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

Taxes done! No sleep! Yippie!

Ashmodai wrote:
> 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.

"Pencil Whipped" was one of the more innovative entries for Visual Art in
the Independent Game Festival a few years ago. Instead of the typical art,
it was all cartoon pencil sketches. Rather flippant. It wasn't a terribly
great game but it definitely was innovative on the visuals.

There is this whole range of art history that artists could be employing in
games. Instead they most do the same commercially polished looking crap
over and over.

Cheers,
Brandon Van Every

Brandon Van Every scribbled something along the lines of:

> Taxes done! No sleep! Yippie!
>
> Ashmodai wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> "Pencil Whipped" was one of the more innovative entries for Visual Art in
> the Independent Game Festival a few years ago. Instead of the typical art,
> it was all cartoon pencil sketches. Rather flippant. It wasn't a terribly
> great game but it definitely was innovative on the visuals.
>
> There is this whole range of art history that artists could be employing in
> games. Instead they most do the same commercially polished looking crap
> over and over.

And the fun part is that modern artists see naturalism / realism as an
inferior art form while game artists see theirselves as modern artists
and still think of photorealism as an art form. Heh.

Anyway.

I think you're right there. It doesn't even have to be 3D in my opinion.
In retrospect all 2D games I played had more atmosphere than 3D games,
even if I had to compare SimCity to Half-Life.
It's not that 2D has no future, it's that 3D is still a market effective
buzzword.
--
Alan Plum, WAD/WD, Mushroom Cloud Productions
http://www.mushroom-cloud.com/

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

I don't see any 'we' here. There is you, and I, people with our
sensibilities, and the mainstream industry. The mainstream industry is
*not* in this together with us. The option for people such as you and I is
to either prove that we can make money doing things our way, or shut up. No
source of change is going to come from the industry itself.

I am plenty motivated to produce games. Many kinds of games, not just niche
ones. I'm not interested in niches really. I'm interested in changing how
things are done in industry. The only way to do that is to lead by example.
I don't have any example yet.

>> 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.

Well at least they're trying something different. I agee it's pretty
foolish to compete head-to-head with the same-old-same-old. In such a
scenario, the advantages accrue to the one with the deepest pockets.

> 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.

Hope Europe has more of an incentive to stick it to Gates than the USA did.

>> Taking risk where others will not.
>
> 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.

Again, where is this 'we'? I can control what I do. I can influence what
you do. I sure as hell can't control what the mainstream industry does. It
doesn't have the slightest interest in my issues. The only option I see is
for indies to make money proving how wrongheaded the rest of the industry
is.

>> 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?

Masters of Business Administration. BTW my laptop is driving me fucking
nuts, with the touchpad pox from Hell.

> 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.

Heh, I tend to forget about that in other countries. The USA doesn't pay
for shit.

>>> 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?

Well, Civilization II and III, for one thing. :-)

>> 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.

So they sell better. Are the games improving?

>> 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.

I am not convinced there's a business model in that. I've thought about
offering user AI scripting for my game. The more I face the complexity of
AI problems, the more I am inclined to think better of it. Game players who
want to make games *that* badly should become programmers. At least of a
sort. I think the agenda of easing the game developer's implementation
burden is the more rational one, than worrying about UberGamePlayer who only
wants to spend $30.

Maybe some people would pay for very expensive game services. Like $200 or
more. I met a guy who runs a MUD, he charges big money for custom game
object development. At last count he said he was quite profitable and
growing the business hand over fist. He was tapping into the whole virtual
real estate idea. I have regarded the selling of avatars, the "pay to win"
mentality, as rather boring. Why not just implement a pure gambling game?
It doesn't do it for me as a game designer. But customization is more
intriguing. Anyways, to charge a lot of money, I suppose it would have to
either be customized or something no other game company can reproduce. The
latter is a tall order.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every

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

> 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.

That is the idea that broke our economy (yes, it IS broken, it will just
take some time until we feel the full scale of effects that has). The
idea grew in capitalism, not communism (note: neither works in the long
term tho).

>>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.

Certain games are a success because they are innovative. Nobody will buy
the x-th clone of it simply because it is based on an originally
innovative idea which isn't any longer unless it's a /GOOD/ (tm) game.

>>>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?

Maybe I should mention I play games a lot more than I produce them and I
always buy them when I want to play them. Therefore I am one of those
who buy games.
My definition of good in that context was based on my definition of
quality games referenced earlier.

>>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.

I do not confuse anything here, he confused my words. I defined quality
games as games that provide a mental challenge, obviously originality
can produce such games as well, even if the only challenge is to have to
adapt to a new (original) idea of gameplay.

>>so it's not surprising that the market disagrees with you.
>
> More like, it's not surprising that you disagree with him.

Indeed.

>>I doubt whether usenet whiners have much influence on the market.
>
> Well, they may cause niche game designers to exit thankless markets.

For one, I feel strongly offended by generalised labeling, for the
other, I DO think everyone has an influence on everything, it just
variies how large that influence is.
I actually said minorities can develop quite some influence if they know
how to make the masses sing along.

>>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.

From my experience the most important job of a reviewer is to reflect
the opinion of the reader. There's little they can do about the reader's
opinion, but they can talk theirselves out of problems by recommending
"fans of the (predecessor|genre|label)" to buy it no matter what they
say about the game. If a reviewer kept on bashing bad games, they won't
get lucky. Companies send press packages to reviewers who don't keep on
trashing their products rather than those who do -- and those who get
the game earlier will get more readers and thus make more money.

> 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.

It is possible that they either had the guts (although getting cocky can
cost your head) or didn't have anything MS could take from them. Most
likely they also figured nobody would really mind Microsoft getting
flamed -- after all that's something even Windows users do a lot.

>>>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.

I am using "niche" mostly to describe a market or area that is not in
the mainstream. Niche gamers aren't players of niche games, but gamers
that have a taste or desire that is not reflected in the mainstream.
I think he thought I meant "people who play niche games" when I said
"niche gamers". Given, that wording was a little misleading.

>>Logically, someone who finds all games
>>unsatisfactory is not a gamer at all.
>
>
> An extreme cusp has no point but rhetorical flourish.

I do not find all games unsatisfactory. I find most games, especially
most present-day games unsatisfactory. That doesn't stop me from finding
game concepts which don't exist or only existed in the past (or ...)
satisfactory.
This was definately a very extreme generalisation.

>>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."

I played Fallout and still play Fallout every year or so because it has
a unique atmosphere. That atmosphere is caught mostly in its sequel,
however I liked the first part better.
The sequel is longer tho, so it provides longer fun (even though less
concentrated).
As with tv series', a game's sequel doesn't have to be a clone of its
predecessor. If every episode in a series was a clone of the preceding
episode, it wouldn't be successful for long (sure, every couple of
episodes even a successful series can repeat itself, but that's not what
you were talking about).

I am working on my own game, which is neither a sequel to Fallout nor a
clone although it carries a little of what I liked about that game in
particular. As I am making it for myself my entire motto is that it's
going to be the most complex web browser based online role playing game
I can make without making it boring (for me as a player).
Maybe there will be others who like it and obviously I'm trying not to
make it too focussed on my taste, but I want it to be something _I_ will
like to play in the first place.

Needless to say I am choosing web browsers as a platform because it's
the only thing I know by heart, and also I am doing it for my own
profit, most of which is fun rather than other people's money.

As for other games -- I'm patiently waiting, but that doesn't mean I
can't try increase the demand for them.
--
Alan Plum, WAD/WD, Mushroom Cloud Productions
http://www.mushroom-cloud.com/

In article <c5m9d3$38feg$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Brandon Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Pencil Whipped" was one of the more innovative entries for Visual Art in
>the Independent Game Festival a few years ago. Instead of the typical art,
>it was all cartoon pencil sketches. Rather flippant. It wasn't a terribly
>great game but it definitely was innovative on the visuals.

Some Linux app I tried once had a "sketch" skin which made it look
like a roughly drawn pencil sketch of a GUI. That was fun :-)

For a short while anyway ...

>There is this whole range of art history that artists could be employing in
>games. Instead they most do the same commercially polished looking crap
>over and over.

I found the cartoon-style graphics in XIII really interesting. The
game itself didn't seem to justify anything beyond playing the demo,
but still, one can hope that it helps spark some degree of variety
when it comes to game graphics.

A Dali-inspired game might be fun.

I suspect, however, that this won't start happening on a large scale
until computer hardware makes photorealistic games trivial to make.
Until then, the challenge will be "squeeze more eye candy out of the
hardware" rather than "make something that is actually interesting".

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

Brandon Van Every scribbled something along the lines of:

> Ashmodai wrote:
>
>>Brandon J. Van Every scribbled something along the lines of:
>>
>>>Ashmodai wrote:
>>
>>>>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.
>
>
> I don't see any 'we' here. There is you, and I, people with our
> sensibilities, and the mainstream industry. The mainstream industry is
> *not* in this together with us. The option for people such as you and I is
> to either prove that we can make money doing things our way, or shut up. No
> source of change is going to come from the industry itself.
>
> I am plenty motivated to produce games. Many kinds of games, not just niche
> ones. I'm not interested in niches really. I'm interested in changing how
> things are done in industry. The only way to do that is to lead by example.
> I don't have any example yet.

Again, my faulty wording is to blame. I meant to say
"that's why we need a motivation *for them* 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.
>
>
> Well at least they're trying something different. I agee it's pretty
> foolish to compete head-to-head with the same-old-same-old. In such a
> scenario, the advantages accrue to the one with the deepest pockets.

And that isn't the relatively unestablished European producers. So maybe
that will be a part of said motivation.

>>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.
>
>
> Hope Europe has more of an incentive to stick it to Gates than the USA did.

I read somewhere that many American governmental institutions and even
power plants run on Microsoft products. In Germany in particular the
opposite is the case, while schools and police offices, etc all
apparently run Windows, universities partially use Sun's platform and
many things run Linux.
If Microsoft dominates the American market as much as I read, Europe is
quite untainted in comparison.

>>>Taking risk where others will not.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Again, where is this 'we'? I can control what I do. I can influence what
> you do. I sure as hell can't control what the mainstream industry does. It
> doesn't have the slightest interest in my issues. The only option I see is
> for indies to make money proving how wrongheaded the rest of the industry
> is.

I like using the rhetorical "we" a lot. I think I got attached to it
after writing various rules and pieces of documentation for online
message board games.
In this case an "it" would have been more understandable. By "We need
more than that" I mean "It takes more than that (to archieve the change
we are talking about)".

>>>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?
>
>
> Masters of Business Administration. BTW my laptop is driving me fucking
> nuts, with the touchpad pox from Hell.

Aye.

>>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.
>
>
> Heh, I tend to forget about that in other countries. The USA doesn't pay
> for shit.

The US also doesn't have as strict laws about market domination. Never
forget Europe had a couple of centuries (millenia?) more to learn from
its mistakes than the United States (although the settlers should have
carried over some of that knowledge).

>>>>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?
>
>
> Well, Civilization II and III, for one thing. :-)

Hehe. Yeah, I gotta say the Americans in Civ III are quite annoying.
They kept on declaring war on my allies. Mostly France.

>>>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.
>
>
> So they sell better. Are the games improving?

Of course not. The problem is the same. It was more of a sidenote.

>>>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.
>
>
> I am not convinced there's a business model in that. I've thought about
> offering user AI scripting for my game. The more I face the complexity of
> AI problems, the more I am inclined to think better of it. Game players who
> want to make games *that* badly should become programmers. At least of a
> sort. I think the agenda of easing the game developer's implementation
> burden is the more rational one, than worrying about UberGamePlayer who only
> wants to spend $30.

I'm talking about platforms. More like "RPG Maker 2000" rather than
"Half-Life WorldCraft". I think that type of software prove to be market
ineffictive tho.

> Maybe some people would pay for very expensive game services. Like $200 or
> more. I met a guy who runs a MUD, he charges big money for custom game
> object development. At last count he said he was quite profitable and
> growing the business hand over fist. He was tapping into the whole virtual
> real estate idea. I have regarded the selling of avatars, the "pay to win"
> mentality, as rather boring. Why not just implement a pure gambling game?

Have you ever played Project Entropia? I did. It may be a great concept
but it doesn't work out.
The idea was that players pay for their ingame capital and can turn the
in game money into real money again. The problem is that there were a
few lucky bastards and everybody else would end up spending a hundred
bucks in the time he would pay 20 bucks or so with other online games. I
lost thirty bucks in two weeks of playtesting -- and that was only the
"Commercial Trial" (a new brand of open Betas as it seems), which hardly
had anything of what the advertising videos talked about.

> It doesn't do it for me as a game designer. But customization is more
> intriguing. Anyways, to charge a lot of money, I suppose it would have to
> either be customized or something no other game company can reproduce. The
> latter is a tall order.

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

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:04:25 -0700, "Brandon J. Van Every"
<try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.
>

I only briefly looked at it a while back - Dammit Jim, I'm a
programmer not a 3D modeler.

I have been toying with TrueVision 3D lately. Not a bad graphic
engine for the price. The downside is the current version is COM.

>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.

I'm not saying fancy trees make a fancy game, but to compete at any
level near the quality of the multi-million big boys we smaller devs
need tools that make it easier to create certain aspects of our games
quickly and provide quality closer to the AAA titles. I suppose a
search on source forge may produce some interesting results, but I'm
knee-deep in the True Vision stuff at the moment.

I agree with what you said in a post below: Art assets will become
cheaper as they are out-sourced to other countries where labor is
pennies on the dollar. This will definately be a good thing for the
garage developer.

--
Boogie With Stu

Ashmodai wrote:
> Brandon Van Every scribbled something along the lines of:
>
>> Ashmodai wrote:
>>
>>> Brandon J. Van Every scribbled something along the lines of:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I don't see any 'we' here. There is you, and I, people with our
>> sensibilities, and the mainstream industry. The mainstream industry
>> is
>> *not* in this together with us. The option for people such as you
>> and I is to either prove that we can make money doing things our
>> way, or shut up. No source of change is going to come from the
>> industry itself.
>>
>> I am plenty motivated to produce games. Many kinds of games, not
>> just niche ones. I'm not interested in niches really. I'm
>> interested in changing how things are done in industry. The only
>> way to do that is to lead by example. I don't have any example yet.
>
> Again, my faulty wording is to blame. I meant to say
> "that's why we need a motivation *for them* to produce niche games."

That's what I thought you meant, actually. I do not believe there is any
possible motivation for them, other than seeing it's worth cold hard cash.
They won't get motivated until we prove there's cold hard cash available.
We can succeed or we can fail, those are our options.

>> Heh, I tend to forget about that in other countries. The USA
>> doesn't pay for shit.
>
> The US also doesn't have as strict laws about market domination. Never
> forget Europe had a couple of centuries (millenia?) more to learn from
> its mistakes than the United States (although the settlers should have
> carried over some of that knowledge).

Come on, you don't really believe that modern European socialist
sensibilities are a product of centuries old wisdom, do you? Your history
is that of Imperialist powers, locked in an arms race that dominated the
world. Unless you want to argue that you're all so guilty about your past
actions that you've mellowed out. Whereas the victors of WW II, the USA and
the USSR, did not mellow out because they were just getting started. BTW
the USA wasn't any less of an Imperialist, it just did it all on one big
chunk of contiguous territory for the most part. I think what really
happened is, you guys all went more socialist because you had the USA
willingly footing the bill and the troops for all the warmongering for so
many years. Not spending on defense gets kinda habit forming after awhile.

> Hehe. Yeah, I gotta say the Americans in Civ III are quite annoying.
> They kept on declaring war on my allies. Mostly France.

Going to war without France is like going hunting without your accordion.

> Have you ever played Project Entropia? I did. It may be a great
> concept
> but it doesn't work out.
> The idea was that players pay for their ingame capital and can turn
> the
> in game money into real money again. The problem is that there were a
> few lucky bastards and everybody else would end up spending a hundred
> bucks in the time he would pay 20 bucks or so with other online
> games. I
> lost thirty bucks in two weeks of playtesting -- and that was only the
> "Commercial Trial" (a new brand of open Betas as it seems), which
> hardly had anything of what the advertising videos talked about.

Heh, considering how difficult it is to make a game economy secure when
there's no money involved at all....

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

"Trollhunter" - (n.) A person who habitually accuses
people of being Trolls.

Ashmodai wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every scribbled something along the lines of:
>>
>> I think you are both struggling for definitions of the word 'niche'.
>> I wonder if you will arrive at one that's mutually satisfactory.
>
> I am using "niche" mostly to describe a market or area that is not in
> the mainstream. Niche gamers aren't players of niche games, but gamers
> that have a taste or desire that is not reflected in the mainstream.
> I think he thought I meant "people who play niche games" when I said
> "niche gamers". Given, that wording was a little misleading.

Well, given that definition, 4X TBS could be viewed as a niche. The only
products that I'm aware of that are generally available at retail, are those
that have longstanding franchises: Civilization III, MOO3 (did poorly),
Galactic Civilizations. Hmm, haven't kept up for about a year though.
Anything new come out meanwhile?

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

"Trollhunt" - (n.) A searching out for persecution
of persons accused of Trolling. (c.f. witch-hunt)

Bent C Dalager wrote:
>
> I found the cartoon-style graphics in XIII really interesting. The
> game itself didn't seem to justify anything beyond playing the demo,
> but still, one can hope that it helps spark some degree of variety
> when it comes to game graphics.
>
> A Dali-inspired game might be fun.

I think taking a bold artistic style and running with it would be an easy
way to pick up the Innovation In Visual Art award at the Independent Game
Festival. It's only worth $1000 but there's the marketing prestige value,
which can be worth quite a bit more to your advertizing campaign. Ditto for
audio. The competition in Visual Art and Audio is pretty weak. Much
stiffer competition in game design, but strong innovation will prevail.
Winning Technical Excellence is tough as there will aways be 2 or 3 other
Finalists at the same level of polish as your title, so it seems like a
crapshoot to me. Audience Choice is its own genre. As for winning Overall,
well in the past 2 years I really haven't seen a finalist that clearly
should have won Overall. I don't think the wins were unreasonable, just not
obviously head-and-shoulders above the rest.

> I suspect, however, that this won't start happening on a large scale
> until computer hardware makes photorealistic games trivial to make.
> Until then, the challenge will be "squeeze more eye candy out of the
> hardware" rather than "make something that is actually interesting".

The HW can already display stuff that's plenty good. The third world will
soon be cranking out all the art assets. I think the ghettoization of eye
candy is almost upon us.

--
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.