My last game (Rumble Box) was a 3D game, but so arcade-like that it might as well have been an early '80s stand-up cabinet (a really powerful cabinet).
Now, I'm back to 2D because that's what works best for my new project. Sure, the newbie "IMM GONNA MAKE TEH BEST MMO EVAR!" crowd are shooting for AAA level online masterpieces (and 99.9% of the time will not finish), but there are plenty of us that know our limits and thrive on it.
Game developers ARE gamers, that's why we make them in the first place. It seems your issue is more designing games for publishers, the marketing guys who are just looking at the bottom line. Many of them are not gamers, and that is why we get Tomb Raider 67 and Quake 814030/0==NaN
Long live 2D!
Designing a game for game developers, not gamers!??? The death of games.
I wouldn't take the gamedev community as an indication of what the indie game development scene is up to. A vast majority of the posts on gamedev are over ambitious newbies who sorry to say have little chance of actually making a game, much less these huge scoped games they tend to gravitate toward. To make matters worse these posts often end up staying alive with many replies. I'd wager there are very few true 'indie' developers on these boards producing commercially capable games. Theres alot of people with their own ideas for a dream game, most without the capability to pull it off. We all have what we think are ideas for awesome games, some just don't have the experience to know whats achievable at their skill level though.
Author
Original post by DrEvil
I wouldn't take the gamedev community as an indication of what the indie game development scene is up to.
That was probably my mistake all along then.
I was posting my Help Wanted Ads in the wrong place.
Thanks everyone, hope is back to keep the wheels of development turning!
The way I see it is that people want to make the games they like. Most games now are FPS or MMORPG's so thats what people want to make. When i got into gamedev i loved platformers so thats what I tried to make. It wasn't that I was more interested in 2D as a whole or anything but because thats what I liked to play so thats what I wanted to write.
But after a while it changed. While building games is fun you'll find that after a while games become about content creation. I can build you a 2D grid based platformer engine in a weekend if you really want, but then to make it a finished game I'll have to spend 2 months making all the levels, art/animations, balancing the game dynamics and so on. The challenge with such things is not the code itself, but making the GAME. And as a programmer thats not really what I find fun. I do indie dev for fun! People who like making levels and creating content becomes artists or designers - programmers usually (generalisation warning!) don't really like that stuff as much.
So from my POV if you make a 2D game - you can spend a week writing the engine then your fun is over and its all boring stuff. However if I try to make a 3D game I can spend months and years putting in HDR lighting, water effects without ever having to bother about level design or lack of art. I'd much rather tinker with my cool 3D effects than create content. And gamedev.net is mostly about programming. And as programmers thats mostly what we find fun - coding. If we go 2D platformer its all about content, if we go 3D we can code all we want and never run out of things todo. We will probably never finish the game but for most hobbiests thats not actually the goal, its just a side effect of wanting to code something cool :P
But after a while it changed. While building games is fun you'll find that after a while games become about content creation. I can build you a 2D grid based platformer engine in a weekend if you really want, but then to make it a finished game I'll have to spend 2 months making all the levels, art/animations, balancing the game dynamics and so on. The challenge with such things is not the code itself, but making the GAME. And as a programmer thats not really what I find fun. I do indie dev for fun! People who like making levels and creating content becomes artists or designers - programmers usually (generalisation warning!) don't really like that stuff as much.
So from my POV if you make a 2D game - you can spend a week writing the engine then your fun is over and its all boring stuff. However if I try to make a 3D game I can spend months and years putting in HDR lighting, water effects without ever having to bother about level design or lack of art. I'd much rather tinker with my cool 3D effects than create content. And gamedev.net is mostly about programming. And as programmers thats mostly what we find fun - coding. If we go 2D platformer its all about content, if we go 3D we can code all we want and never run out of things todo. We will probably never finish the game but for most hobbiests thats not actually the goal, its just a side effect of wanting to code something cool :P
Quote:Original post by kaysik
While building games is fun you'll find that after a while games become about content creation. I can build you a 2D grid based platformer engine in a weekend if you really want, but then to make it a finished game I'll have to spend 2 months making all the levels, art/animations, balancing the game dynamics and so on. The challenge with such things is not the code itself, but making the GAME. And as a programmer thats not really what I find fun. I do indie dev for fun! People who like making levels and creating content becomes artists or designers - programmers usually (generalisation warning!) don't really like that stuff as much.
Yeah, I kind of agree with you. People that are "pure" programmers at heart likely aren't the best at design or content creation. And vice versa.
Myself, I love content and creation. I learned to program to make my dream game. Luckily, I also very logical/left brained and I'm a competent coder (if I don't do anything too complex). I'm also not an artist.
To make up for my lack of experience/natural ability (or love for number crunching/art) I will hire people that are experts. I have used Rent a Coder (http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder) to help out with some programming tasks (mainly network code) and an artist for the majority of my artwork.
Luckily I have a lot of skill in managing large amounts of information, organization, and putting everything together to make a game. And I also know how to research, how to limit scope (without limiting depth or gameplay), and how to work with the skills I do have.
I guess my point is that we all have skills and if you have a passion for something you need to see how your skills fit into that passion. If I was someone like Kaysik I might try to find someone who loved creating content and form a partnership.
Original post by origilOriginal post by DrEvil
I wouldn't take the gamedev community as an indication of what the indie game development scene is up to.Quote:
That was probably my mistake all along then.
I was posting my Help Wanted Ads in the wrong place.
Thanks everyone, hope is back to keep the wheels of development turning!
Check out http://forums.indiegamer.com/ for people who are serious indie developers.
Quote:Original post by Pluvious
If I was someone like Kaysik I might try to find someone who loved creating content and form a partnership.
hahah thats exactly what I've been thinking recently. I've got 3 games that are completely finished except for the content - a scrolling shooter, a 3D 3rd person shooter, and 2D platformer (but in a 3D enviroment). Also a couple of other things that are half done and could be easily finished if needed. I should try to find someone who's into content creation because its all setup and waiting to go (even wrote a level editor and entity scripting system and everything).
Quote:Original post by kaysikSo from my POV if you make a 2D game - you can spend a week writing the engine then your fun is over and its all boring stuff. However if I try to make a 3D game I can spend months and years putting in HDR lighting, water effects without ever having to bother about level design or lack of art. I'd much rather tinker with my cool 3D effects than create content. And gamedev.net is mostly about programming. And as programmers thats mostly what we find fun - coding. If we go 2D platformer its all about content, if we go 3D we can code all we want and never run out of things todo. We will probably never finish the game but for most hobbiests thats not actually the goal, its just a side effect of wanting to code something cool :P
You can speak for all of us programmers that when making a game, in the end the gameplay is not important, it's all the pretty particle systems and shiny shader effects that make it fun.
Or, you know, some of us programmers still enjoy making games and not tech demos. :) (I kid, I kid)
I agree that you will find only one portion of the indie game community here, another very different portion at www.garagegames.com. GG is focused more on commercial indies, while GameDev is much more hobbyists. But I've found that the gamedev forumers are much more helpful, and interesting.
And much more willing to pick fights, and talk about religion, or pooping, or squirrels having sex. It's a very interesting place. Oh yeah, don't forget the bit about peeing in the shower. Classic.
Despite some of your cynicism, I would have to agree that in BOTH the indie and commercial development scene that games these days are being created based on what developers are interested in or what their publishers "think" gamers are interested in. As someone who works professionally on commercial games I can say that only about 2 out of the 6 games that I've worked on so far actually interest me. Although game developers are gamers too, they tend to aggregate toward the most current trends in the industry.
However, I don't see the division in creativity of game design deriving from the technical differences between 2d and 3d games as you've argued. The type of innovative and non FPS/MMO projects that you're looking for could be developed in the 3d medium just as easily as the 2d medium, but developers choose to ignore this possibility.
For example, there are very few adventure games similar to Zelda, and even fewer 3d platformer or action puzzle games like Mario and Bomberman. True the 2d medium is widely being ignored, but there are still intersting possibilities in the realm of 3d as well. Some of my all-time favorite games are in the 2d format, but I think the 3d format has equal potential for generating classic, intuitive, and fun games that appeal to a large audience of gamers.
I loved Super Mario, Contra, Base Wars, Sim City, Double Dragon, Zelda, F-Zero, Rock N Roll Racing, Uniracers, Super Metroid, Donkey Kong Country, Final Fantasy 3, Chrono Trigger, and many other classic 2d games. Still, there is an equal number of games that I enjoy in the 3d medium so I don't think that the problem is necessarily inherent in the format. At least not on the software side.
To a certain degree the main difference between 2d and 3d games is the input devices used and the way the player interacts with the game. Actually I should rephrase this. The problem is that "there is no difference" between the input devices used for 2d and 3d games, when there should be. Obviously a 2d game requires less sophisticated input than a 3d game because of it's limited dimensions. On the surface this makes 2d games seem more intuitive and accessible.
Even though we are more familiar with a 3d world, when we are introduced to a 3d world in the format of a game our methods of interaction drastically deviate from what we're used to and the input devices that work well for the 2d format become inadequate and clunky when attempting to play in a 3d world. I think this issue has been realized though and hope that efforts to address it will arise in the coming years. I think Nintendo has already taken a significant step in this direction with the introduction of their new controller for the Wii. From a visual technological perspective, the Wii falls far behind the PS3 and XBox 360, but from a user interface side I believe that it's leaps and bounds ahead. I guess we'll find out when it's released.
As to your other concern regarding finding the right type of talent to work on non FPS/MMO games, I would also have to agree. Most people want to be part of the next massive blockbuster game, and many believe that the best way to do that is to stick to proven genres and game-types but with their own spin. On the other hand, those that may be interested in the smaller but more unique projects may not be in the position to work on them in their free time if they are also already in the industry.
I think I would enjoy working on a simple but innovative 2d or 3d game that's not attempting to be the next AAA giant, but that would mean making sacrifices. I can either spend an extra 10 hours a week working on a side project I enjoy or I can take that time and pick up some extra assets at my work and make an additional $1000-1500 more for the month. As much as I would like to do the former, necessity demands that I do the latter, at least until my wife graduates and gets a job.
Just my thoughts.
However, I don't see the division in creativity of game design deriving from the technical differences between 2d and 3d games as you've argued. The type of innovative and non FPS/MMO projects that you're looking for could be developed in the 3d medium just as easily as the 2d medium, but developers choose to ignore this possibility.
For example, there are very few adventure games similar to Zelda, and even fewer 3d platformer or action puzzle games like Mario and Bomberman. True the 2d medium is widely being ignored, but there are still intersting possibilities in the realm of 3d as well. Some of my all-time favorite games are in the 2d format, but I think the 3d format has equal potential for generating classic, intuitive, and fun games that appeal to a large audience of gamers.
I loved Super Mario, Contra, Base Wars, Sim City, Double Dragon, Zelda, F-Zero, Rock N Roll Racing, Uniracers, Super Metroid, Donkey Kong Country, Final Fantasy 3, Chrono Trigger, and many other classic 2d games. Still, there is an equal number of games that I enjoy in the 3d medium so I don't think that the problem is necessarily inherent in the format. At least not on the software side.
To a certain degree the main difference between 2d and 3d games is the input devices used and the way the player interacts with the game. Actually I should rephrase this. The problem is that "there is no difference" between the input devices used for 2d and 3d games, when there should be. Obviously a 2d game requires less sophisticated input than a 3d game because of it's limited dimensions. On the surface this makes 2d games seem more intuitive and accessible.
Even though we are more familiar with a 3d world, when we are introduced to a 3d world in the format of a game our methods of interaction drastically deviate from what we're used to and the input devices that work well for the 2d format become inadequate and clunky when attempting to play in a 3d world. I think this issue has been realized though and hope that efforts to address it will arise in the coming years. I think Nintendo has already taken a significant step in this direction with the introduction of their new controller for the Wii. From a visual technological perspective, the Wii falls far behind the PS3 and XBox 360, but from a user interface side I believe that it's leaps and bounds ahead. I guess we'll find out when it's released.
As to your other concern regarding finding the right type of talent to work on non FPS/MMO games, I would also have to agree. Most people want to be part of the next massive blockbuster game, and many believe that the best way to do that is to stick to proven genres and game-types but with their own spin. On the other hand, those that may be interested in the smaller but more unique projects may not be in the position to work on them in their free time if they are also already in the industry.
I think I would enjoy working on a simple but innovative 2d or 3d game that's not attempting to be the next AAA giant, but that would mean making sacrifices. I can either spend an extra 10 hours a week working on a side project I enjoy or I can take that time and pick up some extra assets at my work and make an additional $1000-1500 more for the month. As much as I would like to do the former, necessity demands that I do the latter, at least until my wife graduates and gets a job.
Just my thoughts.
Author
Quote:Original post by kaysik
programmers usually (generalisation warning!) don't really like that stuff as much.
It's a good thing you put the generalisation warning because as you can see the gamedev.net site is a lot more than 'pure programming'.
It's about "Game Programming". That's a big difference.
However, your point of view does reflect the majority of the gamedev.net community's thoughts. Most people here like programming engines - not the artistic side that seperates an engine from a game.
The 'art' where you get the player acceleration just right, you let the player make fun decisions, give him the feeling he is in control, make him want more, etc... What you are doing is not game programming, it may be loads of fun and there is no need for me saying that you're entitled to [It's obvious].
My original question was simple: Where did the Game programmers run off to? Has gamedev.net become 3DEngine.net?
WorldPlanter, I agree that 3D games can achieve just as much playability as 2D games, but the phenomenon I see here is 3D engine-mania.
But complaining about people enjoying the creation of 3D engine is not what I'm doing here - it's also a part of game programming. As I've already said it's the other parts I find missing in this community that are troubling me.
Quote:Original post by WorldPlanter
I think I would enjoy working on a simple but innovative 2d or 3d game that's not attempting to be the next AAA giant, but that would mean making sacrifices. I can either spend an extra 10 hours a week working on a side project I enjoy or I can take that time and pick up some extra assets at my work and make an additional $1000-1500 more for the month. As much as I would like to do the former, necessity demands that I do the latter, at least until my wife graduates and gets a job.
Sure, but attempting to be the next AAA giant for 99.9% of the programmers on gamedev.net is a failure from the begining, so there is no difference between this and a 2D game that would not have to compete with an AAA comany like Blizzard, therefore succeed.
This thread has been pretty much stretched to its limits revolving around the fact I've chosen the wrong community for finding a helping hand for my game.
This site has suited each of my other game programming needs so far with its rich articles and great forums - people do have good answers to problems and are always willing to give advice but that's as far as theory goes.
And Pluvious, thanks for the site, I'll definitely give it a look.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
