[softsound]

What do you think most indies are? I'd consider most indies much more generalist. You can't ever know a whole field but you can know pieces of it and once you learn one system it can be easier to know another. I think for example programmers often make very good designers as they will think though problems, handle attention to detail, and work to often find multiple solutions if need be... Wait that sounds like every field doesn't it ;) code, art, design, sound etc.

The main issue is mindset, a programmer might cut short a design to save himself time, an artist might simplify the gameplay to not put in as much effort, and a musician or writer might not focus as much on the visuals because they get caught up in how it should it sound/read etc. But they certainly can take on other roles. If you have any experience with start-ups and indies or freelancing you might find yourself take over roles you didn't expect originally. On smaller teams this goes a lot further.

[physicsguy]

It’s rare that Indie games are the same technical sophistication though.

Nothing wrong with them at all but the scale is just totally different, it’s like running a small bakery shop vs an industrial factory churning out bread for supermarkets

[epups]

Yes, of course there is a trade-off. The specialists are likely much better at executing their particular functions. However, they still compete for the same market, sometimes surprisingly well. AAA games constantly feel like an art gallery where you are there to appreciate the beauty, while indie games have this soul and cohesion that is likely boosted by generalists as described in the article.

[johnnyanmac]

too bad most souls end up lying around on the street, begging others to turn back and avoid the terrible fate befallen on them. It's always rough selling your vision to others, and games are no different in terms entrepreneurship.