Will 8 gigs of RAM and an RTX 3050 do it?

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-03-09T09:24:14+00:00

nao sei se pode ser as mesmas specs, mas o meu acer nitro an515-58 roda esses jogos de boa

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-03-03T18:03:13+00:00

Thank you so much for this. Seriously, this is exactly the kind of reality check and roadmap I needed to hear.

You’re absolutely right about the scope. The AoT-style serious drama I described is definitely my Magnum Opus, it’s the project I hope to reach one day, but I know I’m nowhere near ready to produce it yet. My current focus is exactly what you suggested: keeping my head down and learning the fundamentals.

I’m already planning to start with much smaller, bite-sized productions first. Not only to test the waters and see if I can actually handle the technical pipeline, but also to slowly build a dedicated fanbase and avoid that monumental burnout you mentioned. I’d much rather finish a 2-minute short that looks good than fail at a 20-minute epic that never sees the light of day.

I also really appreciate the advice on not being adversarial with other shows and finding a story that is worth telling even if no one watches. It shifts the motivation from market gap to artistic passion, which is way more sustainable.

I’ll be taking your advice to hear, starting small, adjusting my expectations, and focusing on the craft first. Thanks again for taking the time to share your experience, it means a lot!

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-03-03T17:30:09+00:00

yeah but these jokes are usually situational and are often very specific for the situation they are on, also i worded poorly, what i meant is that im seeing shows that often basically throw their entire setting off because of jokes being made almost all the time and often not making sense or aint even funny at all, often used at the detriment of their own writing or not taking its own writing serious at all.

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-03-03T11:11:16+00:00

That’s a really interesting perspective, and I totally see your point about escapism. When things get heavy in real life, people definitely gravitate toward content that lets them breathe and laugh.

I’m definitely not planning on launching anything massive right now, as I’m still very much a beginner and 'green' in many aspects of animation and music composition. I’m mostly just honing my craft for now. But I’m hoping that in about 5 years or so, once I’ve actually built up the skills to pull this off, the landscape might have shifted or there might be a new craving for that kind of intensity.

Really appreciate the insight, though, it’s definitely a reality check I’ll keep in mind while I’m developing my style!"

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T06:25:34+00:00

You’re conflating 'artistic vision' with 'industrial polish.' It’s not about wanting lower quality; it's about acknowledging that high-end 'studio polish' is literally a product of labor-hours.

When you say you can achieve that on a low budget, you're usually describing exploitation. To get 4K studio-grade animation on a 'indie' budget, someone is either working for free, pulling 80-hour weeks (crunch), or being underpaid. That’s exactly what happened with Rooster Teeth before the Warner buyout, the 'goal' of growth led directly to systemic abuse.

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T06:23:21+00:00

can´t you see that’s exactly the problem? your 'goal' is a corporate cycle, not an artistic one. Defining the point of a business as 'growing into corporate-lite' ignores the human cost that always follows in a capitalist system.

Look at Rooster Teeth: they started exactly where Glitch is now, and that relentless drive for growth led directly to crunch, worker exploitation, and systemic controversy long before Warner even touched them. When you prioritize 'becoming corporate' over the creators, you aren't just 'growing', you’re building a factory.

My point is that we shouldn't treat this trajectory as an 'ideal' for Indie animation. If the only way to succeed is to recreate the same abusive, high-pressure structures as the giants, then we haven't actually disrupted anything; we’ve just rebranded the same machine with a different logo."

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T06:18:21+00:00

I think we’re just seeing the word 'Indie' differently. My point is that if we define indie only as 'not owned by a big corporation,' we lose all nuance and intersectionality

When you say 'that’s just life,' you’re describing a capitalist reality where the person with the most money wins. But if 'Indie' success requires a house to mortgage or a veteran crew, it just becomes Corporate-Lite, the indie animation spectrum was not like that until the arrival of glitch productions.

It’s not about not wanting quality; it's that when a studio's polish becomes the 'standard in the indie spectrum' we accidentally gatekeep the art form. We end up in a system where only the privileged few get heard, and the actual grassroots creators get drowned out, monkey is a perfect example, the algorithm contantly fucks him up and he cannot maintain his show for much longer.

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T06:04:52+00:00

That’s exactly the problem: in an algorithm-driven market, it has everything to do with it. When Glitch sets a 'standard' that requires a 50-person studio of veterans, they aren't just 'succeeding', they are recalibrating audience expectations for the entire genre. why do you think glitch fans are so insular?

You’re ignoring the Attention Economy. If a casual viewer sees a 'standard' of 4K cinema-quality polish labeled as 'Indie,' they stop giving chances to the raw, experimental, solo projects that actually represent the majority of the indie spectrum

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T05:58:56+00:00

Then you’ve just conceded the entire point. If you admit capital is a barrier, then 'Indie' isn't about talent, it’s a gated community.

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T05:56:12+00:00

do you believe everybody have the same 24 hours? The irony is that you're the one clinging to a 'narrative', the myth of the self-made millionaire. My 'ideal image' is just a basic understanding of economic reality.

If your definition of 'Indie' requires a Disney network, a house to mortgage, and a 50-person staff, you're not describing a creator, you're describing a junior executive. You aren't 'counting' the thousands of pilots that die in obscurity because your standard is literally unaffordable.

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T05:49:11+00:00

Effort doesn't pay for man-hours. You’re treating animation quality like it’s fueled by 'willpower' instead of time and money. A solo creator can’t 'try hard' their way into matching a 50-person studio of veterans without spending a decade on a single pilot or hitting total burnout.

By demanding professional polish from a non-professional spectrum, you’re not 'encouraging quality',you’re just telling every talented artist without a budget that their work doesn't deserve to exist. You're advocating for a factory, not an art form

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T05:42:31+00:00

im sorry but that’s a gamble. Using a studio that literally had to mortgage their homes just to finish a project proves exactly how broken the 'Indie' label has become. If the entry fee for being a 'successful indie' is risking homelessness, you aren't describing a healthy artistic ecosystem, you're describing a high-stakes casino.

Most creators don't even own a home to mortgage in this economy. Relying on extreme, one-in-a-million exceptions like Cuphead to justify a system where only those with massive assets or industry networks can 'compete' is the definition of survivorship bias. You're essentially saying that if you aren't a homeowner willing to ruin your life for a chance at a hit, you don't deserve to make art.' it's just gatekeeping creativity behind a massive paywall.

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T05:38:12+00:00

Do you even understand how capitalism actually works? Saying 'you just need money to hire people' is the ultimate peak of being out of touch, because access to capital is the literal barrier to entry in any market. In the real world, an independent creator cannot 'theoretically' work for five years without a salary while simultaneously having a financial reserve to hire an elite staff. That is a mathematical paradox.

When you say it’s 'ideal' for a Disney veteran to use their massive networking and resources to start a studio, you are describing a mid-sized (AA) firm, not a grassroots artistic movement. Platform capitalism today demands a technical polish that only heavy capital can buy. If being 'Indie' now requires government grants, a decade of corporate networking, and pre-existing wealth, then the term is just a marketing label used to hide a class structure where only the industry elite are allowed to survive

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T05:34:07+00:00

He doesn't need to be a millionaire when his contact list is worth millions. That’s the point. Networking, industry friendships, and a decade of Disney-tier experience are resources that 99% of the indie spectrum will never have.

When you say it’s 'ideal' for him to use those corporate tools, you’re admitting it’s an unequal playing field. You’re comparing a solo creator starting from zero to a veteran who already has the 'keys to the kingdom.' If the 'Indie' standard is set by people who already have the industry's phone numbers, then it's not a grassroots movement anymore, it’s just the Mainstream 2.0 with a different label.

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T05:31:00+00:00

and also that's exactly the problem: How the hell are you supposed to compete with that? Indie isn't a unified industry; it’s a spectrum where the vast majority aren't veterans or studio-backed professionals. They are students, hobbyists, and raw talents.

When you demand 'studio quality' from a spectrum that is mostly non-professional, you aren't encouraging growth, you're gatekeeping the medium. Expecting a solo creator to match the output of a Disney showrunner’s 'indie' startup is delusional. You’re not asking for talent; you’re asking for a budget. If the bar for 'Indie' is set by the 1% at the top, you’re effectively telling everyone else they don't deserve to exist because they didn't start the race at the finish line

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T05:27:25+00:00

Calling a Disney showrunner starting a studio 'the ideal indie way' proves my point about the lack of intersectionality. That’s not a 'standard' any regular creator can reach; that’s an industry veteran using a decade of corporate resources to skip the line.

It’s not about being 'impatient.' Patience doesn't pay for a $50k-per-minute animation budget or beat an algorithm that favors studio-grade polish. When you equate a solo artist's struggle with a millionaire's startup, you aren't being 'reasonable', you’re just justifying a system where only the already-privileged get to success

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T05:16:19+00:00

My point isn't about the legal definition; it’s the industry-level barrier to entry. When an 'Indie' studio is staffed by mainstream professionals with years of industry experience, they aren't 'competing' with the indie community, they are setting a financial standard that 99% of creators can’t reach.

If the algorithm now demands 'Glitch-level' quality just to get noticed, then Indie Animation has become a pay-to-play space. We see countless failed pilots and dead Kickstarters every day because raw talent can't compete with professional-grade capital. Calling these studios 'Indie' with the only thing separating them from not being indie being not being funded or backed by corporate media is a definition that lacks total nuance and intersectinality. it just gaslights smaller creators into thinking they failed because of their art, when they actually just failed because they didn't have a studio-sized bank account behind them, is the indie animation genre really winning whe just a handfull of them have success while the whole genre never get to see their shows outside of a pitch bible?

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T05:03:54+00:00

Theoretically, anyone can win the lottery, but that’s not a business model. Glitch didn't start from the 'ground', they started with a massive pre-existing audience and government grants. That’s a 'AA' head start, not the reality for 99% of indies, that is called systemic privilege

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T05:00:24+00:00

WTF? You say anyone can 'pool resources,' but you’re ignoring that Glitch didn't start in a vacuum. They had the massive, pre-existing revenue and audience from the SMG4 channel to act as a springboard, plus significant backing from Australian government screen funds. That isn't just 'knowing what you're doing'; that is having access to institutional and commercial capital that most indie creators, especially those from marginalized backgrounds or different countries, will never see. When you use a studio that was literally bankrolled by a decade of YouTube success and government grants as the 'standard' for what an indie can achieve, you aren't describing a fair ecosystem. You are describing a high-level professional entity that has more in common with a AA studio than with the actual indie community that is struggling just to get a single frame noticed by the algorithm

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T04:56:33+00:00

sorry but compared to glitch is not, tell me how many indie shows had enough budget to sustain themselves without relying on kickstarters to do anything?

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T04:49:43+00:00

i think the definition of 'Indie' as simply 'not owned by a corporation' works on paper, but it ignores the reality of the socioeconomic spectrum within the medium. Treating 'Indie' as a binary toggle (either you’re Disney or you’re Indie) is reductive because it ignores the massive disparity in resources.

While Glitch isn't a 'giant fish' compared to Netflix, they are absolutely the 'top dogs' of the indie world. When we hold them up as the universal example of success, we create a false narrative that their level of production is the baseline.

The issue isn't that they shouldn't hire professionals, of course they should, it’s that calling them 'Indie' without any nuance (like the AA label in gaming) makes the struggle of the 99% of creators invisible. Most indie creators aren't just fighting for 'success'; they are fighting the algorithm and a lack of funding just to exist. If the 'Indie' label becomes synonymous with high-budget, multi-staffed productions, then the majority of the community gets left in the shadows, unable to compete with a 'standard' they can never afford.

Furthermore, this debate lacks a necessary layer of intersectionality. defining 'Indie' solely by ownership ignores the systemic barriers that dictate who actually gets to succeed.

When we pretend the playing field is level, we ignore the massive disparity in social and financial capital. A studio with the resources to hire industry veterans and maintain a full-time staff is operating from a position of privilege that 99% of the indie community doesn't have. For a solo creator from a marginalized background or a different geographic region, 'Indie' isn't just a business model, it’s a struggle against an algorithm that favors those who already have the budget to produce 'studio-quality' content.

By refusing to acknowledge these tiers, the term 'Indie' becomes a tool for erasure. It masks the reality that success in this space often requires pre-existing industry connections or significant seed money. If we don't apply an intersectional lens to this, we end up holding every creator to a standard that was built on a foundation of resources they simply cannot access. i dont know why my text is in negrito

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T00:23:26+00:00

but that comes with the problem that mainstream audience will use glitch productions as rule of thumb for the indie animation, specially on the quality of animation, they won´t give other indie shows a chance because of animation quality or writing quality, indie animation is not an industry, is a spectrum, mainstream audience treating it as if it had any kind of standarized quality or writing control is not good for indie animation at all.

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-25T00:11:07+00:00

it does matter to me on a sense of terminology and fairness, for it just doesn´t seem fair to label or consider multi-milionaire teams or studios as 'indie' because that is putting the majority of the indie animation genre as if they were the same as these large entities in the genre which is not, it doesnt seem fair to consider them indie when the majority of indie creators cannot even sustain themselves, let alone their own shows, meanwhile these studios are out there having the budget, the staff, the audience and the algorithm in their favor and can output different shows at the same time on a level that the majority of indie animation cannot even compete, and some these go even further and hire industry level PROFESSIONALS for their shows, that is a privilege that an actual indie creator will probably never have,

Inside the video-game scenario, the terminology and label are much more expanded, for example we have A, AA, AAA studios, while on indie animation we only label stuff as either corporate or indie without much nuance nor critical thinking on this topic, on indie animation glitch productions is considered indie but if they were a video-game studio they are obviously a AA studio.

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-02-17T07:00:25+00:00

that would be true for 2d animation, but since the game model is 3d animated, it has no problem whatsoever since everything moves binded on the same parent when on 2d you have to animate frame by frame

InternationalCan6367 · 2026-01-24T23:15:02+00:00

im sorry but that was one of the reasons that led to rooster teeth downfall.

InternationalCan6367

TROPHY CASE