I think a lot of the criticism the movie gets is because people misunderstand its selling quote:

A documentary that follows the journeys of indie game developers as they create games and release those works, and themselves, to the world.

I've lost track of how many people I've seen watch it thinking it was documentary howto on game development and then be offended because it really has nothing to do with game development outside of following the developers and getting their outlook on everything. That leads to another thing I see far too often, people wanting a detailed howto on making games thinking they will make the next huge game without any effort.

I personally liked the documentary, though watching the segments on Fish made his ultimate exit last year no surprise at all. The others clearly had a grasp on it, but still put everything they had into it. I'm glad it all worked out in the end (well guess it technically didn't for Fish).

Yes, I've seen it. And it was quite inspiring and intimidating, at the same time. These people bets their entire future into their game, and thus they put every effort into making the games successful, and then be rewarded for their efforts.

However, it also shows how much of a challenge indie game development could be. They finally got the financial (and mental) reward for their games, but had they failed, it would've been disastrous for them. No money left and broken self-esteem could easily lead to crazy things that I won't even mention here. I applaud them for their success.

It's also intimidating because they are (at least the coders) WAY better than me, and they still struggled like that. In one of his talks, Jon Blow (of "Braid" fame) said that his entire codebase for Braid was about 90k lines long, and that he'd code approximately 70-75% of it by himself, not as a result of boilerplate codes, or third-party libraries, which is a LOT of code. He also mentioned the productivity of the average coders (as measured in the Mythical Man-Month) is about 10 lines per day, which is 3650 lines a year, which mean it'd take almost 30 years to finish the game if a conventional approach is used. He resorted to basically just making the game work, without worrying about whether a certain approach is optimal or not. That, and the fact that the game was made in C++ (a language where angels fear to tread ) is simply intimidating to me.

However, the joy they showed when they finished the game is a big enough inspiration for me to move forward, even if it's hard. The fun in the process (which I've experienced) and the joy in the result (which they've shown) is too much for me to turn down.

Yes, I've seen it. And it was quite inspiring and intimidating, at the same time. These people bets their entire future into their game, and thus they put every effort into making the games successful, and then be rewarded for their efforts.

However, it also shows how much of a challenge indie game development could be. They finally got the financial (and mental) reward for their games, but had they failed, it would've been disastrous for them. No money left and broken self-esteem could easily lead to crazy things that I won't even mention here. I applaud them for their success.

It's also intimidating because they are (at least the coders) WAY better than me, and they still struggled like that. In one of his talks, Jon Blow (of "Braid" fame) said that his entire codebase for Braid was about 90k lines long, and that he'd code approximately 70-75% of it by himself, not as a result of boilerplate codes, or third-party libraries, which is a LOT of code. He also mentioned the productivity of the average coders (as measured in the Mythical Man-Month) is about 10 lines per day, which is 3650 lines a year, which mean it'd take almost 30 years to finish the game if a conventional approach is used. He resorted to basically just making the game work, without worrying about whether a certain approach is optimal or not. That, and the fact that the game was made in C++ (a language where angels fear to tread ) is simply intimidating to me.

However, the joy they showed when they finished the game is a big enough inspiration for me to move forward, even if it's hard. The fun in the process (which I've experienced) and the joy in the result (which they've shown) is too much for me to turn down.

70% of 90k is 60k. So not too bad for a professional coder, that's 1200 lines a week for a year.

Wow. 60k lines of code? I've got that pro-smirk on my face after 300. That kind of makes me uninspired though for the reason that the game is fairly simple. On the technical side it is not simple, but the game itself is rather simple.

This is the reason I am looking for easier ways to do this game development stuff. Right now my favorite software is this app called GamePress on the app store. Hopefully soon it will get the spotlight it deserves. One of the developers was right when they said that their system is better than the systems that gamers currently use for making games.

Now, flappy bird made 50,000 dollars a day, and someone used this GamePress app to make the same game (which could actually be made in a few hours. I wonder how many lines of code flappy bird had.

All I am waiting on is the ability to get the source for the game I make so that I can publish to IOS (which two games were able to do because they won a contest).

They can make a lot of money this way, and I would pay a pretty penny to be able to make a game so easily and publish it. I figure what they should do is host the game under their name, and charge a fee to cover costs for their developer's license and also get a percentage of any potential profits, non-techy people don't need a developers license.

They'd become a sort of IOS game publisher for the average joe. Of course they are good about quality inspection themselves, so they wouldn't choose any ol' game to release.

That would definitely inspire me, because I can do way less work, and make just as much money (I think games shouldn't have to be so technical to create). Then making games would be just as easy to get into as taking out a blank sheet of copy paper and a pencil and letting the creativity flow.

In one of his talks, Jon Blow (of "Braid" fame) said that his entire codebase for Braid was about 90k lines long, and that he'd code approximately 70-75% of it by himself, not as a result of boilerplate codes, or third-party libraries, which is a LOT of code. He also mentioned the productivity of the average coders (as measured in the Mythical Man-Month) is about 10 lines per day, which is 3650 lines a year, which mean it'd take almost 30 years to finish the game if a conventional approach is used.

70% of 90k is 60k. So not too bad for a professional coder, that's 1200 lines a week for a year.

Which is only 24x more productive than the average professional :-P

So I saw that movie, "Indie Game: The Movie" last night, and I really couldn't get that emotional over it. I mean, I am not as in to games as these people were in this movie. And I am wondering if it takes that type of desperation to want to keep a job in this industry.

Dude said if he does not release this game, he will kill himself. Uh....

I mean, there are so many developers who are not as successful, do they actually end up killing themselves?

Other guy, after they had succeeded greatly said, "I am starting to think it was worth it."

If anything it makes me be more considerate of how I respond to another person's work, because I don't know all the labor that was put into it. But there is no way I can play all of the indie games out there enough to get sentimental about each and every one.

Everyone has a story to tell, and each person is unique, but there are millions of peoples with stories to tell, and I am sure each one is unique. What makes one stand out over another?

This is an important topic, for beginners and experienced devs alike.

Anyone have/had similar experiences in the indie game development world?

Yes, I did watch it. There was a time when I was like those people and considered it either do or die. I made insane progress in a very short period of time. I placed everything else in my life on the back burner. Then I started going to college and just didn't care anymore. Now I am making almost no progress other than mindlessly doing school work but I am not crazy anymore. So their insanity is probably the reason they were successful.

So I saw that movie, "Indie Game: The Movie" last night, and I really couldn't get that emotional over it. I mean, I am not as in to games as these people were in this movie. And I am wondering if it takes that type of desperation to want to keep a job in this industry.

Dude said if he does not release this game, he will kill himself. Uh....

I mean, there are so many developers who are not as successful, do they actually end up killing themselves?

Other guy, after they had succeeded greatly said, "I am starting to think it was worth it."

If anything it makes me be more considerate of how I respond to another person's work, because I don't know all the labor that was put into it. But there is no way I can play all of the indie games out there enough to get sentimental about each and every one.

Everyone has a story to tell, and each person is unique, but there are millions of peoples with stories to tell, and I am sure each one is unique. What makes one stand out over another?

This is an important topic, for beginners and experienced devs alike.

Anyone have/had similar experiences in the indie game development world?

Yes, I did watch it. There was a time when I was like those people and considered it either do or die. I made insane progress in a very short period of time. I placed everything else in my life on the back burner. Then I started going to college and just didn't care anymore. Now I am making almost no progress other than mindlessly doing school work but I am not crazy anymore. So their insanity is probably the reason they were successful.

One thing to be mindful of is that 90% of a commercial-ready product is content, polish, and tuning. Often times, the core of what you hope for can be achieved with relatively little investment of time and resources. Blow created the core of Braid's mechanics and workings in a weekend or two, and its recognizable as such even with incredibly rough graphics. That's why we have that joke about being 90% finished, and now we just have to finish the other 90%.

When a project appears to be moving very slowly WRT to features and such, its often a symptom of production being unnecessarily bottlenecked on aesthetics, either as a result of a direct dependency, or as a motivational issue. Or, the project is mature, all major features exist in their essential form, and they're in the tuning stage where progress is less apparent.

So I saw that movie, "Indie Game: The Movie" last night, and I really couldn't get that emotional over it. I mean, I am not as in to games as these people were in this movie. And I am wondering if it takes that type of desperation to want to keep a job in this industry.

Dude said if he does not release this game, he will kill himself. Uh....

I mean, there are so many developers who are not as successful, do they actually end up killing themselves?

Other guy, after they had succeeded greatly said, "I am starting to think it was worth it."

If anything it makes me be more considerate of how I respond to another person's work, because I don't know all the labor that was put into it. But there is no way I can play all of the indie games out there enough to get sentimental about each and every one.

Everyone has a story to tell, and each person is unique, but there are millions of peoples with stories to tell, and I am sure each one is unique. What makes one stand out over another?

This is an important topic, for beginners and experienced devs alike.

Anyone have/had similar experiences in the indie game development world?

Yes, I did watch it. There was a time when I was like those people and considered it either do or die. I made insane progress in a very short period of time. I placed everything else in my life on the back burner. Then I started going to college and just didn't care anymore. Now I am making almost no progress other than mindlessly doing school work but I am not crazy anymore. So their insanity is probably the reason they were successful.

One thing to be mindful of is that 90% of a commercial-ready product is content, polish, and tuning. Often times, the core of what you hope for can be achieved with relatively little investment of time and resources. Blow created the core of Braid's mechanics and workings in a weekend or two, and its recognizable as such even with incredibly rough graphics. That's why we have that joke about being 90% finished, and now we just have to finish the other 90%.

When a project appears to be moving very slowly WRT to features and such, its often a symptom of production being unnecessarily bottlenecked on aesthetics, either as a result of a direct dependency, or as a motivational issue. Or, the project is mature, all major features exist in their essential form, and they're in the tuning stage where progress is less apparent.

My problem is that my attention is hard to shift once I get started on something. I can't casually work on anything. Once I get started I forget about all other things I have to do. If I decide to fix some minor bug then the next thing I know it is 6am and some paper I completely forgot about was due at mid night the day before. I've found that the only way I can get through college is by always being your standard lazy college senior who doesn't give a fuck.

Dedication, attention to detail, sure. But insanity is not a factor in success, save for the odd cult-leader.

I think most programmer types "get in the zone" when they're dealing with a problem or have an interesting task and many of us have problems with fine-grained task-switching (as a personal trait, not a CS problem). I know I have a tendency to become distracted with "shiny" problems when I sometimes have more pressing or productive work to attend to.

We have to learn to curb that urge -- the things that make us good at it are completely useful skills, but their manifestation towards undirected work is a problem and a productivity killer. Its something of a personality flaw if it gets in the way of your goals.

That video pretty much let you understand what feelings any start up feel. It ain't easy or pretty, it is pure madness and still people do it because they just cannot stop it.

This. As a serial entrepreneur(with small amount of success to show for it) i can tell you that it's madness to the extreme, but it's like a bug some people have to strike on their own chord an answer to themselves, even if you say that you're developing products for an audience seriously you're just trying to please your interests first and see if they match your target. I think Tommy Refenes (the programming side of Team Meat) summarizes when he says that he refuses to make shitty games, and his definition of shitty(which i don't completely share but i get where he is coming from).

People think that when you go on onto the independent field of work, in any industry, you do it for the money, obviously that's some motivation, but the main reason is to pursue your own goals, at your own pace with your own vision; most of the startups that i've seen succeed are the ones that balance this strong intrinsic motivation with the standard practices that build a business.

Now this could be said about some succesful indie devs, like Vlambeer for example. I'm kinda curious to see what Warhorse Studios can do with Kingdom Come, after following their kickstater I kinda see them as a middle point between pure artistic indie endeavour(that Indie Movie tries to emphasize) and traditional business studios. I'm sure there are other examples but that's the one that i can name of the top of my head