This company has made some pretty big games like Hades and Pyre. They don't have a lot of employees, but there is a high degree of reputation though!