I didn't have a lot of time to read through all the replies, but I just wanted to add something.
I was more active here a few years ago, and now that I'm back again, I've noticed a whole lot more talk about 2D (mostly to do with physics engines and such though) games than back then.
Which makes me kinda jealous, because I like 2D games and one of the bigger projects I'm working on is 2D. My next main goal is to write a fully featured 2D game engine with a great physics system and such... Instead of the usual '3D MMORPG.' :P But that's just me. I like 3D too, but 2D is too awesome to miss out on.
Edit: On another note, I that that article was a very good read.
[Edited by - shurcool on September 28, 2006 11:14:46 PM]
Designing a game for game developers, not gamers!??? The death of games.
Heh, I accidently posted this in the Oblivion thread. Talk about being lost.
I think there's a vital difference between a lot of work and the complexity of that work. A one-man freakshow polymath can keep up in terms of complexity. The amount of work needed to put things into use is where a loner suffers.
It might take a large team of programmers less time to write an advanced physics engine, but not enough to use that as an excuse. An advanced phsyics engine is about intelligence, not workload. If you can muster the skills, you can pretty much keep up with the big guys. But designing or building 500 complex and interesting characters / cars / levels / weapons is another story. That's where we have no choice but to get left behind.
I would personally categorize the number of features in a game as complexity. That means I think that the number of people working on a game doesn't directly relate to the number of cool features it has. But many game features can require a lot of art assets and other elements that end up generating more work than one developer can handle within a decent amount of time. My advice would be to know how long each and every one of those roads are before you ever set foot on them.
I think there's a vital difference between a lot of work and the complexity of that work. A one-man freakshow polymath can keep up in terms of complexity. The amount of work needed to put things into use is where a loner suffers.
It might take a large team of programmers less time to write an advanced physics engine, but not enough to use that as an excuse. An advanced phsyics engine is about intelligence, not workload. If you can muster the skills, you can pretty much keep up with the big guys. But designing or building 500 complex and interesting characters / cars / levels / weapons is another story. That's where we have no choice but to get left behind.
I would personally categorize the number of features in a game as complexity. That means I think that the number of people working on a game doesn't directly relate to the number of cool features it has. But many game features can require a lot of art assets and other elements that end up generating more work than one developer can handle within a decent amount of time. My advice would be to know how long each and every one of those roads are before you ever set foot on them.
The real issue today is that games are about to change once again.
Developers don't make games for developers, they mainly do games for gamers, and that is because the publisher likes big budget games with high revenue possibility.
One thing The Sims and even World of Warcraft thought us though, is that the market for non-gamers is way bigger than the market we used to produce for (not saying that those were low budget games!).
Another issue was and still is that nice pictures make nice advertisments and that catches a lot of audience, and with the so beloved high budget games you need big sale numbers. This is the reason games were pushed dramastically on the technical side, mainly graphics (graphic card manufacturers had a share in this).
We are about to hit photorealism in game graphics by now, so there won't be such a high rate of improvement anymore for a while.
And when most games look "perfect" you'll need something else to stand apart from the others, this will be imho gameplay probably fueled by advanced ai.
So I don't see it that "black" like some others, games won't die, the dinosaurs will, but a new breed will produce the next generation titles and we might even slip into another "golden age of games" soon. (This includes golden age for indie developers aswell, I think)
[Edited by - kiome on September 30, 2006 8:57:43 PM]
Developers don't make games for developers, they mainly do games for gamers, and that is because the publisher likes big budget games with high revenue possibility.
One thing The Sims and even World of Warcraft thought us though, is that the market for non-gamers is way bigger than the market we used to produce for (not saying that those were low budget games!).
Another issue was and still is that nice pictures make nice advertisments and that catches a lot of audience, and with the so beloved high budget games you need big sale numbers. This is the reason games were pushed dramastically on the technical side, mainly graphics (graphic card manufacturers had a share in this).
We are about to hit photorealism in game graphics by now, so there won't be such a high rate of improvement anymore for a while.
And when most games look "perfect" you'll need something else to stand apart from the others, this will be imho gameplay probably fueled by advanced ai.
So I don't see it that "black" like some others, games won't die, the dinosaurs will, but a new breed will produce the next generation titles and we might even slip into another "golden age of games" soon. (This includes golden age for indie developers aswell, I think)
[Edited by - kiome on September 30, 2006 8:57:43 PM]
You might want to take a look at what Greg Costikyan is doing at manifestogames.com
He is a game designer turned online publisher, because he was unhappy with the staleness of the game industry. Indie gaming is his name and he writes about it at costik.com/weblog
I'm sure that you'll find both these links enlightening.
He is a game designer turned online publisher, because he was unhappy with the staleness of the game industry. Indie gaming is his name and he writes about it at costik.com/weblog
I'm sure that you'll find both these links enlightening.
Quote:Original post by JBourrie
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.
...
Long live 2D!
There's a great quote from Terry Gilliam (not a game developer, ofcourse, but it still rings true). He was saying how, in Monty Python's Holy Grail, he wanted to have real horses running around like any other cookie cutter medieval epic. But they took one look a how far it would take them out of budget and said "nah". They came up with empty coconut halves clapped together, instead. Fookin' genius. So anyway, Gilliam said:
"Our limitations saved us from mediocraty".
So damn true. When you're a small developer you have to know your limitations and work with them, not against them. And you'll find that the canvas you paint upon is far wider than you first consider: It's not only defined by your manpower, ability, budget, and time restraint, but also by existing games similar to you (you need to be original enough!) and your own Quality of Life. Crunching 24/7 has sometimes been made out to seem like "living the dream" (not least by employers wanting to get more for less). Problem is, it's not sustainable.
Anyway. I loved rumble box. So rock on, brother!
I recently made a game without taking into account my audience, and this is what I got for it. :(
It's a developer's game. No tiresome levels or meaningless things like "high scores" to distract from the game mechanics. :p Now it has been made clear to me that to Flash game players, that doesn't work.
You can try my game here if you want. I think it's pretty good. It's missing music and stuff like that though.
More on-topic, I think I would prefer working independently on casual-type games than for a big company.
It's a developer's game. No tiresome levels or meaningless things like "high scores" to distract from the game mechanics. :p Now it has been made clear to me that to Flash game players, that doesn't work.
You can try my game here if you want. I think it's pretty good. It's missing music and stuff like that though.
More on-topic, I think I would prefer working independently on casual-type games than for a big company.
I totally agree with the opening post. THis why I do not develop games. Just programs for use.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
