Can Game Developer Unrest Lead to Revolution?

Bakajin writes "Greg Costikyan's blog article A Specter is Haunting Gaming speaks in coarse language about "despair" in the independent game developing community. He says that despite the fact that no Independent Game Festival title "has ever gone on to major publication and success... 10,000 geeks... would just love to do what the IGF guys are doing... work on something you believe in, not churn out the next big-budget piece of crap." I can't help but read that and think that it represents a huge opportunity for a new game machine that lowers the bar for entry and has a unique revenue model. However, is the story of Indrema a prophesy? Is Infinium just vapor? Is there any other solution?"

Comments

Games == Music

[MaestroSartori]

IAAPGD (professional game developer)...

In this regard, the game biz is much like the music biz.

Both have a huge thriving independent scene, which contains bucketloads of talent. This is where you tend to go to get technical innovation, new ideas, or just off-the-wall insanity. There's a fairly low initial requirement to do it, since all you really need is a computer, although other equipment (instruments/devkits) can make certain things much easier.

The alternative to this indie scene is to 'sell out' - join a player in the organised business-oriented world of AAA hit-driven titles, which make money often at the expense of creativity. There are exceptions to this (be they Radiohead or Rez/Ico), but most things fit that rule (Fifa 2000/1/2/3/etc).

I'm a sell-out. I didn't want to make indie games, particularly. I wanted to make a living doing stuff I liked... :)

Re:Obvious - develop for PDAs

[Enfors]

X-Com Enemy Unknown anyone?

There's a guy who's planning on making an unofficial clone of X-Com (called X-Force) for PalmOS based PDAs:

http://www.gotactics.com (click the X-Force link on the left).

I'm definitely looking forward to that one.

Re:Not entirely

[hikousen]

It used to be much cheaper to produce a game,

It still is. A good programmer and artist team can build a game for a few hundred dollars.

but now the costs are rising to the point where VC's don't want to risk their money on small, unknown outfits.

VC's don't invest in computer games, despite the romantic myth of the perfect game start-up.

Of course, the idea of a VC who doesn't want to risk their money is amusing enough on its own. If they want a sure thing, they should buy T-bills.

problem and possible solution

[jarnies]

you can make good movies very cheaply, same with music, but it is tough to do the same with videogames. notice how good independent movies dont go crazy with special effects but instead have quality acting and story (or at least some bizarre premise). games need to do the same. big problem is that there are a reasonable amount of people willing to watch a movie even if it is filmed on with a handheld and takes place in someones apartment, as long as the story is worthwhile (clerks, etc.) while most folks buy the next gen console/computer for more power better graphics etc. cheap games dont take advantage of that so it is hard for them to work there way into the market.

now here is an idea that may work. take a selection of independently developed games, have those guys get together, or some interested third party, and release the games as a package. make it like the online music services where you can choose which games you want included in the package. they could then monitor which particular games are chosen the most and do further development with those.

I call BS :)

[bpm140]

IAAAPGD

I've been to the last couple of GDCs and seen independent gaming's "best of the best". I've also downloaded hundreds of demos from independent developers. They're not very good.

This statement can be split into two different areas -- gameplay and presentation. Anyone in the industry can tell you about the legions of fanboys who want to "reinvent" the FPS genre by adding an autocannon, or "save fighting games" with this really cool interactive environment ideas. Just because you love games does not make you a game design, any more than a love for music makes you a musician. I'm not saying you have to be a professional to have good ideas, but if you took a random sample of 100 professional game developers and 100 indies, the pros would have the most exciting ideas hands down.

The other side of the coin is presentation. Game costs are ballooning and people expect their games to look like Gran Turismo and Tekken and you WILL be knocked by the consumer, the press and the almighty retailer if you fall short. A group of independent developers with a staff of six will find it tough to compete. Even if they have kick-ass gameplay, without polished presentation it will never hit the over-crowded store shelves.

A lot of professional games are crap. It's romantic to think that the answer lies with independent developers. I think we're better off trying to balance the power between developer and publisher AND publisher and retailer (the former will never happen without the latter), so that developers have a better ability to stick to their guns.

Shift yer paradigm.

[American AC in Paris]

I look at independent efforts and I see, generally, one of two things:

1. A desire to compete with the big boys--to make the next Quake killer, to build a wicked-cool 3D game of epic proportions, etc.
2. A desire to make a fun little game.

Much of the beef with the current state of indy gamemaking seems to revolve around group one. Everybody wants to be David to the industry's Goliath; everybody wants to be that breakthrough, rags-to-riches, beat-the-odds underdog. To that end, there are -maybe- half a dozen indy groups/folks who have the vision, dedication, and know-how to actually pull this off; they crop up every now and then, release an acclaimed title, and often end up entering (gasp!) the industry.

Sad fact is, you're not gonna be able to go toe to toe with a company that can throw three dozen full-time people and several million dollars at any given title. It's not gonna happen. No matter how cool, revolutionary, or fresh your idea is, odds are, you -don't- have -all- the skills necessary to pull it off on an indy budget. You're a crack coder, but can't design a UI to save your life. You can create beautiful game art but physics makes your head swim. You've got this really, really cool special effect that puts the big houses' work to shame; all you need now is a game to wrap around it...the list goes on.

If, as an indy game developer, you make a few changes to your outlook, you can have a -really incredible time- making a game. Here are a few suggestions:

1. Don't quit your day job. Treat gamemaking as a hobby, something you do for a few hours a night instead of watching TV or playing other games.
2. Bite off less than you can chew. For your first few projects, just keep it insanely simple. No special modes, no added effects--pick one simple aspect of your game, build it, polish it. After you've done this, start tagging all the 'cool' stuff on.
3. Focus on your strengths, but pick something to improve. Maybe take an art class once a week. Maybe buy a book on algorithm optimization. Maybe study user interface design. Maybe take a marketing class. Remember, you're indy, you're small, you need to be able to tackle as many facets of making a game as you can. The more you broaden your skills, the better your games will be.
4. Get a little help from your friends. Once you absolutely -love- what you've created, have your friends try it out. -Listen- to their feedback, swallow your pride, and consider ways to make more people say "Wow!" and fewer people say "Umm..."
5. Don't use the big titles as a meterstick. Do that, and you'll soon find yourself violating suggestion two. Your mantra should be something along the lines of, "I -cannot- compete with Rockstar Games. I -can- make a really fun game that lost of people will like."
6. Do it to have fun. Do it because you -love- making games. Do it because you want to entertain people. If you make your game a labor of love, it -will- be a great game, even if you're the only person who ever sees it as such. Look at it this way: if you make a game that you enjoy so much that you play it more than any other game you own for years, haven't you made the best game you could ever wish for?

There are success stories out there. Other posters to this article have articulated this point quite well. All I'm trying to say is, don't get into indy games for the wrong reason. Do it for yourself, do it to have fun, and you won't regret it. Measure success by self-satisfaction, not by shelf space and bottom lines.