GG is under appreciated

#21 @Anton: One of the nicest posts I've ever read!

Nick

#22

Quote:I disagree there's a small minority that ruins it.

For me, the vast majority of butt kissing morons that immediately wet themselves over every GG announcement ruins it for me.

Possibly the reason is to drown out the "members" who want everything for nothing.

That isn't directed to you just a comment in general.

#23 Yes. Torque is a great deal. Splendid engine, 100 bucks, whats not to like?

The problem that most amateur/hobbyist game designers are having with this though is...

add:

Good 3d Modeling tools: ($100-$5000)
Good BSP tools: (0-$450)
Good imaging tools: ($0-$2000)
A good C++ Compiler ($0-(whatever VC++ is costing these days))
TSE: $150
Synapse: $75 (I think)

Anyway, to be perfectly honest, its easy to see how a hobbyist can get disheartened, but hey... no one ever said that indy-style development was a cheap hobby. (granted, its no where near as expensive as yachting or something to that rich an extent, it still isn't a cheap thing for a little group of buddies to get into like paint ball).

Of course, therein lies the issue... you get all that you really need for about say... 200 bucks to get started (granted that you use as many free and cheap tools as you can). There really isn't that much to complain about, since you really don't need all of the greatest stuff if you are just doing it as a hobbyist anyway.

Then, you have that, in a perfect world, one could just release their tools for non profit use and then allow people who want to use it commercially to pay the price for it... on the otherhand, there is usually abuse when that sort of thing takes place, so that wouldn't really work to well... would it.

I happen to be using Torque to create a freeware game myself... and I'll admit to getting just a tiny bit annoyed when I see every dts exporter plugin being charged the tiny little 40 bucks for (I use 3dsmax, so it doesn't affect me, so I really don't have any right to complain anyway), but I really don't think that much of it... if I don't have the money for something or just plain old don't think something is worth the cash, then I don't buy it... simple as that.

All that being said, I love to support Garagegames... I do intend to buy TSE and Synapse and Constructor as soon as I see these products working to a sound degree and in cooperation with one another (TSE and Synapse in particular...) and I might even go ahead and buy T2D if I ever get the urge to make some sort of old school game. In the meantime however, I'm not going to complain about how much they cost (very little in comparison to similar technology) or the amount of volume of "nickle and dime" goods available (all the more modularity and power to the purchaser really).

#24 Dark Basic and Blitzmax are toys really... the very thought of releasing any kind of full game with them is mind boggling.

What people are really annoyed at is the constant bombardment of new things which make development more accessable to hobbyists, yet costs additional money. Tools like Torque Constructor appeal to people who don't like Hammer and Quark, who just happen to usually be those hobbyists in the first place, so it makes a sort of twisted sense that these people, who don't exactly have a ton of money in the first place, are a little resistant towards spending extra money.

#25 I agree... Torque is a Serious engine for serious Indies to make Serious games :-)

Those BASIC and other game-starter-builder kits are fine and dandy to learn from, but are toys really.
Toys to play with.

Like OHRRPGCE

#26

Quote:Dark Basic and Blitzmax are toys really... the very thought of releasing any kind of full game with them is mind boggling.

Ummm....

www.retro64.com

All done with Blitz3D (except maybe Platypus, which I think was done in C++).

Mike Boeh is making a living doing this, so I guess your mind should now be boggled. He's not the only one. Also, I believe Aerial Antics, available here at GarageGames, was also done with Blitz. Now, imagining something the size of Lore being done in Blitz is perhaps a little scary. But you can create real games and make real money using these other tools, too. And guess what? There are a bunch of tools for Blitz that are out there that cost extra money, too...

But Robert has hit the nail on the head. Torque is an "industrial strength" engine capable of making games as big or as small as you want. If you've never made a game before, and you are blaming your lack of productivity on inadequate tools, chances are you are trying to run a marathon before you have learned to crawl, and you are blaming your shoes. GG's tools are insanely low-priced for their features, and if you can't recognize that, you need to spend some time really, honestly taking a look at what else is out there, and what the true cost of ownership is. I think GG has actually driven the price down on some of the competition over the last couple of years.

Anyway, I feel another Pat Wilson-style rant going on here, so I'm gonna stop now.

#27 "There's a flip side of the coin."

Well, actually, that is pretty much exactly what I was saying... just I didn't have an example to go on... but its indeniable that hobbyists will be resistant to spend more money.

And no Jay, that didn't change my mind... what I see there are all simple arcade games without much real length... and in today's mindset, more of a miniproject than a fullblown game.

I believe that its safe to say that programmers left the basic language because it has an inneficient coding system rather than because it couldn't handle a proper graphics engine...

#28

Quote:what I see there are all simple arcade games without much real length... and in today's mindset, more of a miniproject than a fullblown game.

sorry, I just feel compelled to comment on this.. making, completing, shipping, marketing, negotiating distribution, and supporting ANY game is hard. I look up to everyone that does it, no matter what tools they use.

#29 I wanted to say thanks for this thread. I discovered it while sick in bed, mostly from not taking care of myself getting ready for and during GDC - the entire team gave 200%.

There are times we maybe listen too closely to those who either don't understand our mission or appreciate the fact that we're empowering indies to do something that really wasn't possible when we began.

We're very passionate about being non-evil tool and publishing partners for those wanting to build there dreams as independent game developers. We spend a great deal of time making sure we have a strong value proposition with new tools, both for their developers and for our customers - I don't think anyone minds that John Kabus, Dave Wyand or Melv May see some economic benefit from their hard work.

The community that as grown up around Torque and GG is amazing, it embraces those early in the learning curve, encourages those finding their 'game skillz' and contributes back shared resources and solutions.

Its taken nearly six years to start to see the strides that GG is making this year - not because it wasn't in the business plan since the beginning, but its taken a lot of hard work from GG and this community to get here. Thanks for telling others about GG and contributing back to Torque and continuing to support our efforts to make making games as painless and fun as it is to play them.

#30 "sorry, I just feel compelled to comment on this.. making, completing, shipping, marketing, negotiating distribution, and supporting ANY game is hard. I look up to everyone that does it, no matter what tools they use."

Granted... but my key point in example is that the tools in question aren't as efficient for development for a major project as something like Torque.

#31 @Jonathan:
I can't disagree with your point - Torque is much better for dealing with larger-scope project than Blitz or many of these other tools. But I just object to dismissing some very successful or critically acclaimed games as toys or mere mini-games.

A lot of people coming into the GG community immediately have stars in their eyes about a MAJOR STEPENDOUS SUPER-PROJECT that they are gonna create as soon as they can get a team of a dozen people together. And I think it's a credit to Torque's engine and the great efforts of the GG team that people believe this.... it makes what seemed impossible look possible (and, perhaps, even look easy at first). The engine is certainly powerful enough to do that - but people tend to fail to realize the massive amount of effort it takes to just release a relatively simple game such as Aerial Antics, Bugatron, Orbz, Ricochete, or Heavy Weapon. Heck, Void War isn't quite as "big" of a game as, say, Lore --- but that sucker consumed 18 months of my life and a great deal of effort from about a half-dozen other people. No, it wasn't full-time effort, but it was a lot of long hours and out-of-pocket expenses. (And yeah - if I had to do it all again, I would have started with Torque and shaved about 6-9 months off of that time...)

I think people need to realize that you don't need to be the next Halo or Final Fantasy or World of Warcraft to succeed. Yes, TGE (and, soon, TSE) is up to the task of creating games of that size and scope if you and your are capable of undertaking it. That's ridiculously cool that we have tools available with that capability for so cheap.

But my guess is we're gonna start seeing some awesome Torque2D games coming through in the near future that are going to rock, and be great achievements, some may be big sellers, but none of them are going to contest Halo 2 for size and scope. I think it's a Good Thing - I've seen way too many games coming out of the AAA factories these days that suffer from "kitchen sink" design (as in, they've got everything but the...), and it actually weakens the game. Give me a tight, highly focused, well-polished game any day, so long as it has ENOUGH content to hold my interest for a few hours - that's what a Good Game should be, indie or no.

We've got the tools here to do just that. And my hat is off to GG for not only providing the tools to do this at a price point that is almost no barrier to entry, but also providing a publishing / distribution / marketing outlet for us. Like I said, they have made a business out of helping small, independent game developers be successful - and that just rocks.

#32 When I say "toys", I use the word comparatively. When it comes to creational tools like Dark Basic and Blitzbasic and such stuff as that, you quite simply will never have the full functionality of a c++ engine. In that sense, its the difference of playing with the big boys or staying in the kiddy pool to make a similar analogy. What I am really trying to say about the games is that they are simple and not exactly the modern project you get with an engine that is truly intended for widespread commercial use.

And as for 2D games... no one ever said those have to be small either. All of the old 16 bit wonders were 2D (exempting a very... very small minority) and some of them had rather large development teams to boot.

My point remains however, that any tool that is intended to make developing a game easier than a hard coded C++ engine is almost destined to fail, if for no other reason than the fact that they appeal to those who don't want to learn a true language.

I do suppose however, that it is a folly and a personal quirk of mine to see a widescale project as superior to a simpler arcade type game. Its just the sort of thing that lures one in with its grandiose scale I suppose.

#33 Jonathan,

I understand your point, and on some points I agree.. but don't put too much stock in the tools. Years ago, access to technology was the limiting factor. This is no longer the case, and with tools like TGE, it is no longer expensive.

As for the grandiose games.. having worked on a few big titles, I can say for certain, that for me, the charm of large products has worn off. Large projects are not better, they are just bigger.. and the kitchen sink mentality of the latest crop of products leaves me wanting.. and looking for clear, fresh ideas and well executed gameplay.

I think of something as huge as 'Enter the Matrix', and to me, it does not hold a candle to something like the brilliantly executed 'sumo' mode in Gish.. which is just total pure fun.. and extrememly well executed.

better is in the eye of the beholder, and it is a shame that you are measuring quality by the pound.

When it comes to my own 'standard'.. I will take a completed 2d game written in flash over a half done, half implemented, 'big' game any day.

Tools don't make games.. tools make it easier to make better products faster.. but we should all remember that it is the people using the tools that make games.

#34 When you use a C++ engine, you never have the full functionality of an assembly engine coded from the ground up for the processor and graphics card that you are targetting. Defining "true" games by language is impractical. Procedurally creating a FPS using assembler code rather than utilizing Unreal/Quake/TGE/what-have-you is more programatically impressive, but unless it is a fully realized game it doesn't really matter what the language for development (which some games made in "toy" engines such as Byond and GameMaker have more gameplay content than some commercial games on the market). Just because C++ is the current industry standard doesn't mean that any game of note has to be programmed in it.

For example games from Treasure could be programmed in Flash, and I've had more fun from Radiant Silvergun, Gunstar Heroes, Ikaruga, Mischief Makers, and Sin and Punishment than I've had from most huge titles. In fact, I paid for a second copy of Radiant Silvergun after it was horrendously expensive because it is easily one of the most entertaining games that I own and I play it more than any other title in my library (though Devil May Cry holds a candle to it and Guilty Gear XX and Virtua Fighter EVO are distant in the gameplay department).

But some of my favorite games are based on strong gameplay elements. And a number of them could have been programmed in any language. Majong is an excellent puzzle game...and there's a version of it here on GG that was made in DarkBASIC. It's an excellent title. I guess since it's traditional, it's base and a toy. A chess game, which holds more prevalence in every AI algorithm within computer science than most any other game in history, could be considered a toy as well. Aerial Antics was created in Blitz3D, and it's as much fun as its spiritual brother Pilot Wings.

Tetris can be programmed in almost any language (including UnrealScript), and while it is a simple puzzle game, it has more content and gameplay potential than most huge commercial releases in the last couple of years. And I love a lot of the games that have been released, but I don't necessarily want to play 99% of the big releases that I own. And I own a lot of games. Yay disposable income.

I'm currently working on an adventure game in Torque 2D. All of my prototyping is done in TorqueScript. While I would see it as a "fully realized game", I can understand how people would consider it a toy game especially since the adventure game market is now nearly non-existent. I would disagree if the argument was language based, but if it was an argument based on me not being in the large-scale market, I'd accept it. I'm not in that market. I doubt I will ever be. As a hobbyist, I'm actually content to never be in that market. Some people see TGE/TSE/etc as the first step into the industry. I know a lot of people "in the industry" in a number of levels from programming to art content to business law to promotions and production, and I don't want to be there. It's great for them right now. They've "made it". I don't want to "make it" in that context.

Sure, I could create it in C/C++ with SDL, but does it really matter if I create my own engine from scratch or if I leverage off of Melv's excellent work? If the language argument is key, then why not extend it to creating one's engine from scratch? Torque may be in C++, but it does a lot of work that could be done better in an implementation specific sense. So why not create your own engine from scratch rather than use a toy. Sure, it's a programmer's toy, but still...it does too much work.

#35 Hey, I love Gunstar Heroes as much as anybody, and I'm aware that it could be made in Flash today... but it really wouldn't be the same. It would really just be another clone, and yes, to be honest, I don't like Majhong that much, and I really don't see much of a reason to run out and buy another one... just because it is a Dark Basic Indy version.

Now... the problem I actually have with game made in Dark Basic or another such program is that the languages lack structure and efficiency, and in many cases (though not all) modularity. More so than that, however, it is because the people who prefer these tools to a hard coded Engine often do so because they lack the programming skills required to create a c++ project. To get to a key point, the people who are going to choose (generally) to use these languages quite simply aren't likely to create something that is going to "blow me away".

Now... on the issue of the volume of a game... let us not be naieve here. Volume most certainly adds something to a game, granted that the game has a likable gameplay in the first place. I happen to like massive games with tons of stuff to do such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (I use SA in particular because of it being just that much bigger than the other 2 current GTA games), partially because of the mass of the game adding to the immersion factor. If a game is big, but truly fun, then the player (usually) won't get bored of the game until he or she is finished... which in turn is a longer period of time having fun, which is to say... more fun. If a game has extremely tight gameplay, but only takes an hour to master, a player will likely play the game many times over, but each repetitive play can drain on the initial fun factor involved in the discovery aspect of play. To say that volume isn't important is just to be in denial really.

To close, I'm not saying that I hold volume above gameplay... I'm merely saying that a balance helps.

Now... my problem with your argument Mr. Blake, is that the games you mention are all clones... lacking a lot of originality in themselves, and generally intended to mimic another game to the letter. Majhong has been done again and again and the same can be said for Tetris. Further still, these actually do aid in the toy definition, seeing as I can buy a cheap little black and white handheld for Tetris or Majhong and use it as a Christmas stocking stuff (or Easter consolation prize, to be in the right season.

"chess game, which holds more prevalence in every AI algorithm within computer science than most any other game in history, could be considered a toy as well."

Let's be honest now... the problem isn't that it could, but that it won't. Someone who is that talented with AI will almost certainly be an adroit C++ programmer in the first place, and I doubt on seeing to many talented C++ programmers switching over to Dark Basic or Flash to make a game that isn't just for kicks or web content.

"So why not create your own engine from scratch rather than use a toy."
The difference with Torque of course being that you get the source and a highly modular engine.

#36

Quote:Now... on the issue of the volume of a game... let us not be naieve here. (snip) To say that volume isn't important is just to be in denial really.

How do you figure? In the past few years, I have actually decided against buying games because they are too big. In terms of RTS games, I pretty much have left the genre because the games have gotten too big and too complex for my tastes.

In terms of having a user base that enjoys playing a small game, we have people who have been playing our game for a few years.. they are drawn to it's simplicity, and they find great depth in the complexity of the interactions of the simple elements (and playing online).

To call in naive and being in denial is WAY off base. There are people out there who enjoy the smaller 'bite-sized' experience. I fully understand your metirc for quaity, but your metric is not universal.

I will bring up chess because it is one of my favorite games. Not in a techncial sense, but in the sense of pure gameplay. Chess as a game is brilliantly designed. It works with the simplest of technologies (pieces of wood), and is amazingly deep, and it does not have a mountain of content. As a game creator, it would be wise to reexamine your stance as it will allow you to broaden your mind when thinking about gameplay.

To me, as an individual that is aspiring to be a great game designer, I can only dream of someday creating something as complex (and with such elegant simplicity) as chess. To me, this is the high watermark.. in truth, covering up weak gameplay or a one-trick-pony game mechanic with a mountain of content is a sign of weak design.. not great design.

In terms of technology, I (and I don't think anyone) is going to deny that a more robust set of tools (like the TGE/T2D) will allow you to create better work.. but it is my opinion that it is not wise to dismiss anything because of what was used to create it or look down your nose at anyone for using 'toys' to create good work.

Good work is good work.. no matter what was used to create it.

#37

Quote:In terms of technology, I (and I don't think anyone) is going to deny that a more robust set of tools (like the TGE/T2D) will allow you to create better work.. but it is my opinion that it is not wise to dismiss anything because of what was used to create it or look down your nose at anyone for using 'toys' to create good work.

Joe put my thoughts much more consicely that I have previously in this thread.

Trying to justify handhelds as a "toy" is interesting, though. But I think that it's confusing buying something labeled a "toy" with a game that is a "toy". If handhelds are toys, then any game for the PSP, DS, GBA, etc are "toys". If it's based on price-point, do "games" that hit the bargain bin suddenly become "toys"? If it's based on a singular game-based handheld, is it the emulation factor what turns it from being a highly successful "game" (say, Tetris when it was first released) or a "toy". Does a company re-releasing a game for another platform (a clone of the original game, often with extras) make it a toy? If it's language based, then would a Chess or Majong title suddenly move from "toy" status to "game" status if it were created in C++ rather than DarkBASIC or Blitz or VB or COBOL or Ruby or Python or Perl or Java or Flash? There are too many variables to create a compelling and logical argument for what makes up a game and what makes up a toy.

I think that there are so many semantic issues that we're confusing terms in each others arguments and applying our own context outside of the original intent to further our own suppositions. Suppositions that are often based in conjecture, misinformation, and a lack of context.

Quote:Having been a contributor for both darkbasic classic, and then move on to beta testing and helping evolve the blitz3d platform, I must say while both are interesting basic development kits, they are NOT engines.

Agreed. They are wrapper languages in which the developer has to create their own engine using BASIC syntax.

#38 First, lets throw multiplayer games out of the content scene, seeing as a strong presence of an online community is in a sense content of its own. I happen to like Think Tanks a good bit, I liked a lot of Garage Games distributed games actually... and yes, I think Torque2D has plenty of potential, and I do find scripting langauges a great way to prototype code. Anyway, on to the satirical and somewhat syllogistic argument now...

Terribly sorry, but I was under the impression that Indy games usually were better off having a nich'e appeal... not merely being clones of Chess, Tetris, and Majhong over and over again. While we are at it, let's go ahead and mention how awesome a brand new Solitaire project using Dark Basic would be.

(And by the way, Dark Basic and Blitz3D are engines... they just happen to be graphics engines with no extra code, pretty much stripped to the core in a way that makes the coding take on the entire vissage of the product. Since the programmer really has nothing to program in graphics engine department, I do believe that qualifies, from a technical standpoint at least, the program to build from an already existent engine does it not? Regardless of a physics engine and other aspects of gameplay not being precoded into the overall engine, the presence of that graphics engine means a lot...)

And another thing... regarding toys. When I am talking about a 1 game handheld that displays on a black and light green screen with premaid calculator esque displays, I do believe that qualifies it for a toy. When talking about a machine capable of realtime rendering with a graphics engine that can actually exchange media to play different games that aren't merely built in programs, then we are talking about something that resembles a PDA more than a mere toy. Getting with the modern era (yes, something that anyone who doesn't want to be left behind should think about doing, something that requires letting go of nostalgia and realizing that the casual gamer isn't the likliest person to stop into a place like Garagegames, and realizing that thinking that games which predate the Commodore 64 and even the old Ataris are great ideas for Indies to pursue commercially probably isn't going to attract the most customers) it no longer makes sense to regard every single clone that comes out from an Indy developer as a sensible venture.

Anyway, one of my key points here is that Independent Game Developers, and by that, I don't mean the strict hobbyists, should appeal to an audience that actually consider's buying games online, an audience that doesn't usually buy their games out of a Walmart bargain bin, an audience that quite simply screams "gamer". The funny thing about gamers who actually use the internet... is that the most common kind is the type which loves an interesting, involving game, with depth AND volume, and do guess what... they for the most part already own a (if not multiple) copy of Majhong, Tetris, Solitaire, and even Pacman. An Independent Game Developer can not thrive on cheap remakes of old (albiet timeless classics... which you can get for FREE!) games which everyone on pretty much the entire face of the planet (ok, ok, I understand there are a few tribal nations which don't quite get the grasp on electricity or plumbing yet, but let's be reasonable here) has already played to death over and over again.

(Continued in post 2)

#39 Think back to one of the key ideals of the Indy Game... to take the risk and make the game that is unique, or as was described by Garage Games in an ever popular ad, make the massively multiplayer puzzle poker game or the Turn Based First Person Shooter... but jeez, don't constantly preach that Tetris and Pong can keep up in a world of Grand Theft Autos and Dark Horizons Lores (keeping an example of incredulity from both the commercial scene and the Indy scene). All the people Iv'e ever known to look for Indy games always wanted a break from same old same old... not a game that has been played several times by everyone from A to Z.

Back on the issue of volume...

The vast majority of people out there don't get dissuaded by a large game. Most realize that if they need to or if they get bored, they can just stop playing and go back to it later. How volume can actually be a detracting value to someone when they seek to buy a game is, to my mode of thought at least, mind boggling. On the otherhand, hey... I like ongoing series and 9 hour movies that are good... but perhaps that is because I realize that I can watch the end later on or just quite simply don't have to ingest the whole thing at once. Condemning that "Everything but the Kitchen Sink (and sometimes that to)" Method is more or less condemning a successul, large project simply because it was large.

"Does a company re-releasing a game for another platform (a clone of the original game, often with extras) make it a toy?"

To me? More or less, yes, granted that the original concept is dated and has been done many many times (oh wait... that cancels a whole lot of stuff out eh? I mean, Resident Evil's remake has never been done by over 30000 times by various freeware programmers now has it?)

"If it's language based, then would a Chess or Majong title suddenly move from "toy" status to "game" status if it were created in C++ rather than DarkBASIC or Blitz or VB or COBOL or Ruby or Python or Perl or Java or Flash?"

No, of course not. But seeing as Chess and Majhong are board games to start with, there is no real originality, and both have been cloned by hobbyists a million times over, they have lost a great deal of their initial appeal.

To be certain, there will always be a lot of exceptions. However, the point still holds that BASIC will never be a highly reverred and respected language in professional development, and while what is good for the goose is not nessecarily good for the gander, it is fairly likely that 2 moderately different size dogs eat the same dog food.

"(say, Tetris when it was first released)"
Easy enough... When Tetris was first released, it was a simple game of a revolutionary genre. Now it is a simple game of a genre that is old and its been done more than any other game in existence with the potential exception of Pong.

Now... lets get back to the key point in origin here...

"In terms of technology, I (and I don't think anyone) is going to deny that a more robust set of tools (like the TGE/T2D) will allow you to create better work.. but it is my opinion that it is not wise to dismiss anything because of what was used to create it or look down your nose at anyone for using 'toys' to create good work."

(Continued in post 3)

#40 No one ever said to. My point, however was that Blitz3D and Dark Basic are in no way true competitors to the tech specs of a hard coded C++ engine like Torque. Blitz and Dark are intended for hobbyists and experimentors who are interested in the industry and either lack to resources or the skills to do it all on their own. (and of course, there are always... ALWAYS exceptions, but for the sake of the argument, I'm considering generic case).

"There are too many variables to create a compelling and logical argument for what makes up a game and what makes up a toy."

Oh, certainly... but when a concept remains relatively unchanged for over 20 years and is rehashed over and over again, so many of the variables are passed that it becomes a lot easier to classify it in the toy department.

And yeah, looking back at my original words in the argument against creational programs, I do suppose I came off a little harsh with the simple "toy" branding... but do understand that most things need to be thought of on a comparative level, and I think in the terms of C++ engines being considerably more tangible and powerful than engines which rely on a static graphics engine and somehow keeping BASIC code efficient. I reppeal the toy statement in the sense of being insulting, but I do stick firm to my decision that C coded engines, which are intended primarily for commercial endeavors, will always have the leg up on Basic based engines which are intended for learners and hobbyists.