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
#2
06/02/2006 (3:06 pm)
Thanks for another interesting blog.
#3
06/02/2006 (3:12 pm)
The watermarked challenge in that image is amazing. It's so easy for us to make excuses for our delays and failures. But overcoming all obstacles to reach our goals is a much tougher road. Fortunately, there are a lot of inspiring overcomers in this community -- and many of them are eager to help the rest of us. That's pretty cool.
#4
06/02/2006 (3:24 pm)
With only three developers in the team you must have a really good woking relationship. How did you get a great team focused?
#5
We all worked for several years at a game company on the same games. We already had a good working relationship. When we all got layed off, we had to do something, and we had no other skills. The possibility of hunger and homelessness has a wonderful way of focusing the mind. I am going to touch on this is a later blog that will talk about how 'bootstrapping' has a way of keeping one focused.
06/02/2006 (3:27 pm)
@ James.We all worked for several years at a game company on the same games. We already had a good working relationship. When we all got layed off, we had to do something, and we had no other skills. The possibility of hunger and homelessness has a wonderful way of focusing the mind. I am going to touch on this is a later blog that will talk about how 'bootstrapping' has a way of keeping one focused.
#6
Online communities are mostly good. There are always a few, what we call around the Prairie Games campfire, "assholes". It's usually best to ignore them and focus on the voices that make you feel good about what you are doing. These people are mostly just frustrated by their own lives... and there is nothing you can do for them that's good enough.
On making games with TGE. here's something I like to point out: Prairie Games has 2 staff members. Lara had never made a game before Minions of Mirth... or worked with a game engine before... TGE was the FIRST game engine she worked with... and she was very productive with it.
So, if a girl, who never made a game before, can do it. YOU CAN TOO :)
Edit: Typos
06/02/2006 (3:29 pm)
GG is a success and therefore a target. If you dig deep enough, everyone, including the GG founders have likely made it a target for their frustrations, anxiety, exhaustion, etc at least once :) Online communities are mostly good. There are always a few, what we call around the Prairie Games campfire, "assholes". It's usually best to ignore them and focus on the voices that make you feel good about what you are doing. These people are mostly just frustrated by their own lives... and there is nothing you can do for them that's good enough.
On making games with TGE. here's something I like to point out: Prairie Games has 2 staff members. Lara had never made a game before Minions of Mirth... or worked with a game engine before... TGE was the FIRST game engine she worked with... and she was very productive with it.
So, if a girl, who never made a game before, can do it. YOU CAN TOO :)
Edit: Typos
#7
06/02/2006 (3:40 pm)
Great post, Joe. Really struck a cord with me on this one. :)
#8
06/02/2006 (3:44 pm)
It's true, most of the people that complain are the ones who are lacking in their own ability to make anything. TGE is phenomenally deep and powerful for those that know how to work within themselves instead of the engine. It takes a high level of skill and drive to make a finished game product no matter what tools you're using. TGE doesn't make it so you need any less of that, only that's it's more feasable fewer people can do something great in a shorter time with a smaller budget.
#9
06/02/2006 (3:45 pm)
That is a very inspiring blog Joe, and its great to see the ones who have done it and while I haven't played Think Tanks yet, I have played Wildlife Tycoon : Venture Africa, and have seen Think Tanks on the shelves and they are indeed testament that it can be done by anyone willing to put forth the effort and work needed to do it, the tools are there, all you have to do is utilize them and you can do it. :) Great blog! 
#10
I declare this blog to be the win.
06/02/2006 (4:13 pm)
Joe has an amazing ability to collect and refine the feelings and thoughts of those around him, and to take those feelings and thoughts and weave them into a positive and constructive quilt.I declare this blog to be the win.
#11
Not only is GG making (and practically giving away) great and professional tools for the entire community to benefit from in realizing their dreams. In fact, posts like this one (and posts by Jeff, for instance) show that the GG employees really care about their community and really want to help people succeed in realizing those dreams. You guys give valuable insight information in what drives an indie game business, and try to be a motivator for everyone around. And really, everybody needs that kick from Jeff or the push from Joe at some point around. These blogs show us that it is possible. And more importantly, they try to show us how. And I for one appreciate that very much!
Also, for those who are flaming at GG because they don't like the way GG sets their tools on the market:
think about it. GG could also just create these wonderfull tools for themselves, and crank out one game after another. In a typical organisation that is noted on the stock market, companies go out of their ways to develop reusable assets, tools, and knowledge. Why? Because it gives them an advantage over the competitor. I think the very fact that GG shares so much with the community proves that they really want to help - and not just make money. If they were after the latter, they would just make games. And make them so fast, we would never have a chance. But guess what? They don't :-)
I have one question though, Joe. One of the hardest things I think in making games (and especially unfunded game projects) is finding a game idea. The idea itself isn't too hard to find I guess, but the thing that makes it so hard is to shape an idea so that it is actually feasible. And equally important: that it will sell. I tend to loose myself when designing a game to the extend that the game turns into a scope creep. The game gets way too big for me - even with a small team - to develop. Then, when I cut features, somehow the game doesn't seem that much fun again. And that can be demoralizing. So I was wondering if you have any tips on this topic? How can one go about designing a game that is fun, but fits in the indie market and is actually feasible? I know this is a big subject, and I'm not asking help for designing the next big thing. But I could use some pointers as to how to keep sight of realism when designing a game.
06/02/2006 (4:32 pm)
This is indeed an inspiring blog, Joe. Thanks a lot for that. And I want to note something that I've noticed while being a GG community member for several years now (I was here when ThinkTanks shipped! ;). Not only is GG making (and practically giving away) great and professional tools for the entire community to benefit from in realizing their dreams. In fact, posts like this one (and posts by Jeff, for instance) show that the GG employees really care about their community and really want to help people succeed in realizing those dreams. You guys give valuable insight information in what drives an indie game business, and try to be a motivator for everyone around. And really, everybody needs that kick from Jeff or the push from Joe at some point around. These blogs show us that it is possible. And more importantly, they try to show us how. And I for one appreciate that very much!
Also, for those who are flaming at GG because they don't like the way GG sets their tools on the market:
think about it. GG could also just create these wonderfull tools for themselves, and crank out one game after another. In a typical organisation that is noted on the stock market, companies go out of their ways to develop reusable assets, tools, and knowledge. Why? Because it gives them an advantage over the competitor. I think the very fact that GG shares so much with the community proves that they really want to help - and not just make money. If they were after the latter, they would just make games. And make them so fast, we would never have a chance. But guess what? They don't :-)
I have one question though, Joe. One of the hardest things I think in making games (and especially unfunded game projects) is finding a game idea. The idea itself isn't too hard to find I guess, but the thing that makes it so hard is to shape an idea so that it is actually feasible. And equally important: that it will sell. I tend to loose myself when designing a game to the extend that the game turns into a scope creep. The game gets way too big for me - even with a small team - to develop. Then, when I cut features, somehow the game doesn't seem that much fun again. And that can be demoralizing. So I was wondering if you have any tips on this topic? How can one go about designing a game that is fun, but fits in the indie market and is actually feasible? I know this is a big subject, and I'm not asking help for designing the next big thing. But I could use some pointers as to how to keep sight of realism when designing a game.
#12
@Joe - nice blog. I am a TGB user and would love to hear more about how it's being used internally at GG (without giving away any ultra-sekret stuff of course)
06/02/2006 (4:51 pm)
@Josh - ha ha! that's throwing down the gauntlet :-)@Joe - nice blog. I am a TGB user and would love to hear more about how it's being used internally at GG (without giving away any ultra-sekret stuff of course)
#13
06/02/2006 (4:57 pm)
@Thijs , have you read the blog by the Puzzle Poker developer? forgot his name . He talks about the whole development process and even has a screenshot of the prototype of the game- which was real interesting for me. I have trouble separating between prototype and production features. Testing the core gameplay and finding out whether it's actually fun. That's key. 
#14
No bullshit, direct but still diplomatic is your style : that you're still passionate and fiery about gamedev after all this time is testament to your dedication...
Let the whiny wankers (just not to use Josh's term for them, hehe) moan, lament, and whatever else they might do : TGE is in no way perfect (but then, nothing is), but let them try coping with a proprietary engine from major or minor leagues studios for a change that has no notion of being "driveable" by scripts, or any thought of reusability : at least, TGE was used on many projects at Dynamix, even if what we got back then was basically a somewhat stripped Tribes 2 codedump, and hence a lot of multiplayer fps baggage, it was usable as is, and you can always strip away a lot of things if you're the least competent.
And even though Unreal is in theory true middleware, it got started as a game, not an engine. To boot, it's got its fair share of ugly warts and idiosyncracies.
Plus, most licensees don't get it in source form, enough said.
And well, compare the prices for what you get....
I think people for the most part don't understand what it means to make games at this point in time, and what they're getting when they license viable technology : this is no beginner sandbox, it's the real thing.
Things are so comparmentalized in regular studios that people never see the overall picture...
Licensing tech and trying to make your own game with a tenth of the resources available to the 800 pound gorillas is very different, and shoves your face into how complex modern gamedev can be.
Again, thank you for your passion, your integrity and well, being who you are :)
Cheers bud, stay true
06/02/2006 (4:57 pm)
Well said Joe as usual :)No bullshit, direct but still diplomatic is your style : that you're still passionate and fiery about gamedev after all this time is testament to your dedication...
Let the whiny wankers (just not to use Josh's term for them, hehe) moan, lament, and whatever else they might do : TGE is in no way perfect (but then, nothing is), but let them try coping with a proprietary engine from major or minor leagues studios for a change that has no notion of being "driveable" by scripts, or any thought of reusability : at least, TGE was used on many projects at Dynamix, even if what we got back then was basically a somewhat stripped Tribes 2 codedump, and hence a lot of multiplayer fps baggage, it was usable as is, and you can always strip away a lot of things if you're the least competent.
And even though Unreal is in theory true middleware, it got started as a game, not an engine. To boot, it's got its fair share of ugly warts and idiosyncracies.
Plus, most licensees don't get it in source form, enough said.
And well, compare the prices for what you get....
I think people for the most part don't understand what it means to make games at this point in time, and what they're getting when they license viable technology : this is no beginner sandbox, it's the real thing.
Things are so comparmentalized in regular studios that people never see the overall picture...
Licensing tech and trying to make your own game with a tenth of the resources available to the 800 pound gorillas is very different, and shoves your face into how complex modern gamedev can be.
Again, thank you for your passion, your integrity and well, being who you are :)
Cheers bud, stay true
#15
I think a lot of people (when we started our project I was guilty of this as well) would expect to be handheld throughout the entire development process, and I noticed this "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." and I nodded my head in agreement.
Part of the fun for me as an artist working with Maya and TGE was getting hand held through the basics and then starting experimenting on my own. Can I do this? No. Allright. How about this? Cool, that worked.
Fredrik S
2+2 = 3, yeah? No? Huh.. I better be the artist then.
06/02/2006 (5:22 pm)
Nicely put. I have to agree with Josh Ritter above when he simply states "GG is a success and therefore a target." It really doesn't matter which game forum you go to, there will always be people not happy with the end product. It's not balanced enough, this needs toned down, this needs toned up, but since this is a developer site those complaints will be aimed towards the support side instead.I think a lot of people (when we started our project I was guilty of this as well) would expect to be handheld throughout the entire development process, and I noticed this "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." and I nodded my head in agreement.
Part of the fun for me as an artist working with Maya and TGE was getting hand held through the basics and then starting experimenting on my own. Can I do this? No. Allright. How about this? Cool, that worked.
Fredrik S
2+2 = 3, yeah? No? Huh.. I better be the artist then.
#16
much..probably once very 600 years or so. AnyhoO - tis about time joe started using irc again, dont think ive
seen him there for..er..ages - probably has something to do with him being less dedictated than me ;) :p
probably shouldnt joke..oh well too late.
06/02/2006 (6:15 pm)
hmmm...i didnt even realise there was any bad mouthing going on - heh, then again i dont use the forumsmuch..probably once very 600 years or so. AnyhoO - tis about time joe started using irc again, dont think ive
seen him there for..er..ages - probably has something to do with him being less dedictated than me ;) :p
probably shouldnt joke..oh well too late.
#17
The advice I give everyone is to think small and prototype fully the main interactive component of the game. It has to feel good to 'do' whatver you do in the game. If this part is not right, then it is not worth thinking about how to make it fun by adding a zillion levels, or whatever.
That is how I separate it in my head.. make it fun, and then worry about how to make it sellable.
If the things that you think would be fun are too big, then think of smaller ideas.
I went to teagames.com, and I was amazed at how they leveraged 2-3 basic play mechanics into a bunch of really simple (yet fun) games. I got a thousand ideas after going to their site. I always think of a core idea or theme, and then try to create something that is fun given the resources I have. If, after I have what is developed, a fun, but unsellable game, then I would think about adding features or adding value in some other way. This is actually a huge subject that deserves it's own blog (which I plan to write someday)..
first, it needs to be fun. If it is not interesting to interact with, then it will go nowhere. Then, after it is fun, it has to have value to someone who will purchase it. What sort of value? well, a lot of the casual games are going with increased production value. Little games with a lot of bling. This seems to work for certain game types. Other casual games have actually made the bling itself something that is enjoyable (chuzzle). traditionally, games add value by adding poundage.. and this is something I would not advise doing. Make it simple, make it fun, and then worry about how to make what you have sellable. if you cannot make it good and small, put the idea on the shelf for later, and come up with a different idea.
@Alex Rice
Lots of stuff going on. After the game I am working on ships, I will be helping out with docs and demos and making TGB really well documented and fun to learn. Right now, I am finishing up on a TGB based game (that happens to have both some heavy physics going on, and Multiplayer).. it was quite the pressure cooker for TGB, and it really made it clear to us what we had to do to make the engine better for end users. (we suffered the pain so you won't have to).
the article you mentioned was one posted by Kevin Ryan. It is good stuff, and the way people should work if they want to get stuff fun quick.
@ Nick,
Trying to stay true.. the years and the kids are taking a bit of the 'punk' out of me, but I am trying to keep it as real as I can.
@ Matt
I stopped going onto IRC when I discovered that sticking a burning pencil in my eye acheived the same amoutn of pain, but required much less effort.
06/02/2006 (6:52 pm)
@ Thijs,The advice I give everyone is to think small and prototype fully the main interactive component of the game. It has to feel good to 'do' whatver you do in the game. If this part is not right, then it is not worth thinking about how to make it fun by adding a zillion levels, or whatever.
That is how I separate it in my head.. make it fun, and then worry about how to make it sellable.
If the things that you think would be fun are too big, then think of smaller ideas.
I went to teagames.com, and I was amazed at how they leveraged 2-3 basic play mechanics into a bunch of really simple (yet fun) games. I got a thousand ideas after going to their site. I always think of a core idea or theme, and then try to create something that is fun given the resources I have. If, after I have what is developed, a fun, but unsellable game, then I would think about adding features or adding value in some other way. This is actually a huge subject that deserves it's own blog (which I plan to write someday)..
first, it needs to be fun. If it is not interesting to interact with, then it will go nowhere. Then, after it is fun, it has to have value to someone who will purchase it. What sort of value? well, a lot of the casual games are going with increased production value. Little games with a lot of bling. This seems to work for certain game types. Other casual games have actually made the bling itself something that is enjoyable (chuzzle). traditionally, games add value by adding poundage.. and this is something I would not advise doing. Make it simple, make it fun, and then worry about how to make what you have sellable. if you cannot make it good and small, put the idea on the shelf for later, and come up with a different idea.
@Alex Rice
Lots of stuff going on. After the game I am working on ships, I will be helping out with docs and demos and making TGB really well documented and fun to learn. Right now, I am finishing up on a TGB based game (that happens to have both some heavy physics going on, and Multiplayer).. it was quite the pressure cooker for TGB, and it really made it clear to us what we had to do to make the engine better for end users. (we suffered the pain so you won't have to).
the article you mentioned was one posted by Kevin Ryan. It is good stuff, and the way people should work if they want to get stuff fun quick.
@ Nick,
Trying to stay true.. the years and the kids are taking a bit of the 'punk' out of me, but I am trying to keep it as real as I can.
@ Matt
I stopped going onto IRC when I discovered that sticking a burning pencil in my eye acheived the same amoutn of pain, but required much less effort.
#18
06/02/2006 (6:53 pm)
Its nice to see you back Joe. I always think of you as the buddha of game design (after seeing your chats on the IRC). Everything you said is the truth. What it comes down to, is if you don't have the drive to succeed, you never will. Its not easy to make anything, let alone something as large scope as a game. You need drive and dedication or else you will never make it to the end. No matter what technologoy you use, whether its Torque, custom code or something like the Unreal engine, you will never succeed if you give up. 
#19
We all need to learn how to be rejected in the business world and take it professionaly. Nothing personal, just business, you know...
And the truth is Torque team engaged itself in a very ambitious task - deliver a game platform. The platform is in development, and the main features are becoming outdated fast. It's not like just finish a game on crunch time, publish it and be done with it. It's - SERVICE.
Anyway, Torque "was" and "is" a masterpiece in it's own kind, the product which "delivers", but only with a big effort of a programmer. Finally, TGB is going gold, feature full and ready for script-only game development, so it's competetive with "mature" products like Blitz, etc. It just takes time...
06/02/2006 (6:57 pm)
Joe, the root problem of the Engine vs. Engine flame war is in fact that people take the most of things personaly, not professionaly. I know, a game is someone's child, it's very difficult to stand against the critisism aimed at it.We all need to learn how to be rejected in the business world and take it professionaly. Nothing personal, just business, you know...
And the truth is Torque team engaged itself in a very ambitious task - deliver a game platform. The platform is in development, and the main features are becoming outdated fast. It's not like just finish a game on crunch time, publish it and be done with it. It's - SERVICE.
Anyway, Torque "was" and "is" a masterpiece in it's own kind, the product which "delivers", but only with a big effort of a programmer. Finally, TGB is going gold, feature full and ready for script-only game development, so it's competetive with "mature" products like Blitz, etc. It just takes time...
#20
As for the tools, I'll never forget when the lead programmer asked if we were going to upgrade the engine for our game to 1.4. I said "if the old version was good enough to ship orbz and thinktanks then it's good enough for me."
06/02/2006 (7:36 pm)
I think it's awesome that I can roll up to GG offices, walk in, and have 6 guys play my game and give feedback with no special connections to GG. What other game/tools company can you do that at, I mean really??As for the tools, I'll never forget when the lead programmer asked if we were going to upgrade the engine for our game to 1.4. I said "if the old version was good enough to ship orbz and thinktanks then it's good enough for me."
Associate William Lee Sims
Machine Code Games
I must admit that if my C++ skills weren't where they are at, I probably would have given up. I used several other engines, ranging from free to $20,000. After investing some time into TGE, I've learned that nothing I've used before beats this network layer and the speed of the TGE. The greatest thing I've learned about TGE is that if I'm willing to put in the effort, very little can't be done.
I've thrown together an action game, a board game conversion, and a puzzle game in just a weekend each. While it may take me several months to refine them, I can see my ideas quite quickly, which I love.
I will also say that I appreciate all of the resources that ThinkTanks submitted. I use the optimization one with every project, revisiting what will work best with my current game. I'm looking forward to anything you might share.