Graphics in Indy Games
by Luc Jordan · in General Discussion · 09/06/2002 (11:10 pm) · 31 replies
I have some thoughts on the subject graphics in smaller-market, independent, mostly low-budget games.
First of all, I want to say that I understand and primarily agree with the sentiments of the GarageGames bunch when it comes to graphics -- basically, that the big money boys are always going to be able to kick your ass graphically, or almost always, because of their massive budgets. Don't waste time on implementing useless next-gen graphics features that only one current card and one card coming out in 6 months support; you'll be doing pretty well just to get a fun, playable, relatively bug-free game out the door.
And yet I feel that you are missing a beautiful opportunity here if you apply that counsel too completely.
Who the hell owns a Radeon 9700 right now? Dedicated, primarily online-capable, hardcore gamers. Who will buy the NV30 when it comes out? Dedicated, primarily hardcore gamers.
Now, those people are a very small part of the overall market of computer gamers (which in turn pales in comparison to the massive console market). This is why the vast majority of computer games ship with sub-par or VERY scalable graphics, and must generally be *extremely* backwards-compatible.
Look at bump mapping. How the hell many games even USE bump mapping? Even include any kind of support for it? Almost none; in fact I don't know of a PC game that does (does NWN? I'm not sure). Look at the games already out for the Xbox and compare that with games coming in a year or more for the PC. Aside from Doom 3, there really isn't going to be a graphical powerhouse in the bunch.
The Xbox/GeForce 3 quality graphics seem to be the new 'standard' requirements for upcoming games in the year (years?) ahead, much as the Geforce2 was previously, and the TNT2 before it, and the Voodoo2 before that. But look at the cards we have available. The GeForce 4? The Radeon 9700? The NV30?!? Even GeForce3 graphics will pale in comparison to what CAN be accomplished with these cards . . .
. . . but we'll never see anything remotely like it in a game until the cards are prevalant in the average PC.
What does this mean for indies?
Think about it. The big guys can't target the hardcore gamer exclusively. They can't afford to piss off the average customer at Wal-Mart whose Best Buy GeForce 2 (or GeForce 3) equipped PC can't handle the fur on your crowd of ape-men. So the graphics are 'dumbed down' for the low-end. Only a few games can get away with not doing this, the really hardcore games with devoted fanbases and/or assured profits from hype -- the Q3s, the UT2's, the Doom3's, the NeverWinter Nights' of the game world. But even those have to make MASSIVE backwards-compatibility concessions, limiting what they can accomplish and making the dev cycle much longer, since they have to create their own engine that is capable of massive amounts of backwards-compatibility.
So, I suggest that some enterprising INDIES target the high-end exclusively.
Think about it. The people that bought a GeForce 4 -- where the hell was their benefit?? A minute improvement, perhaps, in the quality of anti-aliasing; a higher screen resolution. Nothing impressive at all. Just the *hope* that they will be able to run certain future games at a decent frame rate. Hardly worth the investment. Meanwhile, there are dozens of incredible tech demos, showing what this card is capable of, and will be, when Game X is finished. Game X -- coming to an Electronics Boutique near you. In two years. Or just "when it's done".
If there was a game these people could buy TODAY that would show off their new card, they would be on it like frat boys on a drunken cheerleader.
'But hold on there, Billybob', you're saying to yourself. 'If it would be a pain in the booty for Blizzard to include next-gen graphics in WarCraft III, how the hell am *I* going to add these graphics to my game?? Do you have any idea how complex it would be to include graphics features for the absolute latest cards?? Look at those goddamn tech demos for the 9700! Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to make a ccross-card-compatible, scalable . . . oh.'
That's the point.
Don't worry about the millions of people with GeForce 2's or 3's if you're aiming for DX9! Look, garage game teams are the ONLY game makers that will be able to include these kinds of features in their games! They can target the owners of ONE CARD if they wish, and not worry about making a game that 'the majority' will enjoy. IT'S THE INTERNET, PEOPLE. TARGET A GODDAMNED NICHE.
Before you bring it up -- I realize how incredibly difficult it would be to make *any* commercial-quality, commercial-length 'traditional' game (full-scale FPS/RPG/RTS etc with singleplayer, balanced network play, blah blah blah) to include next-gen functionality. That would take 'assloads' of work. But what about SIMPLE GAMES??
Go to www.freelunchdesign.com. Look at the game 'Icy Tower'. Download it. Play it until your fingers bleed. That game is about the simplest-playing game I have played in the last 5 years, and I have wasted at least 5 times as much time playing that game as any two recently released shooters COMBINED. The gameplay is simple, addictive. The game is light on art resources, light on expanded playability, no multiplayer.
If someone made a similarly simple game -- light on total art resources, not requiring massive scalability and of course zero backwards-compatibility, and yet still chock full of incredible eye candy -- a DirectX 9-based game, and released it when the NV30 came out, at $5 or $10 a copy sold . . . man, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that with intelligent community interaction and media release you could sell at least 1 game for every 4 cards sold.
Seriously, though. Just give it some thought. WHO WILL TARGET THE HIGH END??? Big companies can NOT afford to do that. Whereas big companies CAN make addictive little mindless games for everyone's computer and release them at WalMart.
Again, I want to stress that I am not trying to 'disrespekk' any of 'the bruthahz' that made Torque possible, nor am I implying that simple, fun, graphically average games are a bad idea. Far from it, I think it's probably the best way to get started. However, I think that some of the more well-equipped dev teams should think *seriously* about targetting the high-end exclusively.
Just as another side effect -- a lot of these games could essentially be likened to a fun, PLAYABLE tech demo because of their simplicity. Think of the graphics, too! People would be saying 'Yah Torc gamz rox0r teh shat its teh gratest look at the screeniez'; even if the games don't run on everyone's computer, the screens would get circulated a LOT if they were graphically impressive. :) Especially since you could afford to be a LOT more impressive than the majority of games in development.
As always, just my $0.02
First of all, I want to say that I understand and primarily agree with the sentiments of the GarageGames bunch when it comes to graphics -- basically, that the big money boys are always going to be able to kick your ass graphically, or almost always, because of their massive budgets. Don't waste time on implementing useless next-gen graphics features that only one current card and one card coming out in 6 months support; you'll be doing pretty well just to get a fun, playable, relatively bug-free game out the door.
And yet I feel that you are missing a beautiful opportunity here if you apply that counsel too completely.
Who the hell owns a Radeon 9700 right now? Dedicated, primarily online-capable, hardcore gamers. Who will buy the NV30 when it comes out? Dedicated, primarily hardcore gamers.
Now, those people are a very small part of the overall market of computer gamers (which in turn pales in comparison to the massive console market). This is why the vast majority of computer games ship with sub-par or VERY scalable graphics, and must generally be *extremely* backwards-compatible.
Look at bump mapping. How the hell many games even USE bump mapping? Even include any kind of support for it? Almost none; in fact I don't know of a PC game that does (does NWN? I'm not sure). Look at the games already out for the Xbox and compare that with games coming in a year or more for the PC. Aside from Doom 3, there really isn't going to be a graphical powerhouse in the bunch.
The Xbox/GeForce 3 quality graphics seem to be the new 'standard' requirements for upcoming games in the year (years?) ahead, much as the Geforce2 was previously, and the TNT2 before it, and the Voodoo2 before that. But look at the cards we have available. The GeForce 4? The Radeon 9700? The NV30?!? Even GeForce3 graphics will pale in comparison to what CAN be accomplished with these cards . . .
. . . but we'll never see anything remotely like it in a game until the cards are prevalant in the average PC.
What does this mean for indies?
Think about it. The big guys can't target the hardcore gamer exclusively. They can't afford to piss off the average customer at Wal-Mart whose Best Buy GeForce 2 (or GeForce 3) equipped PC can't handle the fur on your crowd of ape-men. So the graphics are 'dumbed down' for the low-end. Only a few games can get away with not doing this, the really hardcore games with devoted fanbases and/or assured profits from hype -- the Q3s, the UT2's, the Doom3's, the NeverWinter Nights' of the game world. But even those have to make MASSIVE backwards-compatibility concessions, limiting what they can accomplish and making the dev cycle much longer, since they have to create their own engine that is capable of massive amounts of backwards-compatibility.
So, I suggest that some enterprising INDIES target the high-end exclusively.
Think about it. The people that bought a GeForce 4 -- where the hell was their benefit?? A minute improvement, perhaps, in the quality of anti-aliasing; a higher screen resolution. Nothing impressive at all. Just the *hope* that they will be able to run certain future games at a decent frame rate. Hardly worth the investment. Meanwhile, there are dozens of incredible tech demos, showing what this card is capable of, and will be, when Game X is finished. Game X -- coming to an Electronics Boutique near you. In two years. Or just "when it's done".
If there was a game these people could buy TODAY that would show off their new card, they would be on it like frat boys on a drunken cheerleader.
'But hold on there, Billybob', you're saying to yourself. 'If it would be a pain in the booty for Blizzard to include next-gen graphics in WarCraft III, how the hell am *I* going to add these graphics to my game?? Do you have any idea how complex it would be to include graphics features for the absolute latest cards?? Look at those goddamn tech demos for the 9700! Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to make a ccross-card-compatible, scalable . . . oh.'
That's the point.
Don't worry about the millions of people with GeForce 2's or 3's if you're aiming for DX9! Look, garage game teams are the ONLY game makers that will be able to include these kinds of features in their games! They can target the owners of ONE CARD if they wish, and not worry about making a game that 'the majority' will enjoy. IT'S THE INTERNET, PEOPLE. TARGET A GODDAMNED NICHE.
Before you bring it up -- I realize how incredibly difficult it would be to make *any* commercial-quality, commercial-length 'traditional' game (full-scale FPS/RPG/RTS etc with singleplayer, balanced network play, blah blah blah) to include next-gen functionality. That would take 'assloads' of work. But what about SIMPLE GAMES??
Go to www.freelunchdesign.com. Look at the game 'Icy Tower'. Download it. Play it until your fingers bleed. That game is about the simplest-playing game I have played in the last 5 years, and I have wasted at least 5 times as much time playing that game as any two recently released shooters COMBINED. The gameplay is simple, addictive. The game is light on art resources, light on expanded playability, no multiplayer.
If someone made a similarly simple game -- light on total art resources, not requiring massive scalability and of course zero backwards-compatibility, and yet still chock full of incredible eye candy -- a DirectX 9-based game, and released it when the NV30 came out, at $5 or $10 a copy sold . . . man, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that with intelligent community interaction and media release you could sell at least 1 game for every 4 cards sold.
Seriously, though. Just give it some thought. WHO WILL TARGET THE HIGH END??? Big companies can NOT afford to do that. Whereas big companies CAN make addictive little mindless games for everyone's computer and release them at WalMart.
Again, I want to stress that I am not trying to 'disrespekk' any of 'the bruthahz' that made Torque possible, nor am I implying that simple, fun, graphically average games are a bad idea. Far from it, I think it's probably the best way to get started. However, I think that some of the more well-equipped dev teams should think *seriously* about targetting the high-end exclusively.
Just as another side effect -- a lot of these games could essentially be likened to a fun, PLAYABLE tech demo because of their simplicity. Think of the graphics, too! People would be saying 'Yah Torc gamz rox0r teh shat its teh gratest look at the screeniez'; even if the games don't run on everyone's computer, the screens would get circulated a LOT if they were graphically impressive. :) Especially since you could afford to be a LOT more impressive than the majority of games in development.
As always, just my $0.02
About the author
#2
09/07/2002 (4:59 am)
Honestly, I dont think many hardcore gamers that buy a ultra cool card for 500-1000$ is going to play any game from a indie game developer unless he/she personally puts it right under his/hers nose.
#3
I find myself in the situation of having to get nextgen graphiccards to be able to run builds I get from clients. And even though I'm getting them for development reasons, I'm excited about what they can do everytime I pick one up. Its very dissappointing to see that there are near to no games making use of the features the new card offers. If I came across games that do support that, I'd be happy, and if those games were more in the shareware price range, I'd pick them up in bigger numbers (i.e. buy any $5-$20 game that supports my new card that I can get my hands on).
Now I don't have too much time to play games. Someone buying the card to play games on it, will be even more motivated to go after little games that show off some capabilities and are fun to play on top of that.
I personally believe this is a very promising approach, for the developers it'd keep the development cycle short and the exposure factor big, which results in a boost in motivation (additionally to the money coming in, and even though that money isn't "big bucks", its still a lot more than 98% of the current GG projects will ever make).
Markus
09/07/2002 (6:06 am)
Actually he does have a point. If the game a) supports the card and b) is affordable (unlike e.g. console games) it'd be junkfood for the card owner.I find myself in the situation of having to get nextgen graphiccards to be able to run builds I get from clients. And even though I'm getting them for development reasons, I'm excited about what they can do everytime I pick one up. Its very dissappointing to see that there are near to no games making use of the features the new card offers. If I came across games that do support that, I'd be happy, and if those games were more in the shareware price range, I'd pick them up in bigger numbers (i.e. buy any $5-$20 game that supports my new card that I can get my hands on).
Now I don't have too much time to play games. Someone buying the card to play games on it, will be even more motivated to go after little games that show off some capabilities and are fun to play on top of that.
I personally believe this is a very promising approach, for the developers it'd keep the development cycle short and the exposure factor big, which results in a boost in motivation (additionally to the money coming in, and even though that money isn't "big bucks", its still a lot more than 98% of the current GG projects will ever make).
Markus
#4
09/07/2002 (7:15 am)
Sounds like a breath of fresh air to me...surely niche markets are what Indy gaming is all about?. Trying to attract the majority of the gaming community when the average casual gamer only buys the very big releases doesn't seem the way to go. IMO....
#5
09/07/2002 (7:17 am)
Rasmus, I think it would be alot easier to put an Indy game under the hardcore gamers nose than to market it to the mass market, thats the point...
#6
Sounds like a whole lot of programming, though. It's not like shaders are just going to suddenly appear in the torque engine...
09/07/2002 (7:30 am)
Well, I suppose some screensavers go for $5 or 10... so why not?Sounds like a whole lot of programming, though. It's not like shaders are just going to suddenly appear in the torque engine...
#7
That way the project stays within feasible ranges for the greenhorn developer team to complete. Remember, id and epic started that way. Nowadays people tend to apply stellar goals, that are totally out of reach given the financial and experience related resources available to them.
Markus
09/07/2002 (7:43 am)
That eyecandy is just one option obviously. Keeping the game small and simple with emphasis on the gameplay value (i.e. fun factor) is important.That way the project stays within feasible ranges for the greenhorn developer team to complete. Remember, id and epic started that way. Nowadays people tend to apply stellar goals, that are totally out of reach given the financial and experience related resources available to them.
Markus
#8
I disagree with this statement. The "average casual gamer" buys Bejewelled, and that is not a big release. It is easy to ignore the fact that if you play Tribes 2, you are not a casual gamer, nor are you probably aware of what a casual gamer plays or does not play. I found this out for myself when doing research for the types of games we could develop for sites such as Real and GG. Who knew that Collapse and Bejewelled sold so many copies? I surely didn't.
In the end, targeting high-end video cards might work for a few indies. But I think few indies have enough knowledge to do so, and as an indie game developer I'm more interested in the game than in the technology. I think this is the point that many people are making - that there are already too many people focusing purely (or even primarily) on technology. It's not a statement that you can't or shouldn't necessarily do it, it's just a statement that unfortunately too many people already think technology is more important than the rest of the game experience.
Funny thing here though. I've seen these types of threads littering the forums here and elsewhere. Yet, this is just talk. If people believe so much in such an idea, maybe they should do more than talk and simply do it. Then come back and tell your story. That would be cool.
09/07/2002 (9:01 am)
Quote:Trying to attract the majority of the gaming community when the average casual gamer only buys the very big releases doesn't seem the way to go. IMO....
I disagree with this statement. The "average casual gamer" buys Bejewelled, and that is not a big release. It is easy to ignore the fact that if you play Tribes 2, you are not a casual gamer, nor are you probably aware of what a casual gamer plays or does not play. I found this out for myself when doing research for the types of games we could develop for sites such as Real and GG. Who knew that Collapse and Bejewelled sold so many copies? I surely didn't.
In the end, targeting high-end video cards might work for a few indies. But I think few indies have enough knowledge to do so, and as an indie game developer I'm more interested in the game than in the technology. I think this is the point that many people are making - that there are already too many people focusing purely (or even primarily) on technology. It's not a statement that you can't or shouldn't necessarily do it, it's just a statement that unfortunately too many people already think technology is more important than the rest of the game experience.
Funny thing here though. I've seen these types of threads littering the forums here and elsewhere. Yet, this is just talk. If people believe so much in such an idea, maybe they should do more than talk and simply do it. Then come back and tell your story. That would be cool.
#9
But they are also the single most targeted niche in computer games.
The cost of entry for servicing this niche is huge, putting it well outside the reach of indie developers.
The idea of "finding your niche" implies that you find a niche of your *own*, a niche that you can dominate. Become a big fish in a small pond, so to speak. Well, the high-end gamer pond has quite a few big fish in it already. Hardly any room left to paddle about.
That's my take on this, anyway. You can draw your own conclusions.
-David
Samu Games
09/07/2002 (10:01 am)
High-end gamers are a niche, alright.But they are also the single most targeted niche in computer games.
The cost of entry for servicing this niche is huge, putting it well outside the reach of indie developers.
The idea of "finding your niche" implies that you find a niche of your *own*, a niche that you can dominate. Become a big fish in a small pond, so to speak. Well, the high-end gamer pond has quite a few big fish in it already. Hardly any room left to paddle about.
That's my take on this, anyway. You can draw your own conclusions.
-David
Samu Games
#10
This is where I think most people get tripped up.
Before I go any farther, I want to make sure everyone here understands that I am not pretending to fully understand the problems involved. I want everyone to understand that. I am not out there, 'in the trenches' with you guys. I really hope that some day I can join you, but I would currently have to sacrifice too many other personal goals and am not in a good position yet to pursue this and other activities. So I am NOT claiming to be any kind of expert.
So anyways:
I don't think that the expense would be all that great, actually. Let's consider a hypothetical example: Icy Tower (www.freelunchdesign.com). The programming for that game is VERY simple compared to what most of you guys are working on. How might one add graphical flair to what is just a vertical scroller?
Well, just slap the effects on until you reach the limit of the card(s) you're targetting. Bump mapping on everything. Realtime dynamic shadows all over. Super-high poly count on Harold the Homeboy. Maybe widen the POV andn show a background looking waaaay out over a (possibly prerendered, maybe not) background, with birds flying by occasionally, as Harold ascends the tower.
How hard would this be to program? I don't know. But the game programming itself would be VERY easy (relative to what some of you guys have ALREADY accomplished); the hard part would be, of course, the graphics programming.
But essentially, you're making a tech demo. The total art resources are very low. You need ONE character model, you need a circular tower, simple particle effects and you need platforms to jump to. You don't need to worry about LOD, network code, etc. Nor do you have to solve any problems graphically speaking. It's generally going to be a straightforward implementation, because you're not going to make a game where you're running all over a living, breathing world -- you'll be looking at one spot the whole time, displaying one model the whole time. You can heap the effects on like there's no tomorrow; you don't have to worry about optimizations or Levels of Detail or a way to load new resources on the fly or a way to make massive terrains or programming game AI.
I'm going to speculate a bit on this next point. So bear with me.
High-end graphics are only expensive to create when they need to be created for mass-market consumption.
Think about it. Look at the tech demos for the GeForce 2, GeForce 3, and GeForce 4 cards. How long did those take to develop? Look at the case of the 'Wolfman' demo. I think they spent 3 months or so on that, but what process was involved? Basically, they made an extremely high-end, extremely detailed model with lots of fur (using no new methods or processes, by the way; they just used a lot *more* of the traditional methods, ie ordinary down-home particle effects), and they scaled it down to run on the GeForce 4. In fact, they started working on that demo BEFORE the card was available, guessing at what the card would run! They barely tweaked the motha' at all.
Now, if you created a mass-market game with those effects, the amount of work would be IMMENSE. How do you store all of that information and all of the detail that a model of that complexity requires, and still have it look ok on a GeForce 3? A GeForce 2? Ugh.
I'd liken it to making a game for the XBOX. All of the consoles are the same. If it works on one, it works on another. You just take ONE approach and optimize the crap out of it. No scalability. And we're not talking about making a HALO, for instance. That game is WAY beyond the capability of these dev teams. But a Marble Blast, now . . . or, say, one of the party games from 'Fuzion Frenzy' . . . how hard would it be too add fancy-dancy graphics to a game of that simplicity and scope?
I don't know. I just want to get these ideas out in the open. A game with a dev cycle of 4 months or so (any 'fun, simple' game where the majority of the engine features and gameplay are easy to code thanks to an already-finished engine) would seem like the PERFECT way to target the high-end. Make no mistake, these high-end mofos WANT something to play with their card. They're probably getting a little irritated with running 3DMark 2001 a thousand times, waiting for that one game to come out that will really show off their card -- by which time another card is out which runs the game slightly better, but doesn't really have any game out there that shows off ITS abilities. The big game companies will try to target these guys, but they can only do so much; they have to make a profitable mass-market game and generally also a much more ambitious one, so their dev cycle will be too long to target the high-end guys until a year or even two years after their cards have been released.
Be honest here, guys. Bump mapping is a PRIME example. Games on the XBOX that use bump mapping look incredible; the visual difference is so unmistakable it's sad. So why the hell aren't there any PC games with bump mapping?!? Bump mapping has been perfectly practical ever since the GeForce 3 came out. How long ago was that? And we STILL don't have per-pixel effects in mainstream computer games!?! If an indy would have started developing even a more ambitious game upon the release of the GeForce 3, they could have a finished product right NOW, and they would DEFINITELY catch the eye of the gaming community if they used bump mapping . . . maybe even a guy with 'hair' like in the Woflman demo . . . oh, make no mistake, people WOULD buy that game, in significant enough numbers, especially if the title was priced to undercut the budget titles.
09/07/2002 (10:48 am)
Quote:High-end gamers are a niche, alright.
But they are also the single most targeted niche in computer games.
The cost of entry for servicing this niche is huge, putting it well outside the reach of indie developers.
This is where I think most people get tripped up.
Before I go any farther, I want to make sure everyone here understands that I am not pretending to fully understand the problems involved. I want everyone to understand that. I am not out there, 'in the trenches' with you guys. I really hope that some day I can join you, but I would currently have to sacrifice too many other personal goals and am not in a good position yet to pursue this and other activities. So I am NOT claiming to be any kind of expert.
So anyways:
I don't think that the expense would be all that great, actually. Let's consider a hypothetical example: Icy Tower (www.freelunchdesign.com). The programming for that game is VERY simple compared to what most of you guys are working on. How might one add graphical flair to what is just a vertical scroller?
Well, just slap the effects on until you reach the limit of the card(s) you're targetting. Bump mapping on everything. Realtime dynamic shadows all over. Super-high poly count on Harold the Homeboy. Maybe widen the POV andn show a background looking waaaay out over a (possibly prerendered, maybe not) background, with birds flying by occasionally, as Harold ascends the tower.
How hard would this be to program? I don't know. But the game programming itself would be VERY easy (relative to what some of you guys have ALREADY accomplished); the hard part would be, of course, the graphics programming.
But essentially, you're making a tech demo. The total art resources are very low. You need ONE character model, you need a circular tower, simple particle effects and you need platforms to jump to. You don't need to worry about LOD, network code, etc. Nor do you have to solve any problems graphically speaking. It's generally going to be a straightforward implementation, because you're not going to make a game where you're running all over a living, breathing world -- you'll be looking at one spot the whole time, displaying one model the whole time. You can heap the effects on like there's no tomorrow; you don't have to worry about optimizations or Levels of Detail or a way to load new resources on the fly or a way to make massive terrains or programming game AI.
I'm going to speculate a bit on this next point. So bear with me.
High-end graphics are only expensive to create when they need to be created for mass-market consumption.
Think about it. Look at the tech demos for the GeForce 2, GeForce 3, and GeForce 4 cards. How long did those take to develop? Look at the case of the 'Wolfman' demo. I think they spent 3 months or so on that, but what process was involved? Basically, they made an extremely high-end, extremely detailed model with lots of fur (using no new methods or processes, by the way; they just used a lot *more* of the traditional methods, ie ordinary down-home particle effects), and they scaled it down to run on the GeForce 4. In fact, they started working on that demo BEFORE the card was available, guessing at what the card would run! They barely tweaked the motha' at all.
Now, if you created a mass-market game with those effects, the amount of work would be IMMENSE. How do you store all of that information and all of the detail that a model of that complexity requires, and still have it look ok on a GeForce 3? A GeForce 2? Ugh.
I'd liken it to making a game for the XBOX. All of the consoles are the same. If it works on one, it works on another. You just take ONE approach and optimize the crap out of it. No scalability. And we're not talking about making a HALO, for instance. That game is WAY beyond the capability of these dev teams. But a Marble Blast, now . . . or, say, one of the party games from 'Fuzion Frenzy' . . . how hard would it be too add fancy-dancy graphics to a game of that simplicity and scope?
I don't know. I just want to get these ideas out in the open. A game with a dev cycle of 4 months or so (any 'fun, simple' game where the majority of the engine features and gameplay are easy to code thanks to an already-finished engine) would seem like the PERFECT way to target the high-end. Make no mistake, these high-end mofos WANT something to play with their card. They're probably getting a little irritated with running 3DMark 2001 a thousand times, waiting for that one game to come out that will really show off their card -- by which time another card is out which runs the game slightly better, but doesn't really have any game out there that shows off ITS abilities. The big game companies will try to target these guys, but they can only do so much; they have to make a profitable mass-market game and generally also a much more ambitious one, so their dev cycle will be too long to target the high-end guys until a year or even two years after their cards have been released.
Be honest here, guys. Bump mapping is a PRIME example. Games on the XBOX that use bump mapping look incredible; the visual difference is so unmistakable it's sad. So why the hell aren't there any PC games with bump mapping?!? Bump mapping has been perfectly practical ever since the GeForce 3 came out. How long ago was that? And we STILL don't have per-pixel effects in mainstream computer games!?! If an indy would have started developing even a more ambitious game upon the release of the GeForce 3, they could have a finished product right NOW, and they would DEFINITELY catch the eye of the gaming community if they used bump mapping . . . maybe even a guy with 'hair' like in the Woflman demo . . . oh, make no mistake, people WOULD buy that game, in significant enough numbers, especially if the title was priced to undercut the budget titles.
#11
Weighty topic. Lots of opinions.
First, let me say that I have always been in favor of making games take advantage of extra power. The game I'm working on now does not have that focus, so I am restraining from implementing shaders and the like until I know I have enough time to get them done (which will most likely never, ever happen). So naturally, I'm going to be biased towards the suggestion presented by the thread author.
Second, bump mapping has been available since the GeForce 256, I think. And DOT3 bump mapping (what you'd want to use) has been available since the GeForce 2. It actually isn't all that niche of an effect.
Third, I am more than fairly sure that the amount of work to implement a bunch of DX9 level features is being underestimated. All the bump maps need to be made, the light maps specified and the shader routines thoroughly debugged. Even if you plan on no backwards compatibility, it'd still be tough. As Melv May (or maybe it was Phil Carlisle (sp) ) said in another thread, the Torque rendering code is not really prepared for DX8+ features. A significant amount of development time would need be spent getting Torque to the place where it would be amenable to shaders.
Fourth, there are very few people in the world capable of actually programming shaders. Most of them are already working for a professional studio. I have done some basic shaders (really basic), and the math involved is fairly deep. Programming a Fresnel refract/reflect shader (both vertex and pixel) would be an large task for a fairly well-equiped graphics programmer. It would be impossible for the average Torque programmer. And now talk about creating a normal map generator plugin for 3DSMax plus generating algorithms and shaders to implement stencil buffer volumetric shadows, and we're talking a *heap* and a half of work. The good news is that more than one project should be able to use it once one project gets it right.
Fifth, it would be really hard to get enough competent (sp) indie graphics programmers to cover the whole game with the same level of detail. For instance, polybump mapping on the player models will look really weird next to the current waterblock code. I'm not sure if you could gather enough talent to work on the project from the Torque community.
Sixth, I agree that someone could target just the upper-crust market and it be worth it. Seriously, if y'all are expecting to make tons of money, the odds don't look so great. On the other hand, if you had a hand in making a great looking (effectively) tech demo for a card, that will look *extremely* nice on your portfolio. Granted, the possibility of making money is better than being a contributing part of such a project.
Seventh, this would be great for Torque as an engine. Honestly, do you think that the performance difference between the NV30 and Radeon 9700 (and 10000 later) is significant? No. It's the name and the hype. If people know that nVidia has the best card, they would rather be associated with nVidia than ATi. The same goes for Torque. It's a great engine. If it was shown, even only once, that Torque could be made to produce DX9 graphics, more developers would want to use Torque.
Eighth, I would like to suggest a more palatible (sp) alternative that John Carmack suggested. Implementing all of Doom III's features would be very tough for a small indie studio. Instead, go the route of non-photorealistic rendering. Or, if you prefer, stylistic rendering. The first step you can take is to make your game have a style all its own. Copying the Quake 3/Unreal Tournament 2003 future cyberpunk look will *not* help. The next step you might take would be cel shading, making everything look pencil drawn or some other non-photorealistic effect. Extensive use of particles or sprites may fit your game.
So yes, I wish someone would do it. I am about 1% confident that such a project would come to fruition, though.
09/07/2002 (12:09 pm)
Hmm.Weighty topic. Lots of opinions.
First, let me say that I have always been in favor of making games take advantage of extra power. The game I'm working on now does not have that focus, so I am restraining from implementing shaders and the like until I know I have enough time to get them done (which will most likely never, ever happen). So naturally, I'm going to be biased towards the suggestion presented by the thread author.
Second, bump mapping has been available since the GeForce 256, I think. And DOT3 bump mapping (what you'd want to use) has been available since the GeForce 2. It actually isn't all that niche of an effect.
Third, I am more than fairly sure that the amount of work to implement a bunch of DX9 level features is being underestimated. All the bump maps need to be made, the light maps specified and the shader routines thoroughly debugged. Even if you plan on no backwards compatibility, it'd still be tough. As Melv May (or maybe it was Phil Carlisle (sp) ) said in another thread, the Torque rendering code is not really prepared for DX8+ features. A significant amount of development time would need be spent getting Torque to the place where it would be amenable to shaders.
Fourth, there are very few people in the world capable of actually programming shaders. Most of them are already working for a professional studio. I have done some basic shaders (really basic), and the math involved is fairly deep. Programming a Fresnel refract/reflect shader (both vertex and pixel) would be an large task for a fairly well-equiped graphics programmer. It would be impossible for the average Torque programmer. And now talk about creating a normal map generator plugin for 3DSMax plus generating algorithms and shaders to implement stencil buffer volumetric shadows, and we're talking a *heap* and a half of work. The good news is that more than one project should be able to use it once one project gets it right.
Fifth, it would be really hard to get enough competent (sp) indie graphics programmers to cover the whole game with the same level of detail. For instance, polybump mapping on the player models will look really weird next to the current waterblock code. I'm not sure if you could gather enough talent to work on the project from the Torque community.
Sixth, I agree that someone could target just the upper-crust market and it be worth it. Seriously, if y'all are expecting to make tons of money, the odds don't look so great. On the other hand, if you had a hand in making a great looking (effectively) tech demo for a card, that will look *extremely* nice on your portfolio. Granted, the possibility of making money is better than being a contributing part of such a project.
Seventh, this would be great for Torque as an engine. Honestly, do you think that the performance difference between the NV30 and Radeon 9700 (and 10000 later) is significant? No. It's the name and the hype. If people know that nVidia has the best card, they would rather be associated with nVidia than ATi. The same goes for Torque. It's a great engine. If it was shown, even only once, that Torque could be made to produce DX9 graphics, more developers would want to use Torque.
Eighth, I would like to suggest a more palatible (sp) alternative that John Carmack suggested. Implementing all of Doom III's features would be very tough for a small indie studio. Instead, go the route of non-photorealistic rendering. Or, if you prefer, stylistic rendering. The first step you can take is to make your game have a style all its own. Copying the Quake 3/Unreal Tournament 2003 future cyberpunk look will *not* help. The next step you might take would be cel shading, making everything look pencil drawn or some other non-photorealistic effect. Extensive use of particles or sprites may fit your game.
So yes, I wish someone would do it. I am about 1% confident that such a project would come to fruition, though.
#12
09/07/2002 (12:52 pm)
Hmm, points taken. I'd never heard about Bejewelled, so I searched it out. It obviously doesn't fit the high technology scale of things though I would certainly say it is targeting a niche market.
#13
Still, especially with the 'C for Graphics'-style approach, writing shaders for an engine that already supports them should be no large problem.
The next point I'd hasten to make is that I'm not suggesting that indy devs try to implement all of the necessary upgrades to Torque. I think the amount of work needed to make Torque fully DX9-capable would be classified as at least CA, and possibly MCA*.
However, I am just presenting this general arguement for higher graphical standards if you think you can reasonably include them in your game from a workflow standpoint, ie, as long as implementing these features won't noticeably hamper your dev cycle.
Again, this would all be *highly* dependant on what kind of a game you are making and what kind of an audience you are targetting. But I just want to remind everyone of something:
You're here to make the games you WANT to make. I don't think making your game more graphically powerful will hurt your sales if you're making a game that will appeal to really hardcore gamers; in fact, it may well increase your appeal. Don't think "Damn, I would love to add this effect, this high-quality model, this dynamic lighting model, etc, and it would be easy to do, and would make the game look immensely better for everyone that plays it, but that feature is only supported on GeForce3's and up . . ." Or at least, don't think that if you don't have to. Remember, these games are gonna primarily be ESD. From the examples we have seen thus far of successful and unsuccessful ESD, you aren't going to survive on a massive commercial scale. You aren't going to come anywhere near retail sales (most likely). However, your costs are almost zero, and the fact that you aren't distributing retail and are making near 100% profit means that you can afford to take risks and target truly niche markets.
I guess I'm just trying to get people to have a more full understanding of the issues involved. GeForce 3's are starting to become the new 'standard' card included in home computers (although unfortunately the GF4 MX is also making a horrible, horrible headway :P). UT2003, the XBOX ports, the upcoming Doom game, Star Wars Galaxies, the next Everquest and Microsoft's shady rumblings of a fully 3D, DX9-based OS all point to a massive overhaul in game graphics. I agree 100% that trying to add DX9 functionality to Torque is a job beyond hope (other than a slow, gradual process), and that trying to make a full-sized commercial game is hard enough without trying to make it look state-of-the-art. So there are obviously trade-offs to be weighed.
But. For those of you guys out there that are making games that are (relatively) simple in scope -- give it a think, eh? :)
_______________________________
* CA 'Cubic Assload' -- MCA 'Massive Cubic Assload'
09/07/2002 (4:22 pm)
Thanks a lot for the reply. I have practiced a little shader programming (TOTALLY theory stuff; I have no idea how to, say, add shader support to an engine), and although I understand that full DX9 compatibility makes writing shaders WAY easier (and btw there are a lot of nice 3rd-party programs to help out with this), I definitely agree that it takes a good bit of expertise in a fairly specialized field.Still, especially with the 'C for Graphics'-style approach, writing shaders for an engine that already supports them should be no large problem.
The next point I'd hasten to make is that I'm not suggesting that indy devs try to implement all of the necessary upgrades to Torque. I think the amount of work needed to make Torque fully DX9-capable would be classified as at least CA, and possibly MCA*.
However, I am just presenting this general arguement for higher graphical standards if you think you can reasonably include them in your game from a workflow standpoint, ie, as long as implementing these features won't noticeably hamper your dev cycle.
Again, this would all be *highly* dependant on what kind of a game you are making and what kind of an audience you are targetting. But I just want to remind everyone of something:
You're here to make the games you WANT to make. I don't think making your game more graphically powerful will hurt your sales if you're making a game that will appeal to really hardcore gamers; in fact, it may well increase your appeal. Don't think "Damn, I would love to add this effect, this high-quality model, this dynamic lighting model, etc, and it would be easy to do, and would make the game look immensely better for everyone that plays it, but that feature is only supported on GeForce3's and up . . ." Or at least, don't think that if you don't have to. Remember, these games are gonna primarily be ESD. From the examples we have seen thus far of successful and unsuccessful ESD, you aren't going to survive on a massive commercial scale. You aren't going to come anywhere near retail sales (most likely). However, your costs are almost zero, and the fact that you aren't distributing retail and are making near 100% profit means that you can afford to take risks and target truly niche markets.
I guess I'm just trying to get people to have a more full understanding of the issues involved. GeForce 3's are starting to become the new 'standard' card included in home computers (although unfortunately the GF4 MX is also making a horrible, horrible headway :P). UT2003, the XBOX ports, the upcoming Doom game, Star Wars Galaxies, the next Everquest and Microsoft's shady rumblings of a fully 3D, DX9-based OS all point to a massive overhaul in game graphics. I agree 100% that trying to add DX9 functionality to Torque is a job beyond hope (other than a slow, gradual process), and that trying to make a full-sized commercial game is hard enough without trying to make it look state-of-the-art. So there are obviously trade-offs to be weighed.
But. For those of you guys out there that are making games that are (relatively) simple in scope -- give it a think, eh? :)
_______________________________
* CA 'Cubic Assload' -- MCA 'Massive Cubic Assload'
#14
The prime asset of any game is to get it into the hands of as many people as possible (preferably paying customers).
Now if you reduce that target in any way, its got to be a bad thing UNLESS by doing so you guarantee to make up sales in another area.
Most indie games do not live by being great graphical masterpieces, they are successful because theyre put into as many hands as possible and conversion from demo to full game happens.
Its strange, but typically the best indie type games are the ones with the lowest requirements, because demographically your customer base has like a p2 200 or something with a 8 meg 2D card.
Granted, you could adopt a higher-than-high end approach, but basically, your talking about coding demo's and no-one that I'm aware of apart from madonion have made any money from those.
One approach that COULD tie these two together is to add specific feature support into your game and try and get an OEM deal with a card manufacturer. For instance NPatch suppport for ATI or whatever. THAT makes a little commmercial sense.
I just dont see the high-end and low-end crossing over to anyone's advantage anytime soon. We are NOT competing with epic or Id. Nor should we be. Unless your focus is on trying to build a business out of making tech demo's.
Phil.
09/07/2002 (6:14 pm)
Youre kind of coming at it from the wrong end though. The job of indie game developers who want to be "professional" is to make money.The prime asset of any game is to get it into the hands of as many people as possible (preferably paying customers).
Now if you reduce that target in any way, its got to be a bad thing UNLESS by doing so you guarantee to make up sales in another area.
Most indie games do not live by being great graphical masterpieces, they are successful because theyre put into as many hands as possible and conversion from demo to full game happens.
Its strange, but typically the best indie type games are the ones with the lowest requirements, because demographically your customer base has like a p2 200 or something with a 8 meg 2D card.
Granted, you could adopt a higher-than-high end approach, but basically, your talking about coding demo's and no-one that I'm aware of apart from madonion have made any money from those.
One approach that COULD tie these two together is to add specific feature support into your game and try and get an OEM deal with a card manufacturer. For instance NPatch suppport for ATI or whatever. THAT makes a little commmercial sense.
I just dont see the high-end and low-end crossing over to anyone's advantage anytime soon. We are NOT competing with epic or Id. Nor should we be. Unless your focus is on trying to build a business out of making tech demo's.
Phil.
#15
Super high end eye-candy to be honest isn't hard relativly speaking (I mean effects not art). It's the backwards compatibility, and enormous support overheads etc. that are difficult. And endless optimisation to try and get it working on lower level cards.
This 'niche' market at the moment doesn't have any players because it lacks commercial sense to try and target it. This IS something that indies can target and it does bring rewards.
Think, if I pitched a game that NEEDED the highest end systems available at the time of release publishers would laugh at me. We don't have those restrictions! It's just that flawed corperate mindset come back to bite us.
Most of the people here could be considered hardcore, geez indy game making is probably as hardcore as it gets! Ask yourself (since you've probably got a high end system), would you buy a game that pushed your rig to the edge and was graphically years ahead of the competition? I would...
If you're a programmer, think how liberating it would be to only target the latest systems? It'd be nice wouldn't it!
Imho people need to target the approach that appeals to them. I've had friends since uni that really couldn't care less about games but have come up with graphics demos I wouldn't have though possible (running on the latest systems of course). Their motivation was to stay on the edge of graphics, not to support some 5 year outdated system. And if they could use that energy to complete and get a product to market... they're doing infinatly better than someone that takes 6 months to optimise for systems that are 2 years old.
My motivation is for lots of people to play my game though... so i'll be taking the low road ;)
09/09/2002 (4:23 am)
I think targeting the bleeding edge is definatly a valid approach. Since it'll eventually become mainstream anyway... and it just puts you ahead of the game.Super high end eye-candy to be honest isn't hard relativly speaking (I mean effects not art). It's the backwards compatibility, and enormous support overheads etc. that are difficult. And endless optimisation to try and get it working on lower level cards.
This 'niche' market at the moment doesn't have any players because it lacks commercial sense to try and target it. This IS something that indies can target and it does bring rewards.
Think, if I pitched a game that NEEDED the highest end systems available at the time of release publishers would laugh at me. We don't have those restrictions! It's just that flawed corperate mindset come back to bite us.
Most of the people here could be considered hardcore, geez indy game making is probably as hardcore as it gets! Ask yourself (since you've probably got a high end system), would you buy a game that pushed your rig to the edge and was graphically years ahead of the competition? I would...
If you're a programmer, think how liberating it would be to only target the latest systems? It'd be nice wouldn't it!
Imho people need to target the approach that appeals to them. I've had friends since uni that really couldn't care less about games but have come up with graphics demos I wouldn't have though possible (running on the latest systems of course). Their motivation was to stay on the edge of graphics, not to support some 5 year outdated system. And if they could use that energy to complete and get a product to market... they're doing infinatly better than someone that takes 6 months to optimise for systems that are 2 years old.
My motivation is for lots of people to play my game though... so i'll be taking the low road ;)
#16
I feel that all the time and energy spent making a game look pretty, can be spent making a game more fun to play. Really, if it had the slicker than snot graphics, i wouldnt play it for more than week, if the gameplay mechanics werent there.
How many XBOX games have been big sellers? 1-Halo. Sure they all look pretty, but what about the actual game? (although I havent looked recently at the current crop, this opinion is based on 5-6 games that Ive played evaluating wether I want a xbox or not...not)
Sure better tools for art is always a good thing, but I think that any indy's ticket into the industry, is going to be based on making something playable.
~myk
09/10/2002 (8:39 am)
Personally,I feel that all the time and energy spent making a game look pretty, can be spent making a game more fun to play. Really, if it had the slicker than snot graphics, i wouldnt play it for more than week, if the gameplay mechanics werent there.
How many XBOX games have been big sellers? 1-Halo. Sure they all look pretty, but what about the actual game? (although I havent looked recently at the current crop, this opinion is based on 5-6 games that Ive played evaluating wether I want a xbox or not...not)
Sure better tools for art is always a good thing, but I think that any indy's ticket into the industry, is going to be based on making something playable.
~myk
#17
It would be a small niche, and probably not an easy one to compete in with the big boys, even if they don't go to the extreme in the interest of a wider audience. But many gamers will buy a game cause it looks hella-cool and nothing else compares in that department. I've done it, and I imagine many of you would have to admit the same.
It seems like a valid approach to me - especially if you have a programmer with the knowledge to implement it.
09/10/2002 (11:10 am)
There are good arguments for both sides of this issue. My take is simple: when I got my very first brand-spanking new CD-ROM drive, what did I do? I bought Myst - at the same store, at the same time. I didn't do the research, I didn't check to see if I could cover the other requirements, I didn't even check to see if other people thought it was cool. I just bought it and took it home to play. Because I could.It would be a small niche, and probably not an easy one to compete in with the big boys, even if they don't go to the extreme in the interest of a wider audience. But many gamers will buy a game cause it looks hella-cool and nothing else compares in that department. I've done it, and I imagine many of you would have to admit the same.
It seems like a valid approach to me - especially if you have a programmer with the knowledge to implement it.
#18
Yes, that is an _extremely_ cynical point of view, but how do you think the vast majority of game companies stay in business? How many games get played for very long? It's a short freaking list. How many games were produced and kept a company in business? Much longer list there...
How about The Incredible Machine? With the greatest of regard for Jeff et al (as it was/is a _very_ cool game, well worth the money), who here can honestly say they still play it all the time. I played it intensely for a month or so. I loved every minute. Then I got lured away by another game that made me drool, and never really got back to TIM. It wasn't that TIM was a bad game - it rocked. But I moved on. That is 98% of all games in some small way. Unless you manage to own an audience, like Quake, UT or Half-life, your customers are most likely going to move on (and probably quickly) anyway.
Not to say that gameplay isn't the shiznit. It is. But I thing that Luc has pointed out a very valid niche. Not high-end gamers so much - more like gamers looking for something to drool over for a couple weeks until the next thing comes along. For not being very interactive, Myst sold a crap-load of copies, and I wouldn't say it really even _had_ much gameplay (more like a storyline and some relatively simple puzzles).
I am just being the devil's advocate here. Personally I would be embarrassed if a game that I was involved in turned out to have lame gameplay. And I would like to hope that my game would be played for millennia to come, remembered as a turning point in gameplay. But that would be pride talking. Practicality says to just sell the game as many times as possible, and to hell if it ever gets played for more than 10 minutes.
Like Luc suggests, a simple game that has good gameplay based on simple mechanics (like Tetris, etc) might get a nice boost from the kind of graphics attention the big boys can't afford to do yet.
As I said above, this is an _extremely_ cynical point of view. It isn't how I prefer to approach making a game at all, but I would be a fool not to factor it into my plans somewhere along the line.
09/10/2002 (11:25 am)
You want to make money? Sell games. Once the box is sold, does it really matter if the game is played or shelved? Not really.Yes, that is an _extremely_ cynical point of view, but how do you think the vast majority of game companies stay in business? How many games get played for very long? It's a short freaking list. How many games were produced and kept a company in business? Much longer list there...
How about The Incredible Machine? With the greatest of regard for Jeff et al (as it was/is a _very_ cool game, well worth the money), who here can honestly say they still play it all the time. I played it intensely for a month or so. I loved every minute. Then I got lured away by another game that made me drool, and never really got back to TIM. It wasn't that TIM was a bad game - it rocked. But I moved on. That is 98% of all games in some small way. Unless you manage to own an audience, like Quake, UT or Half-life, your customers are most likely going to move on (and probably quickly) anyway.
Not to say that gameplay isn't the shiznit. It is. But I thing that Luc has pointed out a very valid niche. Not high-end gamers so much - more like gamers looking for something to drool over for a couple weeks until the next thing comes along. For not being very interactive, Myst sold a crap-load of copies, and I wouldn't say it really even _had_ much gameplay (more like a storyline and some relatively simple puzzles).
I am just being the devil's advocate here. Personally I would be embarrassed if a game that I was involved in turned out to have lame gameplay. And I would like to hope that my game would be played for millennia to come, remembered as a turning point in gameplay. But that would be pride talking. Practicality says to just sell the game as many times as possible, and to hell if it ever gets played for more than 10 minutes.
Like Luc suggests, a simple game that has good gameplay based on simple mechanics (like Tetris, etc) might get a nice boost from the kind of graphics attention the big boys can't afford to do yet.
As I said above, this is an _extremely_ cynical point of view. It isn't how I prefer to approach making a game at all, but I would be a fool not to factor it into my plans somewhere along the line.
#19
How is this all relevant to the thread you ask? Luc sounds like he really cares about games. I cannot really tell if his motivation is related to making money or evolving games, but an approach like this would have the side effect of making game companies consider higher-end game development more and more, not to mention the high visibility a project like this would provide for any company so willing to tackle it.
My point? Go back and read my first paragraph again. Stop thinking about how you are gonna make money...indie development isn't the way to go to get rich. One day, we may all have to conform to the instructions of "dumbing down our games" from the publisher. We may have to add things we don't want because marketing decided it was more profitable, or we may have to eliminate something else for the same reason. The members of this community and communities like this all have one thing in common: We all love games and want more than anything to help make them for a living. So before you sign onto a company, or before you become your own and have to start considering the "money making aspects", make a stand for yourself, and for games. Your demo that goes into your portfolio isn't just to show companies what you can do, it is to show companies what you are about. It shows them what the fresh new ideas are. It shows them what the market really wants. We ARE the market people, and whatever you work on is something that you wanted, something that you saw was missing from the gaming world. Luc sees that high-end games are missing, and I totally agree. I don't have the experience myself, but anyone who does should consider this. It will change games, and it will make you shine when you want to join a company for a career. Where will games be in 10 years? What do you dream?
Jeremy "Ace Corban" Tilton
Ace Corban Productions
09/10/2002 (12:29 pm)
Luc, it's not a bad idea. I think what people get caught up into too quickly is the idea of making money. Money is all well and good, but if I had to, I'd be a pizza man on the side if I thought I could invest full days into making games. The purpose of being an indie developer is to one day become a proffessional. I do not think that a significant percentage of the members here are considering working for cheap forever. Most of us (I would imagine) are just starting and want something significant to show off our capabilities. The game development gurus are dying. I've read numerous reports of retiring members and the like. We are the future of games and I think that is often forgotten when people get involved in their game and start worrying about how much money it makes. My game...I told everyon on my team "We may not sell dime one, this is for experience." And I'll stand by that. From my short experience with this site, I have gotten the feeling that the makers of this site care first and foremost about games, and aspiring game developers. How is this all relevant to the thread you ask? Luc sounds like he really cares about games. I cannot really tell if his motivation is related to making money or evolving games, but an approach like this would have the side effect of making game companies consider higher-end game development more and more, not to mention the high visibility a project like this would provide for any company so willing to tackle it.
My point? Go back and read my first paragraph again. Stop thinking about how you are gonna make money...indie development isn't the way to go to get rich. One day, we may all have to conform to the instructions of "dumbing down our games" from the publisher. We may have to add things we don't want because marketing decided it was more profitable, or we may have to eliminate something else for the same reason. The members of this community and communities like this all have one thing in common: We all love games and want more than anything to help make them for a living. So before you sign onto a company, or before you become your own and have to start considering the "money making aspects", make a stand for yourself, and for games. Your demo that goes into your portfolio isn't just to show companies what you can do, it is to show companies what you are about. It shows them what the fresh new ideas are. It shows them what the market really wants. We ARE the market people, and whatever you work on is something that you wanted, something that you saw was missing from the gaming world. Luc sees that high-end games are missing, and I totally agree. I don't have the experience myself, but anyone who does should consider this. It will change games, and it will make you shine when you want to join a company for a career. Where will games be in 10 years? What do you dream?
Jeremy "Ace Corban" Tilton
Ace Corban Productions
#20
09/10/2002 (12:39 pm)
Oh, myk..don't get an XBox, the games suck. They will all be ported to PC because it is easy as hell to do, and will make Microsoft Millions more. Sony may be evil, but microsoft is more evil. And Nintendo is too cute to be evil..who doesn't have a gamecube? Forshame! GC, PS2, and a PC is all u need to play good games. 
Torque Owner Alexander Porter