Slashdot Mirror
Games That Could Have Been
Gamespot, to accompany a piece on the art of pitching a game has up a companion article on a few good pitches from talented developers that never quite made it into games. My favorite of the three, from Will Wright: "I've always been fascinated with airships, and I wanted to do a game about the Hindenburg. And it was originally conceived as a cross between Myst and a flight simulator, if you can imagine that. You basically wake up on the Hindenburg. You're all alone. It's flying toward Lakehurst, New Jersey. You can walk anywhere on the ship. You can turn lights on and off. You can steer. You can adjust the engines. But every time you come into Lakehurst, it blows up. And you have to figure out why, and it becomes like this weird mystery flight simulator thing. I'd still love to do that."
In the last idea they say they have the code there, they were demoing it to publishers and stuff... Why not just open source the code and let the community run with it?
If the idea was dropped, if there is no way you're gonna get that game published and make money from it, why waste all those man-hours than went into producing that prototype and instead open source it and let people have fun with it.
... for a game that could have been, Freespace 3. Way to leave us all hanging Volition :(
At least the game was continued by a source code release and player designed campaigns, still it would have been nice to get an official conclusion to the story.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
And I don't mean the Bethesda one, either.
HAH! Got it in first.
One would be excused for thinking this post is a trolling (which, if you will remember, is tactically trying to stir up trouble for the troll's own amusement). Though I wouldn't mind if I DO stir up emotions, my goal isn't entertainment for myself or anyone.
Okay, the substance of the post:
Let us not forget that Gamespot should still be shunned continually until it at least somehow repents for firing Jeff Gerstmann. Gamepost denied the rumors, Jeff hasn't, and frankly the facts of the matter speak for themselves.
It may well be a fine article (I wouldn't be a Slashdotter if I actually READ it), but we shouldn't forget the apartment policy (of at least willingness) of censorship - especially not just because it's been a little while, and "who cares anymore?".
Sure, I'm blowing it out of proportion, but you should be righteously angry to a relative degree.
Property is theft.
- If the game is based on a franchise / IP they licensed, they might be unable to release those rights.
- If based on a franchise / IP they own, they might be unwilling to release it due to concerns they might allow anyone to create and publish derivative works.
- If they game uses an engine or other software they've licensed from other companies, they might be unable to release it.
- If the game uses an engine or other software the company considers to be part of its competitive advantage, they might be unwilling to release it to the general public when it might be used in later games and/or licensed to other companies.
- If the game hasn't been well screen, both in terms of content seen in the game as well as information in the source code, there could be negative PR if certain types of elements are found. (eg, the potentially offensive character that one of the artists put in as a joke, a frustrated programmer with a paragraph of derogatory comments about his manager, or something similar to 'hot coffee').
- If the code is cleaned up and finished, it could potentially compete with the other games that the company might release in the future.
All you need is one unlicensed song left in there, and you can expect to be sued out of existence.The process of vetting the software for release to make sure it's clean -- that you're allowed to release it, and that it won't adversely impact the company is something that takes time and resources, and although might earn them points with some members of the community would likely piss off their publishers and distributors. It's unrealistic to expect that it's 'free' for a company to make their their demo open source, and that it'd be in their best interest to do it.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
your right, that joke is funnier.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
This is sort of a weird issue that seems to come up whenever someone has a game concept, but suddenly become intimidated by the industry and the overwhelming quality of the content they generate. The fact is, you don't need a huge team of developers and technicians to produce a great game. You just need a good idea and a couple people with enough determination and skill to make it happen.
Heck, look at the first person shooter genre. It was initially brought to life by only two people who loved to play games. Now, it's a multi-billion dollar industry and the resulting engines produced each year often creates the standards for which all other games are judged.
Nowadays, you don't even need to be a programming genius capable of juggling dozens of complex equations to produce content. You can now get fairly simple to use game development tools, such as Unity to design prototypes and tweak things until it finally feels right. Even if it doesn't end up being the final product, having a working prototype can make a huge difference in even pitching your concepts to other, larger developers. (The ones in charge of such decisions often need visual aids beyond just a storyboard or sketch, since they likely aren't developers themselves.)
If not anything else, even Flash can work in a pinch for prototyping or development.
8==8 Bones 8==8