I think Torque2D is just what gaming needs...
by jesusphreak · in General Discussion · 04/03/2005 (10:48 pm) · 31 replies
I've been a big gamer ever since I was younger, and I enjoyed the NES and Mario as a very young child, and then the 3DO for a short time (I actually LOVED the games on there, and I didn't understand why my dad took it to a store one day), and I played Wing Commander, Tie Fighter, Duke Nukem 3d, and some other greats on the PC. Then came multiplayer gaming. Woot.
My friend brought over Rainbow Six, and I copied it to my PC. Then I figured out you could play it online, and I never looked back. I played it, Tribes, Counter-Strike, Ultima Online, EverQuest, Dark Age of Camelot, etc, etc.
Then, due to some realizations in my life, I just stopped doing PC gaming alltogether. It wasn't worth my money or time, imo, and I really couldn't involve my closest friends in it at all, for several of the same reasons.
Well, about 2 years ago or so, my former youth pastor invited me over to his house to play Halo on some system linked Xboxes. I was absolutely blown away by the graphics, and I loved the controls on the Xbox S-controller. Oh, and Blood Gulch, in my opinion, is one of the best multiplayer levels created, ever.
So, I get really interested in buying an Xbox. I'm REALLY looking forward to LIVE and the experience that would bring. So I finally buy my Xbox in April of last year, get LIVE, and then start buying games....
I'm really hyped up for Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, and I buy it, good game, but not a lot of staying power, and then all the glitches start (and UbiSoft reset their stats like 3 times). Said "screw it". So I get hyped up for the next big LIVE game. I buy Rainbow Six: Black Arrow. Figure out that the "tournament system" they spent so much time hyping was absolute crap, and I got bored of that as well. Was really hyped for Star Wars: Battlefront, so I buy it in September, and figure out that it is virtually unplayable on LIVE. And then the grandaddy, Halo 2 releases. Biggest disappointment ever. The gameplay is so shallow and repetive, and their version of ranking is to more or less rank you according to how many hours you play. And there were a few other games I've gotten since then, that have again, disappointed me.
Oh...and lets not forget my big $500 purchase last fall. After the disappointment that was Halo 2, I upgrade my PC and buy WoW, hoping to get back to the greatness that were MMORPGs. I soon realize that the genre has gone backwards instead of forwards since Ultima Online, the gameplay is also very boring and not rewarding).
So here I am, 2 years and $1000 dollars later, totally unsatisfied with the state of the industry. And looking at the next-gen that is coming out, only makes me more and more nervous, with the UE3.0 engine being all the rage and so many games licensing it.
Developers are getting more and more into creating these wonderful 3d engines, and all this crap, that I haven't had as much fun in gaming the last 5 years as I did playing 2v2 matches on the original Rainbow Six in 98.
Maybe its become old to me? I don't really think so. Its so entirely frustrating to pick up game after game, only to come across problems and to think "did the devs ever actually use this and see if it was a good idea?".
Creating all these pretty visuals and just having to continue to pump more and more into games just to compete (and sacrificing gameplay) is killing the industry in my opinion.
So...to get back to my original point - I think something like Torque2D could be a godsend. Realistically, unless you have several years and a great team, you aren't going to be able to touch what the big game developers are doing, even with the regular Torque - as great of an engine as it is.
I personally don't have that kind of time, nor a bunch of really skilled artists to make something that looks visually attractive (by today's standards) in 3d. I also likely am not going to be able to bring anything radically different to the table in a 3d environment than what has already been done.
(Continued on below)...
My friend brought over Rainbow Six, and I copied it to my PC. Then I figured out you could play it online, and I never looked back. I played it, Tribes, Counter-Strike, Ultima Online, EverQuest, Dark Age of Camelot, etc, etc.
Then, due to some realizations in my life, I just stopped doing PC gaming alltogether. It wasn't worth my money or time, imo, and I really couldn't involve my closest friends in it at all, for several of the same reasons.
Well, about 2 years ago or so, my former youth pastor invited me over to his house to play Halo on some system linked Xboxes. I was absolutely blown away by the graphics, and I loved the controls on the Xbox S-controller. Oh, and Blood Gulch, in my opinion, is one of the best multiplayer levels created, ever.
So, I get really interested in buying an Xbox. I'm REALLY looking forward to LIVE and the experience that would bring. So I finally buy my Xbox in April of last year, get LIVE, and then start buying games....
I'm really hyped up for Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, and I buy it, good game, but not a lot of staying power, and then all the glitches start (and UbiSoft reset their stats like 3 times). Said "screw it". So I get hyped up for the next big LIVE game. I buy Rainbow Six: Black Arrow. Figure out that the "tournament system" they spent so much time hyping was absolute crap, and I got bored of that as well. Was really hyped for Star Wars: Battlefront, so I buy it in September, and figure out that it is virtually unplayable on LIVE. And then the grandaddy, Halo 2 releases. Biggest disappointment ever. The gameplay is so shallow and repetive, and their version of ranking is to more or less rank you according to how many hours you play. And there were a few other games I've gotten since then, that have again, disappointed me.
Oh...and lets not forget my big $500 purchase last fall. After the disappointment that was Halo 2, I upgrade my PC and buy WoW, hoping to get back to the greatness that were MMORPGs. I soon realize that the genre has gone backwards instead of forwards since Ultima Online, the gameplay is also very boring and not rewarding).
So here I am, 2 years and $1000 dollars later, totally unsatisfied with the state of the industry. And looking at the next-gen that is coming out, only makes me more and more nervous, with the UE3.0 engine being all the rage and so many games licensing it.
Developers are getting more and more into creating these wonderful 3d engines, and all this crap, that I haven't had as much fun in gaming the last 5 years as I did playing 2v2 matches on the original Rainbow Six in 98.
Maybe its become old to me? I don't really think so. Its so entirely frustrating to pick up game after game, only to come across problems and to think "did the devs ever actually use this and see if it was a good idea?".
Creating all these pretty visuals and just having to continue to pump more and more into games just to compete (and sacrificing gameplay) is killing the industry in my opinion.
So...to get back to my original point - I think something like Torque2D could be a godsend. Realistically, unless you have several years and a great team, you aren't going to be able to touch what the big game developers are doing, even with the regular Torque - as great of an engine as it is.
I personally don't have that kind of time, nor a bunch of really skilled artists to make something that looks visually attractive (by today's standards) in 3d. I also likely am not going to be able to bring anything radically different to the table in a 3d environment than what has already been done.
(Continued on below)...
#2
04/03/2005 (11:50 pm)
You're very jaded. It's great that you appreciate Torque 2D which is an amazing tool but your outlook on games is extremely bleak. Many of the games you mentioned were great fun and it sounds like perhaps you're not enjoying the games for other reasons.
#3
I'd personally LOVE to see a great 2D game resurgence in the industry. If you ask me, there is no better time for it than now. But it won't, IMO, be a revolutionary thing for the industry. It will be at least a blip for sure, but it won't fill the radar screen. As of right now, I understand that around %5 of game sales are 2D. When the big 2D game wave rolls around (initiated by T2D), I could optimisitically say 2D games will perhaps %7 or even %8 of the market. Maybe even %10. But that's probably where it's going to peak. Also, as with any new fashion, the wave will roll back, and all the new dev shops that will build themselves on that wave will have to adapt to a receding market by looking for other places to find market share. So, while this 2D wave will be a good thing to ride into the industry, I wouldn't plan to stay atop it while it recedes, as one might just ride it right back out of the industry. Not to mention how the sudden emergance of redundant 2D genres will bloat this particular sector of the industry, possibly compromising profits in the mid-term.
So, I'm as cautious about the long term outlook of 2D game dev shops as I am optimistic about their short term. I am also not so sure about their mid-term outlook, especially if the big companies suddenly wish to starve out the 2D indie sector by displacing us with their own sudden barrage of 2D games. Big companies thrive on crushing small competitive threats - they know when to nip the root in the bud. And they definitely have all the resources necessary to do it. For them it is simply a matter of business priorities.
04/04/2005 (12:03 am)
@ Jesus - I agree completely, with some slight reservations.I'd personally LOVE to see a great 2D game resurgence in the industry. If you ask me, there is no better time for it than now. But it won't, IMO, be a revolutionary thing for the industry. It will be at least a blip for sure, but it won't fill the radar screen. As of right now, I understand that around %5 of game sales are 2D. When the big 2D game wave rolls around (initiated by T2D), I could optimisitically say 2D games will perhaps %7 or even %8 of the market. Maybe even %10. But that's probably where it's going to peak. Also, as with any new fashion, the wave will roll back, and all the new dev shops that will build themselves on that wave will have to adapt to a receding market by looking for other places to find market share. So, while this 2D wave will be a good thing to ride into the industry, I wouldn't plan to stay atop it while it recedes, as one might just ride it right back out of the industry. Not to mention how the sudden emergance of redundant 2D genres will bloat this particular sector of the industry, possibly compromising profits in the mid-term.
So, I'm as cautious about the long term outlook of 2D game dev shops as I am optimistic about their short term. I am also not so sure about their mid-term outlook, especially if the big companies suddenly wish to starve out the 2D indie sector by displacing us with their own sudden barrage of 2D games. Big companies thrive on crushing small competitive threats - they know when to nip the root in the bud. And they definitely have all the resources necessary to do it. For them it is simply a matter of business priorities.
#4
The Splinter Cell games don't realy appeal to me, so I only played a demo of the first one, and then turned my back on them.
One of the best games I've played recently is "Jets N Guns" (jng.rakeingrass.com/). It's a 2D shooter, but man, the graphics are stunning, the soundtrack is pumping and the action never lets up. It's highly polished and well worth $20 of anyones money.
I don't know what the solution is (if I did I'd probably be making millions as a gaming guru), but if companies keep churning out versions of Doom and Unreal, and people keep buying them, what can we expect? Just more of the same I'm afraid.
04/04/2005 (12:15 am)
Doom3 wasn't fun. It was a poor game with a fancy graphics engine. HL2 wasn't a patch on the first game. HALO was quite pretty, but only an average game (same as Far Cry IMO). Aside from the gravity gun in HL2, none of them really brought anything new to the table.The Splinter Cell games don't realy appeal to me, so I only played a demo of the first one, and then turned my back on them.
One of the best games I've played recently is "Jets N Guns" (jng.rakeingrass.com/). It's a 2D shooter, but man, the graphics are stunning, the soundtrack is pumping and the action never lets up. It's highly polished and well worth $20 of anyones money.
I don't know what the solution is (if I did I'd probably be making millions as a gaming guru), but if companies keep churning out versions of Doom and Unreal, and people keep buying them, what can we expect? Just more of the same I'm afraid.
#5
@jesusphreak: Have you been around some years ago in the WildTangent forums (their Webdriver)? There was a guy called jesusphreak. Are you the one?
Martin
04/04/2005 (12:17 am)
A bit OT:@jesusphreak: Have you been around some years ago in the WildTangent forums (their Webdriver)? There was a guy called jesusphreak. Are you the one?
Martin
#6
This brought me back to what I personally felt was the "golden days" of 2-D gaming: early to mid 90's when your stable of games included:
--Masters of Orion I/II (3 just simply sucked unfortunately)
--Civilization 1/2 (again, I personally didn't like 3)
--Heroes of Might and Magic I/II (can't even remember if there was a 3, was caught up in EQ by that time)
--Masters of Magic (several game flaws IMO, but could be done right)
--Dune (yes, the original RTS)
--Warcraft I/II
--Star Control I/II/III
There is a LOT of historically very successful games out there that were completely 2-D, and I think that there is huge room for growth as well. T2D hopefully will give a great injection of freshness to the genre, and may just wind up making an equivalent to some of these classics, that still can get played today!
04/04/2005 (5:38 am)
I've found myself not interested in -any- of the 3-D games currently available, and actually have been playing games like Risk II (while on the road, best my laptop can do--and btw, it's a terrible "game", but playable just the same), as well as things like Warlords IV.This brought me back to what I personally felt was the "golden days" of 2-D gaming: early to mid 90's when your stable of games included:
--Masters of Orion I/II (3 just simply sucked unfortunately)
--Civilization 1/2 (again, I personally didn't like 3)
--Heroes of Might and Magic I/II (can't even remember if there was a 3, was caught up in EQ by that time)
--Masters of Magic (several game flaws IMO, but could be done right)
--Dune (yes, the original RTS)
--Warcraft I/II
--Star Control I/II/III
There is a LOT of historically very successful games out there that were completely 2-D, and I think that there is huge room for growth as well. T2D hopefully will give a great injection of freshness to the genre, and may just wind up making an equivalent to some of these classics, that still can get played today!
#7
It does seem like there is some general agreement here.
Jeremy, I don't think those games were bad in general, and I don't think they were bad at all if you've never experienced something like it (some people I know swear by WoW and think Halo 2 on Xbox LIVE is the most fun ever - mainly because its their first experience with it), but when I've seen the same stuff rehashed over and over for the past 10 years or so, and haven't seem any real improvement outside of the graphics arena (and even some regression as far as gameplay systems go), its more than a little disappointing.
04/04/2005 (8:05 am)
Sorry, Martin, not the same guy.It does seem like there is some general agreement here.
Jeremy, I don't think those games were bad in general, and I don't think they were bad at all if you've never experienced something like it (some people I know swear by WoW and think Halo 2 on Xbox LIVE is the most fun ever - mainly because its their first experience with it), but when I've seen the same stuff rehashed over and over for the past 10 years or so, and haven't seem any real improvement outside of the graphics arena (and even some regression as far as gameplay systems go), its more than a little disappointing.
#8
Every time I hear someone say that a 2D couldn't sell in todays market I get reminded of Diablo II... a massive seller... as well as a handful of strategy games still made in 2D that sell and are great fun
like Stronghold! The new 3D version looks good, but 2D has a level of simplicity that seems to make more (the quantity) fun games (in my opinion) than 3D games
04/04/2005 (9:13 am)
True, Tekken style gameplay can be acheived with 2d Sprites on an ISO map (or simlulated ISO map)Every time I hear someone say that a 2D couldn't sell in todays market I get reminded of Diablo II... a massive seller... as well as a handful of strategy games still made in 2D that sell and are great fun
like Stronghold! The new 3D version looks good, but 2D has a level of simplicity that seems to make more (the quantity) fun games (in my opinion) than 3D games
#9
I always find this an interesting phenomena. For example, the editors of MAD Magazine have noted that no matter what decade a particular reader started reading MAD, they always seem to remark when they get older that "it's just not like it was when I first started reading it." Somehow I think it's equally not so much that games have changed but that you have changed. But this requires a paradigm shift in how you look at it. A decade from now, younger gamers who started on 3d games will yearn for the "golden years" of the 2000's.
04/04/2005 (9:17 am)
Quote:This brought me back to what I personally felt was the "golden days" of 2-D gaming
I always find this an interesting phenomena. For example, the editors of MAD Magazine have noted that no matter what decade a particular reader started reading MAD, they always seem to remark when they get older that "it's just not like it was when I first started reading it." Somehow I think it's equally not so much that games have changed but that you have changed. But this requires a paradigm shift in how you look at it. A decade from now, younger gamers who started on 3d games will yearn for the "golden years" of the 2000's.
#10
So that leaves the PC. If you look at the mainstream games being released (and that's what is really being talked about here) you'll find precious few 2D (or non-3D spatial aware) games. Going through the 'Coming Soon' pages in the PC section of the Game website reveals no 2D titles between now and next January.
I'll concede that not every title has been announced. I'll also concede that not all the titles have write-ups, so maybe some of them are 2D games, but it isn't noted down. But a quick look at the up and coming releases doesn't look very good for your rather bold statement.
I'm quite prepared to be corrected if there is a glut of 2D PC games just waiting around the corner though.
I'm sure in the indie world, there are dozens of 2D games coming out, but without knowing where to go shopping for them, most people will never even hear about them.
TBH Diablo II was a stinker of a game. Massively late, and technologically behind the times by the time it was released. It may have sold loads, but I'd wager most people weren't actually that pleased with it.
04/04/2005 (9:26 am)
For a start, I don't frequent arcades, am not interested in console gaming, and don't have a mobile phone/PDA.So that leaves the PC. If you look at the mainstream games being released (and that's what is really being talked about here) you'll find precious few 2D (or non-3D spatial aware) games. Going through the 'Coming Soon' pages in the PC section of the Game website reveals no 2D titles between now and next January.
I'll concede that not every title has been announced. I'll also concede that not all the titles have write-ups, so maybe some of them are 2D games, but it isn't noted down. But a quick look at the up and coming releases doesn't look very good for your rather bold statement.
I'm quite prepared to be corrected if there is a glut of 2D PC games just waiting around the corner though.
I'm sure in the indie world, there are dozens of 2D games coming out, but without knowing where to go shopping for them, most people will never even hear about them.
TBH Diablo II was a stinker of a game. Massively late, and technologically behind the times by the time it was released. It may have sold loads, but I'd wager most people weren't actually that pleased with it.
#11
04/04/2005 (9:40 am)
Look at the recent success of "Alien Hominid". Made by indies on the PC and now on the PS2. Casual gaming is the fastest growing segment of the market. 3D and 2D are just different styles. I think there's plenty of room for both. You can have a "good look" for a 3D game without the latest technology. Also don't forget a 2D game also requires plenty of good artwork.
#12
Hehe..I both agree and disagree with your comments--there still hasn't been anything to match the "fun factor" of Star Control, -regardless- of 2D or 3D, and even the "natural progress" made by early on wonder hits simply tried to apply "cool new tech" to games where they didn't apply at all.
Warlords I and II were some of the most addictive games I've ever seen. Warlords 3 tried to go 3-D, and failed miserably. The original company sold/transferred the brand, and UbiSoft currently has Warlords 4 out on the market (I'm playing it now), but quite honestly it's a terrible game from the implementation standpoint. In the 14+ years since Warlords 1 was out, the AI has degraded in capability--quite obvious tactical errors, absolutely dumb decision locks, the list goes on and on. And I won't even mention the terrible combat mechanics.
What my root point was however is that when 2D was all you had, people made excellent to outstanding 2D games. While there are currently a few titles that still are excellent to outstanding in the 2D segment, most have tried (and IMO failed) to add things that either don't make sense at all in 2D gaming, or worked, but caused a lot of the prior "fun factor" to go away--either through neglect, or poor implementation.
04/04/2005 (9:42 am)
Quote:I always find this an interesting phenomena.
Hehe..I both agree and disagree with your comments--there still hasn't been anything to match the "fun factor" of Star Control, -regardless- of 2D or 3D, and even the "natural progress" made by early on wonder hits simply tried to apply "cool new tech" to games where they didn't apply at all.
Warlords I and II were some of the most addictive games I've ever seen. Warlords 3 tried to go 3-D, and failed miserably. The original company sold/transferred the brand, and UbiSoft currently has Warlords 4 out on the market (I'm playing it now), but quite honestly it's a terrible game from the implementation standpoint. In the 14+ years since Warlords 1 was out, the AI has degraded in capability--quite obvious tactical errors, absolutely dumb decision locks, the list goes on and on. And I won't even mention the terrible combat mechanics.
What my root point was however is that when 2D was all you had, people made excellent to outstanding 2D games. While there are currently a few titles that still are excellent to outstanding in the 2D segment, most have tried (and IMO failed) to add things that either don't make sense at all in 2D gaming, or worked, but caused a lot of the prior "fun factor" to go away--either through neglect, or poor implementation.
#13
04/04/2005 (9:42 am)
Are you crazy... If you boot up Diablo II today, you'll still see tons of people playing online. Diablo II sold great and also had a huge player base, so I'd take that wager that you offered that "most people weren't actually that pleased with it." Plus, if you just head to ebay and do a search for people selling rare items for Diablo II. You'll find almost 7,000 different items being sold. Not bad for a game that was released a few years ago.
#14
Just reminds me that its the game and not 2D or 3D... in fact Diablo in the 3D they had at the time of making it would've been horribly ugly and probalby very choppy compared to the 2D version... I still think 2D games can be so much more gorgeous than 3D games :)
04/04/2005 (9:46 am)
I'd agree completely with Benjamin... Diablo II is still insanely popular... addicts of it will avidly defend against notions of 3D games being more fun than 2D... to an extremely dangerous and scary point lol Just reminds me that its the game and not 2D or 3D... in fact Diablo in the 3D they had at the time of making it would've been horribly ugly and probalby very choppy compared to the 2D version... I still think 2D games can be so much more gorgeous than 3D games :)
#15
04/04/2005 (10:07 am)
We shouldn't forget that in the hey-day of 2D gaming, there was also a lot of crap being released. The regurgative marketing strategies aren't exclusive to current trends in gaming. 
#16
Another thing that keeps getting mixed up is whether FUN equates to BIG SALES. The answer is NO (or more precisely, not necessarily), but as an Indie that is the only hope you have. You cannot compete with the major studios on Licensed Content or volume of content, but you can make a fun game. But, if you make a game that is so fun that everybody has to tell their friends about it, then you at least have a chance.
I'm not going to bash the majors for putting out bad products, because they are not. They are, in fact, putting out the products they need to make to lower risk and make a good enough ROI. A LOT of people want to play these games and they do buy them. In fact, you have to admit, that there is a lot of fun in getting caught up in the hype of the "next big thing", waiting in anticipation, getting on the pre-prder list, getting the product at midnight, etc. in the hopes that this release will finally bring back some of the good feeling about a past game-play experience. Usually, we are disappointed in these big games, but sometimes they do deliver (WoW, for instance).
What we are seeing in these forums and in this community is the older ex-gamers, or the cutting edge people looking for more of a FUN (or different) hit when they play their games. I don't think I would mistake this for what the masses want, but this groundswell of discontent is a great opportunity for Indies. T2D is a great tool to tap this movement, but so is TGE or TSE. Just make sure you concentrate on the right things. Don't buy an engine and immediately worry about some small graphical anomoly on the start up screen or look in the C++ code for an obscure bug or even try to understand everything about it. Make a GiD. Make another one. Make a GiW (week), then make another one. Make a few, burn a few. Throw out some outrageous ideas. Don't even try to make money. Just experiment. Find your "sound". Find your team. Make some more GiD's. Someday, one of the ideas will jump out at you, and you can push it to completion, release it to the world, and see what happens.
-Jeff Tunnell GG
04/04/2005 (10:54 am)
I think a lot of people are getting caught up in whether or not a game is 2D, but, IMHO, that is not the problem. FUN, or the lack of it, is the problem. Like I have said many times, it does not matter if a game is 2D, 3D, 4D, neural implants, licensed, unlicensed, written in C#, written in Python, or written in COBOL, what matters is if the player thinks it is fun.Another thing that keeps getting mixed up is whether FUN equates to BIG SALES. The answer is NO (or more precisely, not necessarily), but as an Indie that is the only hope you have. You cannot compete with the major studios on Licensed Content or volume of content, but you can make a fun game. But, if you make a game that is so fun that everybody has to tell their friends about it, then you at least have a chance.
I'm not going to bash the majors for putting out bad products, because they are not. They are, in fact, putting out the products they need to make to lower risk and make a good enough ROI. A LOT of people want to play these games and they do buy them. In fact, you have to admit, that there is a lot of fun in getting caught up in the hype of the "next big thing", waiting in anticipation, getting on the pre-prder list, getting the product at midnight, etc. in the hopes that this release will finally bring back some of the good feeling about a past game-play experience. Usually, we are disappointed in these big games, but sometimes they do deliver (WoW, for instance).
What we are seeing in these forums and in this community is the older ex-gamers, or the cutting edge people looking for more of a FUN (or different) hit when they play their games. I don't think I would mistake this for what the masses want, but this groundswell of discontent is a great opportunity for Indies. T2D is a great tool to tap this movement, but so is TGE or TSE. Just make sure you concentrate on the right things. Don't buy an engine and immediately worry about some small graphical anomoly on the start up screen or look in the C++ code for an obscure bug or even try to understand everything about it. Make a GiD. Make another one. Make a GiW (week), then make another one. Make a few, burn a few. Throw out some outrageous ideas. Don't even try to make money. Just experiment. Find your "sound". Find your team. Make some more GiD's. Someday, one of the ideas will jump out at you, and you can push it to completion, release it to the world, and see what happens.
-Jeff Tunnell GG
#17
Older players are comparing their feelings of seeing these old school games for the first time with their feelings of seeing these newer games ... after they've already witnessed and have been desensitized by years of gaming.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about because as much as I love my NES or as blown away as I was by playing Atari ... those games couldn't hold my interest like the new games can. I really think the newer games are A LOT better than the old ones ... with a few exceptions of old games that still rock today. The overall bell curve though has been put on some big stilts.
Back in the day I used to always say to myself it would be cool if they implemented feature X. Nine times out out of ten they didn't implement that stuff. The first time I can remember them coming through for me was around the PS and N64 days.
Specifically, San Fransisco Rush for the N64 included all the features I wanted. Now the game wasn't perfect but thinking about the limitations and thinking about how slack the developers could have been I feel they went the distance whereas in a lot of older games I remember feeling cheated a lot more often. I also remember getting bored a lot easier with the older games.
If I get a good game today I don't get bored. Sometimes I get the opposite though ... sometimes today's games are too complex up front and I don't feel like conquering the learning curve just to play a game. When I do feel like learning them however I find the games much more rewarding than the old ones. Sure they don't feel as magical ... and personally my magic system is still the SNES but I doubt I'd trade any of my newer systems or games for it because no matter how magical the memories and feelings about that old system are the games still aren't as good as today's in general.
I think that maybe these feelings are coming about because back in the day it was easy to see how the games could be better which filled all budding game designers with hope. Today's games are so complex and feature rich that it's hard to improve on them ... that's what I'm getting from this conversation. People don't feel like they can compete and so they try to knock the other side and then look backward for some reassurance ... it's a conservative reaction to the new world of gaming.
It's all well and good to try and make some retro/simple/2D and fun games but don't knock the games of today for being successful.
04/04/2005 (11:39 am)
I have to agree with Joshua and Jeff.Older players are comparing their feelings of seeing these old school games for the first time with their feelings of seeing these newer games ... after they've already witnessed and have been desensitized by years of gaming.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about because as much as I love my NES or as blown away as I was by playing Atari ... those games couldn't hold my interest like the new games can. I really think the newer games are A LOT better than the old ones ... with a few exceptions of old games that still rock today. The overall bell curve though has been put on some big stilts.
Back in the day I used to always say to myself it would be cool if they implemented feature X. Nine times out out of ten they didn't implement that stuff. The first time I can remember them coming through for me was around the PS and N64 days.
Specifically, San Fransisco Rush for the N64 included all the features I wanted. Now the game wasn't perfect but thinking about the limitations and thinking about how slack the developers could have been I feel they went the distance whereas in a lot of older games I remember feeling cheated a lot more often. I also remember getting bored a lot easier with the older games.
If I get a good game today I don't get bored. Sometimes I get the opposite though ... sometimes today's games are too complex up front and I don't feel like conquering the learning curve just to play a game. When I do feel like learning them however I find the games much more rewarding than the old ones. Sure they don't feel as magical ... and personally my magic system is still the SNES but I doubt I'd trade any of my newer systems or games for it because no matter how magical the memories and feelings about that old system are the games still aren't as good as today's in general.
I think that maybe these feelings are coming about because back in the day it was easy to see how the games could be better which filled all budding game designers with hope. Today's games are so complex and feature rich that it's hard to improve on them ... that's what I'm getting from this conversation. People don't feel like they can compete and so they try to knock the other side and then look backward for some reassurance ... it's a conservative reaction to the new world of gaming.
It's all well and good to try and make some retro/simple/2D and fun games but don't knock the games of today for being successful.
#18
I just recently am seeing existing brands, as well as new brands, that are being tainted and in some cases completely destroyed by shoddy implementation, and/or attempts to do things differently/with more "shiny", when what is important is the game being fun, and the game mechanics being well done.
Specific examples:
Master of Orion: 3 has plenty of shiny, and did a pretty good job of game mechanics, but the game is about as much "fun" as watching moss grow. They lost the fundamental "fun factor" and never got it back somewhere between MoO 2 and 3.
Warlords: Warlord 3's attempt to go 3-D destroyed the brand--so much so that it got picked up by a small developer (I don't even know who) that can't even get simple things like "don't re-build a city without leaving a unit in it if there is an enemy army nearby" right. Warlords 4 has some of the worst AI handling I've seen in a game ever.
Star Control: brand just died, at the peak of it's fun factor. Star Control 3 was one of the best games I have ever played, bar none. I've not seen a game since that even approached it's "omg that's so cool, over and over and over again" play.
Heroes of Might and Magic: yet another brand that seems to have dissapeared completely at the height of it's fun factor. Most probably has to do with 3DO's issues, but that just brings back the content of Jeff Tunnel's recent .plan: spend that much money on tools and content for a game that just doesn't cut it, and yes, you will destroy your own strong brands, simply because you can't fund development on them anymore.
04/04/2005 (12:05 pm)
I'm coming from the exact opposite perspective of Jeremy--never did I really think "that's ok, but I wish they would implement X" back in the early-mid 90's--it's more now of seeing games and thinking "man, they did this so much better/accurately/correctly/"fun" back in the 90's".I just recently am seeing existing brands, as well as new brands, that are being tainted and in some cases completely destroyed by shoddy implementation, and/or attempts to do things differently/with more "shiny", when what is important is the game being fun, and the game mechanics being well done.
Specific examples:
Master of Orion: 3 has plenty of shiny, and did a pretty good job of game mechanics, but the game is about as much "fun" as watching moss grow. They lost the fundamental "fun factor" and never got it back somewhere between MoO 2 and 3.
Warlords: Warlord 3's attempt to go 3-D destroyed the brand--so much so that it got picked up by a small developer (I don't even know who) that can't even get simple things like "don't re-build a city without leaving a unit in it if there is an enemy army nearby" right. Warlords 4 has some of the worst AI handling I've seen in a game ever.
Star Control: brand just died, at the peak of it's fun factor. Star Control 3 was one of the best games I have ever played, bar none. I've not seen a game since that even approached it's "omg that's so cool, over and over and over again" play.
Heroes of Might and Magic: yet another brand that seems to have dissapeared completely at the height of it's fun factor. Most probably has to do with 3DO's issues, but that just brings back the content of Jeff Tunnel's recent .plan: spend that much money on tools and content for a game that just doesn't cut it, and yes, you will destroy your own strong brands, simply because you can't fund development on them anymore.
#19
Plus, the GID and GIW are the plain great ways to program. I'm not trying to take this thread off-topic, but I'll say this - implementing the riskiest parts of the project early then refactoring to good design later is the often considered the best approach to programming. And considering that getting good gameplay down is often the biggest risk any game project faces, getting the part down solid in a GIW / GID is just good sense. And while I can't say I've followed my own advice here (since I personally avoid refactoring whenever I can think ahead enough to get solid design in the first place), it's the best _general_ approach IMO.
04/04/2005 (12:08 pm)
In terms of process, I believe Jeff makes a good point. Starting by making GIDs and GIWs can be a great way to innovate practically. Although, I have no idea how one could possibly make a game in a day, I think that something like a game in a week is a great thing to do. Of course, I have not used this process since I am lucky enough to discover an idea that I'm so confident in as to skip the process, but most people are not that lucky. By eschewing the process Jeff suggested, I even incur the risk that my finished product will not come out how I thought it would (although I believe my personal skills hedge significantly against this risk, only time will tell ;)Plus, the GID and GIW are the plain great ways to program. I'm not trying to take this thread off-topic, but I'll say this - implementing the riskiest parts of the project early then refactoring to good design later is the often considered the best approach to programming. And considering that getting good gameplay down is often the biggest risk any game project faces, getting the part down solid in a GIW / GID is just good sense. And while I can't say I've followed my own advice here (since I personally avoid refactoring whenever I can think ahead enough to get solid design in the first place), it's the best _general_ approach IMO.
#20
A prime example is ladder gameplay. While Tribes didn't include it, and most other titles didn't include it, ladders were EXTREMELY popular. Hell, for Tribes, they'd even have like 100 people in a Shoutcast room LISTENING to a freaking game that was really big for the #1 and #2 Tribes. Ladders were loved because 1) it wasn't ranking based on how long you had played, but rather how good you were, and 2) because there was actually some measurement of skill.
Despite how effective of a system these are...have I seen a single Xbox LIVE title implement it? NO. Instead, I get this piece of crap clan system for Halo 2 that rewards you for playing all the time, and is bogged down with cheaters.
That's just one example, but it is an example where if a dev had simply played in any of these games in the past, they would have learned a lot.
04/04/2005 (12:31 pm)
I have to agree with Stephen...I think the biggest issue for me is seeing newer games that are implemented worse than games 10 years ago - almost as if the developers haven't played them and learned the benefits/pitfalls.A prime example is ladder gameplay. While Tribes didn't include it, and most other titles didn't include it, ladders were EXTREMELY popular. Hell, for Tribes, they'd even have like 100 people in a Shoutcast room LISTENING to a freaking game that was really big for the #1 and #2 Tribes. Ladders were loved because 1) it wasn't ranking based on how long you had played, but rather how good you were, and 2) because there was actually some measurement of skill.
Despite how effective of a system these are...have I seen a single Xbox LIVE title implement it? NO. Instead, I get this piece of crap clan system for Halo 2 that rewards you for playing all the time, and is bogged down with cheaters.
That's just one example, but it is an example where if a dev had simply played in any of these games in the past, they would have learned a lot.
jesusphreak
As silly as this may sound, instead of trying to compete with the big publishers, and put out another big 3d FPS (which I can never realistically do), maybe I can uproot them with something that has long been regarded as dead (2d), and get back to what gaming is all about - fun.
I think that so many indie devs have so many great ideas, but go to implement them in a 3d engine, and realize they simply can't do it. But I dare say with the tools and the power of Torque2D, I think doors can be opened. There is a growing wave of gamers around that are getting sick and tired of the same stuff that the industry is putting out. I'm sorry to be blatant, but what exactly is new about Half-Life 2 over Half-Life 1 outside of a new engine and some rag doll physics? What does DOOM 3 do that DOOM 2 didn't, outside of again, a new engine and some really lackluster MP support?
I approached something very similar to this in my Humanities class the other day. While making art as realistic as possible can create something special, and be really cool, it also can be a huge detriment. You are restricted to what is realistic, and you are stuck with a core set of rules. When making something abstract, though, you have no rules. You are able to put into your art any symbolism, feelings, emotion you want. I think the same can be said for a 3d vs 2d mindset at this point - 3d can do some amazing things, but it also can be restrictive to the creative process.
I only hope that gaming changes in some way, as I'm tired of playing games that aren't fun. Isn't that the goal, anyway?