Content developers and consumers often consider the question of 'what makes this good?', and it's difficult to frame the question, considering there are a wide variety of subjective and objective responses to it. The question itself is more philosophical than empirical, though marketing teams will argue that the empirical responses are valued higher, considering they have more potential to impact finances. Differences between AAA producers and indie studios will further skew these thoughts, considering, by and large, indie developers tend to produce games that are more likely to sate an individual need or design desire, and that their successes are largely found in the coincidence that other people who are willing to part with their hard-earned cash will want to share that experience.
I'm at an interesting crossroads in the consumer/producer flows right now - I consume far more regularly than I consider design, but after having been further steeped in the development and review world, I'm starting to consider the merits of production and how it impacts consumption. Basic economic theory (again, the empirical) dictates that an item is more likely to be purchased when it has a high value to the person to which it is marketed. Strictly speaking, it's easier to create a cash cow when said cow is made of beef that appeals to the most appetites. Further using that analogy, the more cuts of meat that can be provided by that cow (in terms of acceptable experiences given by the game), the more likely it is that the game will be consumed by a wider audience.
We already know what drives the indie developer to do what they do, simply because we ARE indie developers. For me, I want to make experiences that challenge perception and require the player to consider challenges in unique ways. For Mr. Bond, this seems to focus on a gameplay style he grew up and fell in love with - a means of seeing immediate, quantifiable results that allows him to compete, sometimes cooperatively, with himself and others. For Boris, it appears to me that his designs are an exercise in creativity and experimentation - to see how individual elements can fit together into a tidy experience. In short, it seems to design around the experiences that we, as consumers, would like to see more of.
Often times, though, these experiences can be somewhat limited in scope, but the beauty of having a studio full of people with different design philosophies is that each person brings something unique to the table, and if individuals want help shaping a game experience from their cohorts, there's a much greater chance of individual spices coming together to form something truly special. A lot of what inspires me to continue poking and prodding around the indie scene is that what I find is often something very special to their creators; experiences curated from passion and love that form something someone is intensely proud and protective of. It's no surprise that certain high-profile developers have burnt out because of criticism, because much like other art forms, these pieces are an extension of the self.
Merit, at least on a small scale, is more primarily focused on the individual, rather than the group. Something very pleasing about the indie community is that developers, by and large, totally understand this, and will go out of their way to help their colleagues and acquaintances solve problems, all in the name of helping someone make something that is truly representative of their inner thoughts and designs. While AAA has its place, and is in no way greater or lesser than what I consider more 'curated' experiences, it's lovely to see that the indie culture is being appreciated on a broader scale.
Love and lava cookies,
Tormod