=?ISO-8859-1?Q?I_think_C64_games_are_better_than_today=B4s_PC _crap?=

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:47:05 +0200, Ashmodai
<ashmodai@mushroom-cloud.com> wrote:
<snip>
>The problem is that the games get so repetitive the "innovative
>technology" and "photorealistic graphics" are the only real arguments
>new games can be sold with. Improving them enough to show a difference
>is difficult because it requires improvement of already maxed out
>technological standards. Companies CAN'T keep that up forever, that's
>why I don't think it will work forever anyway. Unlike in the 20th
>century mentality which says that everything will keep on growing in the
>real world there's something called limits and that's why improvements
>are not developing exponentially forever.
>


Well, I'm hoping to see some innovation with the new physics engines
available. I think some creative games may come about utilizing
these.

I'd like to see more middleware for the low-budget (aka hobbiest)
developer like me. There are quite a few 3D engines out there that
are open source or priced low, but the tools for these are really
lacking. I can't blame the makers of these engines as you get what
you pay for. But we may find more innovation in the next few years if
middleware products are easily available (affordable) and robust. I'd
love to implement Rad Tools character animation system or SpeedTree,
but alas, the price is out of range right now. These tools in the
hands of the garage developer could simplify quite a bit of the dev
process and we may see some really innovative (and professional
looking) products come out.


<snip rest>







--
Boogie With Stu

Ashmodai wrote:
>
> The problem is that the games get so repetitive the "innovative
> technology" and "photorealistic graphics" are the only real arguments
> new games can be sold with. Improving them enough to show a difference
> is difficult because it requires improvement of already maxed out
> technological standards. Companies CAN'T keep that up forever, that's
> why I don't think it will work forever anyway. Unlike in the 20th
> century mentality which says that everything will keep on growing in
> the
> real world there's something called limits and that's why improvements
> are not developing exponentially forever.

Well, I predict that in the next 10 years most of the art assets will be
churned out by third world or not-quite-first-world countries on the cheap.
If you look at the contractor listings on Gamasutra you can already see
evidence of this process beginning. The good news is that if you have
enough dough in your pocket, you may be able to just buy some acceptable art
assets and forego the multi-million dollar budgets. Assuming you have some
other basis of competition, like being innovative.

This is the same offshoring trend as in programming, actually. To the
degree that art or programming can be made into a commodity, it will go to
the third world. The cost of third world vs. industrialized labor won't
equal out for a loooong time. So I think you can either beat 'em - go very
high tech, or very highly creative - or join 'em, i.e. buy their services,
repackage and resell them.

The programmer or artist who thinks he's going to be able to do
business-as-usual over the next 10 years is going to be in quite a pickle.
The jobs we lost in the dot.com bust ain't comin' back.

> Well, depends on your definition of success anyway. The problem I'm
> trying to explain here is that what works on one market doesn't
> neccessary work on another market, be it a market on another
> continent, in another culture or in another time.

Yes, but if you want to use other people's money to develop your titles, you
are stuck with their notions.

If European publishers are more brainy that's encouraging; I wonder how long
that will last? I definitely see some systemic trends of "software
imperialism," throughout the entire software industry, that have kept Europe
behind. Europe's gaming future might look very much like what has already
happened in the USA. USA games used to be a lot more brainy, it all pretty
much got started over here if you recall. As video display capabilities and
CPU cycles increased, games became less turn-based, less cerebral, and more
sensory. The industry consolidations all happened after RTS and FPS took
over. It could be that Europe is simply not to that stage of advanced
corporate consolidation yet. Hmm, maybe your patchwork of geography and
languages might delay that for a time?

> The problem which caused the descent of computer game quality [1] is
> the mainstreaming of computers. There was no need to use fancy
> eyecandy
> before you tried to serve a mainstream (i.e. huge) audience.

Yes, that's pretty much the same historical analysis as I made above.

> Unless people risk approaching niche markets we will not see a lot of
> quality games [1].

See my .sig.

>> I think it's a lot simpler than that. The mainstream is glutted with
>> mediocre products. Supply and demand dictate that they will not all
>> be bought. As a result, some companies must die. Others will
>> survive shipping mediocre products, they are merely the lucky ones
>> in the crapshoot.
>
> That is one more common event, yes, but I was referring to direct
> opinion making. People tend to follow sound groups, that's how
> political election preperations work these days -- you yell loud
> enough and in the right tune and the crowd that isn't off the market
> (i.e. decided and thus biased towards you) already will follow you.

But marketing is just another commodity. So many dollars spent. Those
sound bytes only last so long. There is no one magic soundbyte that's gonna
bring down President Bush, for instance. It's a big war with lotsa battles.

Macroeconomically it's all supply and demand. In the next 10 years the
third world countries are going to provide most of the supply. This is a
*HUGE* increase in the number of available programmers as compared to
previous decades. I'm afraid it could make the computer industry quite
unattractive - depressed wages, boring software problems. We're going to be
forced to prove how smart we really are. We're either going to have to
figure out how to produce massive software systems on our lonesome, or
inevitably serve as cheap cogs in a multinational corporate machine. Or all
get MBAs. ;-)

It's only under local conditions that an individual gets to take advantage
of his intelligence. The niche markets, as you say. How are we going to
sell to those markets? Maybe the selling won't be so hard, maybe with
enough people on Earth it'll always be possible to move 100,000 copies of
something if your game is any good and you do a reasonable online
advertizing campaign over a long enough period of time. But maybe that
becomes the ceiling. Maybe one can only gain so much revenue per title. In
that case, one had better figure out how to make production costs a *lot*
cheaper, and still have viable product.

>>> I'm also not saying monotonous game concepts don't sell, but I'm
>>> saying they don't sell forever.
>>
>> Oh, but they do. How different are any of the Madden Football games?
>
> Uhm... well... what about when the US gets wiped out in a nuclear war
> and nobody wants American Football anymore?
> Just kidding.

I think I've played that game.

> I don't know, but I don't know that many Germans who got a fanatic
> devotion to American Football. Football is still mostly played with
> the feet in Europe (*hint*).

Some guy was just complaining to me today about some PS2 title where if you
stood at the centerfield line and kicked as hard as possible towards the
goal, the ball would inevitably go in. This was easily discovered within 5
minutes of playing the game. He was grossly unimpressed with the soccer
games of our era and longed for the days of X's and O's. Really, what are
these tired sports titles achieving? Nothing, apparently. Well, I've seen
great animations and eye candy, big strides have been made there, but the
game simulations still seem to be pretty bad.

> No, really now. Some niches (although it is not exactly healthy to
> think
> of American Football as a niche market when you are producing for the
> western market) will always be kind of constant.
> Games in which you blow up stuff will always exist, so will sports
> sims
> and basic strategy games (chess, for instance) and none of them will
> exactly face any real innovations.

Such games are commodities. Commodity markets are dominated by whomever can
reduce the costs of production.

> However there is a far larger market than just the one for these genre
> posterchilds. There are many people who want more than just no-brains
> entertainment. What do you think is the reason classic music survived
> so
> long and why do you think is culture (fine arts, history, ...) getting
> more important (at least in some areas in Europe which had previously
> been Americanised [2])?

This is only a certain % of the population. Now, if you want to make an
argument for genetically engineering smarter people... even massive
educational spending will only produce so many high-brows.

>>> People want a change and if the players don't
>>> demand it, the developers eventually do.
>>
>> This worries the Publishers how, exactly? The only way for
>> developers to 'demand' something is to fund themselves, develop
>> their own product, and try to sell it. Without having any of the
>> marketing and distribution advantages that the Publishers enjoy.
>> They are hardly worried. They'll start worrying when an indie
>> market actually exists and starts impacting their mainstream sales.
>> It ain't so yet.
>
> Microsoft is scared of Linux. No, really.

Microsoft is certainly not scared of Linux as a game platform! It's only
the server space that worries them, MS has absolutely nothing to fear from
Linux on the desktop. Linuxers will continue to be tech-head weenies for
the forseeable future. They're never going to produce anything that Mom 'n'
Pop want to use, they aren't driven that way. For them, those problems are
boring. Mac OS X is already UNIX with usability, it hasn't made any kind of
decisive difference to anything on the desktop.

Microsoft is scared of Sony as a game platform. Because apparently, the
world really doesn't need more than one major console maker.

> Anyway. If the big companies don't provide quality games [1], smaller
> companies will.

So what? They still have to get distributed somehow, and who do you think
has all the advantages in Brick-and-Mortar Retail? The only way small
companies will compete is if they figure out how to do online distribution
without needing big companies.

> It's fine with me if these niche markets are dominated
> by less known brands, and I couldn't give less about whether European
> companies were able to get any ground in the US as long as they sell
> enough games here to produce quality [1] entertainment.

Are you speaking as a person who plans to *buy* games or to *make* games?

> This is getting way off topic, but I personally am happy to see a
> development which tries to undo the aftereffects of Americanisation
> [2]. Especially the problems caused by monopolisation -- Microsoft
> just got
> legal problems in Europe because of its ridiculous abuse of its market
> share (although I am not sure how it went out -- but still, it's the
> idea that counts, it's important that these things get mentioned and
> that they get carried out properly, no matter if they end up being
> successful or not).

They got a slap on the wrist over here, unfortunately. No political will to
kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

In article <c5kjud$vsr$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Ashmodai <ashmodai@mushroom-cloud.com> wrote:
>Gerry Quinn scribbled something along the lines of:

>> They weren't better. They were new to you, that's all. If you could
>> have chosen between those games and today's, you'd have chosen today's.
>
>Uhm, no. The problem is that they were original and modern games are
>not, which has two basic reasons:
>1) Originality is limited - you can't keep on getting innovations
>without repeating something

Well, clones are usually better than the originals in some respects, so
if you want originality you do not want better games. A game concept
demands several iterations to achieve the best design.

>2) Western managers are total wusses and prefer doing a rerun of a
>"successful" game (which usually was successful because it was
>innovative) or at least a slightly modified clone of said game rather
>than give an innovative concept a chance

If you put up the money to produce a game you can hire managers to do
whatever you want.

>There is a formula for market effective games, yes, but that doesn't
>mean these games are particularily good, they just sell well on the
>targeted market.

Sounds like you want to impose your personal idea of what is "good" on
those who buy games. As we've seen above, you confuse originality with
quality, so it's not surprising that the market disagrees with you.

>However, one company, after getting a lot of pressure from gamers and
>gaming related groups, decided to market a few Asian console games in
>Europe and they sold well and, unlike the x-th rerun of an existing
>concept, they got almost only positive reviews.

So once again copying successful games worked.

>While the average player would still buy the hundredth remake or clone
>of their favorite game, some don't and they are the ones that give the
>companies trying to follow that "more of the same" concept a bad
>reputation and thus make the average player stop buying it (or buy it
>less, at least) - whether they have any real idea why they do so is
>unimportant, it's just important that they do it.
>That's how it tends to work sometimes these days.

I doubt whether usenet whiners have much influence on the market.
Popular reviewers may have some, although I doubt they will remain
popular if they hype innovative but fumbling efforts ahead of
sophisticated games in a classic tradition.

>I'm not saying niche gamers are dictating the market (if it was that
>way, there wasn't that much of a mainstream), but I'm saying they can
>have a devasting effect.

Somebody who complains about lack of innovation is NOT a niche gamer.
Niche gamers enthuse about a particular game or game style, and demand
clones and sequels. Logically, someone who finds all games
unsatisfactory is not a gamer at all.

Do you want to play Fallout (it's readily available on an RPG
compilation AFAIK), or do you want to play a sequel to Fallout, i.e. a
clone of a successful game? Or do you want neither of these things but
a new game of your invention? Then go invent one.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <c5kpf0$5o4$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Ashmodai <ashmodai@mushroom-cloud.com> wrote:
>Brandon J. Van Every scribbled something along the lines of:
>> Ashmodai wrote:
>>
>The problem is that the games get so repetitive the "innovative
>technology" and "photorealistic graphics" are the only real arguments
>new games can be sold with. Improving them enough to show a difference
>is difficult because it requires improvement of already maxed out
>technological standards. Companies CAN'T keep that up forever, that's
>why I don't think it will work forever anyway. Unlike in the 20th
>century mentality which says that everything will keep on growing in the
>real world there's something called limits and that's why improvements
>are not developing exponentially forever.

I'm not sure what limits you imagine are there. Current computer world
simulations fall far short of reality and this will always be the case
unless there are technological advances we know nothing of. Films as an
art form are more than a century old and technological evolution
continues.

Certain things can keep growing essentially without limit, because they
are not tied directly to physical limitations such as planetary
resources. Computer games (and economic activity) are such things.

>The problem which caused the descent of computer game quality [1] is the
>mainstreaming of computers. There was no need to use fancy eyecandy
>before you tried to serve a mainstream (i.e. huge) audience.
>Unless people risk approaching niche markets we will not see a lot of
>quality games [1].

You attempt to redefine "quality" below in terms of "mental challenge".
That's different from other things you say in which you seem to define
it as "originality". Maybe you should stop using the word "quality"
until you have some sort of coherent idea of what you want.


>No, really now. Some niches (although it is not exactly healthy to think
>of American Football as a niche market when you are producing for the
>western market) will always be kind of constant.
>Games in which you blow up stuff will always exist, so will sports sims
>and basic strategy games (chess, for instance) and none of them will
>exactly face any real innovations.
>
>However there is a far larger market than just the one for these genre
>posterchilds. There are many people who want more than just no-brains
>entertainment. What do you think is the reason classic music survived so
>long and why do you think is culture (fine arts, history, ...) getting
>more important (at least in some areas in Europe which had previously
>been Americanised [2])?

People still play Fallout, and people still listen to Bach and
Beethoven. Modern music in the 'arty' classic tradition has essentially
died out, killed by conceptual artists like Schoenberg and Cage who,
like you, confused innovation with quality - nobody listens to their
crap or that of their successors.

>Anyway. If the big companies don't provide quality games [1], smaller
>companies will. It's fine with me if these niche markets are dominated
>by less known brands, and I couldn't give less about whether European
>companies were able to get any ground in the US as long as they sell
>enough games here to produce quality [1] entertainment.

So everything will be fine. That's good.

>[2] Americanisation is a common term for the common economical
>"capitalist" development in most parts of Europe, including but not
>limited to monopolisation of most markets, i.e. the founding of
>megacorporations; a loss of importance of cultural (as defined earlier:
>fine arts, history and the like) roots and values; mainstreaming of
>media and entertainment; increased energy usage as well as an irrational
>increase of wasted energy (energy usage that could be avoided without
>hampering efficiency); and so on. Obviously I strongly oppose this
>development. It is called Americanisation because the USA was the first
>country showing this development -- in the 1950s to be exact -- European
>countries followed throughout the 20th century.

The ones that were free to do so, at least. Those that were wrecked by
socialism are now trying to catch up.

- Gerry Quinn

Evading taxes is fun!

Boogie With Stu wrote:
>
> I'd like to see more middleware for the low-budget (aka hobbiest)
> developer like me. There are quite a few 3D engines out there that
> are open source or priced low, but the tools for these are really
> lacking. I can't blame the makers of these engines as you get what
> you pay for. But we may find more innovation in the next few years if
> middleware products are easily available (affordable) and robust. I'd
> love to implement Rad Tools character animation system or SpeedTree,
> but alas, the price is out of range right now. These tools in the
> hands of the garage developer could simplify quite a bit of the dev
> process and we may see some really innovative (and professional
> looking) products come out.

What's your opinion of www.blender.org? It's open source. I personally
haven't gone up the learning curve of how good it is lately.

You know, honestly, a garage developer can do without fancy trees. This is
c.g.d.design, after all. What about that fancy tree is actually going to
improve your gameplay? Foliage and emergent camouflage? Implement
something abstractly similar, like polygon soups or chafe. Make the game
into an Impressionist artfuck rather than a realistic combat sim. "It's all
in the mind," as George Harrison's cartoon avatar in The Yellow Submarine
used to say.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

Tax evasion for fun!

Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> Well, clones are usually better than the originals in some respects,

I don't agree. Clones usually rest on the laurels of previous work,
providing very little value add of their own. Clones also frequently suck.
I don't know where you get the idea that most games just keep getting better
and better, shinier and shinier.

> A game concept demands several iterations to achieve the best design.

And the will to make such improvements is usually not present in the
marketplace. It is far more common for games to take steps backwards after
a few iterations, because the brilliance and dedication of the original
design team is no longer present. All that's left is the brand identity.

>> There is a formula for market effective games, yes, but that doesn't
>> mean these games are particularily good, they just sell well on the
>> targeted market.
>
> Sounds like you want to impose your personal idea of what is "good" on
> those who buy games.

Sure. What's wrong with that? Are you a Game Designer or mainly in the
business of Polling Sheep?

> As we've seen above, you confuse originality with quality,

We've seen no such thing. You have advanced your points on highly arguable
premises.

> so it's not surprising that the market disagrees with you.

More like, it's not surprising that you disagree with him.

> I doubt whether usenet whiners have much influence on the market.

Well, they may cause niche game designers to exit thankless markets.

> Popular reviewers may have some, although I doubt they will remain
> popular if they hype innovative but fumbling efforts ahead of
> sophisticated games in a classic tradition.

How about ahead of derivative but fumbling efforts, i.e. most games? I
don't see any of those popular reviewers going away for hyping schlock
products. Games have to continue to be perceived as exciting for those
reviewers to stay in business, you know. All they have to do is rag on
something some time, something really awful beyond excuse, so that there's a
fig leaf on the whole process of 'review'. Or make sure to insert a few
choice negatives in the glowing sea of positives, to look 'balanced'. I
also love reviews that basically told you something sucks but that you
should "buy it anyway if you're interested." "Don't buy this" cannot be
uttered by a markeXXXXXreview magazine with any frequency. So yes it's
'review', if by 'review' you mean making sure the absolute toilet of game
development is dutifully rejected for you. The rest? Caveat Emptor.

I only recall one frank review in a mainstream publication, and it was not
for games. It was a scathing condemnation by PC Magazine of Windows ME. "A
cynical attempt by Microsoft to get your dollar that you shouldn't put up
with," IIRC. I was surprised, as I'd never previously seen PC Magazine
utter the equivalent of "this sucks rocks" before, let alone at major
advertizer (investor? can't recall) Microsoft's expense.

>> I'm not saying niche gamers are dictating the market (if it was that
>> way, there wasn't that much of a mainstream), but I'm saying they can
>> have a devasting effect.
>
> Somebody who complains about lack of innovation is NOT a niche gamer.
> Niche gamers enthuse about a particular game or game style, and demand
> clones and sequels.

I think you are both struggling for definitions of the word 'niche'. I
wonder if you will arrive at one that's mutually satisfactory.

> Logically, someone who finds all games
> unsatisfactory is not a gamer at all.

An extreme cusp has no point but rhetorical flourish.

> Do you want to play Fallout (it's readily available on an RPG
> compilation AFAIK), or do you want to play a sequel to Fallout, i.e. a
> clone of a successful game? Or do you want neither of these things
> but a new game of your invention? Then go invent one.

You left out a new game of someone else's invention. Of course not much
advice can be given on that subject, other than "wait patiently forever."

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

"witch-hunt" - (noun) (Date: 1885)
1: a searching out for persecution of persons accused
of witchcraft
2: the searching out and deliberate harassment of
those (as political opponents) with unpopular views
- witch-hunter (noun)
- witch-hunting (noun or adjective)

Holy intergalactic tax savings, Batman!

Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> Certain things can keep growing essentially without limit, because
> they
> are not tied directly to physical limitations such as planetary
> resources. Computer games (and economic activity) are such things.

Uuuh, that's not a very good argument. Your use of the word "directly" is
close to meaningless, as economics is about relationships, and that implies
chains of indirectness. The programmer has to eat, keep a roof over his
head, be physically present for certain meetings, etc. all of which are
subject to physical limits. In short, logistics always count. The
logistics of programming are simply rather impressive compared to other
forms of manufacturing. Anyone who's sweated a crunch cycle knows they
aren't free money, there's a limit to what can be accomplished at any point
in programming history.

Economic activity continues to grow on this planet because we aren't even
remotely near the planet's physical limits. If we do get closer to those
limits, i.e. run out of oil, greenhouse effect, run out of space, we'll
probably do something about it. Assuming we survive the transition period,
we'll broaden the economic sphere to the solar system. When we hit *those*
limits, we'll be in a heap of trouble unless new physical principles are
discovered which change the currently known limits. Well, maybe not. Maybe
we could carve up our planets, turn them into billions of spaceships, and
diaspora to neighboring solar systems over a very long period of time, as a
sort of ever-expanding web.

The last calculation I did of how much time we have before Earth is filled
to the density of Hong Kong suggested about 4000 years, IIRC. This assumed
certain percentages of land set aside for other uses, certain lands
uninhabitable, and that the oceans would all be used as one giant food farm.
Also that once nations are fully industrialized, their population growth
rates stabilize at the 0.1% currently seen in industrialized nations. It is
worth noting that for all the population gloom and doom, the % of population
growth has been downward for the last 50 years. The US Census Bureau
extrapolates that it will continue to go downwards, and then I assume it'll
hit that 0.1% of stability. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldgr.gif

I haven't taken advances in human genetics into account for any of this.
Such as having a 200 year or indefinite lifespan.

> People still play Fallout, and people still listen to Bach and
> Beethoven. Modern music in the 'arty' classic tradition has
> essentially
> died out, killed by conceptual artists like Schoenberg and Cage who,
> like you, confused innovation with quality - nobody listens to their
> crap or that of their successors.

Resist experimentation at all costs! You might discover something!

>> It is called Americanisation because the USA was the
>> first
>> country showing this development -- in the 1950s to be exact --
>> European
>> countries followed throughout the 20th century.
>
> The ones that were free to do so, at least. Those that were wrecked
> by socialism are now trying to catch up.

That's a rather jaundiced view of socialist democracies, that they
inevitably want to "catch up" to American capitalism.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

Brandon J. Van Every scribbled something along the lines of:
<snip/>
> Implement
> something abstractly similar, like polygon soups or chafe. Make the game
> into an Impressionist artfuck rather than a realistic combat sim. "It's all
> in the mind," as George Harrison's cartoon avatar in The Yellow Submarine
> used to say.
>

You know what would be a good solution? Make a parody. Play with the
game's intended genre and use almost-2D objects for the decoration. That
even beats the possible rant that "those curves don't look organic" or
"those trees don't move when I blow them up".
Heck, nobody says you can't make fun of your own lack of realism.

--
Alan Plum, WAD/WD, Mushroom Cloud Productions
http://www.mushroom-cloud.com/

Brandon J. Van Every scribbled something along the lines of:

> Ashmodai wrote:
>
>>The problem is that the games get so repetitive the "innovative
>>technology" and "photorealistic graphics" are the only real arguments
>>new games can be sold with. Improving them enough to show a difference
>>is difficult because it requires improvement of already maxed out
>>technological standards. Companies CAN'T keep that up forever, that's
>>why I don't think it will work forever anyway. Unlike in the 20th
>>century mentality which says that everything will keep on growing in
>>the
>>real world there's something called limits and that's why improvements
>>are not developing exponentially forever.
>
>
> Well, I predict that in the next 10 years most of the art assets will be
> churned out by third world or not-quite-first-world countries on the cheap.
> If you look at the contractor listings on Gamasutra you can already see
> evidence of this process beginning. The good news is that if you have
> enough dough in your pocket, you may be able to just buy some acceptable art
> assets and forego the multi-million dollar budgets. Assuming you have some
> other basis of competition, like being innovative.
>
> This is the same offshoring trend as in programming, actually. To the
> degree that art or programming can be made into a commodity, it will go to
> the third world. The cost of third world vs. industrialized labor won't
> equal out for a loooong time. So I think you can either beat 'em - go very
> high tech, or very highly creative - or join 'em, i.e. buy their services,
> repackage and resell them.
>
> The programmer or artist who thinks he's going to be able to do
> business-as-usual over the next 10 years is going to be in quite a pickle.
> The jobs we lost in the dot.com bust ain't comin' back.

The dot.com bust didn't have as much of an impact in European countries
as it did in the US, btw. Not saying we took no losses, but hardly
anyone can associate anything with this term in ... Germany, for example.

>>Well, depends on your definition of success anyway. The problem I'm
>>trying to explain here is that what works on one market doesn't
>>neccessary work on another market, be it a market on another
>>continent, in another culture or in another time.
>
>
> Yes, but if you want to use other people's money to develop your titles, you
> are stuck with their notions.

Sure, that's why we need a motivation to produce niche games.

> If European publishers are more brainy that's encouraging; I wonder how long
> that will last?

European publishers aren't exactly more brainy, but they know it's
suicide to try and compete with American publishers, so they seem to
give more emphasis to the innovative games. That's just my observation tho.

> I definitely see some systemic trends of "software
> imperialism," throughout the entire software industry, that have kept Europe
> behind. Europe's gaming future might look very much like what has already
> happened in the USA.

As I said. Americanisation. Still promoted by those who are "trendy",
but strongly discussed and questioned by everyone else.

> USA games used to be a lot more brainy, it all pretty
> much got started over here if you recall. As video display capabilities and
> CPU cycles increased, games became less turn-based, less cerebral, and more
> sensory. The industry consolidations all happened after RTS and FPS took
> over.

Don't blame RTS for stupid games, some of those RTS games really
required tactics and provided fun to the eco-sim fan (I liked Command &
Conquer Part 1 because it wasn't focussed on instant action as much as
its sequels; StarCraft had a great and atmospheric, although not really
innovative, story and still it's best known for its success in online
gaming).

> It could be that Europe is simply not to that stage of advanced
> corporate consolidation yet. Hmm, maybe your patchwork of geography and
> languages might delay that for a time?

I think it's the patchwork of laws and culture. Unlike the US we tend to
frown upon megacorporations and try to avoid them. If proper laws were
applied to the gaming industry and software market, we might be able to
defeat the Americanisation in that industry. That's why I see the trial
of Microsoft as an important step.

<snip/>
>>Unless people risk approaching niche markets we will not see a lot of
>>quality games [1].
>
> See my .sig.

<sig>
> Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
> Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
>
> Taking risk where others will not.
</sig>

Independant game development are an important move and fights an
important battle, but it's not going to determine the outcome of the
entire war. We need more than that.

>>>I think it's a lot simpler than that. The mainstream is glutted with
>>>mediocre products. Supply and demand dictate that they will not all
>>>be bought. As a result, some companies must die. Others will
>>>survive shipping mediocre products, they are merely the lucky ones
>>>in the crapshoot.
>>
>>That is one more common event, yes, but I was referring to direct
>>opinion making. People tend to follow sound groups, that's how
>>political election preperations work these days -- you yell loud
>>enough and in the right tune and the crowd that isn't off the market
>>(i.e. decided and thus biased towards you) already will follow you.
>
>
> But marketing is just another commodity. So many dollars spent. Those
> sound bytes only last so long. There is no one magic soundbyte that's gonna
> bring down President Bush, for instance. It's a big war with lotsa battles.

Indeed, but what we need is laws and these laws will be more likely to
be passed in the EU and European countries for now.
In the EU the software patents failed because they would have allowed a
total monopolisation of pretty much everything, in the US the patent
laws already allow a lot more than the European laws do now.

> Macroeconomically it's all supply and demand. In the next 10 years the
> third world countries are going to provide most of the supply. This is a
> *HUGE* increase in the number of available programmers as compared to
> previous decades. I'm afraid it could make the computer industry quite
> unattractive - depressed wages, boring software problems. We're going to be
> forced to prove how smart we really are. We're either going to have to
> figure out how to produce massive software systems on our lonesome, or
> inevitably serve as cheap cogs in a multinational corporate machine. Or all
> get MBAs. ;-)

MBAs?

The software industry will experience a change for sure, but I feel that
change will have less impact on Europe. Outsourcing is not much of an
issue in Europe because we didn't have as much of a "boom" in these
sectors as the US did and thus don't face the same problems on the same
scale.
I suppose we're lucky if we experience a smoother change than the US will.

> It's only under local conditions that an individual gets to take advantage
> of his intelligence. The niche markets, as you say. How are we going to
> sell to those markets? Maybe the selling won't be so hard, maybe with
> enough people on Earth it'll always be possible to move 100,000 copies of
> something if your game is any good and you do a reasonable online
> advertizing campaign over a long enough period of time. But maybe that
> becomes the ceiling. Maybe one can only gain so much revenue per title. In
> that case, one had better figure out how to make production costs a *lot*
> cheaper, and still have viable product.

Technically most theaters don't pay off, however (in my country,
Germany, at least) they, even the independant ones, get funding from the
government and sometimes from independant groups as well. Same with most
cultural institutions. We have a large network of regional channels, all
of which are operated via tax money and who have to follow certain rules
passed by the government (i.e. they need to show at least so and so many
cultural programs, they may only do commercial breaks after each show, etc).
I don't see why that kind of control and support couldn't be spread out
so it affects the software market as well. That and laws which prohibit
monopolisation could prevent the European industry from turning American.

Of course that requires interest groups and some selling of the idea
(i.e. reasons for those who suffer less from the simplification of games
to join the idea) first.

>>>>I'm also not saying monotonous game concepts don't sell, but I'm
>>>>saying they don't sell forever.
>>>
>>>Oh, but they do. How different are any of the Madden Football games?
>>
>>Uhm... well... what about when the US gets wiped out in a nuclear war
>>and nobody wants American Football anymore?
>>Just kidding.
>
>
> I think I've played that game.

Pardon?

>>I don't know, but I don't know that many Germans who got a fanatic
>>devotion to American Football. Football is still mostly played with
>>the feet in Europe (*hint*).
>
>
> Some guy was just complaining to me today about some PS2 title where if you
> stood at the centerfield line and kicked as hard as possible towards the
> goal, the ball would inevitably go in. This was easily discovered within 5
> minutes of playing the game. He was grossly unimpressed with the soccer
> games of our era and longed for the days of X's and O's. Really, what are
> these tired sports titles achieving? Nothing, apparently. Well, I've seen
> great animations and eye candy, big strides have been made there, but the
> game simulations still seem to be pretty bad.

I was trying to hint at the fact "European" football ("soccer") games
sell better in Europe than those about American football.

>>No, really now. Some niches (although it is not exactly healthy to
>>think
>>of American Football as a niche market when you are producing for the
>>western market) will always be kind of constant.
>>Games in which you blow up stuff will always exist, so will sports
>>sims
>>and basic strategy games (chess, for instance) and none of them will
>>exactly face any real innovations.
>
>
> Such games are commodities. Commodity markets are dominated by whomever can
> reduce the costs of production.

But they won't experience much of a change throughout time. They can't
evolve in quality -- maybe in realism and eye candy, but that's it.

>>However there is a far larger market than just the one for these genre
>>posterchilds. There are many people who want more than just no-brains
>>entertainment. What do you think is the reason classic music survived
>>so
>>long and why do you think is culture (fine arts, history, ...) getting
>>more important (at least in some areas in Europe which had previously
>>been Americanised [2])?
>
>
> This is only a certain % of the population. Now, if you want to make an
> argument for genetically engineering smarter people... even massive
> educational spending will only produce so many high-brows.

Intelligence is a relative concept which sadly has little to do with
preferences. There are many intelligent people who like football
(European and American) although many intelligent people have questioned
the motivations behind such a sport (a philosophers whose name slipped
my mind once said for him it'd be as difficult to understand why people
like sports as it would be for someone who likes sports to understand
why he likes philosophy).

>>>>People want a change and if the players don't
>>>>demand it, the developers eventually do.
>>>
>>>This worries the Publishers how, exactly? The only way for
>>>developers to 'demand' something is to fund themselves, develop
>>>their own product, and try to sell it. Without having any of the
>>>marketing and distribution advantages that the Publishers enjoy.
>>>They are hardly worried. They'll start worrying when an indie
>>>market actually exists and starts impacting their mainstream sales.
>>>It ain't so yet.
>>
>>Microsoft is scared of Linux. No, really.
>
>
> Microsoft is certainly not scared of Linux as a game platform! It's only
> the server space that worries them, MS has absolutely nothing to fear from
> Linux on the desktop.

Never said that Microsoft is scared of Linux taking away their desktop
market, but as we know Microsoft has a huge (although oppressed) respect
for the efficiency of Linux as a server platform.

> Linuxers will continue to be tech-head weenies for
> the forseeable future. They're never going to produce anything that Mom 'n'
> Pop want to use, they aren't driven that way.

Although that could be changed, you are right. Linuxers don't care about
the preferences of Average Joe, because they have no reason to. Still
there's stuff like WineX that allows THEM to play the games.

> For them, those problems are
> boring. Mac OS X is already UNIX with usability, it hasn't made any kind of
> decisive difference to anything on the desktop.

From what I've read MacOS X is based on BSD, even.

No it hasn't made a difference, but I've heard many a Mac user say MacOS
X is better than its predecessor because it's easier to navigate.
Of course the geeks are pissed off now.

> Microsoft is scared of Sony as a game platform. Because apparently, the
> world really doesn't need more than one major console maker.

Of course, then again, there's a huge difference between console and
computer games, even though publishers don't see this.

>>Anyway. If the big companies don't provide quality games [1], smaller
>>companies will.
>
>
> So what? They still have to get distributed somehow, and who do you think
> has all the advantages in Brick-and-Mortar Retail? The only way small
> companies will compete is if they figure out how to do online distribution
> without needing big companies.

Sure, online distribution is a good choice if you are unable to find a
publisher that accepts your concept without changes (who is very rare
indeed).

>>It's fine with me if these niche markets are dominated
>>by less known brands, and I couldn't give less about whether European
>>companies were able to get any ground in the US as long as they sell
>>enough games here to produce quality [1] entertainment.
>
>
> Are you speaking as a person who plans to *buy* games or to *make* games?

Both. Especially the consumer tho. I think many people who like complex
games would also like making them or using them to make their own ideas
come true.
Maybe there should be a platform for making games and selling them to
those who like them for a small fee. Just a brainfart tho.

>>This is getting way off topic, but I personally am happy to see a
>>development which tries to undo the aftereffects of Americanisation
>>[2]. Especially the problems caused by monopolisation -- Microsoft
>>just got
>>legal problems in Europe because of its ridiculous abuse of its market
>>share (although I am not sure how it went out -- but still, it's the
>>idea that counts, it's important that these things get mentioned and
>>that they get carried out properly, no matter if they end up being
>>successful or not).
>
>
> They got a slap on the wrist over here, unfortunately. No political will to
> kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Sure, but I think our political systems (and their variety) allow such
developments have more of a chance than they would have in the US.
--
Alan Plum, WAD/WD, Mushroom Cloud Productions
http://www.mushroom-cloud.com/

Gerry Quinn scribbled something along the lines of:

> In article <c5kpf0$5o4$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Ashmodai <ashmodai@mushroom-cloud.com> wrote:
>
>>Brandon J. Van Every scribbled something along the lines of:
>>
>>>Ashmodai wrote:
>>>
>>
>>The problem is that the games get so repetitive the "innovative
>>technology" and "photorealistic graphics" are the only real arguments
>>new games can be sold with. Improving them enough to show a difference
>>is difficult because it requires improvement of already maxed out
>>technological standards. Companies CAN'T keep that up forever, that's
>>why I don't think it will work forever anyway. Unlike in the 20th
>>century mentality which says that everything will keep on growing in the
>>real world there's something called limits and that's why improvements
>>are not developing exponentially forever.
>
>
> I'm not sure what limits you imagine are there. Current computer world
> simulations fall far short of reality and this will always be the case
> unless there are technological advances we know nothing of. Films as an
> art form are more than a century old and technological evolution
> continues.

No, not really. Films as an art form still exist. Same goes for music.
You just have to know where you are looking.

> Certain things can keep growing essentially without limit, because they
> are not tied directly to physical limitations such as planetary
> resources. Computer games (and economic activity) are such things.

Wrong. Very essentially wrong.
Economic activity has a visible limit: money. You can't print new money
forever. The Third Reich did that and you might know what late-war
Germany looked like economically because of that (not taking the actual
war into account here): Money was worth nothing.
The other restriction is human. In theory you can speed up a project
infinitely by using an infinite amount of developers. In praxis there's
only so much you can do if it's something involving creativity -- heck,
even cars can't produced infinitely fast just by using a large amount of
tools. If you've ever had functions in mathematics class you'll also
have experienced profit functions -- they show at rate production is the
most efficient, that point is all but an infinite production rate.
Also, creativity isn't infinite just as the world won't exist for an
infinite amount of time (even if the universe would). Infinite growth is
a theory which has no longterm chance in the Real World (tm). Guess why
we have all these economical problems throughout the western nations
nowadays.

>>The problem which caused the descent of computer game quality [1] is the
>>mainstreaming of computers. There was no need to use fancy eyecandy
>>before you tried to serve a mainstream (i.e. huge) audience.
>>Unless people risk approaching niche markets we will not see a lot of
>>quality games [1].
>
>
> You attempt to redefine "quality" below in terms of "mental challenge".
> That's different from other things you say in which you seem to define
> it as "originality". Maybe you should stop using the word "quality"
> until you have some sort of coherent idea of what you want.

Don't troll please.
Quality games are, in my words, games that provide a mental challenge.
Quality on the other hand may require originality, even if it is only
required so a new game can still be a mental challenge (a clone of a
predecessor is not an actual challenge anymore).

>>No, really now. Some niches (although it is not exactly healthy to think
>>of American Football as a niche market when you are producing for the
>>western market) will always be kind of constant.
>>Games in which you blow up stuff will always exist, so will sports sims
>>and basic strategy games (chess, for instance) and none of them will
>>exactly face any real innovations.
>>
>>However there is a far larger market than just the one for these genre
>>posterchilds. There are many people who want more than just no-brains
>>entertainment. What do you think is the reason classic music survived so
>>long and why do you think is culture (fine arts, history, ...) getting
>>more important (at least in some areas in Europe which had previously
>>been Americanised [2])?
>
>
> People still play Fallout, and people still listen to Bach and
> Beethoven. Modern music in the 'arty' classic tradition has essentially
> died out, killed by conceptual artists like Schoenberg and Cage who,
> like you, confused innovation with quality - nobody listens to their
> crap or that of their successors.

Modern music in the arty classic tradtion is pushed back to niches, or
rather is still in the niches it started in. Conceptual artists didn't
kill it, their work just died like all human things do.

>>Anyway. If the big companies don't provide quality games [1], smaller
>>companies will. It's fine with me if these niche markets are dominated
>>by less known brands, and I couldn't give less about whether European
>>companies were able to get any ground in the US as long as they sell
>>enough games here to produce quality [1] entertainment.
>
>
> So everything will be fine. That's good.


Don't do that.

>>[2] Americanisation is a common term for the common economical
>>"capitalist" development in most parts of Europe, including but not
>>limited to monopolisation of most markets, i.e. the founding of
>>megacorporations; a loss of importance of cultural (as defined earlier:
>>fine arts, history and the like) roots and values; mainstreaming of
>>media and entertainment; increased energy usage as well as an irrational
>>increase of wasted energy (energy usage that could be avoided without
>>hampering efficiency); and so on. Obviously I strongly oppose this
>>development. It is called Americanisation because the USA was the first
>>country showing this development -- in the 1950s to be exact -- European
>>countries followed throughout the 20th century.
>
>
> The ones that were free to do so, at least. Those that were wrecked by
> socialism are now trying to catch up.
>
> - Gerry Quinn

Don't blame "communism" for everything, please. Capitalism is not a
working concept, it just takes a while to realise that.

--
Alan Plum, WAD/WD, Mushroom Cloud Productions
http://www.mushroom-cloud.com/