See there is their problem, they think there is a way to minimize risk. The whole creativity industry is risk. They have been fooled into thinking with these seemingly guaranteed money spinning sequels that it isnt. When the bubble bursts(and it will, or maybe it will just deflate gradually) and they lose alot of money they will start realising that again. If they are not stupid they will then start spreading their bets.
Yes, diversity is always a safe bet. Take risks on some while hedging them with some more established themes. That is not to say that sequels are all bad. Stories planned around multiple episodes are not bad. Making a sequel that is largely indistinguishable from the last edition is bad (Madden, I'm looking at you!).
rechargeable shields, limited weapons, not to mention it improved heavily upon the previous attempts to bring fps games to consoles.
Like it or not, these things stayed quite hard, and touched every other game in the genre.
The series was also amongst the first to actually bring online gaming on consoles to full life.
See these rechargable shields and other things that have been blanket copied havent actually been tested whether or not they really are better.
I know you will probably say of course they are, but compared to some previous games that may be true, you cannot say that absolutely. Now they are even making games that revolve around that mechanic where you are constantly under attack because you can be because your health regenerates.
They could have whole games without regeneration health with interesting mechanics and a different flow, but we'll never know because everyones so busy copying what they think is best but dont really know whether it is or why.
Its just presuming something to be good without analysing it, and it could be analysed and quantified. Its complete lazyness and just, I dont what is going on. Theres no thought to this, no thought to what actually the mechanic does and how it changes and feels to the player.
For instance I watched a playthrough of Crysis 2 recently, its the most dullest shootying gallery I've seen. There doesnt appear to have been any attention payed to pacing, or emotional arkes(they only one that has seemed to pay any attentio to this seems to be valve). You may say what has that got to do with these games. They are all of these types of games trying to emulate, action movies, but they arent even doing that with a smidgen of competence. Its just throw in a ton of cliches, and a ton of enemies and then mash it all together and then give it to the customer and they'll like it because its the best thats available.
Everyone will want to hop on to the thing that made a game so great, but just hopping on to it will not make it great.
Takes skilled game-designers to actually implement something, but it did solve a bunch of issues that gamers very often during the big olden pc era solved with quicksave/quickload.
Good read, sums up my frustrations with the industry pretty well.
What bothers me is there isn't a creative outlet for talented hard working game designers and artists who want to try something new with other like minded designers. We all just throw our portfolios out there and randomly end up where we end up, studio A making FPS X, or studio B making platformer Y.
Where is the creative hub for people who want to make the next cool thing? Great at what you do? passionate? want to make something really cool and fresh with others who want to do the same? What's the answer to this? The mod community is dead, mod tools weak, all the big publishers and cutting off the creative base for proprietary reasons. It's just sad.
I put my money where my mouth is though, working on a pretty cool indie game on the side for no pay. I've entered major mod competitions only to get burned. I see some posters from blizzard in this thread, I'd love to know why the starcraft mod "cosmic eclipse" got beat out by half assed missile command remakes in the blizzard map competition last year. Whatever, everyone sits around and complains about the stagnation of gaming then goes off to work to work their 9 to 5 on generic title X.
Edit: I should note i was lucky enough to be hired at a studio that tries cool new things, but the point stands that it was all luck. I coulda ended up anywhere, fortunate to be where i am. I wish there was more method to the madness in this industry.
Whatever, everyone sits around and complains about the stagnation of gaming then goes off to work to work their 9 to 5 on generic title X.
Solid comment man. This has been slowly bothering me more and more as time goes on because i feel pretty guilty of being that guy. The more cool indy stuff I see the more im reminded of perhaps what i *should* be doing with my time
Where is the creative hub for people who want to make the next cool thing? Great at what you do? passionate? want to make something really cool and fresh with others who want to do the same? What's the answer to this? The mod community is dead, mod tools weak, all the big publishers and cutting off the creative base for proprietary reasons. It's just sad..
You ask where the creative hub is.. on polycount?
The mod community is stronger than ever, mod tools are better than ever, and it doesn't even have to be modding anymore.
People are actually making their own games these days!
Super Meat Boy was made by 2 dudes..Minecraft..made by 1 dude. Cave Story? One awesome japanese guy. Countless of excellent Modders behind Bethesda. I think AAA games can be stagnant at times.. But luckily we got these rascals making awesome little games that are surprisingly deeper than expected. I think we are at a new rise of "Garage Developers"
eld - polycount is a game art forum, aside you/neox/razorb/vig and a few others I cant really think of many people who are in the act of tinkering with the gameplay side of stuff - at least publically.
And come on Super Cow, think about how recharging health changed combat a bit more on your own without having people spell it out for you
You should get the IGDA book on game narrative, its pretty fucking interesting.
I agree with you on the whole competitive age of shooters though, i still play TFC pickups and the community is stupidly fucking diehard, its also at a state where its too hard to really get into for outsiders, theres just so much to learn. I think this depth is really important to some games - I consider WoW a great example of a gaming experience that has become increasing dissolved over time, I think that taking this sense of achievement and worth out of the game really cheapens it as a whole... its a shame really, wellfare items T_T
As much as id like to see new games like Warsow / Fortress Forever / Painkiller i dont remain hopeful. TF2 was a game changer for me in that it was the first really easy FPS game id played and when that became an esport i cant see anything that will replace it - i wanted it to be brink, but in the end i didnt even buy it
I thought mirrors edge was pretty refreshing. Shame it didnt do too well sales wise, but really that's pretty much the story behind this generation. People want Modern Warfare, so that's what we get.
Its quite funny how the games im looking forward to playing are all the hd remakes/classics. Can't wait to get my hands on a 3ds and Zelda OOT
CoD and TF2 seem to really meet the whole pick up and play criteria quite well, tf2 especially... CoD still has aspects of days gone by that makes it very easy to destroy people who are new. After my initial prestige in MW2 i went sniper only as anything automatic/shotgun was way too easy to 1man team with.
I've been bitching and moaning about this kind of stuff in the league of legends thread - i dont like my ability to be limited by a game, ive never been able to side with the people who were anti bunnyhopping or twitchgaming. I cant help but see it as loser talk or frustration on their side.
When i first started playing and saw people flying about i thought it was the coolest thing on the fucking planet... i spent weeks practicing and the reward and enjoyment i got out of it was great - I DID it, ME, not the fucking game.
What you say about brink and the customization - and people complementing it, is kind of what i was getting at with previous posts and also crazyfingers with -
"Whatever, everyone sits around and complains about the stagnation of gaming then goes off to work to work their 9 to 5 on generic title X."
Not to say brink was generic or anything to that effect, its just strange to me as first and foremost i want the game to play well. In this situation is it because this customization became a "USP" of sorts, so you then have to devote time to it? In this day and age how many of the team will be playing the game while its in development? - that last question is something i pondered when CoD MW2 was released, when i got the 1887 shotguns and saw how broken they were it concerned me as to how they made it into the game in that state.
Im incredibly ignorant to the whole creation process though.
Valve didn't make team fortress(the countless pre tf2 ones)
Valve made TFC after hiring robin walker / john cook and whoever else from the quake world team fortress mod?
Interesting take on the whole copying of elements... I see things a bit differently and i do consider TF2 to be very well made by comparison to CoD. In a default environment with spawntimers, the game flows really well, you end up naturally performing the role of the class to some degree and the its hard to go against the objective. (push the cart and capture points are where youre going anyway, you end up assisting in some way just by moving forward)
I'd say CTF (and maybe the tug of war capture points, but with spawntimers things can snowball and you can end up winning) is the only objective mode in TF2 that doesnt really work as its too prone to turtling and stalemates.
I think CoD is a deathmatch game at heart as thats what the overall gameplay veers towards. Throw in some objectives and players are required to play differently and fill roles and think on their feet yet you will still get people who want to do nothing but sit at the back and snipe/do nothing of worth.
I realise that these 2 things contradict each other a bit, as you will often get engineers/snipers in TF2 that dont really contribute, but for the most part i think TF2 does a good job of giving you a role and making you play within that.
TFC was a "badly" designed game and the way it gets played these days is because of rules and norms that have come out of the community; clanmatches used to be 8v8 and within that the rules were like;
4 offence, 4 defence (at choke points)
and as an offender you wouldnt really shoot each other, youd just head for the flag, this way the game revolved around the flag like it should.
There were public servers that ran with those rules strictly enforced and they were permanently full - as soon as we got someone who was unfamiliar with those rules they were either kicked or made to obey them haha.
I'd love to know why you think Counter strike was poorly designed, sure, you can get people who camp, but this is only detrimental if they are on the attacking team otherwise theyre filling their role. Hell, with the 1 life mechanic and the timed rounds there was always a clear winner and loser and even in public play things would work out.
I guess im just trying to work out what good design is? Perhaps its easy to say what it isnt, i.e. When the community has to make rules so that games flow well i think thats a problem.
SC2 seems like a great example of good design in a competitive game.
Yeah Cod is much more laid baNO SECOND CHANCE YOU FUCKER IM BAN YOUTHROWING GRENADES IS A BITCH MOVENO SPRINT YOUR BANNED
Where would the original Starsiege Tribes fall in your criteria by any chance? I played the hell out of it back in the day, and it introduced some of those annoying 'modernisms' first that most people thank Halo for... (Shield regenning, jetpacks, vehicles, offhand grenades and limited weapons all make an appearance)
I wish i got to play Tribes online, i had a 700mhz celeron at the time and even playing it vs bots rocked my fucking world - till my PC crashed. Alas, i had a 56k and i wasnt going to venture online with that piece of shit.
Tribes seemed to introduce loads of really interesting elements i just never really got to play it in its prime
For the most part I dont think "Good" design is subjective.
Art is a subject that is regarded as purely subjective but there will be elements within that that make things pleasing. I'd say composition is a pretty universal thing that spans across art from rendered to abstract, and if something follows the idea of what makes for a pleasing composition then people can see that regardless. I dont have all the knowledge to really argue that point properly though.
At a really basic level wouldnt good design boil down to intuitive to play / clear goals and things like that? Using lighting in levels to subtly guide the player. If youve played as much ET as i can imagine you have then you can surely tell me why certain maps have stood the test of time over others, people will have preferences within that map pool certainly but the pool is still somewhat small.
Badwaterbasin in TF2 factors in a lot of things, obscuring the overly long sight lines so snipers arent overpowered / good height advantages for the defenders / just about every sentry place is weak from somewhere. If that isnt "good" or smart/intelligent design what IS it?
I think FPS is a strange name for a mechanic. It means you're shooting something, when all you're REALLY doing from a mechanic standpoint, is clicking on a player controlled target.... someone who is also capable of clicking on you.
There's a lack of creativity that makes us unable to detach the actual shooting from the mechanic of 'clicking on pixels'.
I guess what I'm trying to say of this article, is that it's less about what developers make, and more about what people will buy.
You could turn those FPS mechanics, into an infinite possibility of things visually, but they simply would not sell.
I think FPS is a strange name for a mechanic. It means you're shooting something, when all you're REALLY doing from a mechanic standpoint, is clicking on a player controlled target.... someone who is also capable of clicking on you.
There's a lack of creativity that makes us unable to detach the actual shooting from the mechanic of 'clicking on pixels'.
I guess what I'm trying to say of this article, is that it's less about what developers make, and more about what people will buy.
You could turn those FPS mechanics, into an infinite possibility of things visually, but they simply would not sell.
I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Fps mechanics have stayed for the same reason we haven't phased out the mosue+keyboard yet.
The very mechanics of shooters have been experimented around since the dawn of gaming too, it's nothing new there either.
The crosshair in the middle, point and shoot stuck around because it is so genuinely simple to understand and do.
Even super-creative revolutionary games like minecraft follow this same mechanic.
Also, guys, seriously, either learn to make games or pledge your art talent to helping people with good ideas, and go post on TIGsource. That is your creative hub. There's a ludicrous amount of beautiful and innovative stuff going on in the WIP forums. Stop whining about the problem in an irrelevant place.
Yeah Cod is much more laid baNO SECOND CHANCE YOU FUCKER IM BAN YOUTHROWING GRENADES IS A BITCH MOVENO SPRINT YOUR BANNED
Dude, i know you guys are all PC elitist, but seriously FUCK DEDICATED SERVERS. I'd take matchmaking any day over wading through TITS AND BEER 24/7 [SHITTYMAP] SERVER and warcraft mod shit and CRAM 35 PEOPLE ON A MAP DESIGNED FOR 8 for 2 hours before me and my friends can get in a game. For example, brink's default gametype with changed respawn times and friendly fire turned on is a RIDICULOUSLY BAD GAME.
Also, guys, seriously, either learn to make games or pledge your art talent to helping people with good ideas, and go post on TIGsource. Stop whining about the problem in an irrelevant place.
Dude, i know you guys are all PC elitist, but seriously FUCK DEDICATED SERVERS. I'd take matchmaking any day over wading through TITS AND BEER 24/7 [SHITTYMAP] SERVER and warcraft mod shit and CRAM 35 PEOPLE ON A MAP DESIGNED FOR 8 for 2 hours before me and my friends can get in a game. For example, brink's default gametype with changed respawn times and friendly fire turned on is a RIDICULOUSLY BAD GAME.
Or you do it heroes of newerth style, matchmaking with dedicated servers.
Dedicated is a good thing since it'll guarantee the scenario of there existing a really nice and stable server that you can go back to again.
I mean dedicated servers as they exist in pc gaming culture, a server with custom settings and draconian admins. I know that's an incorrect use of the term, sorry
I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Fps mechanics have stayed for the same reason we haven't phased out the mosue+keyboard yet.
The very mechanics of shooters have been experimented around since the dawn of gaming too, it's nothing new there either.
The crosshair in the middle, point and shoot stuck around because it is so genuinely simple to understand and do.
Even super-creative revolutionary games like minecraft follow this same mechanic.
You are completely missing my point.
FPS is nothing but clicking on a player controlled target.
That is it. The fact that is a GUN you are shooting, or a banana, or carebear rays of love, makes absolutely no difference to the mechanic.
You can take those same FPS mechanics, and apply it to trying to catch flies with chopsticks in some kind of fly-swatter game, or some silly grocery produce game where you're tossing veggies into your moving cart.
It's player controlled Wack-A-Mole. Where everyone is simultaneously a mole, and a wacker.
The "MECHANIC" is NOTHING but clicking on a moving target. Get it???
The only thing about this gameplay mechanic, is making it a GUN is what makes it an FPS.
The only thing about this gameplay mechanic, is making it a GUN is what makes it an FPS.
It's how it works in real-life, you point at something, fire the gun, and a projectile will make its way to where it was pointed, once again: everyone understands it!
Pointing is fundamental to human behavior, you learn it early on.
But once again, you're looking for a fix for something that isn't broken, very much like implying that chess is broken. We do get new boardgames that are vastly more advanced than chess, but people keep coming back to chess, the only mechanic it has is that you can move a piece to a position.
And, the entire magic of games is an entire big illusion of cheating, everything is made in a way for the player to believe it's actually being done, but it's always relatively simple.
If you think FF is bad in a game like Brink, you're a pedestrian FPS player, which really, is totally fine. Most people are, and I 100% understand just wanting to enjoy a shooter, after, say, being outside with lovely female company. But don't think that FF on is bad. It used to be, you know, the incentive for peop
Really, did you play much brink?
FF on in brink is as wacky and poorly thought out as FF off in ghost recon or armed assault.
I'm not super hardcore about most fps games, but i have been in the past, so i get where you're coming from, but friendly fire in brink is an excellent example of 'more hardcore' really meaning meaning BAD DESIGN.
It's trying to make brink into something it is not. Something it's very bad at being. I respect the tactical, teamplay vibe that friendly fire in a shooter encourages, but if the game is directed to encourage players to aggressively push torward objectives and literally slide into the center of groups of enemies it's a ludicrous option to toggle on. In brink working together is getting on the objective and pushing the enemy team back like a wave, and people huddling far away trading shots ultra carefully is the exact opposite of proper, cooperative play.
Ie, i like clear developer direction in my games, and random features toggled on or off to makes a confusing mess of broken game design.
Anyway, i agree with your point on ludicrous server settings being more common in the 'realistic' style games, counterstrike and battlefield are the worst offenders in my opinion. Followed closely by tf2. I don't even go near call of duty games on pc, and i'm largely happy with it, for all of its problems any match of blackops at least feels fair and well thought out.
Halo's community is so vocal that even with matchmaking you get some bullshit game modes, like swat snipers, which turns halo 3/reach into a vastly inferior version of scouts&knives, and as far as i'm converned nobody in their right mind would even play in its proper form.
Bonus edit: do you like The Specialists? it's still somewhat alive and i think it would be fairly up your alley, very fast and skill based and movement-centric.
This article reminds me of my college audio teacher saying music from the 70s when he was a teen is better than music now. As any industry grows, there will be more bullshit, copying, reused ideas, profiteering, etc. However, there is more diversity too, and this article is ridiculously slanted towards the negative, cynical side.
Would you say music in the 2000's is better than music from the 90's? The same business practices that have stifled the music industry has had a negative affect on the game industry, ignoring the core market and going after easier to please casual markets and turning the "artform" into more of a factory production. Pays off in the short term, not long term, it also weakens the medium.
I don't see where The Specialists comes into play when the last time I remember, I kept getting booted for not participating in matrix / equilibrium / kingdom hearts role playing. what
Would you say music in the 2000's is better than music from the 90's? The same business practices that have stifled the music industry has had a negative affect on the game industry, ignoring the core market and going after easier to please casual markets and turning the "artform" into more of a factory production. Pays off in the short term, not long term, it also weakens the medium.
Dude... really? When I was growing up in the 90s my parents were constantly bitching about "music today" and when they were kids, their parents were bitching about the same shit, and probably so on and so forth. The older people get the more resistant they become to change, they're always looking backward at the way shit used to be. It really doesn't matter which direction anything goes in, nothing is ever as good as the things you remember liking.
I wouldn't say music from the 90s is better than music from the 2000s, I'd say it's different.
The gaming industry is larger than it's ever been, it's also easier than it's ever been to build a game if you're armed with ambition and good ideas. Yet audiences have deluded themselves into believing this fucking fantasy that their choices are shrinking and there's no room for creativity despite the fact that there are examples to the contrary literally everywhere, because those games don't target them, so they don't count.
Dude... really? When I was growing up in the 90s my parents were constantly bitching about "music today" and when they were kids, their parents were bitching about the same shit, and probably so on and so forth. The older people get the more resistant they become to change, they're always looking backward at the way shit used to be. It really doesn't matter which direction anything goes in, nothing is ever as good as the things you remember liking.
I wouldn't say music from the 90s is better than music from the 2000s, I'd say it's different.
The gaming industry is larger than it's ever been, it's also easier than it's ever been to build a game if you're armed with ambition and good ideas. Yet audiences have deluded themselves into believing this fucking fantasy that their choices are shrinking and there's no room for creativity despite the fact that there are examples to the contrary literally everywhere, because those games don't target them, so they don't count.
I'd agree on the point about music. For me, it's not the era of the music, but the style of it. I find music from many different eras to be appealing to me and I also find music from many different eras to be complete crap. I will always find that there is good stuff coming down the pipe just as much as there is raw sewage too.
I think the difference between music and games, however, is that music is something that doesn't need anything but your voice and your PC. And you can make some of the greatest, most complex, and nuanced art ever. Where in games, if you want to make the world's greatest MMORPG, you're going to face some serious barriers. Not the least of which is money to make it happen in your lifetime. Don't get me wrong, there are great games made by only one person, but they aren't of the scope you'd see from the likes of Blizzard or Rockstar. Those outstanding blockbusters that we cherish so much took more manpower than one person can hope to invest. I don't know if I'm missing something, but I see the best resources for great games being shackled with creative limitations because the some of the publishers and their producers want to use the cruise control approach to profit rather than take a chance at making something new and great.
I don't see where The Specialists comes into play when the last time I remember, I kept getting booted for not participating in matrix / equilibrium / kingdom hearts role playing. what
Yeah the mod has a super healthy RP community, it's very weird and populated by very weird people. The community as a deathmatch game is wholly detatched from them, though, and it's pretty fun.
Super happy cow, plenty of thoroughly complex games have distinctly authored, clear play styles. Games can strongly promote certain tactics and playstyles without removing other options.
Starcraft forces you to focus on resources, tribes and quake 3 emphasis movement over all else, counterstrike focuses on headshots and teamplay, etc. 'Streamlining' a game is one way to maintain a strong editorial control on how it's played, but plain old good game balance goes a long way too.
All of the more 'hardcore', skill based games still have certain weapons and tactics that define them and represent the majority of the play, and it's not because they're over-simplified, it's because the games have certain focuses and strengths. For brink, those things are the slide, the knockdown grenades/molotovs, and the team buffs. All of which (except for engy damage buff) seem to largely go out the window when players suddenly have to adapt to friendly fire.
For another example, in Unreal Tournament games you can definitely crouch and skulk around corners counterstrike style in you want to, and in rare moments it's actually the best choice, but it isn't the primary direction of the game. The fact that 'tacticool' play and one hit kill headshots and suppression fire and all that jazz isn't a major part of the game isn't an example of it being dumbed down, it's an example of the game being strongly defined as an action, scifi deathmatch shooter. And the same goes in the reverse for Modern Warfare.
I think you have the perspective i run into a lot with self proclaimed 'hardcore' fps players, that if anyone thinks a 'casual' game is fun or points out a hardcore game's flaws they must simply be dying a lot and think it's unfair. There are other reasons than just frustration to dislike hardcore culture and features. Most people look to more for games than just challenge alone.
I think the difference between music and games, however, is that music is something that doesn't need anything but your voice and your PC. And you can make some of the greatest, most complex, and nuanced art ever. Where in games, if you want to make the world's greatest MMORPG, you're going to face some serious barriers. Not the least of which is money to make it happen in your lifetime. Don't get me wrong, there are great games made by only one person, but they aren't of the scope you'd see from the likes of Blizzard or Rockstar. Those outstanding blockbusters that we cherish so much took more manpower than one person can hope to invest. I don't know if I'm missing something, but I see the best resources for great games being shackled with creative limitations because the some of the publishers and their producers want to use the cruise control approach to profit rather than take a chance at making something new and great.
Much like with just needing your voice and the pc to make music, you only need your pc and your brain to make a game.
In both cases, without skill, they will both suck.
In both cases, without money, you won't be able to make any big studio productions.
But in both cases, nothing stops you from making it.
But people love listening to an orchestra production, and that's not cheap, but they also love listening to just a persons voice too.
I think we've since long ago treaded into different areas of game play in this thread, and different tastes, of which we shouldn't rob anyone of their favorite games, but I guess the anger is over that a certain groups favorite type of game is stronger at the moment, while ones favorite type of game had a stronger life earlier on.
Think of the guys into point and click adventure games, how do you think they feel as you plow through the endless third person adventure games (even if they're ico or shadow)
Much like with just needing your voice and the pc to make music, you only need your pc and your brain to make a game.
In both cases, without skill, they will both suck.
In both cases, without money, you won't be able to make any big studio productions.
But in both cases, nothing stops you from making it.
But people love listening to an orchestra production, and that's not cheap, but they also love listening to just a persons voice too.
I think we've since long ago treaded into different areas of game play in this thread, and different tastes, of which we shouldn't rob anyone of their favorite games, but I guess the anger is over that a certain groups favorite type of game is stronger at the moment, while ones favorite type of game had a stronger life earlier on.
Think of the guys into point and click adventure games, how do you think they feel as you plow through the endless third person adventure games (even if they're ico or shadow)
All you need is samples and some basic video editing software and you can create great music. The barrier to entry for any kind of music is almost negligible, but the barrier to create any kind of game still demands certain things that no individual can easily attain.
You don't need a big budget to produce a major recording in music. Your PC and the right software can do the heavy lifting. You just need to apply your imagination. You're over simplifying it and taking it from an old world point of view on how music is made. This is the 21st century. You don't need a big expensive studio to produce complex, multi-instrument compositions and record them. Technology has taken the grunt work out of it. That's not the case for games production. Had I the skill, I could compose and produce musical works on a "Rogers and Hammerstein" proportions with little more than a PC, a collection of samples, and audio production software. Assuming I had the skill, I could not produce WoW on my own and without gobs of money.
All you need is samples and some basic video editing software and you can create great music. The barrier to entry for any kind of music is almost negligible, but the barrier to create any kind of game still demands certain things that no individual can easily attain.
You don't need a big budget to produce a major recording in music. Your PC and the right software can do the heavy lifting. You just need to apply your imagination. You're over simplifying it and taking it from an old world point of view on how music is made. This is the 21st century. You don't need a big expensive studio to produce complex, multi-instrument compositions and record them. Technology has taken the grunt work out of it. That's not the case for games production. Had I the skill, I could compose and produce musical works on a "Rogers and Hammerstein" proportions with little more than a PC, a collection of samples, and audio production software. Assuming I had the skill, I could not produce WoW on my own and without gobs of money.
I'm talking about production quality though, and as that video you just linked, the production quality wasn't high, even though the creativity was.
People have been making online rpg's since the dawn of more connected computers, many of them in many ways more complex than world of warcraft. What is expensive is attaining a high quality production, once again using the orchestra example, there's no really good shortcut to a real orchestra recording in the proper space, but it's fully possible to emulate an orchestra with samples.
hmmm, achievements are not in there.
games are getting alot like hollywood. financially speculation drives creativity out (you liked the six other AAA modern soldier fps games out there maybe you want a seventh).
meanwhile small studios and one man operation create interesting games that receive just enough to make it worth their while to make another.
(anyone in the middle gets the short end of the stick being unable to compete on creativity or quality).
its a damn shame but there's nothing i know that can be done, currently.
hmmm, achievements are not in there.
games are getting alot like hollywood. financially speculation drives creativity out (you liked the six other AAA modern soldier fps games out there maybe you want a seventh).
(anyone in the middle gets the short end of the stick being unable to compete on creativity or quality).
its a damn shame but there's nothing i know that can be done, currently.
With the dawn of digital distribution, the middle ground developers, teams that are larger than one but still without a massive force, are also having it better than ever.
Nowadays you can release a game outside the retail market that was nearly the only way some long time ago, better ways to reach your markets.
Build your crazy awesome innovative game. Break all the preconceptions, alter every design paradigm. Then find 20 "gamers" off the street, and say "I will give you one free game." Offer them the new Call of Duty or your new crazy innovative game. Which do you think they will pick? The mainstream wants these shooters, whether or not you like playing them/making them.
Does the mainstream game industry have a lot of repetition? Yes. But it always has... There was no "golden age". Consistently, every year has had it's share of innovation and repetition. Don't let nostalgia cloud the actual facts. Innovative games definitely exist. But if you are looking for them on billboards and in the latest issue of Cracked, well, good luck. Minecraft, something most people can agree is an awesome, innovative game, has no marketing. Zero.
Also, be careful of what you categorize as "innovative". How exactly is Super Meat Boy innovative? It's got awesome platforming mechanics, and a cool retro feel. Definitely a well crafted experience. But nothing in the actual design is very innovative. It just feels fresh because we aren't given many good 2d platformers these days.
Great games and great game franchises are interesting beasts. On the surface we identify madden or call of duty by tangible real world things. The average joe on the street thinks he likes FPS's with a realistic tilt to it, or football games. The engine and the mechanics are the hidden drive behind these games that make them "fun". This is why sequalitis is so big, it's the only way studios can gaurantee to their fan base that their current title is "good" because the face of the game is instantly recognizable. "Oh this is a madden game, it's going to be good". A football game by any other studio would likely be horrid, simply because no studio has been allowed to make football games in forever because EA owns the license to the NFL brand and who wants to play a game without their favorite players? It's good and bad, on one hand new great games are overlooked, but games that have been consistently good reap their rewards. If you try to be innovative with such a franchise, you risk all the confidence you've built with your consumers. Again, consumers do not see the underlying fun of a game before buying it, they have only tangible references to what they know is good to base it on. This is the achilese heal of our industry, a good book you can judge by the author as the medium isn't the huge gamble, a movie you can get a good judge from the commercial and cast. What makes a good game? 0's and 1's, and it's a heck of a lot harder to make those suckers fall together to make an engaging and easy to pick up experience doing something an entire team has to come together and produce, often times just people showing up to work their 9 to 5. Word of mouth, that's all we have, it's the only way a new IP is going to transcend existing tried and true behemoths.
Replies
Yes, diversity is always a safe bet. Take risks on some while hedging them with some more established themes. That is not to say that sequels are all bad. Stories planned around multiple episodes are not bad. Making a sequel that is largely indistinguishable from the last edition is bad (Madden, I'm looking at you!).
rechargeable shields, limited weapons, not to mention it improved heavily upon the previous attempts to bring fps games to consoles.
Like it or not, these things stayed quite hard, and touched every other game in the genre.
The series was also amongst the first to actually bring online gaming on consoles to full life.
See these rechargable shields and other things that have been blanket copied havent actually been tested whether or not they really are better.
I know you will probably say of course they are, but compared to some previous games that may be true, you cannot say that absolutely. Now they are even making games that revolve around that mechanic where you are constantly under attack because you can be because your health regenerates.
They could have whole games without regeneration health with interesting mechanics and a different flow, but we'll never know because everyones so busy copying what they think is best but dont really know whether it is or why.
Its just presuming something to be good without analysing it, and it could be analysed and quantified. Its complete lazyness and just, I dont what is going on. Theres no thought to this, no thought to what actually the mechanic does and how it changes and feels to the player.
For instance I watched a playthrough of Crysis 2 recently, its the most dullest shootying gallery I've seen. There doesnt appear to have been any attention payed to pacing, or emotional arkes(they only one that has seemed to pay any attentio to this seems to be valve). You may say what has that got to do with these games. They are all of these types of games trying to emulate, action movies, but they arent even doing that with a smidgen of competence. Its just throw in a ton of cliches, and a ton of enemies and then mash it all together and then give it to the customer and they'll like it because its the best thats available.
Takes skilled game-designers to actually implement something, but it did solve a bunch of issues that gamers very often during the big olden pc era solved with quicksave/quickload.
What bothers me is there isn't a creative outlet for talented hard working game designers and artists who want to try something new with other like minded designers. We all just throw our portfolios out there and randomly end up where we end up, studio A making FPS X, or studio B making platformer Y.
Where is the creative hub for people who want to make the next cool thing? Great at what you do? passionate? want to make something really cool and fresh with others who want to do the same? What's the answer to this? The mod community is dead, mod tools weak, all the big publishers and cutting off the creative base for proprietary reasons. It's just sad.
I put my money where my mouth is though, working on a pretty cool indie game on the side for no pay. I've entered major mod competitions only to get burned. I see some posters from blizzard in this thread, I'd love to know why the starcraft mod "cosmic eclipse" got beat out by half assed missile command remakes in the blizzard map competition last year. Whatever, everyone sits around and complains about the stagnation of gaming then goes off to work to work their 9 to 5 on generic title X.
Edit: I should note i was lucky enough to be hired at a studio that tries cool new things, but the point stands that it was all luck. I coulda ended up anywhere, fortunate to be where i am. I wish there was more method to the madness in this industry.
Solid comment man. This has been slowly bothering me more and more as time goes on because i feel pretty guilty of being that guy. The more cool indy stuff I see the more im reminded of perhaps what i *should* be doing with my time
You ask where the creative hub is.. on polycount?
The mod community is stronger than ever, mod tools are better than ever, and it doesn't even have to be modding anymore.
People are actually making their own games these days!
And come on Super Cow, think about how recharging health changed combat a bit more on your own without having people spell it out for you
You should get the IGDA book on game narrative, its pretty fucking interesting.
I agree with you on the whole competitive age of shooters though, i still play TFC pickups and the community is stupidly fucking diehard, its also at a state where its too hard to really get into for outsiders, theres just so much to learn. I think this depth is really important to some games - I consider WoW a great example of a gaming experience that has become increasing dissolved over time, I think that taking this sense of achievement and worth out of the game really cheapens it as a whole... its a shame really, wellfare items T_T
As much as id like to see new games like Warsow / Fortress Forever / Painkiller i dont remain hopeful. TF2 was a game changer for me in that it was the first really easy FPS game id played and when that became an esport i cant see anything that will replace it - i wanted it to be brink, but in the end i didnt even buy it
Its quite funny how the games im looking forward to playing are all the hd remakes/classics. Can't wait to get my hands on a 3ds and Zelda OOT
The sad trend is usually: "this new game is so niche that we don't know if it'll sell, you'll only get a small marketing budget"
I've been bitching and moaning about this kind of stuff in the league of legends thread - i dont like my ability to be limited by a game, ive never been able to side with the people who were anti bunnyhopping or twitchgaming. I cant help but see it as loser talk or frustration on their side.
When i first started playing and saw people flying about i thought it was the coolest thing on the fucking planet... i spent weeks practicing and the reward and enjoyment i got out of it was great - I DID it, ME, not the fucking game.
What you say about brink and the customization - and people complementing it, is kind of what i was getting at with previous posts and also crazyfingers with -
"Whatever, everyone sits around and complains about the stagnation of gaming then goes off to work to work their 9 to 5 on generic title X."
Not to say brink was generic or anything to that effect, its just strange to me as first and foremost i want the game to play well. In this situation is it because this customization became a "USP" of sorts, so you then have to devote time to it? In this day and age how many of the team will be playing the game while its in development? - that last question is something i pondered when CoD MW2 was released, when i got the 1887 shotguns and saw how broken they were it concerned me as to how they made it into the game in that state.
Im incredibly ignorant to the whole creation process though.
left 4 dead was made by turtle rock studios and were acquired by valve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_Rock_Studios
Thems fightin words, son.
Valve made TFC after hiring robin walker / john cook and whoever else from the quake world team fortress mod?
Interesting take on the whole copying of elements... I see things a bit differently and i do consider TF2 to be very well made by comparison to CoD. In a default environment with spawntimers, the game flows really well, you end up naturally performing the role of the class to some degree and the its hard to go against the objective. (push the cart and capture points are where youre going anyway, you end up assisting in some way just by moving forward)
I'd say CTF (and maybe the tug of war capture points, but with spawntimers things can snowball and you can end up winning) is the only objective mode in TF2 that doesnt really work as its too prone to turtling and stalemates.
I think CoD is a deathmatch game at heart as thats what the overall gameplay veers towards. Throw in some objectives and players are required to play differently and fill roles and think on their feet yet you will still get people who want to do nothing but sit at the back and snipe/do nothing of worth.
I realise that these 2 things contradict each other a bit, as you will often get engineers/snipers in TF2 that dont really contribute, but for the most part i think TF2 does a good job of giving you a role and making you play within that.
TFC was a "badly" designed game and the way it gets played these days is because of rules and norms that have come out of the community; clanmatches used to be 8v8 and within that the rules were like;
4 offence, 4 defence (at choke points)
and as an offender you wouldnt really shoot each other, youd just head for the flag, this way the game revolved around the flag like it should.
There were public servers that ran with those rules strictly enforced and they were permanently full - as soon as we got someone who was unfamiliar with those rules they were either kicked or made to obey them haha.
I'd love to know why you think Counter strike was poorly designed, sure, you can get people who camp, but this is only detrimental if they are on the attacking team otherwise theyre filling their role. Hell, with the 1 life mechanic and the timed rounds there was always a clear winner and loser and even in public play things would work out.
I guess im just trying to work out what good design is? Perhaps its easy to say what it isnt, i.e. When the community has to make rules so that games flow well i think thats a problem.
SC2 seems like a great example of good design in a competitive game.
Where would the original Starsiege Tribes fall in your criteria by any chance? I played the hell out of it back in the day, and it introduced some of those annoying 'modernisms' first that most people thank Halo for... (Shield regenning, jetpacks, vehicles, offhand grenades and limited weapons all make an appearance)
Tribes seemed to introduce loads of really interesting elements i just never really got to play it in its prime
Art is a subject that is regarded as purely subjective but there will be elements within that that make things pleasing. I'd say composition is a pretty universal thing that spans across art from rendered to abstract, and if something follows the idea of what makes for a pleasing composition then people can see that regardless. I dont have all the knowledge to really argue that point properly though.
At a really basic level wouldnt good design boil down to intuitive to play / clear goals and things like that? Using lighting in levels to subtly guide the player. If youve played as much ET as i can imagine you have then you can surely tell me why certain maps have stood the test of time over others, people will have preferences within that map pool certainly but the pool is still somewhat small.
Badwaterbasin in TF2 factors in a lot of things, obscuring the overly long sight lines so snipers arent overpowered / good height advantages for the defenders / just about every sentry place is weak from somewhere. If that isnt "good" or smart/intelligent design what IS it?
There's a lack of creativity that makes us unable to detach the actual shooting from the mechanic of 'clicking on pixels'.
I guess what I'm trying to say of this article, is that it's less about what developers make, and more about what people will buy.
You could turn those FPS mechanics, into an infinite possibility of things visually, but they simply would not sell.
I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Fps mechanics have stayed for the same reason we haven't phased out the mosue+keyboard yet.
The very mechanics of shooters have been experimented around since the dawn of gaming too, it's nothing new there either.
The crosshair in the middle, point and shoot stuck around because it is so genuinely simple to understand and do.
Even super-creative revolutionary games like minecraft follow this same mechanic.
Dude, i know you guys are all PC elitist, but seriously FUCK DEDICATED SERVERS. I'd take matchmaking any day over wading through TITS AND BEER 24/7 [SHITTYMAP] SERVER and warcraft mod shit and CRAM 35 PEOPLE ON A MAP DESIGNED FOR 8 for 2 hours before me and my friends can get in a game. For example, brink's default gametype with changed respawn times and friendly fire turned on is a RIDICULOUSLY BAD GAME.
Or you do it heroes of newerth style, matchmaking with dedicated servers.
Dedicated is a good thing since it'll guarantee the scenario of there existing a really nice and stable server that you can go back to again.
You are completely missing my point.
FPS is nothing but clicking on a player controlled target.
That is it. The fact that is a GUN you are shooting, or a banana, or carebear rays of love, makes absolutely no difference to the mechanic.
You can take those same FPS mechanics, and apply it to trying to catch flies with chopsticks in some kind of fly-swatter game, or some silly grocery produce game where you're tossing veggies into your moving cart.
It's player controlled Wack-A-Mole. Where everyone is simultaneously a mole, and a wacker.
The "MECHANIC" is NOTHING but clicking on a moving target. Get it???
The only thing about this gameplay mechanic, is making it a GUN is what makes it an FPS.
It's how it works in real-life, you point at something, fire the gun, and a projectile will make its way to where it was pointed, once again: everyone understands it!
Pointing is fundamental to human behavior, you learn it early on.
But once again, you're looking for a fix for something that isn't broken, very much like implying that chess is broken. We do get new boardgames that are vastly more advanced than chess, but people keep coming back to chess, the only mechanic it has is that you can move a piece to a position.
And, the entire magic of games is an entire big illusion of cheating, everything is made in a way for the player to believe it's actually being done, but it's always relatively simple.
Penis tanks of course!
Really, did you play much brink?
FF on in brink is as wacky and poorly thought out as FF off in ghost recon or armed assault.
I'm not super hardcore about most fps games, but i have been in the past, so i get where you're coming from, but friendly fire in brink is an excellent example of 'more hardcore' really meaning meaning BAD DESIGN.
It's trying to make brink into something it is not. Something it's very bad at being. I respect the tactical, teamplay vibe that friendly fire in a shooter encourages, but if the game is directed to encourage players to aggressively push torward objectives and literally slide into the center of groups of enemies it's a ludicrous option to toggle on. In brink working together is getting on the objective and pushing the enemy team back like a wave, and people huddling far away trading shots ultra carefully is the exact opposite of proper, cooperative play.
Ie, i like clear developer direction in my games, and random features toggled on or off to makes a confusing mess of broken game design.
Anyway, i agree with your point on ludicrous server settings being more common in the 'realistic' style games, counterstrike and battlefield are the worst offenders in my opinion. Followed closely by tf2. I don't even go near call of duty games on pc, and i'm largely happy with it, for all of its problems any match of blackops at least feels fair and well thought out.
Halo's community is so vocal that even with matchmaking you get some bullshit game modes, like swat snipers, which turns halo 3/reach into a vastly inferior version of scouts&knives, and as far as i'm converned nobody in their right mind would even play in its proper form.
Bonus edit: do you like The Specialists? it's still somewhat alive and i think it would be fairly up your alley, very fast and skill based and movement-centric.
I wouldn't say music from the 90s is better than music from the 2000s, I'd say it's different.
The gaming industry is larger than it's ever been, it's also easier than it's ever been to build a game if you're armed with ambition and good ideas. Yet audiences have deluded themselves into believing this fucking fantasy that their choices are shrinking and there's no room for creativity despite the fact that there are examples to the contrary literally everywhere, because those games don't target them, so they don't count.
I'd agree on the point about music. For me, it's not the era of the music, but the style of it. I find music from many different eras to be appealing to me and I also find music from many different eras to be complete crap. I will always find that there is good stuff coming down the pipe just as much as there is raw sewage too.
I think the difference between music and games, however, is that music is something that doesn't need anything but your voice and your PC. And you can make some of the greatest, most complex, and nuanced art ever. Where in games, if you want to make the world's greatest MMORPG, you're going to face some serious barriers. Not the least of which is money to make it happen in your lifetime. Don't get me wrong, there are great games made by only one person, but they aren't of the scope you'd see from the likes of Blizzard or Rockstar. Those outstanding blockbusters that we cherish so much took more manpower than one person can hope to invest. I don't know if I'm missing something, but I see the best resources for great games being shackled with creative limitations because the some of the publishers and their producers want to use the cruise control approach to profit rather than take a chance at making something new and great.
Yeah the mod has a super healthy RP community, it's very weird and populated by very weird people. The community as a deathmatch game is wholly detatched from them, though, and it's pretty fun.
Super happy cow, plenty of thoroughly complex games have distinctly authored, clear play styles. Games can strongly promote certain tactics and playstyles without removing other options.
Starcraft forces you to focus on resources, tribes and quake 3 emphasis movement over all else, counterstrike focuses on headshots and teamplay, etc. 'Streamlining' a game is one way to maintain a strong editorial control on how it's played, but plain old good game balance goes a long way too.
All of the more 'hardcore', skill based games still have certain weapons and tactics that define them and represent the majority of the play, and it's not because they're over-simplified, it's because the games have certain focuses and strengths. For brink, those things are the slide, the knockdown grenades/molotovs, and the team buffs. All of which (except for engy damage buff) seem to largely go out the window when players suddenly have to adapt to friendly fire.
For another example, in Unreal Tournament games you can definitely crouch and skulk around corners counterstrike style in you want to, and in rare moments it's actually the best choice, but it isn't the primary direction of the game. The fact that 'tacticool' play and one hit kill headshots and suppression fire and all that jazz isn't a major part of the game isn't an example of it being dumbed down, it's an example of the game being strongly defined as an action, scifi deathmatch shooter. And the same goes in the reverse for Modern Warfare.
I think you have the perspective i run into a lot with self proclaimed 'hardcore' fps players, that if anyone thinks a 'casual' game is fun or points out a hardcore game's flaws they must simply be dying a lot and think it's unfair. There are other reasons than just frustration to dislike hardcore culture and features. Most people look to more for games than just challenge alone.
Much like with just needing your voice and the pc to make music, you only need your pc and your brain to make a game.
In both cases, without skill, they will both suck.
In both cases, without money, you won't be able to make any big studio productions.
But in both cases, nothing stops you from making it.
But people love listening to an orchestra production, and that's not cheap, but they also love listening to just a persons voice too.
I think we've since long ago treaded into different areas of game play in this thread, and different tastes, of which we shouldn't rob anyone of their favorite games, but I guess the anger is over that a certain groups favorite type of game is stronger at the moment, while ones favorite type of game had a stronger life earlier on.
Think of the guys into point and click adventure games, how do you think they feel as you plow through the endless third person adventure games (even if they're ico or shadow)
You don't need an actual orchestra to produce the music of an orchestra. Case in point: http://thru-you.com/#/videos/1/
All you need is samples and some basic video editing software and you can create great music. The barrier to entry for any kind of music is almost negligible, but the barrier to create any kind of game still demands certain things that no individual can easily attain.
You don't need a big budget to produce a major recording in music. Your PC and the right software can do the heavy lifting. You just need to apply your imagination. You're over simplifying it and taking it from an old world point of view on how music is made. This is the 21st century. You don't need a big expensive studio to produce complex, multi-instrument compositions and record them. Technology has taken the grunt work out of it. That's not the case for games production. Had I the skill, I could compose and produce musical works on a "Rogers and Hammerstein" proportions with little more than a PC, a collection of samples, and audio production software. Assuming I had the skill, I could not produce WoW on my own and without gobs of money.
The most advanced and complex game in the world is made by two persons: http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/
I'm talking about production quality though, and as that video you just linked, the production quality wasn't high, even though the creativity was.
People have been making online rpg's since the dawn of more connected computers, many of them in many ways more complex than world of warcraft. What is expensive is attaining a high quality production, once again using the orchestra example, there's no really good shortcut to a real orchestra recording in the proper space, but it's fully possible to emulate an orchestra with samples.
games are getting alot like hollywood. financially speculation drives creativity out (you liked the six other AAA modern soldier fps games out there maybe you want a seventh).
meanwhile small studios and one man operation create interesting games that receive just enough to make it worth their while to make another.
(anyone in the middle gets the short end of the stick being unable to compete on creativity or quality).
its a damn shame but there's nothing i know that can be done, currently.
It already became that 10 years ago.
They're having it better than that, just because you don't know of them, doesn't mean they do not exist.
With the dawn of digital distribution, the middle ground developers, teams that are larger than one but still without a massive force, are also having it better than ever.
Nowadays you can release a game outside the retail market that was nearly the only way some long time ago, better ways to reach your markets.
pew pew
HUNT's cool grappling hook would be hated by those grappling hook lovers.
Does the mainstream game industry have a lot of repetition? Yes. But it always has... There was no "golden age". Consistently, every year has had it's share of innovation and repetition. Don't let nostalgia cloud the actual facts. Innovative games definitely exist. But if you are looking for them on billboards and in the latest issue of Cracked, well, good luck. Minecraft, something most people can agree is an awesome, innovative game, has no marketing. Zero.
Also, be careful of what you categorize as "innovative". How exactly is Super Meat Boy innovative? It's got awesome platforming mechanics, and a cool retro feel. Definitely a well crafted experience. But nothing in the actual design is very innovative. It just feels fresh because we aren't given many good 2d platformers these days.
And this is true. Its my fav.