You Can Do it!
by Joe Maruschak · 06/02/2006 (2:37 pm) · 53 comments
Sorry for being so quiet for so long. It has been almost a year since I started posting my long rambling blogs, and a lot has happened.
I have been head down working hard on a project I cannot mention, and all of that are Torque Game Builder (formerly T2D) owners are getting the benefit of the GG team eating it's own dog food and making a game with the tools we are making and selling. The stress of production really highlights what is working well and what is not optimal and gives us the clear focus to make the tools better and easier for everyone to use so that you can pursue your dreams.
I actually have a bunch of blogs that I started writing. A lot of the information for my 'blogs I am going to write' arose out of the period of adjustment after the acquisition of BraveTree by GarageGames, and the information I had to share with my 'new' team members about how we work, transferring knowledge we had, learning new things from others in my new work environment.
My 'followup' blogs that I had been working on to expand on the the blogs I have posted before became quite rambling and convoluted, so I decided to start reorganizing my thoughts and writing it all down and presenting it in a cohernet way. I have a bunch of content for upcoming blogs that I have been keeping for quite a while, and hopefully soon I will start getting that information out there.
This blog is a little different. It is a reaction to a thread I was involved with a couple months ago that upset me a bit. I was initially surprised by my strong reaction to what was being posted in the thread, and I took a week or so to cool down and gather my thoughts about it so I could fully understand why the thread touched a nerve. It will hopefully be the start of a resurgence in my blogging, as I have turned the frustration into fuel for my fire.
I am not going to link to the thread in question, as the thread actually just brought to a head some feelings that had been gathering for a while around the GG forums (and they devolved into flame threads). I am going to do my part to try to turn the negativity on it's head and attempt to be inspirational.. to turn the badness into a call to action.
So, the thread in question was actually another one of those infamous 'Engine War' threads. They come and go, TGE vs.
It is hurtful to both have the hard work and perseverence of myself and my business partners dismissed do to a incorrect perception, and to have GarageGames made to look as if it is making a product that is not capable of being used to make a game unless someone is speically connected to GarageGames and has 'inside' help.
On both counts, it is upsetting. ThinkTanks made (and continues to make) real money. It was shipped a few years ago and it still has a devoted following and has more than made back what was put into it. It was made with the TGE, and this was done by a small team (3 guys mainly), with a total of 18 man months (6 months for each of us over the span of a year), with one coder and two artist/designers.. It was done before all the engine improvements of the last few years were available, and back when there was next to no documentation. This is a testament to the underlying quality of the engine being robust enough to enable us to do what we did, with such a small team, in such a short time.
It minimizes the effort and sacrifice we at Bravetree put into the game and our company. We were extremely motivated and focused, and we were not going to let anything stand in our way.
It insults the founders of GG (Jeff, Tim, Mark and Rick) for going out of their way NOT to pry in our business more than we felt comfortable with. In terms of respect for us (BraveTree) doing our own thing, they went out of their way to give us our distance, and were there for advice and to help out on the business end of things when we asked for it. I respect that they let us do our own thing, and grab our own little piece of the American Dream.
In terms of monetary help.. from GarageGames, we never asked for any, and never recieved any. Had they footed the bill for ThinkTanks, I do not think I would be as proud of what we built at BraveTree as I am today. We did it, and we did it ourselves, and that is something that no one can ever take away from us.
What GarageGames did offer us was something much more valuable than money.. Honest advice, good feedback, and no bullshit. Jeff always tells it like it is. Did we get help from GarageGames? yes, but it is same help anyone can get if they read Jeff's blogs and take what he is saying to heart.
And this brings me back around to the thread that prompted this blog in the first place. When reading the thread, I got the impression that some here are skeptical about the state of the tools and the technology, the documentation, and the support, and that it would somehow stand in the way of creating and shipping a game. This perception hurts, as GarageGames is doing all that it can to enable YOU to realize your dreams. We may not be doing it in a way that everyone agrees with, or at a speed that everyone feels comfortable with, but we are doing it, and the number of shipped titles with Torque based technology are proof that nothing is standing in the way of anyone shipping a game with the tools in their current state.
If an individual cannot get a product to the shipping state, or cannot begin their project because of some perceived 'lack' of tools or documentation or funding or
We work hard to enable people to be part of a movement that is changing the gaming industry for the better. We take it seriously. We can only go so far toward making an individual dream become a reality. We are working to make it even better than it is now, better tools, improvements to the tech, better documentation.. we will never stop to say the tools and tech are 'good enough'... but we cannot do everything for everyone. At some point, those who undertake a project need to take responsibility for what they are attempting and do what it takes to get it done. Not all those who start a project will get it finished, and the blame for it should not be deflected onto us for not attempting to do enough.
This is not to say that we are not looking to improve the tools and tech we are using and creating, we are in fact working very hard on making these tools the best they can be. My dream is to be able to go toe to toe with the 'big boys' for a tenth of the cost. I know that we can do it.. that we can make games of the same quality in a fraction of the time, with a smaller more focused team. The technology we are working on is that enabler.
Again, I don't mean to sound as if I am admonishing people, my hope is not to beat down, but to light a fire.
If there is any doubt that it can be done.. We did it. We created a game, with 3 guys, and no funding. We shipped it, and we used it as the cornerstone of a business that we grew and eventually sold.
We used the TGE, and we did it 3 years ago.
We were smart in terms of what we chose to create, and how we went about. We did it. Anyone reading this can do it too. Andy Shatz did it. Josh Ritter did it. 21-6 did it. MaxGaming did it.
You can do it too. This is not to say that you will do it, but the opportunity is there, and the tools are there and more than adequate.
Joe
as a footnote, I have some things planned to blog about, but I work better with a clear focus on a specific issue. If anyone has any questions about how we did what we did, in terms of developing our products, working remotely with people, how to survive while bootstrapping a business, specifics on my views on game design, ask them here and I will try to address them.
About the author
#44
I saw the post, that was also a good read. Thanks for the tip!
@Joe:
I think I see what you mean. Most game ideas I have are for great adventure / rpg games, and obviously way too big for me alone to handle at this point. I'll try to search for inspiration elsewhere. That site you mentioned surely looked like a nice place to sniff around :)
So I'm off to prototype a little idea I have. It's not the next big thing, but might be fun enough to get a few people interested. Thanks for your inspiring posts!
06/05/2006 (2:40 pm)
@Alex:I saw the post, that was also a good read. Thanks for the tip!
@Joe:
I think I see what you mean. Most game ideas I have are for great adventure / rpg games, and obviously way too big for me alone to handle at this point. I'll try to search for inspiration elsewhere. That site you mentioned surely looked like a nice place to sniff around :)
So I'm off to prototype a little idea I have. It's not the next big thing, but might be fun enough to get a few people interested. Thanks for your inspiring posts!
#45
For an adventrue/rpg, I would not suggest it for a small team, but I would not shy away from it if that is what gives you passion. What I would suggest is to start small.. to make a 1-3 level 'adventure', and really get a handle on what makes whatever you make fun. or, make a top down 2d RPG or adventure game, with some interesting levels.
a long time ago clark and I talked about a strategy game called 'primitive culture'. The characters for the game would be primitives (cubes, speheres, etc..) this would greatly reduce the art needs and leave us time to focus on finding some interesting game mechanics (and prototype and iterate on them). I don't see why a similar approach could not be used for an RPG..
the thought here is to find a way to make an idea 'doable' with the resources you have at your disposal.
06/06/2006 (6:48 am)
@Thijs,For an adventrue/rpg, I would not suggest it for a small team, but I would not shy away from it if that is what gives you passion. What I would suggest is to start small.. to make a 1-3 level 'adventure', and really get a handle on what makes whatever you make fun. or, make a top down 2d RPG or adventure game, with some interesting levels.
a long time ago clark and I talked about a strategy game called 'primitive culture'. The characters for the game would be primitives (cubes, speheres, etc..) this would greatly reduce the art needs and leave us time to focus on finding some interesting game mechanics (and prototype and iterate on them). I don't see why a similar approach could not be used for an RPG..
the thought here is to find a way to make an idea 'doable' with the resources you have at your disposal.
#46
Nauris is pretty much correct imho, how many people start out with far reaching ideas when in reality those ideas are way way way beyond their current skill level. That isn't to say they'll never accomplish those goals, just that the time taken will be a whole lot longer than if they started smaller and developed the appropriate skills/experience to help tackle the larger game they've envisaged.
The better the tech gets (TGE/TSE/TGB...) the more people starting out to build their first game will expect to make better games. For example if someone is looking to create an FPS style game and loads up the starter.fps, the first thing to pop into their heads will probably be "wow, I don't need to do abc or xyz or... it's already done, that means I've got time to" when in reality just taking the starter.fps and turning it into a fully fledged and polished shooter would be enough work for most, let alone all the extra fluff of ideas.
No matter how far the engine/documentation/tools improve all that will do is lower the entry bar and yet at the same time people will never be satisfied, they'll just raise their own expectations of what they "should" be able to accomplish with the engine, then when they fall short will still blame the tools. Lower entry + higher expectations = more complaints. It's bound to happen sadly :(
Those that succeed will be the ones that upon falling short put in more and more effort to aquire the missing skills needed to get over the next hurdle. Sadly many people want an instant "make my game" fix.
When you consider a commercial game was made just a month or so after the first alpha release of T2D, it proves that the tech IS good enough, so long as you have the will to make a game you can even if the tech isn't perfect for your situation (and it never really will be). I'm sure the same applies to TSE. NOTE: By will I don't mean that rush of enthusiasm you get during the first few weeks to a month of working on an idea, but the will to continue to work on the same idea months and months down the line when you may have lost interest and have a boat load of new "better" ideas you'd rather be working on.
Great post Joe, some really interesting comments as well :)
06/06/2006 (7:28 am)
Quote:I guess the grumpiness comes simply from not fully understanding what an undertaking making a game is. Even a simple, bare bones, little game.
Nauris is pretty much correct imho, how many people start out with far reaching ideas when in reality those ideas are way way way beyond their current skill level. That isn't to say they'll never accomplish those goals, just that the time taken will be a whole lot longer than if they started smaller and developed the appropriate skills/experience to help tackle the larger game they've envisaged.
The better the tech gets (TGE/TSE/TGB...) the more people starting out to build their first game will expect to make better games. For example if someone is looking to create an FPS style game and loads up the starter.fps, the first thing to pop into their heads will probably be "wow, I don't need to do abc or xyz or... it's already done, that means I've got time to
No matter how far the engine/documentation/tools improve all that will do is lower the entry bar and yet at the same time people will never be satisfied, they'll just raise their own expectations of what they "should" be able to accomplish with the engine, then when they fall short will still blame the tools. Lower entry + higher expectations = more complaints. It's bound to happen sadly :(
Those that succeed will be the ones that upon falling short put in more and more effort to aquire the missing skills needed to get over the next hurdle. Sadly many people want an instant "make my game" fix.
When you consider a commercial game was made just a month or so after the first alpha release of T2D, it proves that the tech IS good enough, so long as you have the will to make a game you can even if the tech isn't perfect for your situation (and it never really will be). I'm sure the same applies to TSE. NOTE: By will I don't mean that rush of enthusiasm you get during the first few weeks to a month of working on an idea, but the will to continue to work on the same idea months and months down the line when you may have lost interest and have a boat load of new "better" ideas you'd rather be working on.
Great post Joe, some really interesting comments as well :)
#47
06/08/2006 (8:09 pm)
i will not be satified untill GG put that 'Make Game' button in. Please GG hurry :P
#48
Thanks again for your thoughts. I like your approach of turning your weaknesses into a strength of the game. I was actually working on a small adventure game a couple of months ago. Until my hard drive crashed... So now I am making backups and the current prototype I am making is just "lines and triangles" -- doesn't look too sweet, but allows me to focus on the important stuff :)
06/10/2006 (12:20 pm)
@Joe:Thanks again for your thoughts. I like your approach of turning your weaknesses into a strength of the game. I was actually working on a small adventure game a couple of months ago. Until my hard drive crashed... So now I am making backups and the current prototype I am making is just "lines and triangles" -- doesn't look too sweet, but allows me to focus on the important stuff :)
#49
that is t a good thing. taking this sort of approach is, what I feel, really the best way to go. It frees you from the constraints of needing outside help.. it allows you to get started and keep moving (gated only by your skills and desire to work). The other side benefit is that if the game is fun, you will no immediately, as you will not be distracted by the look. It will also focus your thinking on what is really necessary. At some point, you will be saying to yourself, man.. I am not getting any feeback here.. I really need to add a sound to alert the player he is in danger of dying (or a particle effect, or.. whatver) it really forces you to be very specific about each and every design element in the game.
Good luck!
06/11/2006 (8:19 am)
@Thijs, that is t a good thing. taking this sort of approach is, what I feel, really the best way to go. It frees you from the constraints of needing outside help.. it allows you to get started and keep moving (gated only by your skills and desire to work). The other side benefit is that if the game is fun, you will no immediately, as you will not be distracted by the look. It will also focus your thinking on what is really necessary. At some point, you will be saying to yourself, man.. I am not getting any feeback here.. I really need to add a sound to alert the player he is in danger of dying (or a particle effect, or.. whatver) it really forces you to be very specific about each and every design element in the game.
Good luck!
#50
I think I know the post you're referring to.
I don't think anyone discredits or doubts the effort or achievements accomplished by BraveTree. A point was merely raised that some of the BraveTree staff were on the original Tribes development team, therefore having an inside knowledge of the Torque game engine.
I have no idea how much truth is in that statement however I do know it's not completely inaccurate. I remember seeing video footage which was taken from a news clip which featured Garage Games and an interview from a BraveTree employee who mentions Think Tanks, the Tank Pack and the fact that he was part of the original Tribes development team. He then went on to say that this assisted BraveTree in the creation of Think Tanks and the Tank Pack.
I am a happy member of many different game engine communities, and the biggest complaints I hear about Garage Games and their products can be narrowed down to two areas.
1) High amount of bugs
2) Time taken between announcing a product and its subsequent release
I tend to agree.
I'm doing the best I can with Toque. I successfully completed an Icarnegie Information Technology course as well as obtaining a diploma in software development. I have studied Java, Visual Basic and am currently studying C++. I have my own business, website and actively provide assistance on these forums and promote Garage Games and their products. My point is I don't fall into the category of people who complain just because they're too under qualified to use Torque.
When I downloaded 1.4 of TGE, I have to say I was surprised at the amount of bugs that were present. The first time I ran it the program crashed because of my firewall and the alt-tab issue. The list of bugs in 1.4 is huge, and led me to purchase another game engine. I still use Torque, and will continue to do so. However I wish concerns raised by the community were taken more seriously.
With respect from an indie who is trying to make it to an indie who has made it.
06/24/2006 (8:51 am)
Hi Joe Maruschak,I think I know the post you're referring to.
I don't think anyone discredits or doubts the effort or achievements accomplished by BraveTree. A point was merely raised that some of the BraveTree staff were on the original Tribes development team, therefore having an inside knowledge of the Torque game engine.
I have no idea how much truth is in that statement however I do know it's not completely inaccurate. I remember seeing video footage which was taken from a news clip which featured Garage Games and an interview from a BraveTree employee who mentions Think Tanks, the Tank Pack and the fact that he was part of the original Tribes development team. He then went on to say that this assisted BraveTree in the creation of Think Tanks and the Tank Pack.
I am a happy member of many different game engine communities, and the biggest complaints I hear about Garage Games and their products can be narrowed down to two areas.
1) High amount of bugs
2) Time taken between announcing a product and its subsequent release
I tend to agree.
I'm doing the best I can with Toque. I successfully completed an Icarnegie Information Technology course as well as obtaining a diploma in software development. I have studied Java, Visual Basic and am currently studying C++. I have my own business, website and actively provide assistance on these forums and promote Garage Games and their products. My point is I don't fall into the category of people who complain just because they're too under qualified to use Torque.
When I downloaded 1.4 of TGE, I have to say I was surprised at the amount of bugs that were present. The first time I ran it the program crashed because of my firewall and the alt-tab issue. The list of bugs in 1.4 is huge, and led me to purchase another game engine. I still use Torque, and will continue to do so. However I wish concerns raised by the community were taken more seriously.
With respect from an indie who is trying to make it to an indie who has made it.
#51
we did indeed work at Dynamix and we were involved with the Tribes series of games. This did give us a head start on getting to work with the engine. It should be noted though that for ThinkTanks, we did a whole new physics model (for the tanks), wrote, from scratch, new AI, and all that with one coder (the amazing Dr. Clark Fagot). We did it in 18 man months. We self funded, and we did not get any special help from the folks at GarageGames.
I am not trying to say we did not have advantages on the tech end (in terms of understanding it), but we still had to come up with a game idea, make the game, and fix all the bugs we encountered to ship the game.
Now, John Quigley, who we hired, was not a Dynamix employee. He was a community member who took it upon himself to do the Linux port of the TGE. He also did the majority of the heavy lifting on the XBox version of ThinkTanks. Matt Fairfax, who is doing constructor, did not work at Dynamix, and Mark McCoy, another non-Dynamix guy, is the guy behind the slick and oh-so-clean GUI for MBU.
So, while the founding members of BraveTree were from Dynamix, 3 of the 5 members of BraveTree were not.. they were all from the community.
Looking at the current compostion of GarageGames, 25% of the crew is ex-Dynamix (8 of 30), and 3 of the 7 are non coders. Most of the rest came from the community. It also should be noted
When people look at the stuff we do, there is always this specualtion that it could not be done without some 'inside' knowledge. You need knowledge, for sure, but there is nothing being kept secret. It should be noted that the MBU team was, for the most part, made of non-Dynamix folks.
It also should be noted that 21-6, Prarie Games, Maxgaming, Large Animal, NerdRiot, etc.. were able to create completed games with the tech.
I am not trying to say there are no bugs or that the documentation needs to be better. We know it, and we are working on it.
On the slowness between releasees.. not planned, we had to jump on XBox 360. If we did not get our foot in that door it might have closed forever. We had a serious plan to address this last year, and XBox 360 and MBU threw a little monkey wrench in that. It was a move we made from a philosophical perspective.. we had to get in that channel and do well, to make some noise about indiedom.
Criticism like yours, is well presented, and taken to heart. We are aware of it, and we are working on it.
The point I was trying to make is, that no bug or lack of documentation will stop anyone from shipping a game with any of our tools or tech. Many have shipped with TGE, TSE, and TGB. Bugs are annoying, but there is nothing in there that is a showstopper.
Personally, I suppose I might be a little desensitized to bugs. The TGE is light years ahead of where it was when we were at Dynamix, and having worked with some notoriously buggy tools (3DSMax) over the years, I would not be a good person to be the judge of the degree of bugginess.
I do know that when we encountered a problem, we moved forward.
For the motivated people, we are more than willing to help out in any way we can. We (collectively) spend a lot of time helping people with their issues.. the help usually extends well beyond normal work hours, and most of the GG employees spend a good deal of their 'free' time on the forums or reviewing someones work to help them get it working.
Over the past few years, most of us have been in a situation where we are trying to help and teach, and we are met with hostility. When someone has a specific bug, they ask, and usually, the response is very quick. Then we have situations where the person has a very general question.. something like. "I got the TGE, I merged in all these resources, and it does not work.. you guys need to fix it, oh, and by the way, you suck'. Paraphrased for sure.. but that is the kind of stuff where the only response we can give is.. well, somewhere between the time you got the engine and now, you either screwed something up.. or you are trying to put together resources that don't work together.. you are the first one who has done so, and we have no idea what is going wrong..so, help us to understand what you don't understand so we can help you to understand.
on the art end.. I keep hearing about people having problems with the art pipeline, and I had one individual say, "the docs for 3dsmax suck! there should be a section is there that walks you through something simple, like a box".. how can I reply to that? chapter one, section one of the max docs outline the exporting of a box.
referring back to the orginal thread.. it was again, the insinuation that somehow GG was trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes and that the engine was unusable in it's current form. It insults us as if you knew the people behind GG and understood the motivations, you would know how far from the truth such accusations are.
This rant was mostly to get it off my chest. I have been (and continue to be) as supportive as I can of people and try to teach them in any way I can to help them acheive their dreams. It is something that is close to my heart, and part of who I am as a person.
thanks for your commetns, we are trying.
06/24/2006 (9:56 am)
Tim,we did indeed work at Dynamix and we were involved with the Tribes series of games. This did give us a head start on getting to work with the engine. It should be noted though that for ThinkTanks, we did a whole new physics model (for the tanks), wrote, from scratch, new AI, and all that with one coder (the amazing Dr. Clark Fagot). We did it in 18 man months. We self funded, and we did not get any special help from the folks at GarageGames.
I am not trying to say we did not have advantages on the tech end (in terms of understanding it), but we still had to come up with a game idea, make the game, and fix all the bugs we encountered to ship the game.
Now, John Quigley, who we hired, was not a Dynamix employee. He was a community member who took it upon himself to do the Linux port of the TGE. He also did the majority of the heavy lifting on the XBox version of ThinkTanks. Matt Fairfax, who is doing constructor, did not work at Dynamix, and Mark McCoy, another non-Dynamix guy, is the guy behind the slick and oh-so-clean GUI for MBU.
So, while the founding members of BraveTree were from Dynamix, 3 of the 5 members of BraveTree were not.. they were all from the community.
Looking at the current compostion of GarageGames, 25% of the crew is ex-Dynamix (8 of 30), and 3 of the 7 are non coders. Most of the rest came from the community. It also should be noted
When people look at the stuff we do, there is always this specualtion that it could not be done without some 'inside' knowledge. You need knowledge, for sure, but there is nothing being kept secret. It should be noted that the MBU team was, for the most part, made of non-Dynamix folks.
It also should be noted that 21-6, Prarie Games, Maxgaming, Large Animal, NerdRiot, etc.. were able to create completed games with the tech.
I am not trying to say there are no bugs or that the documentation needs to be better. We know it, and we are working on it.
On the slowness between releasees.. not planned, we had to jump on XBox 360. If we did not get our foot in that door it might have closed forever. We had a serious plan to address this last year, and XBox 360 and MBU threw a little monkey wrench in that. It was a move we made from a philosophical perspective.. we had to get in that channel and do well, to make some noise about indiedom.
Criticism like yours, is well presented, and taken to heart. We are aware of it, and we are working on it.
The point I was trying to make is, that no bug or lack of documentation will stop anyone from shipping a game with any of our tools or tech. Many have shipped with TGE, TSE, and TGB. Bugs are annoying, but there is nothing in there that is a showstopper.
Personally, I suppose I might be a little desensitized to bugs. The TGE is light years ahead of where it was when we were at Dynamix, and having worked with some notoriously buggy tools (3DSMax) over the years, I would not be a good person to be the judge of the degree of bugginess.
I do know that when we encountered a problem, we moved forward.
For the motivated people, we are more than willing to help out in any way we can. We (collectively) spend a lot of time helping people with their issues.. the help usually extends well beyond normal work hours, and most of the GG employees spend a good deal of their 'free' time on the forums or reviewing someones work to help them get it working.
Over the past few years, most of us have been in a situation where we are trying to help and teach, and we are met with hostility. When someone has a specific bug, they ask, and usually, the response is very quick. Then we have situations where the person has a very general question.. something like. "I got the TGE, I merged in all these resources, and it does not work.. you guys need to fix it, oh, and by the way, you suck'. Paraphrased for sure.. but that is the kind of stuff where the only response we can give is.. well, somewhere between the time you got the engine and now, you either screwed something up.. or you are trying to put together resources that don't work together.. you are the first one who has done so, and we have no idea what is going wrong..so, help us to understand what you don't understand so we can help you to understand.
on the art end.. I keep hearing about people having problems with the art pipeline, and I had one individual say, "the docs for 3dsmax suck! there should be a section is there that walks you through something simple, like a box".. how can I reply to that? chapter one, section one of the max docs outline the exporting of a box.
referring back to the orginal thread.. it was again, the insinuation that somehow GG was trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes and that the engine was unusable in it's current form. It insults us as if you knew the people behind GG and understood the motivations, you would know how far from the truth such accusations are.
This rant was mostly to get it off my chest. I have been (and continue to be) as supportive as I can of people and try to teach them in any way I can to help them acheive their dreams. It is something that is close to my heart, and part of who I am as a person.
thanks for your commetns, we are trying.
#52
I agree with what you wrote. I agree that the bugs that exist in Torque are not serious enough to prevent a project from being completed. However they are a hindrance and it would be nice to see them ironed out, especially since most of them have been resolved by the community and fixes have been made publicly available.
I know what it's like to need to get things of ones chest. Kudos to you for being diplomatic despite the hurtful and disrespectful comments directed towards you and your company.
Thanks for listening and taking me seriously!
06/24/2006 (10:51 am)
Wow, thank you for putting so much thought into your response to my post.I agree with what you wrote. I agree that the bugs that exist in Torque are not serious enough to prevent a project from being completed. However they are a hindrance and it would be nice to see them ironed out, especially since most of them have been resolved by the community and fixes have been made publicly available.
I know what it's like to need to get things of ones chest. Kudos to you for being diplomatic despite the hurtful and disrespectful comments directed towards you and your company.
Thanks for listening and taking me seriously!
#53
I hear you on the hindrance part of it. We know it and we are working on it. So, here is how it is. We are focused on a bunch of things, hopefully this outline will make sense.
We are working on new tech and docs. We make games with the tech to ensrue the products we are selling are actually up to the task of creating professional level games. We are making docs to help people make their games, and we are supporting the engines by way of improvments and bug fixes.
We now have a bunch of different flavors of the engine, and each fix has to be vetted and looked at to make sure it is not introducing a bug and will not cascade into problems in the other engines.
so, it is a balancing act.. if we speed up releases, they will be buggier (we are trying to make them more stable).. if we focus all of our energy on supporting older products, we are not coming out with the new products people are asking for.
we do have a priority list, and we have identified some things (like Constructor) that are higher in priority than certain bug fixes. lack of a decent interior tool is a big problem.. we were hoping for a while someone would make something better, but it did not happen, so we are doing it ourselves. this takes some people away from other tasks..
so, docs are getting better, tech is getting better, and new tools are being made to address issues.. and we are putting the new tools through a trial by fire on real products.
not as fast as anyone would like, but we are moving forward on all of them. We are not going to abandon all products in a push to move one product out the door a little faster, and we are not going to take people away from making games with the products, as the bug fixing that happens in production is actually much more useful as it identifies the showstopper bugs and workflow issues and helps us to assign prioroties to the bugs and issues.
hopefully that makes some sense..
06/25/2006 (7:53 am)
Tim,I hear you on the hindrance part of it. We know it and we are working on it. So, here is how it is. We are focused on a bunch of things, hopefully this outline will make sense.
We are working on new tech and docs. We make games with the tech to ensrue the products we are selling are actually up to the task of creating professional level games. We are making docs to help people make their games, and we are supporting the engines by way of improvments and bug fixes.
We now have a bunch of different flavors of the engine, and each fix has to be vetted and looked at to make sure it is not introducing a bug and will not cascade into problems in the other engines.
so, it is a balancing act.. if we speed up releases, they will be buggier (we are trying to make them more stable).. if we focus all of our energy on supporting older products, we are not coming out with the new products people are asking for.
we do have a priority list, and we have identified some things (like Constructor) that are higher in priority than certain bug fixes. lack of a decent interior tool is a big problem.. we were hoping for a while someone would make something better, but it did not happen, so we are doing it ourselves. this takes some people away from other tasks..
so, docs are getting better, tech is getting better, and new tools are being made to address issues.. and we are putting the new tools through a trial by fire on real products.
not as fast as anyone would like, but we are moving forward on all of them. We are not going to abandon all products in a push to move one product out the door a little faster, and we are not going to take people away from making games with the products, as the bug fixing that happens in production is actually much more useful as it identifies the showstopper bugs and workflow issues and helps us to assign prioroties to the bugs and issues.
hopefully that makes some sense..
Associate Eric Elwell