T2d Vs. Tgb
by Jared Coliadis · in Torque Game Builder · 02/14/2006 (8:28 pm) · 70 replies
Hello everybody. I've read in the recent newsletter that T2D is going to start going by the initials TGB to reduce confusion when it comes to newcomers/ the mainstream audience. People would see the 2D part of the moniker and see it as a limitation. I argue that the opposite holds true. Changing the name from Torque 2D to Torque Game Builder will only create more confusion.
Example 1: If I was a newcomer to GG's site, I would see three products: Torque Game Engine, Torque Shader Engine, and Torque Game Builder. First and foremost, I would question the difference between a Game Engine and a Game Builder. Being that I would be someone looking into making quality games, I would want an engine to do help me out. Seeing the word "builder" immediately makes me think that this isn't actually a game engine, but rather something dumbed down to "build" my game for me. I would completely ignore the real power that is Torque 2D: a quality game engine for needs that TGE can't easily provide.
Example 2: As an experienced 2D indie developer looking for a new engine to power my new "Super match-em-up-turbo-plus" game, I'm looking for something a little more than Flash can provide, but nothing with too much overhead. I stumble upon GG's site and see the same list: Torque Game Engine, Torque Shader Engine, and Torque Game Builder. Being an experienced developer, I first avert from the "builder", which gives me an image of code automation that I do not want to deal with. I look at the Torque Shader Engine first and try out the demo since shaders are the "new" thing in game development. It looks nice, but is way out of scope for my needs. I check out the Torque Game Engine second only to come to a similar conclusion. Almost giving up my search after deciding that these products are more than I need, I decide that I might as well try out the Torque Game Builder. This is exactly what I need! If only it had a more specific name as to what it is, I would have saved myself some time and saved GG some bandwidth!
My conclusion: As a name, the Torque 2D Game ENGINE makes the most sense. "Builder"s have bad associations (why isn't T2D considered an engine?), and dropping "2D" from the name altogether is misleading if not confusing. It's a great product, but it's mostly for a niche audience. I bought it because I wanted to make 2D games. I most likely would not have noticed it if it didn't have the 2D in the title.
Have a good day,
/Jared.
P.S. Expect a .plan in a week or so with some more tantalizing updates about the Adventure Core. Let's just say that there was a Great Undertaking Involved. ;)
Example 1: If I was a newcomer to GG's site, I would see three products: Torque Game Engine, Torque Shader Engine, and Torque Game Builder. First and foremost, I would question the difference between a Game Engine and a Game Builder. Being that I would be someone looking into making quality games, I would want an engine to do help me out. Seeing the word "builder" immediately makes me think that this isn't actually a game engine, but rather something dumbed down to "build" my game for me. I would completely ignore the real power that is Torque 2D: a quality game engine for needs that TGE can't easily provide.
Example 2: As an experienced 2D indie developer looking for a new engine to power my new "Super match-em-up-turbo-plus" game, I'm looking for something a little more than Flash can provide, but nothing with too much overhead. I stumble upon GG's site and see the same list: Torque Game Engine, Torque Shader Engine, and Torque Game Builder. Being an experienced developer, I first avert from the "builder", which gives me an image of code automation that I do not want to deal with. I look at the Torque Shader Engine first and try out the demo since shaders are the "new" thing in game development. It looks nice, but is way out of scope for my needs. I check out the Torque Game Engine second only to come to a similar conclusion. Almost giving up my search after deciding that these products are more than I need, I decide that I might as well try out the Torque Game Builder. This is exactly what I need! If only it had a more specific name as to what it is, I would have saved myself some time and saved GG some bandwidth!
My conclusion: As a name, the Torque 2D Game ENGINE makes the most sense. "Builder"s have bad associations (why isn't T2D considered an engine?), and dropping "2D" from the name altogether is misleading if not confusing. It's a great product, but it's mostly for a niche audience. I bought it because I wanted to make 2D games. I most likely would not have noticed it if it didn't have the 2D in the title.
Have a good day,
/Jared.
P.S. Expect a .plan in a week or so with some more tantalizing updates about the Adventure Core. Let's just say that there was a Great Undertaking Involved. ;)
#2
02/14/2006 (8:51 pm)
I think my concern is that calling it a "builder" is cheapening the potential it has. It begs the question "What is an engine?" T2D is an engine, and a very nice one at that. Why stop it short?
#3
02/14/2006 (8:55 pm)
Also consider it from a product identification standpoint. At first glance, how is someone to know that TGE is 3D and TGB is 2D? TSE can be immediately identified from TGE if the customer knows what a shader is. There isn't an immediate product identification between TGE and TGB. The ambiguity seems to be a hinderance, in my opinion.
#4
Furthermore, I don't want any more naming conventions changed in T2D... from fxstaticSprite2D... to T2DstaticSprite... to TGBstaticSpriteGold. *wink*
02/14/2006 (9:33 pm)
I've noticed the rise in use of the term "TGB". I don't like the name change, either... T2D works. I see the name and I know what it is. Then again, the name change isn't meant for the people who already own the buil... I mean, engine.Furthermore, I don't want any more naming conventions changed in T2D... from fxstaticSprite2D... to T2DstaticSprite... to TGBstaticSpriteGold. *wink*
#5
The nice thing about T2D (sorry, it will always be T2D in my mind) is that you don't have to use it the way it's intended. It's based on the incredbly powerful Torque platform and the same things that apply to TGE and TSE apply to T2D, at least in part. Personally, I work with T2D in the same way I work with TGE/TSE ... that is, roughly 40% C++ and 60% script. To me, all T2D is is a bunch of code that saves me having to write 2D rendering code. In short, T2D is what you make of it ... regardless of the official name.
All that said, changing the name of all the classes etc again would be fairly annoying. However, its probably best to expect that the names WILL change and plan accordingly. From the new end user perspective, buying this thing called TGB and then seeing t2d everywhere in the code would be pretty confusing. In any case, I would guess that a second name change, whilst pretty annoying, would not be anywhere near as bad as the first one. Just changing the class names is simply a matter of search an replace on your scripts; the first name change was more tricky because a lot of member (and function/method ? I forget) names were also changed.
Just my 2 cents. The usual "I'm just an associate, I don't work for GG, this is all my opinion and I don't know the official word" disclaimer applies.
T.
02/14/2006 (10:32 pm)
Although T2D is a very powerful engine, it is aimed at people who probably havent coded before and do not neccessarily have any experience. I see the name switch to TGB as just another step in that direction. "Builder" is a less intimidating word that is generally used to attract inexperienced people who don't neccessarily know what an engine is. That is my take on it, based on nothing other then guess work and my first impressions when I saw it.The nice thing about T2D (sorry, it will always be T2D in my mind) is that you don't have to use it the way it's intended. It's based on the incredbly powerful Torque platform and the same things that apply to TGE and TSE apply to T2D, at least in part. Personally, I work with T2D in the same way I work with TGE/TSE ... that is, roughly 40% C++ and 60% script. To me, all T2D is is a bunch of code that saves me having to write 2D rendering code. In short, T2D is what you make of it ... regardless of the official name.
All that said, changing the name of all the classes etc again would be fairly annoying. However, its probably best to expect that the names WILL change and plan accordingly. From the new end user perspective, buying this thing called TGB and then seeing t2d everywhere in the code would be pretty confusing. In any case, I would guess that a second name change, whilst pretty annoying, would not be anywhere near as bad as the first one. Just changing the class names is simply a matter of search an replace on your scripts; the first name change was more tricky because a lot of member (and function/method ? I forget) names were also changed.
Just my 2 cents. The usual "I'm just an associate, I don't work for GG, this is all my opinion and I don't know the official word" disclaimer applies.
T.
#6
It seems more likely to me that the change is targeted more to the mainstream audience, not the engine users. It is very true that the general gaming populous hears '2d' in a name and cringes. However, I think this part of the population is also the very same that wouldn't even think of downloading, let alone paying for, a 2d game.
02/14/2006 (10:37 pm)
I really think T2D is a very fitting name. Its an honest and accurate description, and for the most part I think that the kind of people buying a 2d engine are looking for exactly that -- a 2d engine. It seems more likely to me that the change is targeted more to the mainstream audience, not the engine users. It is very true that the general gaming populous hears '2d' in a name and cringes. However, I think this part of the population is also the very same that wouldn't even think of downloading, let alone paying for, a 2d game.
#7
I think Torque Game Builder is very appropriate since it has inherited quite a bit from its 3D predecesor and rightly isn't limited to just 2D rendering anymore, I think many of you will begin to like Torque Game Builder as a name as you use it more. It also is a much more friendly name for people and more towards the targeted goal of TGB :) Just my personal thoughts at least.
02/14/2006 (10:55 pm)
Well considering you can bring 3D objects into Torque Game Builder (TGB) keeping Torque 2D isn't exactly accurate. In all honesty it was a bit of a change for me, but then again on the main page it was called Torque 2D Game Builder, so its basically dropping the 2D title since it isn't limited to 2D anymore. I think Torque Game Builder is very appropriate since it has inherited quite a bit from its 3D predecesor and rightly isn't limited to just 2D rendering anymore, I think many of you will begin to like Torque Game Builder as a name as you use it more. It also is a much more friendly name for people and more towards the targeted goal of TGB :) Just my personal thoughts at least.
#8
I also have trouble believing someone with no coding knowledge and no idea what an engine is, is going to get anything worthwhile finished with T2D in it's current state. There is going to come a time in any project where they will need to write scripts, compile the sources, use resources, etc. Unless there are some magical new editors on the horizon that will do all of that for us ;)
02/14/2006 (10:58 pm)
No offense to GG but I feel the new name is ambiguous and maybe misleading. Unless maybe there is a big "YOU CANNOT MAKE 3D GAMES WITH TGB!!!" on the sales/info pages. It would make more sense to rename TGE to T3D to be honest.I also have trouble believing someone with no coding knowledge and no idea what an engine is, is going to get anything worthwhile finished with T2D in it's current state. There is going to come a time in any project where they will need to write scripts, compile the sources, use resources, etc. Unless there are some magical new editors on the horizon that will do all of that for us ;)
#9
02/14/2006 (11:12 pm)
While it's true that you can incorporate 3D objects now, you are still restricted to an xy-plane, so it still is really a 2-dimensional engine. The purpose of the engine is to make games that reside in 2 dimensions. Allowing access to a third dimension would be encroaching a bit too much on TGE. 3D objects != 3D games.
#10
(Also note I never said you could make "3D games"... and TGE has been the name of Torque Game Engine for a while now, it makes more sense to adapt this engines name to the naming scheme of the other two engines GarageGames produces... also note that Torque Game Builder isn't completed yet, we have been working very hard on it in multiple areas, its been getting attention from a lot of people and any feedback you all give on the current beta version is definately helpful to us :)
02/14/2006 (11:29 pm)
Its true Torque Game Builder works in a 2 dimensional world space, even the 3D objects are rendering according the 2D rules... however you do have the capability of rendering full 3D objects within this 2D world space. On top of this you have the ability to rotate your view of the 3D object, utilize full 3D animation and full 3D object LoDs... So it could properly be called Torque 2D Game Engine with 3D rendering as well... though Torque Game Builder seems much more friendly and easy to me :) In fact if anything it fits better with TGE - Torque Game Engine ... TSE - Torque Shader Engine... I guess Torque Game Builder fits more with the goal of the engine and more with the family of Torque engines :) Again this is all personal opinion.(Also note I never said you could make "3D games"... and TGE has been the name of Torque Game Engine for a while now, it makes more sense to adapt this engines name to the naming scheme of the other two engines GarageGames produces... also note that Torque Game Builder isn't completed yet, we have been working very hard on it in multiple areas, its been getting attention from a lot of people and any feedback you all give on the current beta version is definately helpful to us :)
#11
It isn't exactly inaccurate either, since using a 3D model doesn't involve making 3D games. Nor is this a primary, or arguably even a signficant, feature of T2D. It's not like the designed intent of T2D is to make a 2D game engine that renders 3D objects. It's merely an option, and one that is not fundamental in any way to the goals of T2D.
It is an engine for making 2D games. Whether someone understands that you can make 2D games using 3D rendering is irrelevant.
When a game developer (you know: a potential Torque customer) goes off in search of tools (like the Torque products), it is because they have a game idea already. They have already decided if it's going to be a 2D game or 3D game. They therefore need to know which product serves their needs. The best, most reasonable way to do that is to actually describe it in the name of the product.
When you see TGE and TGB in a list with each other, you distinctly get the impression that they both do the same thing, just at different levels of detail for the user. They do not, and suggesting that they do (the way the new name does) is quite misleading. The person who wants TGB isn't anywhere close to the person who wants TGE. People want these tools to solve completely different problems, and the tools therefore should be named separately.
By contrast, TGE and TSE both solve the same problem. One just allows for the possibility of better graphics.
Just look at the progression from the perspective of someone who has no idea what these things do:
Torque Shader Engine
Torque Game Engine
Torque Game Builder
It seems obvious that TSE > TGE > TGB, which is very much not the case. TSE > TGE may be true, but if you're making a 2D game, neither TSE nor TGE are really going to help you get that done. And a game developer doesn't let their tools decide what kind of game their making.
In short, T2D is a separate product. It does a different thing. It solves a different problem. It is as different from TGE/TSE as Microsoft Word is different from Photoshop. Sure, you can use Word to draw somewhat, but what artist in their right mind is going to pass up Photoshop for Word's meager drawing capabilities?
T2D deserves a separate name. Granted, I don't expect GG to not change the name, but I want it on the record that this is obviously the wrong idea. And it will probably hurt T2D in the long run.
Justifying a wrong action by saying that it is consistent with the past does not make it a right action.
02/15/2006 (12:30 pm)
Quote:Well considering you can bring 3D objects into Torque Game Builder (TGB) keeping Torque 2D isn't exactly accurate.
It isn't exactly inaccurate either, since using a 3D model doesn't involve making 3D games. Nor is this a primary, or arguably even a signficant, feature of T2D. It's not like the designed intent of T2D is to make a 2D game engine that renders 3D objects. It's merely an option, and one that is not fundamental in any way to the goals of T2D.
It is an engine for making 2D games. Whether someone understands that you can make 2D games using 3D rendering is irrelevant.
When a game developer (you know: a potential Torque customer) goes off in search of tools (like the Torque products), it is because they have a game idea already. They have already decided if it's going to be a 2D game or 3D game. They therefore need to know which product serves their needs. The best, most reasonable way to do that is to actually describe it in the name of the product.
When you see TGE and TGB in a list with each other, you distinctly get the impression that they both do the same thing, just at different levels of detail for the user. They do not, and suggesting that they do (the way the new name does) is quite misleading. The person who wants TGB isn't anywhere close to the person who wants TGE. People want these tools to solve completely different problems, and the tools therefore should be named separately.
By contrast, TGE and TSE both solve the same problem. One just allows for the possibility of better graphics.
Just look at the progression from the perspective of someone who has no idea what these things do:
Torque Shader Engine
Torque Game Engine
Torque Game Builder
It seems obvious that TSE > TGE > TGB, which is very much not the case. TSE > TGE may be true, but if you're making a 2D game, neither TSE nor TGE are really going to help you get that done. And a game developer doesn't let their tools decide what kind of game their making.
In short, T2D is a separate product. It does a different thing. It solves a different problem. It is as different from TGE/TSE as Microsoft Word is different from Photoshop. Sure, you can use Word to draw somewhat, but what artist in their right mind is going to pass up Photoshop for Word's meager drawing capabilities?
T2D deserves a separate name. Granted, I don't expect GG to not change the name, but I want it on the record that this is obviously the wrong idea. And it will probably hurt T2D in the long run.
Quote:TGE has been the name of Torque Game Engine for a while now, it makes more sense to adapt this engines name to the naming scheme of the other two engines GarageGames produces...
Justifying a wrong action by saying that it is consistent with the past does not make it a right action.
#12
02/15/2006 (3:23 pm)
I fully agree with Smaug and hope that GG doesn't go through with the name change. Re-iterating, just because a game includes 3D models does not make it a 3D game. (Edit: I just read Matt's edit. Still, it's a point worth emphasizing.) In fact, if someone is to look and see the "2D" part of the name, only to find out "Woah, I can use 3D models too!", it makes the true capacity of the engine a lot more effective to a newcomer than vaugely calling it a "builder". It just...doesn't sound right. It's a name that attracts amateurs, but amateurs aren't as capable to show off the full power the engine really provides.
#13
Thanks for the input. Product names can be descriptive as well as symbolic needing to have attributed meaning. 2D comes with ALOT of baggage most of it not good. You don't see Zelda or Viewtiful Joe pimpn' themselves as 2D or 2.5D games (which TGB technically is).
We've spent a good deal of time discussing this internally and with others outside of GG. In our conversations with developers only well schooled or commercial game developers knew what was meant by a 2D game engine enough to clearly differentiate it or approach it with that as a search criteria. If I ask people unfamiliar with the product if they'd expect to make a isometric view Warcraft style game or have the ability to render 3D objects in 2D they really were only thinking from hearing the name that it would be useful for old school arcade and platformers. 2D has been a stopper and not in a good way.
Many who come from a background in Director or Flash (where 3D extentions are all the buzz) are looking for a game making tool, but they immediately pass over something that is call 2D in the title as passe, dated and only makes old school games, not the cool new thing they want to play with - their first impression is a negative one. Believe me there will not be any question in our sell copy about the 2D functionality of TGB built on a 3D rendering engine.
I travel a lot and frequently speak to less sophisticated audiences - they generally can not define what a game engine is. I've had to give a definition (in terms that they can understand) the question "What is a game engine?" no less than 100 times in one day at a Serious Games conference. Think of TGB on the shelf at your Apple store or in the class room at your local High School does 2D make it more attractive or less? The desire of potential customers is to make games, the challenge is to help them start with a tool that they can have creative success with and that goal is only reached if they don't discount us before they ever pick up the box or read the website.
>Jared/Joe/Smaug -- We are seeing some amazing things done in TGB by those who only know action script and have limited artistic 'resources'. The ease of learning is improving with the new level editor and tool improvements even in the latest build, but this name is something we plan to grow into as well. If we'd said this was a Game Maker, Joe I'd agree we're not delivering on that with TGB.
In this case building value around 2D and paying the price to give attributed meaning to the name is worth the price as so many people discounted T2D out of hand as not what they were looking for just based on the first impression of the name.
02/15/2006 (5:49 pm)
What is in a name.Thanks for the input. Product names can be descriptive as well as symbolic needing to have attributed meaning. 2D comes with ALOT of baggage most of it not good. You don't see Zelda or Viewtiful Joe pimpn' themselves as 2D or 2.5D games (which TGB technically is).
We've spent a good deal of time discussing this internally and with others outside of GG. In our conversations with developers only well schooled or commercial game developers knew what was meant by a 2D game engine enough to clearly differentiate it or approach it with that as a search criteria. If I ask people unfamiliar with the product if they'd expect to make a isometric view Warcraft style game or have the ability to render 3D objects in 2D they really were only thinking from hearing the name that it would be useful for old school arcade and platformers. 2D has been a stopper and not in a good way.
Many who come from a background in Director or Flash (where 3D extentions are all the buzz) are looking for a game making tool, but they immediately pass over something that is call 2D in the title as passe, dated and only makes old school games, not the cool new thing they want to play with - their first impression is a negative one. Believe me there will not be any question in our sell copy about the 2D functionality of TGB built on a 3D rendering engine.
I travel a lot and frequently speak to less sophisticated audiences - they generally can not define what a game engine is. I've had to give a definition (in terms that they can understand) the question "What is a game engine?" no less than 100 times in one day at a Serious Games conference. Think of TGB on the shelf at your Apple store or in the class room at your local High School does 2D make it more attractive or less? The desire of potential customers is to make games, the challenge is to help them start with a tool that they can have creative success with and that goal is only reached if they don't discount us before they ever pick up the box or read the website.
>Jared/Joe/Smaug -- We are seeing some amazing things done in TGB by those who only know action script and have limited artistic 'resources'. The ease of learning is improving with the new level editor and tool improvements even in the latest build, but this name is something we plan to grow into as well. If we'd said this was a Game Maker, Joe I'd agree we're not delivering on that with TGB.
In this case building value around 2D and paying the price to give attributed meaning to the name is worth the price as so many people discounted T2D out of hand as not what they were looking for just based on the first impression of the name.
#14
Nobody can. The term should have a formal definition, but stuff that people consider to be game engines are anything that let you make different games with them.
More attractive to who? Some guy who has no actual development skill nor the wherewithall to actually follow through on his poorly specified goal of making a game of some ill-defined type? Or to the serious independent developer who came up with a great idea for a 2D game and has the will to carry it through to the end, but just needs a few tools to make it happen?
To the person who approaches T2D from the perspective of, "I'm going to make game X. I need to find something to help me do it," the name T2D is helpful. To this person, the name TGB is useless. The person approaching a 2D game development package is going to look at the name and think it's for making 3D games, so he's going to ignore it and look elsewhere.
To the guy who's never going to finish his project because he lacks the will to stick with it... well, does it matter? TGB, TGE, TSE, he's going to find some package, screw around with it for a week or two, and then move on to the next bright, shiny object that he sees. Sure, from a marketting perspective, a sale is a sale. Plus, there's more of these guys out there than there are actual people who have the will to follow through. But from the perspective of helping out the customers who are going to make your engine sing?
And let's not forget that the guy who's really going to make the game is probably going to have a gigantic T2D logo emblazened on the openning screen of his product. This is the advertising that matters. This is what's going to bring in the people. Someone's going to play some great work of videogaming art and say, "Hey, this guy used T2D to make this. Maybe I should give it a shot." TGE got most of its attention by being called the "Tribes" engine; that's why anybody even cared about it in the first place. Your product's name needs to be such that you're going to attract the kind of developer who's going to get your foot in the door.
I can't say that I care what someone who comes from a Flash background thinks about T2D. If someone from such a background can't accept the fact that they've been doing 2D game development, then perhaps they need another line of work.
Lastly, I don't like the idea that you seem to be putting forth of wanting to avoid connections to "old school" gaming. I believe that a lot of people using T2D explicitly want an "old school" look; they even go so far as to avoid bilinear filtering and mip-mapping to achieve it. I don't like the implication that T2D's advancement will be based on 3D rendering functionality, 2.5D games, and such things, rather than supporting features that everyone will need.
BTW, if you're so intent on removing the word "2D" from T2D, use "vector" in some fashion. The Torque Vector Engine or some such nonsense. With SVG on the rise, it's a popular term. And your "precious" Flash people will know what that is.
Your argument for changing T2D's name is based on people's negative misunderstanding of what constitutes a "2D" game. Would you so casually throw aside a reasonable argument that your new name also creates a misunderstanding that is equally negative?
02/15/2006 (7:03 pm)
So this is a marketting decision, not a decision for helping your customer base (ie developers) know what the product with ential.Quote:I travel a lot and frequently speak to less sophisticated audiences - they generally can not define what a game engine is.
Nobody can. The term should have a formal definition, but stuff that people consider to be game engines are anything that let you make different games with them.
Quote:Think of TGB on the shelf at your Apple store or in the class room at your local High School does 2D make it more attractive or less?
More attractive to who? Some guy who has no actual development skill nor the wherewithall to actually follow through on his poorly specified goal of making a game of some ill-defined type? Or to the serious independent developer who came up with a great idea for a 2D game and has the will to carry it through to the end, but just needs a few tools to make it happen?
To the person who approaches T2D from the perspective of, "I'm going to make game X. I need to find something to help me do it," the name T2D is helpful. To this person, the name TGB is useless. The person approaching a 2D game development package is going to look at the name and think it's for making 3D games, so he's going to ignore it and look elsewhere.
To the guy who's never going to finish his project because he lacks the will to stick with it... well, does it matter? TGB, TGE, TSE, he's going to find some package, screw around with it for a week or two, and then move on to the next bright, shiny object that he sees. Sure, from a marketting perspective, a sale is a sale. Plus, there's more of these guys out there than there are actual people who have the will to follow through. But from the perspective of helping out the customers who are going to make your engine sing?
And let's not forget that the guy who's really going to make the game is probably going to have a gigantic T2D logo emblazened on the openning screen of his product. This is the advertising that matters. This is what's going to bring in the people. Someone's going to play some great work of videogaming art and say, "Hey, this guy used T2D to make this. Maybe I should give it a shot." TGE got most of its attention by being called the "Tribes" engine; that's why anybody even cared about it in the first place. Your product's name needs to be such that you're going to attract the kind of developer who's going to get your foot in the door.
I can't say that I care what someone who comes from a Flash background thinks about T2D. If someone from such a background can't accept the fact that they've been doing 2D game development, then perhaps they need another line of work.
Lastly, I don't like the idea that you seem to be putting forth of wanting to avoid connections to "old school" gaming. I believe that a lot of people using T2D explicitly want an "old school" look; they even go so far as to avoid bilinear filtering and mip-mapping to achieve it. I don't like the implication that T2D's advancement will be based on 3D rendering functionality, 2.5D games, and such things, rather than supporting features that everyone will need.
BTW, if you're so intent on removing the word "2D" from T2D, use "vector" in some fashion. The Torque Vector Engine or some such nonsense. With SVG on the rise, it's a popular term. And your "precious" Flash people will know what that is.
Quote:If we'd said this was a Game Maker, Joe I'd agree we're not delivering on that with TGB.
Your argument for changing T2D's name is based on people's negative misunderstanding of what constitutes a "2D" game. Would you so casually throw aside a reasonable argument that your new name also creates a misunderstanding that is equally negative?
#15
02/15/2006 (8:44 pm)
BTW, I intend no disrespect to the general Flash developer populace in the above post. Only to those who don't recognize that they're making 2D games.
#16
02/15/2006 (9:51 pm)
I don't think it's about "what's in a name". I think it's about subtle changes in the engine and attitudes highlighted by Jay Moore's post. Consider for a moment that those potential customers aren't worth a damn. I'd be willing half of the current "customers" aren't worth a damn, either. What is the value of attracting a higher percentage of developers, or "potential customers", who can't pull their weight? Instead of catering to undereducated people why not help them understand that they are wrong to blanket negative connotations? If they can't get passed that, or are unwilling to, what would make them a valuable asset in the community besides their collective hundred bucks? GarageGames can receive as much feedback as they want from people who have already made their mark, but if they set up a poll within their own community and asked why people chose T2D whilst giving them the choice of responding "for 2D" or "Any other reason" I'd be hard pressed to believe the latter would be more popular.
#17
I guess my post was a bit disheartening, sorry about that. I really like the new tools and I'm sure it will become easier to use the engine as things evolve. Even with Game Maker, Flash, Multimedia Fusion or other Click n' Create tools one still has to do a certain level of scripting. Only it's generally done with a GUI and not a text editor. It makes sense that Flash users would be comfortable with TGB since they're used to writing code, but the Game Maker/MMF crowd will probably find it more difficult. I'm not sure if either group could apply an engine patch or resource though :p (but no offense to those ppl). To be fair, most people using those tools (and even T2D) have accomplished more than I have in my years of coding.
Hey and I'm no marketing guru. If there really was research done on this decision then maybe it is for the best...
02/15/2006 (10:03 pm)
@Jay Moore, I guess my post was a bit disheartening, sorry about that. I really like the new tools and I'm sure it will become easier to use the engine as things evolve. Even with Game Maker, Flash, Multimedia Fusion or other Click n' Create tools one still has to do a certain level of scripting. Only it's generally done with a GUI and not a text editor. It makes sense that Flash users would be comfortable with TGB since they're used to writing code, but the Game Maker/MMF crowd will probably find it more difficult. I'm not sure if either group could apply an engine patch or resource though :p (but no offense to those ppl). To be fair, most people using those tools (and even T2D) have accomplished more than I have in my years of coding.
Hey and I'm no marketing guru. If there really was research done on this decision then maybe it is for the best...
#18
Honestly, I'm finding the underlying/implied attitudes a bit ironic here...not from anything previous from you guys specifically, but from the elitism that is implied--especially when compared to another thread in a public selection (recently deleted) that basically accused GG of having an elitist attitude regarding availability and organization of documentation. I'll focus more on this in a moment, but there are too many barriers to developing games at all levels, and poor marketing decisions (branding, target placement, etc) shouldn't be one. Reading into your posts (at least how I interpret what you are saying) tells me that you actually want us to keep barriers up for "those potential customers (that) aren't worth a damn".
Those with a history of the T2D EA period have seen something that is in development--extremely rough around the edges--and even sometimes in the middle!, morphing from extremely low level attention required to the underpinnings of the engine, to shaping up to it's final state--and a state that was pictured from the very beginning.
For the "serious/experienced/educated/whatever adjective you like" developers, it's the functionality and power of the technology that is important--and you will always have that.
But why should GG only provide techology with barriers to both usage and awareness? Once the editor suite is complete, children can be making games--and in fact, they already are. Why should we not be willing to make the marketing changes necessary to have the product swim in their circles as well? Jay hit on the avoidance aspect of the naming strategy, so I'll hit just a bit on the penetration portion:
We want Torque Game Builder being used in elementary and middle schools to teach not only making games, but to also provide foundational and multi-dimensional capabilities for educators to help build complex thought processes in all levels of instruction. Is this market going to be "contributing to the community"? Well, not for another 10 years or so, but yes, they will be.
We want Torque Game Builder to break down the barrier between "indie" and "commercial" game development even farther than TGE already has. Currently (with rare exception), there simply aren't many successful "indie" development studios, and the trend is increasing downwards. TGB will certainly allow commercial studios to make extremely high quality and extremely high content "power games"--but it's also going to let single developers make strong quality games that may (or, let's be honest, may not) do well in niche markets. And honestly, the most important thing to me at least is that TGB will bring games into education more strongly then it ever has before, and at many more levels.
If you look at our Home page, and read the text down at the bottom regarding our mission, you'll see this quote:
That's not marketing speak--that's actually one of the top 3 opportunities identified and voted for by the entire company during a company retreat we all participated in several weeks ago.
It's not something that will happen in 1, or 3, or 5, or even 10 years--but we're planning to help it along even 10 years from now, and laying the foundations here and now for that to happen...and part of that is making the tools available and accessable for everyone. And that requires a marketing plan, including branding, that eases both the availability and brand awareness, as well as attractiveness to all comers--not just those that have broken down the barriers to access and awareness.
02/15/2006 (10:17 pm)
@Matt, and indirectly, Smaug:Honestly, I'm finding the underlying/implied attitudes a bit ironic here...not from anything previous from you guys specifically, but from the elitism that is implied--especially when compared to another thread in a public selection (recently deleted) that basically accused GG of having an elitist attitude regarding availability and organization of documentation. I'll focus more on this in a moment, but there are too many barriers to developing games at all levels, and poor marketing decisions (branding, target placement, etc) shouldn't be one. Reading into your posts (at least how I interpret what you are saying) tells me that you actually want us to keep barriers up for "those potential customers (that) aren't worth a damn".
Those with a history of the T2D EA period have seen something that is in development--extremely rough around the edges--and even sometimes in the middle!, morphing from extremely low level attention required to the underpinnings of the engine, to shaping up to it's final state--and a state that was pictured from the very beginning.
For the "serious/experienced/educated/whatever adjective you like" developers, it's the functionality and power of the technology that is important--and you will always have that.
But why should GG only provide techology with barriers to both usage and awareness? Once the editor suite is complete, children can be making games--and in fact, they already are. Why should we not be willing to make the marketing changes necessary to have the product swim in their circles as well? Jay hit on the avoidance aspect of the naming strategy, so I'll hit just a bit on the penetration portion:
We want Torque Game Builder being used in elementary and middle schools to teach not only making games, but to also provide foundational and multi-dimensional capabilities for educators to help build complex thought processes in all levels of instruction. Is this market going to be "contributing to the community"? Well, not for another 10 years or so, but yes, they will be.
We want Torque Game Builder to break down the barrier between "indie" and "commercial" game development even farther than TGE already has. Currently (with rare exception), there simply aren't many successful "indie" development studios, and the trend is increasing downwards. TGB will certainly allow commercial studios to make extremely high quality and extremely high content "power games"--but it's also going to let single developers make strong quality games that may (or, let's be honest, may not) do well in niche markets. And honestly, the most important thing to me at least is that TGB will bring games into education more strongly then it ever has before, and at many more levels.
If you look at our Home page, and read the text down at the bottom regarding our mission, you'll see this quote:
Quote:
GarageGames is changing the gaming world. How they're made. How they're played. How they're marketed. Our mission is simple: to create truly innovative, feature-rich, yet affordable, tools and resources for developers at any level - and on any platform.
That's not marketing speak--that's actually one of the top 3 opportunities identified and voted for by the entire company during a company retreat we all participated in several weeks ago.
It's not something that will happen in 1, or 3, or 5, or even 10 years--but we're planning to help it along even 10 years from now, and laying the foundations here and now for that to happen...and part of that is making the tools available and accessable for everyone. And that requires a marketing plan, including branding, that eases both the availability and brand awareness, as well as attractiveness to all comers--not just those that have broken down the barriers to access and awareness.
#19
02/15/2006 (11:53 pm)
What Stephen said hit the nail on the head for me. I came to GG through Game Maker (I'm still a lowly high school student) but thanks to TGE, and more importantly T2D, I am due to go to one of the best universities in the country to do computer science next year, and I've only been into this sort of thing for a year. I may not be much help to others at the moment, though I try where I can, but i would hope that in a year, or 2, or 3, I might be. TGE is a bit overwhelming for a new guy, as you need at least a basic understanding of C++ to do most things, but T2D was much easier to grasp and although it is an extremly powerful engine it doesn't remove the fact that it is quite accesable to new programmers/designers etc. Anyway, it's their engine, they can call it what they like :P
#20
I do believe there should be barriers, rather, self-applied limitations not external imposed limitations - it's when marketing is applied to turn someone who wouldn't otherwise purchase your product into a financer that the situation has become seriously perverted. Stephen, you referred to elementary school children as a "market" (Was it wrong of me to laugh?). I see the need for using business to further develop our dreams, but I think some of those business ideas overwhelm us and the way we tend to carry out our craft. When Jay referred to someone as a "customer" and not a "developer" I wondered how that terminology effects the work he does. It's all the same reason many games are in as sad a state they are in today - because the companies label us as customers and not as "gamers". If I were in business, I'd put a lot of stock in the opinions of people with empty pockets. It's almost certain they weren't paid to say what they think.
...there have been some interesting threads this past week.
Edit: It's not about elitism, but specialization. There's the right tool - for the right job... by the right person.
02/15/2006 (11:54 pm)
@Stephen Zepp. Well said. I do believe there should be barriers, rather, self-applied limitations not external imposed limitations - it's when marketing is applied to turn someone who wouldn't otherwise purchase your product into a financer that the situation has become seriously perverted. Stephen, you referred to elementary school children as a "market" (Was it wrong of me to laugh?). I see the need for using business to further develop our dreams, but I think some of those business ideas overwhelm us and the way we tend to carry out our craft. When Jay referred to someone as a "customer" and not a "developer" I wondered how that terminology effects the work he does. It's all the same reason many games are in as sad a state they are in today - because the companies label us as customers and not as "gamers". If I were in business, I'd put a lot of stock in the opinions of people with empty pockets. It's almost certain they weren't paid to say what they think.
...there have been some interesting threads this past week.
Edit: It's not about elitism, but specialization. There's the right tool - for the right job... by the right person.
Torque Owner Jason Swearingen
i think many people would rightly feel intimidated by an "engine", meaning they have to do everything from scratch, but less so by the word "builder", meaning they have some stuff to make the game easier.