I appreciate the steady rise in the number of indie games using Unreal, Unity, or Godot to create little adventure games with unusually lush assets.

But I really question if they understand the point of little adventure games.

All of these games consist of walking from A to B and then clicking a button. Sometimes choosing Yes or No.

None of them play up the strengths of this approach:

Being a detailed avatar in a lush world.

That's... kinda what you're good at, so why not do it?

For example, if you're making a third person game a'la Life is Strange, it's critical that your character movement puts you into the world, because that is your main superpower as a dev using a powerful game engine. Not the gameplay, but the existence of a lush environment.

So rather than a stiff walk cycle where your avatar stares blankly ahead, create a world where your avatar's walking naturally changes, and add simple animations to have them react to generic terrain.

For example, turning their head (and a little of their shoulders) to look at anything they get too close to.

Pulling out a phone and using it as a flashlight when they go someplace dark and, again, shining it onto surfaces they get too close to.

Loose rocks to slide around on, sand to waddle through, small logs or whatever to step onto or over - all automatically.

Doors to open, windows to look out of - all with an animation.

I would argue that these things are more important than how good your assets look.

If my avatar makes it feel like the world exists, then the world exists.

If they robotically walk forward and just blankly stride into walls, that makes me think the world doesn't exist.

Which is a shame, because the lush world is your main advantage.

@Craigp Grim Fandango had some of the best little flourishes along these lines, especially for its time. Specifically thinking of Manny's head/gaze pointing at items of interest, and the inventory system experience
@darius Aspiring to be Grim Fandango is 100% absolutely the right mindset for an indie dev. :D
@Craigp @darius Yes, except please ditch the tank controls.
@Craigp
I think you're asking for something thst may need a whole animation department to pull off; exactly the kind of resources a 1-3 person indie studio doesn't have.
@jannem not in unreal. It's just a few stock walk cycles and an IK head turn.
@Craigp @jannem for some time in the 201x I noticed a number of games had beautiful scenery (especially grass, trees and nature in general) but were using a bunch of plot tricks to justify that you never met anyone im the game world. I attributed that to the fact that modeling and animating people (or animals) is 10x the difficulty of scattering a few rocks on the ground. This is most noticeable in games reaulting from game jams, where you can’t waste any time.

@nemo @jannem I would say it's because there are two different tutorials involved.

The one where you use the built-in tools to source assets and make a world vs the one where you use built-in tools to source assets and make a responsive character.

If you're going to follow only one tutorial, the lush world just looks better than a character standing in the middle of a field of small gray cubes.

But if you're making a game, following two tutorials and putting the results together seems doable.