reality check
by Shayne Guiliano · in General Discussion · 03/13/2002 (1:51 pm) · 50 replies
Please, I understand that this is a sensitive topic so please read the entire thread, and associated thread, and try to understand my point before getting heated about it. It's long, so be prepared. I could very well not mention any of this and no one will be hurt but I feel like this community has real potential for growth and impacting the video game industry. I have studied other industries that I believe can help us put a gauge on how this community will and should develop.
I do not believe that video games have been defined as an artform...yet. I think that GG could have a big hand in the development of video games as an artform. But the first thing that needs to be realized is that we will not make games that will in any way resemble the new releases like Halo. Halo was worked on for five years with an unlimited amount of cash to work with. I have met a few of the developers that worked on it and I can assure that not only were they highly talented and professional, but they were also very, very passionate about it too. They worked 80 hour weeks without blinking and they did this for several years. No one does that to just get a paycheck. They could probably earn double working half the hours making business software. But instead they worked 80 hour weeks for several years knowing that there was a very very small chance that their game would be enjoyed by gamers. Very few games well-funded games ever make it into the homes of gamers, this is a fact. Now what does this mean for us?
We can't compete with the big boys on their playing field. You can get frustrated by this statement and rave back at me about how ignorant I am and about how creative we all are and how we are all going to change the world with our ideas and you might even be right, but I still think it's a rational statement. However, accepting that fact forces us to find an alternative way to compete. I think the alternative could be the EBP (Episodic Business Plan) which I wrote about in this string http://www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=forums&page=result.thread&qt=3984
Disregard my sequel argument, Jeff cleared that up for me, but I think the EBP is important because it helps us to focus on things that will help us create our own playing field that I don't think the big publishers could compete with because they have set standards in graphics and "bigness" that they have to continue meeting while disregarding artistic elements.
Once we have accepting that sobering fact, we need to figure out how we can use creativity and innovation to develop an "Indie" style that we can wear proudly, not unlike the "Indie" movie makers. Elements that I often find lacking artistic sophistication in well-funded games are things like pace (they typically maintain the same pace throughout the game rather than the pace being dynamic ) perspective and framing, color composition and color theming, emotional attachment and reward(an artistic reward would be feeling happy, sad or laughing rather than finding a health meter), true character development (other than just getting more agility points. Kojima does do a great job with this in Metal Gear and Miyamoto has always done a great job with this, especially in Zelda). These are examples of artistic elements that I believe would give us a distinct position in the industry. These are not the kinds of things you see in many games, but all the games that have them are considered great. I would attribute the greatness of games like Zelda, Metal Gear, GTA3 to the fact that they have some of these elements in them. I know of no game that has them all. Though it would not be that difficult to make the artistic side the focus of a game because these elements are entirely independent of the technology. Their power these elements can have over the psyche is only limited by our minds.
I'm going to stop now, though I could write a book about it all, until I get some response. I consider myself a martyr here in that I know this isn't stuff that you all want to hear but I feel like the community could really benefit from realizing that we don't even have to try to make games that resemble anything that has ever been made. That is why our freedom is powerful. We don't have to justify an artistic risk to an investor, we can think out of the box and let our minds roam free.
Viva La Revolution
I do not believe that video games have been defined as an artform...yet. I think that GG could have a big hand in the development of video games as an artform. But the first thing that needs to be realized is that we will not make games that will in any way resemble the new releases like Halo. Halo was worked on for five years with an unlimited amount of cash to work with. I have met a few of the developers that worked on it and I can assure that not only were they highly talented and professional, but they were also very, very passionate about it too. They worked 80 hour weeks without blinking and they did this for several years. No one does that to just get a paycheck. They could probably earn double working half the hours making business software. But instead they worked 80 hour weeks for several years knowing that there was a very very small chance that their game would be enjoyed by gamers. Very few games well-funded games ever make it into the homes of gamers, this is a fact. Now what does this mean for us?
We can't compete with the big boys on their playing field. You can get frustrated by this statement and rave back at me about how ignorant I am and about how creative we all are and how we are all going to change the world with our ideas and you might even be right, but I still think it's a rational statement. However, accepting that fact forces us to find an alternative way to compete. I think the alternative could be the EBP (Episodic Business Plan) which I wrote about in this string http://www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=forums&page=result.thread&qt=3984
Disregard my sequel argument, Jeff cleared that up for me, but I think the EBP is important because it helps us to focus on things that will help us create our own playing field that I don't think the big publishers could compete with because they have set standards in graphics and "bigness" that they have to continue meeting while disregarding artistic elements.
Once we have accepting that sobering fact, we need to figure out how we can use creativity and innovation to develop an "Indie" style that we can wear proudly, not unlike the "Indie" movie makers. Elements that I often find lacking artistic sophistication in well-funded games are things like pace (they typically maintain the same pace throughout the game rather than the pace being dynamic ) perspective and framing, color composition and color theming, emotional attachment and reward(an artistic reward would be feeling happy, sad or laughing rather than finding a health meter), true character development (other than just getting more agility points. Kojima does do a great job with this in Metal Gear and Miyamoto has always done a great job with this, especially in Zelda). These are examples of artistic elements that I believe would give us a distinct position in the industry. These are not the kinds of things you see in many games, but all the games that have them are considered great. I would attribute the greatness of games like Zelda, Metal Gear, GTA3 to the fact that they have some of these elements in them. I know of no game that has them all. Though it would not be that difficult to make the artistic side the focus of a game because these elements are entirely independent of the technology. Their power these elements can have over the psyche is only limited by our minds.
I'm going to stop now, though I could write a book about it all, until I get some response. I consider myself a martyr here in that I know this isn't stuff that you all want to hear but I feel like the community could really benefit from realizing that we don't even have to try to make games that resemble anything that has ever been made. That is why our freedom is powerful. We don't have to justify an artistic risk to an investor, we can think out of the box and let our minds roam free.
Viva La Revolution
#22
Jeff Tunnell GG
03/15/2002 (2:20 pm)
It's too bad this great thread devolved into a Halo bashing/praising contest. That is not the point of this thread.Jeff Tunnell GG
#23
Never speak of Halo again or we'll ruin decent message board threads. :p
I promise never to mention Halo again.
03/15/2002 (2:23 pm)
So what'd we learn?Never speak of Halo again or we'll ruin decent message board threads. :p
I promise never to mention Halo again.
#24
A very deep subject, I believe GG is accomplishing just that and we should all be thankful that indies are focusing on the 'games' part of the games industry.
I mean, just look at how far it's come from just another business!
Mad props for those who posted here (before the Halo war:P ).
01/20/2003 (7:47 am)
I came across this discussion and figured I would bump it back into the current active forums to show others where time has taken us.A very deep subject, I believe GG is accomplishing just that and we should all be thankful that indies are focusing on the 'games' part of the games industry.
I mean, just look at how far it's come from just another business!
Mad props for those who posted here (before the Halo war:P ).
#25
01/20/2003 (8:11 am)
halo=quake with shaders
#26
I was thinking about MMORPG's and how everyone wants to make one, and about the 'indy business model', ie multiple smaller games, and I was wondering about how to combine the two, or at least, wondering about how an indy could enter the MMORPG business.
It's often been said that MMORPG's aren't selling a product -- they're selling a service. You aren't buying a DVD, you're paying for HBO. You aren't buying a house; you're renting a condo.
Well, how do small businesses enter the service market? If you want to open a restaurant, and the only restaurants in the area are McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's, you have to start small, perhaps by starting a family restaurant. People get tired of McDonalds -- they want quality food, a more personal atmosphere, and a bit of peace and quiet.
You see where I'm going with this. :)
People get tired of DAoC. They get tired of AC2. They get tired of being just one more goddamned ant in an ant farm, perpetually doomed to a life of perpetuity. They want to be part of something, they want to be engaged, they want to be excited and interested -- not just one more Paladin, running through the specific Paladin treadmill.
There are enough people out there that yearn for this kind of service that they will buy hundreds of dollars' worth of expansion packs, and in some cases even pay $40 per MONTH just to get more personalized, hands-on service. Look at the people leaving DAoC, and at the hundreds of thousands looking for the Next Big Thing in MMORPG's -- they're dissatisfied. There have got to be thousands of people with the money and the inclination to take part in something smaller and more intimate. I'm thinking particularly about something as resource-intensive as the TribesRPG mod -- that was VERY personal, it attracted a VERY VERY devout following. Why was this? The dungeons and overall number of adventures were far fewer and far between than the big names -- EQ, UO, AC/AC2. But they came and stayed, and stayed and stayed andd stayed. Bear in mind that this mod was so horribly hard on Tribes 1's netcode (because of the bots) that you could rarely have more than 16 people in the same massive world at the same time, and often only 6-10. It was very intimate and private, but also very spread out; nowhere near the bustling world of any of the big boys.
And that may well have been part of the lure. Everybody knew EVERYBODY, at least among the regulars. (Or so it seemed; I spent a couple of weeks playing but gave it up for the same reason that I don't play EverQuest or DAoC -- I have one very full life, and no time for another).
Now, granted, there doesn't seem to be much of a "Massively" multiplayer about such a game, and I agree. But they were limited by the bandwidth-intensive nature of Tribes 1's bots; that can be remedied. With great optimization and excellent hosting, 128 people could play smoothly. Honestly, look at the numbers for DAoC's servers during off-peak hours; some of their servers get that few players. But there is a breed of player out there that enjoys that intimacy, relishes the peace and quiet, the slower pace. I did, back when I was playing MMORPG's; I'd just hunt quietly in one place, not really gaining much, talking with people and zoning out. I don't think it was healthy, but hey, I enjoyed it.
What do you guys think? Maybe a franchising model, where you create all of the content and one template world, and server operators buy the privilege to run their own commercial world and set the rules and craft their world from the ground up, running it like their own private business -- pandering to the customers, organizing events, etc. They would pay a one-time licensing fee + a percentage of profits -- or, if the percentage would be too hard to enforce well, maybe just a low monthly licensing fee. I don't know about what security headaches that might cause in creating a theft-proof product, though.
Again, what do you think? I think it's pretty snazzy, myself. :)
edit: aha! I forgot to mention, I'm not talking right now about linking those individual servers together into a more massive world. That might happen down the road, after the indy starts raking in the money from the franchises (his own or those of licensees). Initially, it would just be a very hands-on, very personal multiplayer RPG experience -- in fact, licensees probably couldn't afford to host more than a 32-person-capacity server. Although . . . remember how many people have bought DAoC and are paying for it, and how few are actually on at any given time. Food for thought; 128-person max capacity might be enough to support potentially twice to ten times that number of paying customers.
01/20/2003 (8:43 am)
I am going to derail this discussion. But only to save it from a HALO war.I was thinking about MMORPG's and how everyone wants to make one, and about the 'indy business model', ie multiple smaller games, and I was wondering about how to combine the two, or at least, wondering about how an indy could enter the MMORPG business.
It's often been said that MMORPG's aren't selling a product -- they're selling a service. You aren't buying a DVD, you're paying for HBO. You aren't buying a house; you're renting a condo.
Well, how do small businesses enter the service market? If you want to open a restaurant, and the only restaurants in the area are McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's, you have to start small, perhaps by starting a family restaurant. People get tired of McDonalds -- they want quality food, a more personal atmosphere, and a bit of peace and quiet.
You see where I'm going with this. :)
People get tired of DAoC. They get tired of AC2. They get tired of being just one more goddamned ant in an ant farm, perpetually doomed to a life of perpetuity. They want to be part of something, they want to be engaged, they want to be excited and interested -- not just one more Paladin, running through the specific Paladin treadmill.
There are enough people out there that yearn for this kind of service that they will buy hundreds of dollars' worth of expansion packs, and in some cases even pay $40 per MONTH just to get more personalized, hands-on service. Look at the people leaving DAoC, and at the hundreds of thousands looking for the Next Big Thing in MMORPG's -- they're dissatisfied. There have got to be thousands of people with the money and the inclination to take part in something smaller and more intimate. I'm thinking particularly about something as resource-intensive as the TribesRPG mod -- that was VERY personal, it attracted a VERY VERY devout following. Why was this? The dungeons and overall number of adventures were far fewer and far between than the big names -- EQ, UO, AC/AC2. But they came and stayed, and stayed and stayed andd stayed. Bear in mind that this mod was so horribly hard on Tribes 1's netcode (because of the bots) that you could rarely have more than 16 people in the same massive world at the same time, and often only 6-10. It was very intimate and private, but also very spread out; nowhere near the bustling world of any of the big boys.
And that may well have been part of the lure. Everybody knew EVERYBODY, at least among the regulars. (Or so it seemed; I spent a couple of weeks playing but gave it up for the same reason that I don't play EverQuest or DAoC -- I have one very full life, and no time for another).
Now, granted, there doesn't seem to be much of a "Massively" multiplayer about such a game, and I agree. But they were limited by the bandwidth-intensive nature of Tribes 1's bots; that can be remedied. With great optimization and excellent hosting, 128 people could play smoothly. Honestly, look at the numbers for DAoC's servers during off-peak hours; some of their servers get that few players. But there is a breed of player out there that enjoys that intimacy, relishes the peace and quiet, the slower pace. I did, back when I was playing MMORPG's; I'd just hunt quietly in one place, not really gaining much, talking with people and zoning out. I don't think it was healthy, but hey, I enjoyed it.
What do you guys think? Maybe a franchising model, where you create all of the content and one template world, and server operators buy the privilege to run their own commercial world and set the rules and craft their world from the ground up, running it like their own private business -- pandering to the customers, organizing events, etc. They would pay a one-time licensing fee + a percentage of profits -- or, if the percentage would be too hard to enforce well, maybe just a low monthly licensing fee. I don't know about what security headaches that might cause in creating a theft-proof product, though.
Again, what do you think? I think it's pretty snazzy, myself. :)
edit: aha! I forgot to mention, I'm not talking right now about linking those individual servers together into a more massive world. That might happen down the road, after the indy starts raking in the money from the franchises (his own or those of licensees). Initially, it would just be a very hands-on, very personal multiplayer RPG experience -- in fact, licensees probably couldn't afford to host more than a 32-person-capacity server. Although . . . remember how many people have bought DAoC and are paying for it, and how few are actually on at any given time. Food for thought; 128-person max capacity might be enough to support potentially twice to ten times that number of paying customers.
#27
01/20/2003 (8:57 am)
I beleive your refering to actionrpg relative to the torque community. ARPG if successfull will revolutionise MMORPG fps games. The design specs already support technologies that have been attempted by Valve sierra etc etc. Its very possible that an indy developer will succeed. However due to capatilism and competition others have a vested interest in your failure. I like alot of things about torque, its a decent engine. Better than quake 2. It takes time and patience and skills, it isnt quite like fast food just yet.
#28
I think something interesting has come out of the Halo bashing. In some ways, I feel that Halo was a bit innovative, Matt obviously doesn't. So, this leaves us right back where we started. It's actually the core problem with this entire discussion IMO. Who says what's innovative or possible by indie's?
For every 3 guys that say it can't be done, there's probably one that says it can and I'll prove it or die trying. The folks who did the Final Fantasy games were indy up until 7 I believe.
I believe there are individual limitations, and team limitations, but not indie limitations. In other words, I don't think the indie community should resign itself to thinking small or thinking they can't compete. There's always someone to prove you wrong. Perhaps a better way is to say, start small, or be sure you can accomplish what you are setting out to do.
I'm an engineer, so everything is pretty black and white. There is no "always", or "never". An indie CAN make another Halo, sure it may take him 10 years, but he could do it. Should he? That's up to the indie.
One other thing I think we should be careful of: watch out for the elitist attitude. It's always self defeating. "Bungie suxors because they made gobs of money and weren't innovative." "PC's slam consoles because." By saying these things, you aren't thinking out of the box, your just thinking in someone elses.
01/20/2003 (9:06 am)
"So what'd we learn?"I think something interesting has come out of the Halo bashing. In some ways, I feel that Halo was a bit innovative, Matt obviously doesn't. So, this leaves us right back where we started. It's actually the core problem with this entire discussion IMO. Who says what's innovative or possible by indie's?
For every 3 guys that say it can't be done, there's probably one that says it can and I'll prove it or die trying. The folks who did the Final Fantasy games were indy up until 7 I believe.
I believe there are individual limitations, and team limitations, but not indie limitations. In other words, I don't think the indie community should resign itself to thinking small or thinking they can't compete. There's always someone to prove you wrong. Perhaps a better way is to say, start small, or be sure you can accomplish what you are setting out to do.
I'm an engineer, so everything is pretty black and white. There is no "always", or "never". An indie CAN make another Halo, sure it may take him 10 years, but he could do it. Should he? That's up to the indie.
One other thing I think we should be careful of: watch out for the elitist attitude. It's always self defeating. "Bungie suxors because they made gobs of money and weren't innovative." "PC's slam consoles because
#29
01/20/2003 (9:13 am)
Tim, I don't see how Bravetree selling content packs for $10 has anything to do with people having a vested interest in your failure. They have a vested interest in the success of the Torque engine, period -- if people are drawn to Torque, their content packs will sell (although not make them much money at current prices). I don't see how them selling off a few assets to free up some cash is any kind of threat to their fellow indies. 
#30
01/20/2003 (9:21 am)
Hey Tim, you are a late-comer to the GG community, so maybe you aren't aware of the time and effort Bravetree has put in to help people. Maybe do a little research before you spout off about a valued community member, yeah?
#31
Yeah, I don't have a ton of money to throw at making a game, but then, money doesn't make the game... I do!
You're right inasmuch as no one is going to dethrone id software by a Quake clone anytime soon, but then that is the point! Find a niche, fill it, be original, and be creative!
See, the way I see it, we, as "Indies" actually have the ADVANTAGE. We do not have a corporate budget, nor large teams of personnel cranking out code and artwork, but we also don't have corporate deadlines, or corporate officers telling us what formula to follow, etc., etc., etc.
What we have is ORIGINALITY. Why, with every new iteration of a game, to the critics seem to multiply? Because we keep doing the same things over and over again with all new eye candy. Gamers ARE dissatisfied.
So consider this: You, as an independent developer, have what the big boys don't give themselves: TIME! Time to be creative, time to be original, time to evolve your stories and games to a point of true originality, time to refine your artwork to a truly commercially competitive level, time to isolate your market, time to promote your games to publishers, the buying public, etc.
Isn't this what GG is all about? Bringing originality back to games?
I see the point of this post, but I believe it to be incorrect. The fact is, that if you don't think you can, you won't try therefore you will never REALLY know if you could've or not. Actually TRY, and the answer becomes a variable... NOT a constant!
Look around you, you have access to a top of the line, A class graphics engine and you don't think you can compete with the big boys? I feel sorry for you. Sure, I'll never crank out games as quickly as the larger companies, but then I don't WANT to, I want to do my games right the first time.
I hope you understand that this is not a flame, I just whole-heartedly disagree.
*End Rant*
01/20/2003 (9:29 am)
Maybe I will be labeled a foolish twit for saying this, but I so don't agree with the original post. Sure, there are some good points made, but I actually had the audacity to believe my Kindergarten teacher when she told us that we could be anything we wanted.Yeah, I don't have a ton of money to throw at making a game, but then, money doesn't make the game... I do!
You're right inasmuch as no one is going to dethrone id software by a Quake clone anytime soon, but then that is the point! Find a niche, fill it, be original, and be creative!
See, the way I see it, we, as "Indies" actually have the ADVANTAGE. We do not have a corporate budget, nor large teams of personnel cranking out code and artwork, but we also don't have corporate deadlines, or corporate officers telling us what formula to follow, etc., etc., etc.
What we have is ORIGINALITY. Why, with every new iteration of a game, to the critics seem to multiply? Because we keep doing the same things over and over again with all new eye candy. Gamers ARE dissatisfied.
So consider this: You, as an independent developer, have what the big boys don't give themselves: TIME! Time to be creative, time to be original, time to evolve your stories and games to a point of true originality, time to refine your artwork to a truly commercially competitive level, time to isolate your market, time to promote your games to publishers, the buying public, etc.
Isn't this what GG is all about? Bringing originality back to games?
I see the point of this post, but I believe it to be incorrect. The fact is, that if you don't think you can, you won't try therefore you will never REALLY know if you could've or not. Actually TRY, and the answer becomes a variable... NOT a constant!
Look around you, you have access to a top of the line, A class graphics engine and you don't think you can compete with the big boys? I feel sorry for you. Sure, I'll never crank out games as quickly as the larger companies, but then I don't WANT to, I want to do my games right the first time.
I hope you understand that this is not a flame, I just whole-heartedly disagree.
*End Rant*
#32
I state this only because I get such negative feedback when I post my ideas, full of passionate creativity, and I'm told to aim smaller. Yes some stuff may require lots of attempts and may even fail, but if your just spitting out the same rehased game, then whats the point? Also, I'm told first projects should be small. Is that a rule, a law we must go by or something? Or, as an indie, should I appreciate the freedom to go all out to be the best at what I want to do?
I'll go with the later every time. And the only thing that limits creativity are the people involved in the projects creation. If goals are set and an idea has more support than it just being considered a hefty task (again as if real work wasn't involved), then it will be seen to completion. And the best part is, everyone involved will be pleased to have made it a reality.
This forces me to ask another question - Why is it that instead of us indies getting together to make something outstanding, we all want to critique each others ideas and usually bash them from the designer's heart of creativity? I don't think Halo was intentionaly meant to come off as a bad game, though allowing the company itself to be bought by Microsoft does raise some questions. Instead it would seem they worked on issues relating to the genre and at the same time released a working product. I think this was their main goal. If so I applaude them for achieving it successfuly.
"Man was not created to be perfect, so why does he expect better of his own creations?"
Any other thoughts?
01/20/2003 (9:47 am)
Someone mentioned in their post above basicly that games are designed to be more profitable and that the art of the game is the bonus. IMHO, the art, gameplay and creativity that leads to groundbreaking innovations is what makes the game, with it's financial success the reward.I state this only because I get such negative feedback when I post my ideas, full of passionate creativity, and I'm told to aim smaller. Yes some stuff may require lots of attempts and may even fail, but if your just spitting out the same rehased game, then whats the point? Also, I'm told first projects should be small. Is that a rule, a law we must go by or something? Or, as an indie, should I appreciate the freedom to go all out to be the best at what I want to do?
I'll go with the later every time. And the only thing that limits creativity are the people involved in the projects creation. If goals are set and an idea has more support than it just being considered a hefty task (again as if real work wasn't involved), then it will be seen to completion. And the best part is, everyone involved will be pleased to have made it a reality.
This forces me to ask another question - Why is it that instead of us indies getting together to make something outstanding, we all want to critique each others ideas and usually bash them from the designer's heart of creativity? I don't think Halo was intentionaly meant to come off as a bad game, though allowing the company itself to be bought by Microsoft does raise some questions. Instead it would seem they worked on issues relating to the genre and at the same time released a working product. I think this was their main goal. If so I applaude them for achieving it successfuly.
"Man was not created to be perfect, so why does he expect better of his own creations?"
Any other thoughts?
#33
People are telling you to aim smaller because then you'll have a better chance of actually finishing your project. If you are an experienced game developer and can tackle a large project and finish it, go for it. If you think that even as a first project you can tackle a large project and finish it, go for it. If you just want to play around with some interesting game ideas and not worry about finishing the project (or at least not soon), then go for it.
We created Orbz and it is unlike anything out there. We did not rehash the same old game idea. Orbz is finished and has shipped, and took us a short amount of time to put out. We think that's the way to tackle the indie market. If you don't agree, then more power to you - we sincerely hope you succeed.
Dave
21-6
01/20/2003 (9:59 am)
Christoper:People are telling you to aim smaller because then you'll have a better chance of actually finishing your project. If you are an experienced game developer and can tackle a large project and finish it, go for it. If you think that even as a first project you can tackle a large project and finish it, go for it. If you just want to play around with some interesting game ideas and not worry about finishing the project (or at least not soon), then go for it.
We created Orbz and it is unlike anything out there. We did not rehash the same old game idea. Orbz is finished and has shipped, and took us a short amount of time to put out. We think that's the way to tackle the indie market. If you don't agree, then more power to you - we sincerely hope you succeed.
Dave
21-6
#34
And let me expound on this last point a bit more. I want other Indie developers to create great games. I don't feel threatened by the awesome job 21-6 is doing at making games. I think it helps us all by generating interest in the play games site. I think that if the content packs allow games to come to the market faster and cheaper, it will help BraveTree indirectly through sales of our own games. It will help sales of your games too, assuming you have the talent and dedication to finish a game. I think it will help other serious developers also. At some point, we may indeed be in a position where we can take a month out of every year to generate art assets for the community for free. I would love to be in that position. We aren't there yet.
Then there are the not so serious developers. People that want to learn how to make games but don't know how to do it yet. These people will also benefit by having expert content packs available for -- honestly -- not very much money. They also benefity from the experience of the developers that are making games and selling them on the play games site. Again, I would like to be in a position where we could give away free content so that developers that are learning how to make games can become competent developers much quicker. This would help the serious developers by creating a larger talent pool to draw from.
I'm especially miffed at your comments because of the amount of effort Joe has put in helping out other community members. Some of this help has involved specialized Torque knowledge. Other help he has offered has come down to teaching people how to use 3dsMax effectively. I fail to see how you can justify saying we have a vested interest in others failure given the amount of time Joe has spent helping anyone that asks.
01/20/2003 (10:06 am)
@Tim - I'm a little confused about where you are coming from. From my reading of the forums, your contributions have only been to complain about others. I don't see how that is helping the Indie community. I'm not sure it is really necessary to defend ourselves against attacks like this, but I will. I think the contributions of us (BraveTree) and other serious Indy developers have been purely positive. You may not like that we are charging for content packs, but, frankly, it isn't your place to tell us whether to charge for our work or not. Either buy them or don't. If we didn't charge for these, we wouldn't have been able to make them. They probably still won't make enough money for us to justify doing them, but we see them as a nice marketing item and frankly, a benefit to the community.And let me expound on this last point a bit more. I want other Indie developers to create great games. I don't feel threatened by the awesome job 21-6 is doing at making games. I think it helps us all by generating interest in the play games site. I think that if the content packs allow games to come to the market faster and cheaper, it will help BraveTree indirectly through sales of our own games. It will help sales of your games too, assuming you have the talent and dedication to finish a game. I think it will help other serious developers also. At some point, we may indeed be in a position where we can take a month out of every year to generate art assets for the community for free. I would love to be in that position. We aren't there yet.
Then there are the not so serious developers. People that want to learn how to make games but don't know how to do it yet. These people will also benefit by having expert content packs available for -- honestly -- not very much money. They also benefity from the experience of the developers that are making games and selling them on the play games site. Again, I would like to be in a position where we could give away free content so that developers that are learning how to make games can become competent developers much quicker. This would help the serious developers by creating a larger talent pool to draw from.
I'm especially miffed at your comments because of the amount of effort Joe has put in helping out other community members. Some of this help has involved specialized Torque knowledge. Other help he has offered has come down to teaching people how to use 3dsMax effectively. I fail to see how you can justify saying we have a vested interest in others failure given the amount of time Joe has spent helping anyone that asks.
#35
My main goal, which I figured would be obvious, is in order for me to make said more elegant titles is that I require help in completing them.
As for Orbz, I do hope to have a chance to try it out one day, and I congradulate your team for releasing it. Thank you as well for the compliments and support in my own progress.
01/20/2003 (10:21 am)
Not to contradict you in any way, and no discredit to your team Dave. I myself am currently working on some smaller titles, I'm just not looking for help on these. I figure that I could release these by myself, and asking for help on a 2D verticle platform game doesn't seem to be much of a concern to a 3D/Torque based community, which is my other reason for omiting it from discussion.My main goal, which I figured would be obvious, is in order for me to make said more elegant titles is that I require help in completing them.
As for Orbz, I do hope to have a chance to try it out one day, and I congradulate your team for releasing it. Thank you as well for the compliments and support in my own progress.
#36
I think it is great that so many people want to break in to the industry and make their mark, but I think there is a smaller group of us that have been in the industry and are discusted with how it actually works. That second group is a bit more funded and has a lot more experience then the first group and I think it is that group that has the best chance of developing indie games.
I am part of the second group and I am here to make a game with the features that I want think gamers want to see in a game and features that I think they will like, but don't yet exist. For those of you that don't know a lot of publishers hand you a property and you make them that property according the what they think it should have in it.
So to all of you in both groups, make games that are going to be different and have the features that you want in them. The insane comments on a lot of these projects that people will get paid as soon as a publisher picks them up are just in the developers head. Instead assume that you will make no money, that a publisher other then GG will never sell your game and that you have all the time in the world and no milestones or deadlines to get a feature done. Then the true creative games will get made.
01/20/2003 (10:23 am)
This discussion is a subject that I have been thinking a lot about recently. The reason being is that I think there are two distinct groups of developers here. One group and probably the overwhelming part are newbies to game development and are just here to make a game for the sake of making a game or for the other reason, because you believe that you can make a better game then what is out now and you can make a lot of money doing it.I think it is great that so many people want to break in to the industry and make their mark, but I think there is a smaller group of us that have been in the industry and are discusted with how it actually works. That second group is a bit more funded and has a lot more experience then the first group and I think it is that group that has the best chance of developing indie games.
I am part of the second group and I am here to make a game with the features that I want think gamers want to see in a game and features that I think they will like, but don't yet exist. For those of you that don't know a lot of publishers hand you a property and you make them that property according the what they think it should have in it.
So to all of you in both groups, make games that are going to be different and have the features that you want in them. The insane comments on a lot of these projects that people will get paid as soon as a publisher picks them up are just in the developers head. Instead assume that you will make no money, that a publisher other then GG will never sell your game and that you have all the time in the world and no milestones or deadlines to get a feature done. Then the true creative games will get made.
#37
Now the Halo that I saw at E3 a few years ago running on a Macintosh and it was impressive as hell, now it would not be so impressive, but the version that was released on the XBox is not even as good as some Half-Life or Quake mods artwork/sound wise. But I know that with the right team I could easily recreate either version of Halo in a "very short time" using Torque.
Having worked on multi-million dollar content creation pipelines, I can tell you "lots of art content" does not a title make.
Take the indie game Combat Mission, when it was released it had shit art, the developers new it but it had game play that no other game in its genre could touch, still can't, but lack of an endless supply of original art resources did not stop it from being extremely successfull.
I would have to say, that any of you negative nancys saw my requirements document for my game I would never hear the end of how a small development house could never pull it off, blah blah blah blah. But, I have lots of project managment experience on both the code production and the content production side of the fences, and know what is and what is not "doable" within a given constraints of money, quality and time. Pick any two :)
That said, there is no "magic formula" for indie game success.
01/20/2003 (7:04 pm)
I agree with Matt Webster, Halo as it stands on the XBox is a crappy game with crappy art and crappy maps and crappy rehashed game play.Now the Halo that I saw at E3 a few years ago running on a Macintosh and it was impressive as hell, now it would not be so impressive, but the version that was released on the XBox is not even as good as some Half-Life or Quake mods artwork/sound wise. But I know that with the right team I could easily recreate either version of Halo in a "very short time" using Torque.
Having worked on multi-million dollar content creation pipelines, I can tell you "lots of art content" does not a title make.
Take the indie game Combat Mission, when it was released it had shit art, the developers new it but it had game play that no other game in its genre could touch, still can't, but lack of an endless supply of original art resources did not stop it from being extremely successfull.
I would have to say, that any of you negative nancys saw my requirements document for my game I would never hear the end of how a small development house could never pull it off, blah blah blah blah. But, I have lots of project managment experience on both the code production and the content production side of the fences, and know what is and what is not "doable" within a given constraints of money, quality and time. Pick any two :)
That said, there is no "magic formula" for indie game success.
#38
Like I said above, if you have experience in those arenas (and it appears you do), it's possible you can pull off a more ambitious title. Odds I believe are still against you, but odds are against all of us, whether we develop small or large titles. ;) The key is that you (read: collective you) could very well increase your odds of success by tackling a smaller-scoped title, especially if you haven't delivered anything yet.
I don't think that makes us "negative Nancys" by saying so, however. It's advice, and for the majority of people starting a game project, it's excellent advice. Unfortunately, no matter how loudly or persistently you try to give others advice, it will only get through to a very few people. The rest believe they know more than anyone else, and therefore will ignore this advice. Which means it will be a learning experience for them, whether they succeed or fail - not necessarily a bad thing.
Dave
21-6
01/20/2003 (7:27 pm)
Jarrod:Like I said above, if you have experience in those arenas (and it appears you do), it's possible you can pull off a more ambitious title. Odds I believe are still against you, but odds are against all of us, whether we develop small or large titles. ;) The key is that you (read: collective you) could very well increase your odds of success by tackling a smaller-scoped title, especially if you haven't delivered anything yet.
I don't think that makes us "negative Nancys" by saying so, however. It's advice, and for the majority of people starting a game project, it's excellent advice. Unfortunately, no matter how loudly or persistently you try to give others advice, it will only get through to a very few people. The rest believe they know more than anyone else, and therefore will ignore this advice. Which means it will be a learning experience for them, whether they succeed or fail - not necessarily a bad thing.
Dave
21-6
#39
Commander Keen I - Dec. 14th 1990
Commander Keen II - 1991
Commander Keen III - 1991
Commander Keen: Keen Dreams - 1991
Commander Keen IV - 1991
Commander Keen V - 1991
Commander Keen VI - 1991
Rescue Rover I - 1991
Rescue Rover II -1991
Dangerous Dave in the Haunted Mansion - 1991
Hover Tank 3D - 1991
Catacomb 3D - 1992
Wolfenstein 3-D - 1992
This is not a complete list by any means, iD has released many, many more, most you've probably never heard of. This is how a "big boy" got to be a "big boy", by doing a lot of work. Doing a lot of small releases. It's not like iD has the short-bus of developers either. So before you all go spouting off about how indys can easily compete with big boys do some reading. Being an indy has nothing to do with it. It's all about experience.
01/21/2003 (10:00 am)
Someone asked how the "big boys" became big boys...and I'll give you a hint, it wasn't because a bunch of college CS majors got together and made Unreal their first go. Sure, some people can actually pull off stuff like that, and some people can invent Calculus and Physics. Everyone throws around stuff like Quake and such...anyone remember Commander Keen? Same company. How about Wolf3D, yeah now we're getting some more stuff that people recognize. This is a chronological release list of iD software (info from iD Homepage and some other Googled sources)Commander Keen I - Dec. 14th 1990
Commander Keen II - 1991
Commander Keen III - 1991
Commander Keen: Keen Dreams - 1991
Commander Keen IV - 1991
Commander Keen V - 1991
Commander Keen VI - 1991
Rescue Rover I - 1991
Rescue Rover II -1991
Dangerous Dave in the Haunted Mansion - 1991
Hover Tank 3D - 1991
Catacomb 3D - 1992
Wolfenstein 3-D - 1992
This is not a complete list by any means, iD has released many, many more, most you've probably never heard of. This is how a "big boy" got to be a "big boy", by doing a lot of work. Doing a lot of small releases. It's not like iD has the short-bus of developers either. So before you all go spouting off about how indys can easily compete with big boys do some reading. Being an indy has nothing to do with it. It's all about experience.
#40
Epic - Jill of the Jungle, Jazz Jackrabbit etc.
Id: your list.
Apogee-3DRealms: Duke Nukem (2D platformer) plus many others.
Hell, look at Remedy, they started out doing Death Rally as shareware for 3drealms!
One thing Ive seen is that if you can find a good bunch of people to partner with, it really helps in the longer term (because you can take some of thier overflow workload for instance).
I'd like to have that kind of relationship, but being 1 person kind of doesnt work like that :)
Phil.
01/21/2003 (11:36 am)
A point very well made there Pat. Look at almost all of the "big boys" that came from the shareware era, and they ALL paid thier dues by releasing small games.Epic - Jill of the Jungle, Jazz Jackrabbit etc.
Id: your list.
Apogee-3DRealms: Duke Nukem (2D platformer) plus many others.
Hell, look at Remedy, they started out doing Death Rally as shareware for 3drealms!
One thing Ive seen is that if you can find a good bunch of people to partner with, it really helps in the longer term (because you can take some of thier overflow workload for instance).
I'd like to have that kind of relationship, but being 1 person kind of doesnt work like that :)
Phil.
Torque Owner Scott Casey
WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD
The story starts with your warship under attack by the alien Covenant. You manage to escape from your ship before it explodes and crash land on a humongous alien artifact, Halo. You try to regroup with other friendly units that have also managed to escape the destruction of your capital ship while disrupting (or avoiding) the Covenant. It turns out that Halo is a large machine that is a weapon of mass destruction. You are then in a race to be the first to find the control center of Halo to deny the Covenant the ability to use the weapon against humanity. As you progress towards the control center you learn the real purpose behind the construction of Halo. There is another alien race called The Flood. The Flood are a like a swarm of locust that consume living tissue for survival (and there are some really cool mutant types - and at times what seems like hundreds of the critters coming after you). Halo still has an active AI system and sends a remote unit out to help you get past The Flood on your journey to the control center so that you may activate Halo to destroy The Flood. Along the way you fight both the Covenant and The Flood - and it is cool to sometimes sit back and watch them fight each other (and a great tactic for self preservation as Ammo and Health become scarce). After reaching the control center and activating Halo, you learn that Halo will destroy all living things (including Earth) as the AI reasons that the only way to stop The Flood is to starve them. The mission now becomes to disable Halo, making the AI very unhappy. In your quest to destroy Halo's reactors you have to fight the Convenant, The Flood, and the automated defense systems of Halo.
END SPOILER
Of course my paraphrasing isn't really doing the story any justice - it is like someone trying to describe Star Wars (not very exciting!).
Anyone can make beef stew - but it takes a true Chef to create a memorable meal. A game is more than a set of technologies. Content is king!
While the gameplay is not anything new, the story is very engaging and fun to play. And I never saw any stutters in frame rate and it never crashed.
I will be buying the sequel!