When is enough enough
by AndrewOsborne · in General Discussion · 10/28/2004 (4:35 am) · 77 replies
But wouldnt it get to a stage where if many people think like you (obviously they do) and buy these same packs.. you will have the same looking game to an extent :/
I guess it depends on the sort of models they are (ie a military weapons pack compared to the stylised female character pack of gamebeavers)
I guess it depends on the sort of models they are (ie a military weapons pack compared to the stylised female character pack of gamebeavers)
#42
10/29/2004 (8:54 am)
I invoke the words of Jeff Vogel, a successful indie game developer, in a not-so-recent interview:Quote:Jeff Vogel: As a professional, I tend to thing that freeware is for people who can't get people to pay. I would use the word "losers", but I am a kind person who doesn't want to offend people.
#43
10/29/2004 (9:01 am)
@Jay: Awesome quote. Ironically, before I release anything for free, I always do the math in my head to see if I'd be able to sell it, and if I can't feasibly sell it for more than the overhead of the sale(the cut the selling website gets), then it gets given out, because I can't otherwise move the product ;) 
#44
10/29/2004 (9:10 am)
Allow me to dig the first scoop of this thread's grave.
#45
10/29/2004 (9:14 am)
::hands Josh reused shovel object:: 
#46
*) there are people who are happy prototyping with stock art assets.
*) there are some people who ideologically oppose any stock content.
*) there is *nada* proof of people turning away from game X because "the trees look just like in the game Y".
*) you always have an option of not buying the content pack *and its even easier than buying it, so what exactly is your problem*?
yeah, just my two cents:)
10/29/2004 (9:39 am)
I truly dont see a point in arguing here:)*) there are people who are happy prototyping with stock art assets.
*) there are some people who ideologically oppose any stock content.
*) there is *nada* proof of people turning away from game X because "the trees look just like in the game Y".
*) you always have an option of not buying the content pack *and its even easier than buying it, so what exactly is your problem*?
yeah, just my two cents:)
#47
But people shouldn't translate the fact that some people offer stuff for free (even the people who have released premium content packs) into an expectation that everything should be free. These guys are offering stuff at a really low cost, and in all honesty I'm not sure if they are making enough money to make it worth their while, really. But they keep doing it, and I think it's awesome.
10/29/2004 (9:53 am)
Oh, there's lots of reasons to give stuff away for free. I really commend all the people here who have contributed content and code for free - it's an awesome community, and I'd certainly like to contribute stuff of my own when I think I have something of worth.But people shouldn't translate the fact that some people offer stuff for free (even the people who have released premium content packs) into an expectation that everything should be free. These guys are offering stuff at a really low cost, and in all honesty I'm not sure if they are making enough money to make it worth their while, really. But they keep doing it, and I think it's awesome.
#48
We can use this pre-existing hole I found over here at Game Beavers...
10/29/2004 (9:55 am)
Let's not even dig a new hole for this thread's grave.We can use this pre-existing hole I found over here at Game Beavers...
#49
Not sure I see any stylized Sherman tanks in Lore....
We also, at various times, purchased the Diggers building packs, various BT environment packs, etc. As a matter of fact, we've bought just about everything. We've used a fair amount of it at one point or another in the development process. Some of it even remains in the finished product.
The thing is, our art director KNOWS that they don't match the theme. Virtually EVERY asset we bought has been changed in some way to match the look and feel of OUR game, OUR original content. We've retextured or remodelled many of hte things we "bought." If you're afraid your game will look like everyone elses. fire your art director ;)
For the record, stock art is an old, old business.
10/29/2004 (10:05 am)
Interestingly, Max Gaming bought the Bravetree Tank content pack. Not sure I see any stylized Sherman tanks in Lore....
We also, at various times, purchased the Diggers building packs, various BT environment packs, etc. As a matter of fact, we've bought just about everything. We've used a fair amount of it at one point or another in the development process. Some of it even remains in the finished product.
The thing is, our art director KNOWS that they don't match the theme. Virtually EVERY asset we bought has been changed in some way to match the look and feel of OUR game, OUR original content. We've retextured or remodelled many of hte things we "bought." If you're afraid your game will look like everyone elses. fire your art director ;)
For the record, stock art is an old, old business.
#50
Hi,
The purpose of content packs is not so everyone's game will look the same.... it's so that you have a place to start and not have to make everything from the ground up.... not just artistically, but technically too (i.e. having something that works in the engine).
I have never seen two commercially successful games where they both had the same re-used stock art.
People who would buy something like a content pack character are not going to just drop it into their game and say, "all done!" No, you would probably want to customise it so it looks unique... and if you dont, well you run the risk of everyone noticing that you didnt take the time to customise your art.
This is from the point of view of someone working on a character pack right now... the reason I'm making the character pack is because there arent any available for torque at the moment, and I would have liked to buy one if there was. It saves alot of time and effort trying to figure things out on your own from scratch. You can learn from it and then change it to suit your own game.
It's the same reason developers buy the Torque engine... Doesnt it save alot of time buying an existing engine that works well and is versatile, then having to code one and re-invent every little feature?
Having said that, you still have alot of work to do, even if you have a complete engine, ready and working, as we can all attest to. So it's not like it's any "easy way out" and you're lazy, you just want to focus on what you're good at and not spend all your time in other areas that you may not be particularly good at. :)
10/29/2004 (10:32 am)
@MatthewHi,
The purpose of content packs is not so everyone's game will look the same.... it's so that you have a place to start and not have to make everything from the ground up.... not just artistically, but technically too (i.e. having something that works in the engine).
I have never seen two commercially successful games where they both had the same re-used stock art.
People who would buy something like a content pack character are not going to just drop it into their game and say, "all done!" No, you would probably want to customise it so it looks unique... and if you dont, well you run the risk of everyone noticing that you didnt take the time to customise your art.
This is from the point of view of someone working on a character pack right now... the reason I'm making the character pack is because there arent any available for torque at the moment, and I would have liked to buy one if there was. It saves alot of time and effort trying to figure things out on your own from scratch. You can learn from it and then change it to suit your own game.
It's the same reason developers buy the Torque engine... Doesnt it save alot of time buying an existing engine that works well and is versatile, then having to code one and re-invent every little feature?
Having said that, you still have alot of work to do, even if you have a complete engine, ready and working, as we can all attest to. So it's not like it's any "easy way out" and you're lazy, you just want to focus on what you're good at and not spend all your time in other areas that you may not be particularly good at. :)
#51
Matthew Crawford.... the FOCUS of the game is not a chair, a rock or a tree. The analogy of set design sticks, and it works within the scope of our industry- we are still comparing apples to apples.
You are missing the point here entirely. Maybe you enjoy creating rocks, crates, dumpsters, phone booths...but I don't. Static objects are NEEDED in a world and somebody has to create them. I personally think that my skills are better used elsewhere. It would be extremely foolish for an artist to insist that he create a phone booth from scratch, if the team already owns that asset in a content pack. Unless the phonebooth is extra special and requires extreme details, working components and possibly even destructable parts.
The artists aren't starving because of lack of work, they are starving because they can't shut up and do their job. They want to spend 3 weeks creating every rock in the world. They want to reinvent the wheel and do "a better mailbox"- and a week later the result looks almost identical to something within an asset/content pack the team already owns.
Artists can't focus on originality when they are constantly forced to deal with the mundane. This means, if you cut down on their "rock creating workload", they can better focus their attention on interesting characters.
The successful teams have streamlined their pipeline in all aspects of the project. Successful developers are efficient and know how to get from PointA to PointB. If we made the right decisions, the distance from PointA to PointB will always be the shortest distance.
10/29/2004 (11:12 am)
I have the very odd feeling that those that oppose content packs are artists.Matthew Crawford.... the FOCUS of the game is not a chair, a rock or a tree. The analogy of set design sticks, and it works within the scope of our industry- we are still comparing apples to apples.
Quote:
Your never going to find artists interested enough in your game project by showing them content pack models.
You are missing the point here entirely. Maybe you enjoy creating rocks, crates, dumpsters, phone booths...but I don't. Static objects are NEEDED in a world and somebody has to create them. I personally think that my skills are better used elsewhere. It would be extremely foolish for an artist to insist that he create a phone booth from scratch, if the team already owns that asset in a content pack. Unless the phonebooth is extra special and requires extreme details, working components and possibly even destructable parts.
Quote:
On a side note, there are hundreds of starving artists out there who would love to help on a great project.
The artists aren't starving because of lack of work, they are starving because they can't shut up and do their job. They want to spend 3 weeks creating every rock in the world. They want to reinvent the wheel and do "a better mailbox"- and a week later the result looks almost identical to something within an asset/content pack the team already owns.
Artists can't focus on originality when they are constantly forced to deal with the mundane. This means, if you cut down on their "rock creating workload", they can better focus their attention on interesting characters.
The successful teams have streamlined their pipeline in all aspects of the project. Successful developers are efficient and know how to get from PointA to PointB. If we made the right decisions, the distance from PointA to PointB will always be the shortest distance.
#52
10/29/2004 (11:29 am)
I agree that artists arnt starving because of lack of work. Look around. There are tons of wanted adds for artists. I also agree that it does seem to take artists long time to model sijmple stuff... :P
#53
I think the major problem is that you are contracting un-professional people. The art side of the industry has to be strictly controlled and enforced. Deadlines do need to be met for professional projects, and artists do tend to go overboard re-designing already made objects.
As I said before, the obvious mundane objects, like rocks, trees, trashcans, dumpsters, etc that can be easily altered via a texture are fine. It's just that when you get into buildings, vehicles and characters you've gone too far into the content pack world.
All of those objects are easily recognised and are what usually makes a game stand out, they are player interactive items. I don't care how much you rant, a character pack will not appeal to professional developers, nor to about 75% of indipendants. I would get sick to my stomach if I saw the game industry trend shift to reusing character models between two different studios or titles.
As much as you blame artists, I blame developers, and lack of clear planning. If your issue is with controling art staff, then make sure you have concept work, written documentation, and a contract that only allows a certain time period of work to create the asset.
Art and story are the rewards for succesfully completing gameplay obstacles. If your reward is to play as a character that is in other games, or drive a vehicle clearly in other games, or to visit locations already in another game. What is the point of your game?
This is my last post here, the message is clear. Use content packs carefully. Limit the objects to the mundane, but make every effort to make the art and the game your own.
And tell any artist that hates modeling the mundane if he has to, that he needs to look for a new job. Practice is practice, skill is skill, not matter what he's modeling. It's a job like any other, there are always ups and downs.
11/01/2004 (6:04 am)
I agree with most of your comments, however you all seem to be angry at artists.I think the major problem is that you are contracting un-professional people. The art side of the industry has to be strictly controlled and enforced. Deadlines do need to be met for professional projects, and artists do tend to go overboard re-designing already made objects.
As I said before, the obvious mundane objects, like rocks, trees, trashcans, dumpsters, etc that can be easily altered via a texture are fine. It's just that when you get into buildings, vehicles and characters you've gone too far into the content pack world.
All of those objects are easily recognised and are what usually makes a game stand out, they are player interactive items. I don't care how much you rant, a character pack will not appeal to professional developers, nor to about 75% of indipendants. I would get sick to my stomach if I saw the game industry trend shift to reusing character models between two different studios or titles.
As much as you blame artists, I blame developers, and lack of clear planning. If your issue is with controling art staff, then make sure you have concept work, written documentation, and a contract that only allows a certain time period of work to create the asset.
Art and story are the rewards for succesfully completing gameplay obstacles. If your reward is to play as a character that is in other games, or drive a vehicle clearly in other games, or to visit locations already in another game. What is the point of your game?
This is my last post here, the message is clear. Use content packs carefully. Limit the objects to the mundane, but make every effort to make the art and the game your own.
And tell any artist that hates modeling the mundane if he has to, that he needs to look for a new job. Practice is practice, skill is skill, not matter what he's modeling. It's a job like any other, there are always ups and downs.
#54
I'm an artist, but I know that a game is not all about the art. It's more about the overall design and how you put everything together as a whole. If you get mired down with every little detailed thing and make everything from scratch, it would take you years before you having anything to finally show. Even if you used a character pack temporarily so you could rapid-prototype your game, it would still be worth it.
Is it unproffesional to use an existing game engine? No.
Is it unproffesional to use a model pack for "mundane" objects like trees, rocks, etc.? No.
Is it unproffesional to use a character pack as a template to create your own custom works/mods? No.
How you use these tools is what determines how proffesional you are. :)
11/01/2004 (8:02 am)
I agree with your view on not wanting everyone to use the same models and characters in their game, Matthew. That's why I'm saying developers still have to customise everything to suit their game. This requires artists to work on it, but at least they have a template to work with. Having that template saves alot of time.I'm an artist, but I know that a game is not all about the art. It's more about the overall design and how you put everything together as a whole. If you get mired down with every little detailed thing and make everything from scratch, it would take you years before you having anything to finally show. Even if you used a character pack temporarily so you could rapid-prototype your game, it would still be worth it.
Quote:...a character pack will not appeal to professional developers, nor to about 75% of indipendants.
Is it unproffesional to use an existing game engine? No.
Is it unproffesional to use a model pack for "mundane" objects like trees, rocks, etc.? No.
Is it unproffesional to use a character pack as a template to create your own custom works/mods? No.
How you use these tools is what determines how proffesional you are. :)
#55
It's the same thing.
11/01/2004 (8:13 am)
Aye, most of the people here use Torque and ALOT of resources from the site. Yet no one is complaining about that.It's the same thing.
#56
What if this could be the same with content packs. So many to choose from that any combination is possible. Also changing a testure can totaly change the look of an object. Same with clothes again. Take a simple object like a t-shirt. Every were you look a t-shirt is shaped exactly the same. But just by using different 'textures'. NOTE: No I don't work in the clothing industry, but I thought it was the best example ;)
I don't even agree that ALL games HAVE to have some original content packs. For example if you want to make a race game, why would you want to build your own ugly 'blob' if you could donwload a beautiful modeled lamborgini. In real life they don't change everytime you see them. So why would they have to change everytime you see them in a different game? Same applies will lot's of things you see in real life.
I would even like to say that in the future, even high budget game developperd won't be able to live without content packs. The amount of poligons is increasing so much just as the detail of objects. In a short while it will be IMPOSSIBLE to build all the models for your game yourself or have them custom made. The models will become so complicated that only by mass producing them (just like nearly all product no a days: car's, phones, everything) it will be afordable. The only thing the game developperd will have to do then is to adjust them to their needs (if there is any, as I said certain things are alike in the real world, so why change them in the game).
Just my 2 cents :)
11/02/2004 (12:09 am)
I don't see what the problem is with content packs. You see the same isue in real life. Sure you would then be having games with the same objects in it, but in the real world lot's of object also look the same. For example clothes: these aren't custom made per person (unless you have the dough ;) ). Companies produce thousends of similar items. You don't realy notice it because there are so many to choose from and so many combinations possible.What if this could be the same with content packs. So many to choose from that any combination is possible. Also changing a testure can totaly change the look of an object. Same with clothes again. Take a simple object like a t-shirt. Every were you look a t-shirt is shaped exactly the same. But just by using different 'textures'. NOTE: No I don't work in the clothing industry, but I thought it was the best example ;)
I don't even agree that ALL games HAVE to have some original content packs. For example if you want to make a race game, why would you want to build your own ugly 'blob' if you could donwload a beautiful modeled lamborgini. In real life they don't change everytime you see them. So why would they have to change everytime you see them in a different game? Same applies will lot's of things you see in real life.
I would even like to say that in the future, even high budget game developperd won't be able to live without content packs. The amount of poligons is increasing so much just as the detail of objects. In a short while it will be IMPOSSIBLE to build all the models for your game yourself or have them custom made. The models will become so complicated that only by mass producing them (just like nearly all product no a days: car's, phones, everything) it will be afordable. The only thing the game developperd will have to do then is to adjust them to their needs (if there is any, as I said certain things are alike in the real world, so why change them in the game).
Just my 2 cents :)
#57
My use of the couple of content packs I purchased was to find out how things were done, so that i can create my own content and do it in a similar or even better way. Bravetree and other content creators deserve the money they make, after all if they hadn't made public their content and code, I am sure there would be a large number of us still feeling in the dark on how things were done.
I can create just about any kind of model and texture it, however the coding side is a totally different story. In fact at present I feel more comfortable designing and modelling the content for my game than I do about Torque C++ coding and even scripting. To me the content packs are well worth every penny spent.
My next step is to purchase Ken Finney's book which I am sure will be worth every penny as well.
11/02/2004 (12:53 am)
I see content packs as a stepping stone in learning Torque. Having owned the engine for a few months now, I still have problems coming to grips with C++ coding (the leap from VB has been difficult).My use of the couple of content packs I purchased was to find out how things were done, so that i can create my own content and do it in a similar or even better way. Bravetree and other content creators deserve the money they make, after all if they hadn't made public their content and code, I am sure there would be a large number of us still feeling in the dark on how things were done.
I can create just about any kind of model and texture it, however the coding side is a totally different story. In fact at present I feel more comfortable designing and modelling the content for my game than I do about Torque C++ coding and even scripting. To me the content packs are well worth every penny spent.
My next step is to purchase Ken Finney's book which I am sure will be worth every penny as well.
#58
This feels like modding for me ,not making games.
Godzilla cant be an Alien or Batman cant be Spiderman.
Some guys invented these guys ,they didn't have a premade models ,they hade fantasy .
This is the major thing about making games ,originality in what you are doing and thinking. Not what others are thinking or doing .
All things here in the content packs you can learn , but if you still believe they can help you then buy them !!
As long this content pack thing not changes the the friendship between the torquers then i don't really care.
But i have seen some of the guys that did reply in this thread have stopped replying when people need help !
Hope this is not because of the content packs
-Billy.
11/02/2004 (1:40 am)
Its like take some lines from one book and put it in another , in the end you have your own book.This feels like modding for me ,not making games.
Godzilla cant be an Alien or Batman cant be Spiderman.
Some guys invented these guys ,they didn't have a premade models ,they hade fantasy .
This is the major thing about making games ,originality in what you are doing and thinking. Not what others are thinking or doing .
All things here in the content packs you can learn , but if you still believe they can help you then buy them !!
As long this content pack thing not changes the the friendship between the torquers then i don't really care.
But i have seen some of the guys that did reply in this thread have stopped replying when people need help !
Hope this is not because of the content packs
-Billy.
#59
There are many more issues than just using the packs straight as content anyway, as many people above have pointed out. People in the "anti-content pack" corner seem to just overlook these issues no matter how many times people mention them.
If you don't want to use them don't. But to come in here and rag on about other people using them is rediculous.
11/02/2004 (2:26 am)
I wouldn't be surprised if the trees in the background of batman / superman / spiderman looked similar though.There are many more issues than just using the packs straight as content anyway, as many people above have pointed out. People in the "anti-content pack" corner seem to just overlook these issues no matter how many times people mention them.
If you don't want to use them don't. But to come in here and rag on about other people using them is rediculous.
#60
A opinion has nothing about raging..
I fully understand what people are saying.
But i think its a free world so far and everybody could say they're opinion.
If you don't like my opinion then don't care ,i accept yours and others in this thread.
But for me it feels like another way to mod rather then making games.
11/02/2004 (2:42 am)
@Vernon A opinion has nothing about raging..
I fully understand what people are saying.
But i think its a free world so far and everybody could say they're opinion.
If you don't like my opinion then don't care ,i accept yours and others in this thread.
But for me it feels like another way to mod rather then making games.
Torque 3D Owner Michael Cozzolino
Big Monk Games