OK. I'm not talking about you (necessarily). It's just a thought that I've had for a while: A lot of indie developers make these games that are super fancy and "elegant" because that's what they think indie is supposed to be about. The term "art game" or the phrase "it's not a game, it's an experience" makes me wonder if these developers realize that some people's negative reaction might just be because the game is not fun, or engaging. I'm not suggesting that every game should be fun, or just a rogue-like top-down shooter, but I disagree with the mentality of "if it's not 'artsy', it's not worth it". I believe that some games should be considered art, like Gone Home. But I also believe that some game should just be fun, like the newly released High Hell and there's space for both of these types, it just depends on what kind of game you want to make. This got started as an argument I had with a colleague about how art games try to be smart and how often that gets in the way of an enjoyable experience, so I would love to hear your opinion on this: Are indie game supposed to shoot for the moon in terms of narrative and "artsyness", or are they supposed to be entertaining and just fun?

Let's split it into "good games" and "business side".

To be honest, today making games for a living is a bad decision. Where are at the stage that making games is not a very good business if you want to make money.

A stupid little game like Flappy bird made in two weeks can make more money than your 5 years development serious and deep game.

It's like being in a jungle in the Vietnam war with a 3rd side of Demons from doom.

So... I won't talk about the business side, because IMO you should not rely on gamedeving as your main income.

Now... about "good games". You can't tell a person what is fun for him. Because what you enjoy is subjective to every person, it's also subjective to your mood, time of the day and many factors for the same person.

However, you can, to some degree, try to think of several quality measurements of a game.

You can tell when a painting was made by an artist that knows what he is doing, instead by an artist that by chance might made something you like.

Like, you might like this weird painting of a person, but the weird anatomy of the character, the wrong perspective and shadows were not because the artist has chosen to do so. It was because he didn't know exactly how to create the painting he had in mind, so he created something by chance and lack of skill.

Anyway, my point is, I think many indie games are not "good"(IMO) because the world they exist inside is nonsensical or lacks internal logic.

Things like, injecting politics, pop culture, an incoherent world and basically things that are made by chance and has no internal logic.

Another great example is stupid names, or joke games. If you name your RPG game in a fantasy world "Pixel game with swords and too much HP" then it's not going to engage the players. Because the stupid name ruins the experience.

So basically, I think many indie games are an incoherent mess of elements from different worlds that don't make sense on their own merit.

Your game should have some sort of internal logic.

For instance Roger Rabbit had cartoons living in the real world, but it had internal logic. Because there was a cartoon world, they didn't break the fourth wall.

So many "Artsy" games just don't have a world to exist inside, they rely on things from the real world, but they don't have their own believable world to exist inside.