Three recent trends lend credibility to the image of those modest studios (indies) developing games: 1) the fact that many such developers are are coming from industry proper; 2) the actual nomenclature "Indie" being a positive term; and 3) small studios' newfound ability to create games that are visually appealing.
First: An interesting but not-well-known fact is that many members of the indie gaming community come from a background of well-known companies. Take, for example, the Moonpod team, which had experience at Gremlin and Infogrames before starting out on their own. Monkeystone is headed by none other than id's John Romero. I would argue that games industry experience is not a prerequisite for the development of a good game; but the recent movement of folks from big gaming companies to their own studios makes independents more credible. Put simply: if folks who have worked on shipped, big-budget games are now part of the indie community, there must be something to the indie community.
Second: The actual term used for smaller studios (Independents or Indies) is an important one. You could call many of the products in this category "Shareware Games," but there's a horribly negative connotation to that term. "Indie Games" evokes the notion of a small, dedicated team of professionals crafting out something new and interesting. By contrast, the term "Shareware Games" evokes the notion of some dude in his basement churning out a buggy arcade clone that looks like it was written for the Intellivision. To parahrase someone, (I want to say Chris Barrie): A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but may be less appealing if it were called "sewage-weed." The adoption of the "Indie" label has helped legitimize games made by smaller studios.
Fifth (20 years from now, we'll be those old farts still making Python references to people born in twenty-oh-one): Independents can make games that look good. It may be because indies now have access to tools that would have made Pixar cry during its formative years. (Maya, for example, can be had for about $2k, and is even free for personal use.) It may also be because there's great talent now available. Either way, I think indie titles, taken as a whole, have become visually appealing. During the '90s, shareware titles had a bad reputation for being ugly, because they lagged so far behind the cutting-edge. These days, titles like Starscape, Dark Horizons: Lore, and Wik & The Fable of Souls are (IMO) looking pretty good. And, while indie titles may not be as spectacular as those developed by a major studio, (our own Inago Rage focuses on bright colors, but doesn't quite outdo Tron 2.0, for example), decent sales suggest that gamers like what Independents are doing.
However, given the dearth of posts in this thread, I still believe we have a long way to go.:) So, if you haven't already, check out the DIY and Game Tunnel coverage of the 81 IGF entrants. You may find that precious diamond in the rough.
_____________________
Willing to Wait for Max and Sam
on
Sam and Max Revival?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Sam and Max's delay may prove to be a boon. Adventure games have been declared officially "dead," with the poor sales of Grim Fandango, but I can't help but believe that its essence will return in some form. The first Sam and Max adventure was one of my all-time favorites, but I think that a sequel whose play is true to the original will do poorly. While production values are higher these days, and aesthetics have improved, adventure gameplay has not evolved as much as gamers demand.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that action gameplay has evolved much further; the gameplay differences between Wolfenstien 3D and Half Life 2 are greater than those between Day of the Tentacle and Grim Fandango.
Sam and Max deserve something that's different, and I'm willing to wait.
__________________________________________ Inago Rage - Fight, Fly, and Create
Why not pose some REAL questions here? Here's my go. Richard, if you're reading this, endulge us:-)
Since we're having fun, let me play the part of an Imaginary Richard Garriott and see what he has to say.
MikShapi: 1. Is single-player CRPG'ing a dead-end as far as you're concerned (and does your future lie in MMO) or do you see yourself involved in future major single-player titles?
Imaginary Richard Garriott responds: I've been authoring them since Alkabeth, and have no intention of stopping now! Some might consider the genre to have become stale, but the way I see it, it merely needs a nudge in a different direction. Things like physics simulation have been adopted from academic and industrial research. The next big thing coming out of that research could as easily be convincing AI; and I think this is what we really need to bring our computer role-playing gameworlds to life.
MS: 2. Are we going to see any future CRPG-games you are involved in with an ultima-*like* atmosphere? (never mind the brand) and are they going single-player or MMO?
IRG: The Ultima series was very much an extension of myself; in the same way you might be able to pick out a Jeunet film, I'm certain you'd be able to pick a Lord Brittish game out of a group, even if it didn't bear the name "Ultima."
MS: 3. Are we going to see any future CRPG-games you're involved in with vast illinear worlds like Ultima 6/7 or Morrowind and are they going single-player or MMO?
IRG: I think you coined a new term there. [Chuckles] Seriously: if our games can become a little more intelligent, there won't be such a distinction anymore -- linear worlds will cease to exist altogether. In other industries, there has been a great deal of research work done on compelling, computer-generated content. (For example, they finally have algorithms that can create a reasonable symphony.) It's been used in games to an extent -- the Diablo series and its spiritual predecessors, the Roguelikes, demonstrated the use of this in a primitive fashion. Consider what will happen when developers expand on this -- when events and new gameworld rules generate naturally and logically from existing conditions. At this point, CRPGs may truly become the "virtual worlds" they've been promising us for years.
MS: 4. What's your favourite *CRPG* game you were not involved in?
IRG: Alternate Reality by, I think, Datasoft.
MS: 5. What's the coolest thing in the CRPG market you're looking forward to? (Other than Half-Life 2 you're obviously playing same as we all, judging by that 'physics engine' bit)
IRG: The coolest element? I think it's collaborative building. The ability for players, as a group, to shape the gameworlds they're in is something I'd always hoped to see in an RPG.
---
That concludes the interview with Imaginary Richard Gariott. We now return you to your Real Richard Gariott, who is sipping port from the window of his observatory.
_________________________________ Inago Rage - Fight, Fly, and Create your own levels in an indie first-person shooter.
Some years ago, TechTV's Megan Morrone featured one of our games on The Screensavers (screengrab here, with the game on in the background). Indie studios receive relatively modest press coverage, so seeing one of our own titles on the tele-vision was unreal and wonderful.
G4's X-Play seems more geared towards the mainstream/console market; either they don't cover independents, or I accidentally offended them in our press release.
____________________________________ Inago Rage - Create. Fly. Fight.
Re:George Broussard of 3d realms' take on this
on
EA Games: The Human Story
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think the big question is, how can we get small game studios back? Is it really not possible for a small team to make commercial games?
I believe that the problem smaller studios face can be overcome with some lateral thinking. The problem is two-fold: production costs and marketing costs are too high to allow indies to compete on equal footing with the big boys. The solution, then, is to not compete on equal footing.
Don't: Try to copy a game that took 60 people 3 years to create. Do: Draw from an existing genre, but come up with a unique twist -- something meaty that doesn't exist elsewhere.
Don't: Compete with larger productions on the same style of graphics. Do: Come up with a unique look; it's easier to wow people with a fresh style. (Though Monolith is not a small studio, Tron 2.0 was the opposite of the hyper-realism trend, and set itself apart on appearance, among other things.)
Don't: Try to out-advertise Activision, Microsoft, or Infogr- er- Atari. A small studio's meager advertising budget should be used towards development. Do: Make as much use of word-of-mouth marketing as is humanly possible. It's easier to connect with your individual players because... well... there are fewer of them.
Don't: Re-invent the wheel. id Software must create its own 3D engine from scratch; you don't (necessarily) have to. Do: Make as much use of middleware as possible. You don't need to be an artist to create skycubes. You don't need to know DirectX or OpenGL intimately to createanengine. You don't need to write your audioengine from scratch.
And I deeply believe better games would be coming out of a smaller and more laid back studio...
I've long held the Starglider series to be the first of a "new" generation of games, in that it made an enormous leap forward in immersion. It was one of the first games I'd ever seen for the Atari ST, and the first game I'd ever encountered with digitized music. ("What, you're not impressed? I nearly crapped myself when I saw this at the 1937 World's Fair!") It was also the first computer game I'd seen with such fluid 3D graphics.
The sequel improved on the original in many ways; not only was it more graphically rich, but the game universe was lavish with detail. In 1988, here was a game that allowed you to travel out to Jupiter to frolic with a school of dolphin-like critters that rode space-currents. While not important to the gameplay proper, it's elements like that that make a 1.44MB world seem both infinitely large and endlessly explorable. (Naturally, I'm also a fan of Elite.)
_____________________________________________ Inago Rage - Bound between rooftoops and create your own 3D arenas in this indie-developed first person shooter. Coming Real Soon. Honest.
I'd like to see the industry place more emphasis on what happens over product's lifetime than on its initial launch.
As a former developer of Palm entertainment software, and current developer of Windows software, my perception is that the PDA market encouraged post-release support, whereas the desktop market strongly focuses on the initial "bang." The juciest press in desktop gaming are the previews and the initial review, (and in some cases, games are reviewed before they're released). By comparison, little mention of a game is made after it's released, even if substantial improvements are made.
Passage like, "...if they'd only spent more time polishing off this game, it'd have been fantastic!" should be a sign to a developer that they need to go and polish off the damn game. As an independent studio, we're able to do that; but I'm not sure we'd be rewarded for it. Even large companies making content available such as Unreal Tournament 2004's Community Bonus Pack receive minimal press. That free (community-produced, even) expansion made the game an even better purchase; I'd go so far as to suggest that the initial review should be upgraded as a result.
Traditionally, we 1) develop a game, 2) release it, and 3) add to it/improve it over its lifetime. Players love to see new content, especially if it's free. With our upcoming title, my perception is that we have to get it right on the first try, or we'll receive poor reviews. Developers are given incentive to move on to a new title, rather than improve an existing one, as it means another round of previews and another full review. I'd much rather listen to what the community says, tweak as needed, and be recognized for it.
I'd say that both individuals and entire development studios should grab more recognition for their creations. If you browse Mobygames, games are listed by publisher:
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault by Electronic Arts
Star Wars Battlefront by Lucasarts
Asheron's Call by Microsoft
Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay by Vivendi
...etc...
You have to dig to find out who actually developed a software title (2015, Pandemic, Turbine, and Starbreeze, above), which is the opposite of how it works in literature. One could argue that this is because entertainment software publishers often fund development of a title, but I think the same is true with books, in the form of royalty advances. Most people who have read Cryptonomicon will be able to tell you that it was written by Stephenson, (rather than by Avon Books). I think this makes a great deal of sense for the consumer; sharks aside, one of an author's works can serve as a recommendation for another. The same is not often true when you compare publishers. Burke puts this as follows:
What seems clear to me is that middlebrow games criticism cannot function without some reference to authors: a critic needs to know who to blame or praise, how to assign and imagine intentionality, how to accessibly discuss the intertextual relations between games.
The gaming public does, indeed, seem to care who's recognized for a title. Development studios should be lauded for their successes, just as book authors are. To wit, we'll be self-publishing our next title. I'll personally bear responsibility for the game, whether it unleashes a horrible plague upon the world, or becomes a hit.
I'm sorta hoping for the latter.
____________________________ Inago Rage - Bound between rooftoops and create your own 3D arenas.
Give the Stress Test a go, and let us know if you enjoy it.
I love DVD commentaries that talk about how a movie was produced. I'd like to do something similar for our upcoming title, (which I'm supposed to be working on right now instead of posting to Slashdot). Since it's an independent production, we have a good amount of leeway in terms of what random gunk we can add in, though we end up starving if we put in the wrong stuff. My thoughts were to include the following:
The crude-but-playable prototype from two years ago. There's a clear line of ancestry there, but it's always nice to see how things have evolved.
A bit on how the game's focus changed, and why we incorporated building elements into it.
A segment on the actual development process, from the initial concept to media development, coding, and refining.
Outtakes! Maybe you'll get a chuckle seeing the early AI as it forced the multi-segmented Parade Dragon to loop in and collide with itself.
Why I think (hope?) indie studios can earn a living.
So, the question that follows from Andy Phelps' article is: will added meta-content make an enjoyable game much better, or should developers spend their time on the game proper?
____________________________ ____________________________ Inago Rage - Bound between rooftoops and create your own 3D arenas.
Give the Stress Test a whirl, and let us know if you enjoy it.
The Banc analysts predict that Halo 2 "will be the second-best seller of the holiday season..." and suggest that certain titles should be moved beyond the holiday season entirely, to "avoid big-name products coming out on the same time-frame."
Release dates are always tricky, but I think there's a solution aside from Banc of America's proposed delay. Just as the concurrent releases (scroll down) of Batman, Lethal Weapon, and Indiana Jones crushed UHF, high-profile games such as Doom 3 have the potential to utterly destroy the smaller competition, such as our own title, scheduled for an August release. However, here are three ways we hope to avoid being eaten:
Complementary Benefits - If the competition leaves something desirable out of their design, a developer can cater to that. Untold zillions of people (myself, included) have enjoyed a myriad of games in the first-person shooter genre. Many of these players would love to create their own levels and content, but lack the time or technical expertise to do this, even with the mod tools available. We want our offering to allow anyone adept enough to play our game to be able to create within it. I'm hoping that folks of all ages can play other FPSes, and still enjoy our game, for that reason.
Consistency - From a marketing standpoint, the release of a small title is almost a non-event; rather, steady and consistent support causes awareness to gradually snowball. After all, most FPS fans know than Doom 3 will be released on 7/20/2004 (just kidding), but unless PGC and CWG suddenly do big pieces on indie developers, they won't be slapping us onto their covers. So, for us, it's a long-haul grassroots thing -- hopefully, this means that players will benefit from lots of fresh, new content over the next 12 months.
Differentiation - This is where the consumer stands to win the most: developers can recognize saturation in a sub-genre and create products that evolve it. Or: to those who lament the current state of the myriad identical MMOGs, don't fret -- it's only a prelude to evolution! Our biggest example of this is the ability to create arenas. But we also apply it in small ways; whereas Doom 3 and Half Life 2 approach hyperrealism, we're trying for the oppsite effect. Aesthetics are not central to our game, but I hope players will consider it pretty enough -- and different enough -- to enjoy.
Reliance on the Big Launch seems like a losing proposition for all but the highest-profile titles. I'm banking on the slow, steady approach, which may end up with my being able to eat for another year, or my living in a cardboard box. I'll let you know in 2005.
Tim Sweeney will, in my mind, forever be linked to the wonderful ZZT. This interview, given some time before Unreal 2 is an interesting contrast to the one posted above. In particular, he talks about ease-of-creation:
Hercules: You moved onto to other, bigger projects long ago. It must be good to know that the first thing you ever created is still used/played a lot. Does ZZT still cross your mind, sometimes?
Tim Sweeney: Yes, one of the interesting things to do is contrast ZZT and Unreal, and look at how incredibly far we've come in graphics quality in that time. But also to see how little the industry has progressed -- or maybe even gone backwards in some respects... So, how will game development be 10 years from now? If levels take six months to build, and compiles take 5 hours each, and it costs $20 million to develop a game, then developing games won't be fun or even possible anymore.
I'm a fan of creation tools that are accessible to anyone who can play the game. (Casual players who may not be technically inclined.) As a developer, I'm hoping that we will be among the first to offer something that lets even the most casual user plink around. As a player, I'm hoping that Sweeney has retained this philosophy, and that future Epic offerings let us build -- at least a little bit -- with the same ease that ZZT did.
Independent studios want to create wonderful, experimental titles, but are, in part, held back by business requirements. As businesses, our first priority is to become profitable, and the least-risky way to do this is to create more traditional offerings. (The same is true for large development houses.) Fortunately for us, better middleware tools and increased publicity can free us of this constraint. The former will allow us to experiment and develop easier; the latter will allow us to reach an audience now reserved for the large publishers. As these conditions improve, you'll see independents take more risks.
Middleware comprises the audio libraries, AI plugins, and 3D engines such as Torque, Conitec A6, and FMOD. These tidbits are the lifeblood of independents. Without them, we'd have to code everything from scratch, and you'd see even more Tetris clones than you do now -- little innovation. With them, we're freed from the low-level stuff. We can create games that look and sound good enough to attract consumers. As middleware improves, it'll become even easier to experiment and innovate.
Publicity is trickier -- while events such as the Independent Games Festival allow us to bend the ears of larger publications, it's still the big studios that are going to command the previews and exclusives. Having approached a number of print publications, I've found that it can be difficult to secure a sizable preview for our game, even though I think folks might like to hear about where we're innovating. But even this is improving; sites like The Adrenaline Vault are particularly indie-friendly, often posting press releases from smaller development studios.
I think, then, that it's only a matter of time before the smaller studios attempt experimental titles in substantial numbers. Many will be terrible; some will be great fun. But as it becomes easier to experiment, you bet we'll be doing more of it, simply because we can.
To a developer, easy cross-platform compatibility is great. But compatibility among platforms in different markets is priceless.
I love free stuff. If I can get cross-platform development for free (or close), I'll take it. The ability to create a substantial application and have it run well on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux means I can reach a greater audience. But what XNA promises is almost impossible to resist: the ability to develop a substantial game that runs on your desktop, in your livingroom, and on your keychain -- three large markets that do not directly compete.
Applications drive an operating system; a stack of exceptional programs give consumers a reason to buy your OS. A complaint I've long had with Palm is that they haven't made it easier to develop for Palm OS. Microsoft gives its development environment away for free. In fact, it's possible to develop simple games concurrently for Windows Desktop and Pocket PC. If XNA can make it possible for a small studio such as mine to develop our more complex offerings concurrently for Windows and Pocket PC, will I care about Palm OS, Mac OS, or Linux?
What I'd like to see from companies such as Apple and PalmSource are environments like Torque, which makes it possible to write for Windows, Mac OS, and Linux by abstracting each environment. But Torque is really an ad-hoc solution (in both senses of the term); it's not a hollistic system, and it's not supported by the OS vendors. Though an awkward combination, if it were possible to develop substantial applications for Mac OS, Palm OS, and Windows, I might. But if XNA allows me to develop substantial applications for Windows, Pocket PC, and the Xbox concurrently -- three different, juicy markets -- that's even better.
There are reasons why a game publisher might not want a website to post its screenshots with others, but I wonder if there might just be an error in the linked article.
In independent games, the question of quality-by-association comes up when a company approaches a developer with a request to include its game in a CD compilation. One side of the argument is that the presence of a title on a shovelware compilation can detract from its perceived quality -- your game might appear among a hundred Sokoban clones, or in an extreme case, you might see children's software next to more adult software. So, it is conceivable that publishers might have considered association with this website (archived here) a bad thing.
But I don't buy it. Entire conferences are devoted to publicity, and as they say, no publicity is bad publicity. (To wit, I'd talk up my postman about my software if I thought it'd help. He's a nice guy; we talk about other things.) The only tidbit that screams copyright violation as I understand it is this:
Of this collection, several hundred were allegedly found to have been taken from magazines and overseas game sites...
However, I do not understand the end of that sentence:...without the permission of the game publisher, a violation of Japanese copyright law.
To my knowledge, it is not illegal in the States to take and post a screenshot of a movie or game to the Web; my understanding Japanese intellectual property laws is limited, but given the number of Japanese film/gaming sites that do this, I don't believe that game publishers have any say over what screenshots are presented. I think 1Up may have meant this, instead:
without the permission of the website's publisher, a violation of Japanese copyright law.
_________________________
I long for the day when Google stops asking me, "Did you mean: inigo rage"
But what's most interesting is that people give them little stories:
The Nehibore of the SIM Family. She's old. She's mean and she hates kids.
This is one of those teacher who looks like a really boring woman, but if you take away the glasses and gives her another haircut, shes a really sexy top model!
He and his sister Mara are inseperable and very much alike...being that they are twins. But he really looks up to his older sister...and likes to copy her by wearing his PJ's all day (when he's home).
She loves hanging out in her room giving herself makeovers and watching movies in her undies...with popcorn....ahhh the life of a girl.
Loves walks by the beach and loves kids. She just needs a husband and she's set.
I've been told that people live out fantasies through their sims, but I didn't believe it until I saw these profiles. This seems so similar to the play of children with dolls; I have to wonder if people would express themselves more if given the chance. (Such things are frowned upon in general. Even among geeks, there's a limit to the amount of doofiness someone can display -- Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! (mpeg).) While the story tidbits written by these Sims players are simplistic -- they sound like kids' fantasies now -- I think they'll improve, given time. Maybe they'll even become interesting in their own right. And for that, I will argue that video games can be great.
There will be no attempt to give [comics] serious consideration on aesthetic grounds, because they are simply not worth it. -- Margaret Dalziel, 'Comics in New Zealand,' Landfall, March 1955.
The graphic novel format is a great way to tell a story within a computer game; and it's possible to do this without astronomical production values. First-rate CGI cinematics are outside the reach of smaller studios; and even in-engine cinematics require artists, programmers, and voice actors to do right. Given budgetary constraints, their talents are often needed elsewhere, (else you'll get a pretty game with no gameplay). And while you can more cheaply tell a story through a screen full of text, few gamers want to read a novella between a game's levels. The graphic novel strikes a great balance between the two extremes -- done right, it can be both visually powerful and expressive in narrative.
Recently and notably, it's been used in Freedom Force and Max Payne. It may be that these games have legitimized the graphic novel's use, or that the public will simply consider future titles that go this route as being derivative. I'm banking on the former, as it would allow independents to do more with less (so to speak). Our upcoming game will tell its story this way -- a trio of photo shoots and an artist slaving over a mouse make the costs very reasonable. (Here's an example of the result, written earlier today.)
Without the graphic novel, we simply wouldn't have the resources to tell a story that players would want to hear. With it, we have a shot at telling them a story they'll enjoy.
__________________________
Random Trivia: The voice actress who played Mona Sax in Max Payne 2 also did the voiceover work for Jane Lane in MTV's Daria.
On March 1 1990, the offices of Steve Jackson Games, in Austin, Texas, were raided by the U.S. Secret Service as part of a nationwide investigation of data piracy... More than three years later, a federal court awarded damages and attorneys' fees to the game company...
10. Steve Jackson Games is a computer game company.
9. GURPS Cyberpunk is a computer game.
8. We're out of business.
7. We were raided by the FBI.
6. Some of our staff members were arrested by the Secret Service and charged with hacking.
5. This was part of Operation Sun Devil.
4. The raid was after GURPS Cyberpunk.
3. There was a hacker threat to sabotage the 911 system.
2. We have an employee named Lloyd Blankenship.
1. Steve Jackson Games is the second largest game company in the USA.
This instance with Sega's fictional character, though embarassing for the FBI, is certainly preferable to the above.
_________________________
I long for the day when Google stops asking me, "Did you mean: inigo rage"
I always tell people about the customer who e-mailed us, telling us that our first game as an independent studio was helping her with a neurological condition. An excerpt from her letter:
I have rather severe neurologic problems in some areas of my brain and your game is helping me to regain some use of those areas that are "resting."
It was a great thing to hear.
______________________________
Trivia: The tagline under EA's M.U.L.E describes it as "a game in which up to four players attempt to settle a distant planet with the so-called help of a mule-like machine they all learn to hate.
I believe that the market will force the MMOG industry to abolish the up-front fee within a few years. Some publishers are already doing that (and more), but the majority seem dead-set on requiring me to pay $49.95 to test the waters. This has kept me away from some that I might otherwise enjoy. Those that offer free trials are in the minority, and should do more to tout their low-barrier-to-entry. Horizons, made by the same folks who brought us the excellent Mordor, might be good, but until about ten minutes ago, I had assumed that they, too, required the initial investment to try out.
Commercial and shareware demos exist because there's so much competition there -- consumers can usually overlook a title that doesn't allow them to kick the tires. Given the sheer number of MMORPGs that exist, I think it it won't be long before their publishers follow suit. Guild Wars' model -- free play, with sales generated from expansions -- is a great way to differentiate it from other games. And what better way to hook someone? C'mon, man. The first one's free.
_______________________________________
Amusing trivia: Will Wright on his first game, Raid on Bungeling Bay: "I found that I was having more fun actually creating and editing these islands than I was actually bombing them in the game."
Arkane Studios' RPG, Arx Fatalis is one of a handful of titles that offers gestural input, with its mouse-gesture-based spells. But this was more a novelty than a boon for usability -- it would have been easier to cast a spell by clicking icons. Perhaps a sequel will allow you to embellish your runes with serifs to achieve subtle variations on an incantation?
Avant Browser offers up a more useful gestural interface -- and I like it because it allows me to execute common tasks more easily. Rather than having to hit a smallish "new window" icon, I can rudely right-click anywhere on a window and sloppily drag my mouse upwards to open a new window.
EyeToy takes this a step further and does away with the mouse altogether; and though I had modest luck with the thing when I played against the noisy backdrop at Toys "R" Us, here's hoping that it's the first among many such interfaces. Perhaps five years down the road, a) gestures will be common, b) we'll laugh at what Minority Report got wrong, and c) we'll thank goofy gadgets like this one for paving the way.
After all, it was pretty silly to have a "Rat" for the Atari 800.
________________________________________________
The Inago Rage website is now up.
Critiques welcome and appreciated!
There are plenty of reasons why a studio might enter crunch-mode:
Approaching holiday - Christmas brings about the hottest season in retail, and publishers want to capitalize on this by releasing new titles in time for this. The Christmas push is less pressing for smaller studios that distribute outside of retail.
Media event - E3 is when all the gaming companies and all the gaming press come together and pretty much stand around in a competition to see who can avoid having a seizure (flash/audio). Or, such was my take on it. There's a huge PR incentive to have content prepared for this event; more eyeballs translates into more potential sales.
Publisher-imposed milestone - Publishers can withhold payment or cancel projects outright if a team misses milestones; if you're nearing such a deadline, the extra hours may be the difference between a happy publisher and a cranky one.
Competition - You might have a solid first-person shooter, but if it's released concurrent with Doom III or Half-Life 2, there's a good chance it'll be overlooked. If you own the UHF DVD, you'll hear Al Yankovic lament that his movie went up against Batman, Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon II, among others. You may also have your favorite game that was underrated due to poor timing. (Fortunately, there's always the possibility of a sequel.)
Budgetary constraints - Especially crucial if a development house is self-funding a title. If a generous publisher sees a promising project go over-budget, they might extend it. If an independent studio runs out of money for going over schedule, it must secure more financing.
Loss of staff - This can be devastating at project-end. There's no time to train new staff; existing members must take up the slack.
Game development is a wonderful vocation, but as with anything, too much of a crunch (the death-march) results in burnout. There must be ways we can mitigate some of the above causes. Less reliance on outside investment is one, but maybe that's wishful thinking my part.
One aspect of Postal 2 that I haven't seen in other crime-centric games is the ability to forcibly enter a suburban home. That, itself, is a step beyond the acts of personal violation we've seen in other titles. GTA-3 allows you to eject an adult from his car and take it for your own. I feel relatively safe when I'm in my car; and I'd feel relatively well-violated if someone snatched me from it. But I imagine that's nothing compared to being abducted (or otherwise intruded upon) in the sanctity of my own home. (Violation of person would be an even more extreme example.)
Postal 2's creators believe there's an appeal in the act of violating another human being. A Clockwork Orange shows us a group of people who enjoy this; their behavior is perfectly believable. The 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment shows us that the capacity for cruelty and abuse of control can exist in all of us. Games like Thief (audio/flash) distance us from this by changing the setting somewhat. In breaking into those medieval homes, there exists the sense of being somewhere I shouldn't, but I never really felt like I was terrifying anyone. Knowing what we do about human nature, would the Thief series sell even better if the victims were people from our own experience?
The consensus here seems to be that Running With Scissors will not gain much by porting the title to Linux. Would an improvement to gameplay make a title centering on home-invasion more interesting?
If you enjoyed Every Extend, you might also enjoy Kenta Cho's Tumiki Fighters, A7Xpg, or my personal favorite, Parsec 47. Tumiki Fighters is a stylish shooter, where pieces of your battered enemies glom onto your ship; eventually, you become a behemoth that can't help but stumble into incoming fire. I love Parsec 47, because it brings me back to arcades during the early '80s. MAME does this in a nostalgic manner, but Parsec does a great job of overwhelming the player with bright, flashy, fun graphics. It's what I remember arcade games to be.
Cho's games are why I'll contend that smaller developers can still wow audiences with style -- Parsec's not art-centric-beautiful, the way Doom III is; it's just damned pretty.
I'm hoping that Electronic Arts's transition from boutique software house to publishing juggernaut leaves room for -- well -- other boutique software houses. Many here must recall the early days of EA. They published titles that their small teams were passionate about; and while I've enjoyed many of EA's recent, grander offerings, they appeal to me in a much different way.
For the time being, the advent of a middleware industry is making it easier -- not harder -- for smaller studios to produce good-looking titles with depth. Consider that there are many audio libraries, 3D engines, and AI middleware libraries which are quite reasonably priced. Smaller studios seem to go strange and wonderful directions with these; (if you haven't already, try some of the Indie Game Jam titles, which make use of a simple, standardized physics engine).
I labor under the impression that the gaming public has a desire for boutique products; if I'm wrong, I don't mind taking my licks and moving to something more productive.
"If Microsoft can woo more developers to Xbox, the balance of power in the next round could change."
I'm blatantly biased here, but I'd be thrilled if Microsoft were to make overtures to the independent game developer community. Some noises were made along those lines in November, 2000, but they didn't follow up tangibly. As an independent developer, I don't feel drawn towards Xbox development the way I did, Pocket PC development. In that arena, MS gave the development tools away for free, (something I always felt Palm should have done to keep Pocket PC from gaining market share from 2001 onward).
Xbox development is said to be technically similar to Windows desktop development, so from a development standpoint, I imagine that authors of 95/2K/XP software would feel comfortable developing for the console. Further, 3d engines such as Torque and Conitec's 3DGS make it possible for modest-sized groups to develop popular titles. But both the developers of such engines, and the developers of games, face restrictions imposed by the console manufacturer(s). Conitec's Doug Poston states his case -- the manufacturers make the cost-of-entry too high for smaller studios.
Slashdot Mirror
Three recent trends lend credibility to the image of those modest studios (indies) developing games: 1) the fact that many such developers are are coming from industry proper; 2) the actual nomenclature "Indie" being a positive term; and 3) small studios' newfound ability to create games that are visually appealing.
:) So, if you haven't already, check out the DIY and Game Tunnel coverage of the 81 IGF entrants. You may find that precious diamond in the rough.
First: An interesting but not-well-known fact is that many members of the indie gaming community come from a background of well-known companies. Take, for example, the Moonpod team, which had experience at Gremlin and Infogrames before starting out on their own. Monkeystone is headed by none other than id's John Romero. I would argue that games industry experience is not a prerequisite for the development of a good game; but the recent movement of folks from big gaming companies to their own studios makes independents more credible. Put simply: if folks who have worked on shipped, big-budget games are now part of the indie community, there must be something to the indie community.
Second: The actual term used for smaller studios (Independents or Indies) is an important one. You could call many of the products in this category "Shareware Games," but there's a horribly negative connotation to that term. "Indie Games" evokes the notion of a small, dedicated team of professionals crafting out something new and interesting. By contrast, the term "Shareware Games" evokes the notion of some dude in his basement churning out a buggy arcade clone that looks like it was written for the Intellivision. To parahrase someone, (I want to say Chris Barrie): A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but may be less appealing if it were called "sewage-weed." The adoption of the "Indie" label has helped legitimize games made by smaller studios.
Fifth (20 years from now, we'll be those old farts still making Python references to people born in twenty-oh-one): Independents can make games that look good. It may be because indies now have access to tools that would have made Pixar cry during its formative years. (Maya, for example, can be had for about $2k, and is even free for personal use.) It may also be because there's great talent now available. Either way, I think indie titles, taken as a whole, have become visually appealing. During the '90s, shareware titles had a bad reputation for being ugly, because they lagged so far behind the cutting-edge. These days, titles like Starscape, Dark Horizons: Lore, and Wik & The Fable of Souls are (IMO) looking pretty good. And, while indie titles may not be as spectacular as those developed by a major studio, (our own Inago Rage focuses on bright colors, but doesn't quite outdo Tron 2.0, for example), decent sales suggest that gamers like what Independents are doing.
However, given the dearth of posts in this thread, I still believe we have a long way to go.
_____________________
Sam and Max's delay may prove to be a boon. Adventure games have been declared officially "dead," with the poor sales of Grim Fandango, but I can't help but believe that its essence will return in some form. The first Sam and Max adventure was one of my all-time favorites, but I think that a sequel whose play is true to the original will do poorly. While production values are higher these days, and aesthetics have improved, adventure gameplay has not evolved as much as gamers demand.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that action gameplay has evolved much further; the gameplay differences between Wolfenstien 3D and Half Life 2 are greater than those between Day of the Tentacle and Grim Fandango.
Sam and Max deserve something that's different, and I'm willing to wait.
__________________________________________
Inago Rage - Fight, Fly, and Create
Why not pose some REAL questions here? Here's my go. Richard, if you're reading this, endulge us :-)
Since we're having fun, let me play the part of an Imaginary Richard Garriott and see what he has to say.
MikShapi: 1. Is single-player CRPG'ing a dead-end as far as you're concerned (and does your future lie in MMO) or do you see yourself involved in future major single-player titles?
Imaginary Richard Garriott responds: I've been authoring them since Alkabeth, and have no intention of stopping now! Some might consider the genre to have become stale, but the way I see it, it merely needs a nudge in a different direction. Things like physics simulation have been adopted from academic and industrial research. The next big thing coming out of that research could as easily be convincing AI; and I think this is what we really need to bring our computer role-playing gameworlds to life.
MS: 2. Are we going to see any future CRPG-games you are involved in with an ultima-*like* atmosphere? (never mind the brand) and are they going single-player or MMO?
IRG: The Ultima series was very much an extension of myself; in the same way you might be able to pick out a Jeunet film, I'm certain you'd be able to pick a Lord Brittish game out of a group, even if it didn't bear the name "Ultima."
MS: 3. Are we going to see any future CRPG-games you're involved in with vast illinear worlds like Ultima 6/7 or Morrowind and are they going single-player or MMO?
IRG: I think you coined a new term there. [Chuckles] Seriously: if our games can become a little more intelligent, there won't be such a distinction anymore -- linear worlds will cease to exist altogether. In other industries, there has been a great deal of research work done on compelling, computer-generated content. (For example, they finally have algorithms that can create a reasonable symphony.) It's been used in games to an extent -- the Diablo series and its spiritual predecessors, the Roguelikes, demonstrated the use of this in a primitive fashion. Consider what will happen when developers expand on this -- when events and new gameworld rules generate naturally and logically from existing conditions. At this point, CRPGs may truly become the "virtual worlds" they've been promising us for years.
MS: 4. What's your favourite *CRPG* game you were not involved in?
IRG: Alternate Reality by, I think, Datasoft.
MS: 5. What's the coolest thing in the CRPG market you're looking forward to? (Other than Half-Life 2 you're obviously playing same as we all, judging by that 'physics engine' bit)
IRG: The coolest element? I think it's collaborative building. The ability for players, as a group, to shape the gameworlds they're in is something I'd always hoped to see in an RPG.
---
That concludes the interview with Imaginary Richard Gariott. We now return you to your Real Richard Gariott, who is sipping port from the window of his observatory.
_________________________________
Inago Rage - Fight, Fly, and Create your own levels in an indie first-person shooter.
Some years ago, TechTV's Megan Morrone featured one of our games on The Screensavers (screengrab here, with the game on in the background). Indie studios receive relatively modest press coverage, so seeing one of our own titles on the tele-vision was unreal and wonderful.
G4's X-Play seems more geared towards the mainstream/console market; either they don't cover independents, or I accidentally offended them in our press release. ____________________________________
Inago Rage - Create. Fly. Fight.
I think the big question is, how can we get small game studios back? Is it really not possible for a small team to make commercial games?
I believe that the problem smaller studios face can be overcome with some lateral thinking. The problem is two-fold: production costs and marketing costs are too high to allow indies to compete on equal footing with the big boys. The solution, then, is to not compete on equal footing.
Don't: Try to copy a game that took 60 people 3 years to create.
Do: Draw from an existing genre, but come up with a unique twist -- something meaty that doesn't exist elsewhere.
Don't: Compete with larger productions on the same style of graphics.
Do: Come up with a unique look; it's easier to wow people with a fresh style. (Though Monolith is not a small studio, Tron 2.0 was the opposite of the hyper-realism trend, and set itself apart on appearance, among other things.)
Don't: Try to out-advertise Activision, Microsoft, or Infogr- er- Atari. A small studio's meager advertising budget should be used towards development.
Do: Make as much use of word-of-mouth marketing as is humanly possible. It's easier to connect with your individual players because... well... there are fewer of them.
Don't: Re-invent the wheel. id Software must create its own 3D engine from scratch; you don't (necessarily) have to.
Do: Make as much use of middleware as possible. You don't need to be an artist to create skycubes. You don't need to know DirectX or OpenGL intimately to create an engine. You don't need to write your audio engine from scratch.
And I deeply believe better games would be coming out of a smaller and more laid back studio...
I like the cut of your jib. I hope you're right.
________________________
Inago Rage - A first-person shooter where you fight in arenas of your own creation.
I've long held the Starglider series to be the first of a "new" generation of games, in that it made an enormous leap forward in immersion. It was one of the first games I'd ever seen for the Atari ST, and the first game I'd ever encountered with digitized music. ("What, you're not impressed? I nearly crapped myself when I saw this at the 1937 World's Fair!") It was also the first computer game I'd seen with such fluid 3D graphics.
The sequel improved on the original in many ways; not only was it more graphically rich, but the game universe was lavish with detail. In 1988, here was a game that allowed you to travel out to Jupiter to frolic with a school of dolphin-like critters that rode space-currents. While not important to the gameplay proper, it's elements like that that make a 1.44MB world seem both infinitely large and endlessly explorable. (Naturally, I'm also a fan of Elite.)
_____________________________________________
Inago Rage - Bound between rooftoops and create your own 3D arenas in this indie-developed first person shooter. Coming Real Soon. Honest.
I'd like to see the industry place more emphasis on what happens over product's lifetime than on its initial launch.
As a former developer of Palm entertainment software, and current developer of Windows software, my perception is that the PDA market encouraged post-release support, whereas the desktop market strongly focuses on the initial "bang." The juciest press in desktop gaming are the previews and the initial review, (and in some cases, games are reviewed before they're released). By comparison, little mention of a game is made after it's released, even if substantial improvements are made.
Passage like, "...if they'd only spent more time polishing off this game, it'd have been fantastic!" should be a sign to a developer that they need to go and polish off the damn game. As an independent studio, we're able to do that; but I'm not sure we'd be rewarded for it. Even large companies making content available such as Unreal Tournament 2004's Community Bonus Pack receive minimal press. That free (community-produced, even) expansion made the game an even better purchase; I'd go so far as to suggest that the initial review should be upgraded as a result.
Traditionally, we 1) develop a game, 2) release it, and 3) add to it/improve it over its lifetime. Players love to see new content, especially if it's free. With our upcoming title, my perception is that we have to get it right on the first try, or we'll receive poor reviews. Developers are given incentive to move on to a new title, rather than improve an existing one, as it means another round of previews and another full review. I'd much rather listen to what the community says, tweak as needed, and be recognized for it.
- Medal of Honor: Allied Assault by Electronic Arts
- Star Wars Battlefront by Lucasarts
- Asheron's Call by Microsoft
- Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay by Vivendi
- ...etc...
You have to dig to find out who actually developed a software title (2015, Pandemic, Turbine, and Starbreeze, above), which is the opposite of how it works in literature. One could argue that this is because entertainment software publishers often fund development of a title, but I think the same is true with books, in the form of royalty advances. Most people who have read Cryptonomicon will be able to tell you that it was written by Stephenson, (rather than by Avon Books). I think this makes a great deal of sense for the consumer; sharks aside, one of an author's works can serve as a recommendation for another. The same is not often true when you compare publishers. Burke puts this as follows:What seems clear to me is that middlebrow games criticism cannot function without some reference to authors: a critic needs to know who to blame or praise, how to assign and imagine intentionality, how to accessibly discuss the intertextual relations between games.
The gaming public does, indeed, seem to care who's recognized for a title. Development studios should be lauded for their successes, just as book authors are. To wit, we'll be self-publishing our next title. I'll personally bear responsibility for the game, whether it unleashes a horrible plague upon the world, or becomes a hit.
I'm sorta hoping for the latter.
____________________________
Inago Rage - Bound between rooftoops and create your own 3D arenas.
Give the Stress Test a go, and let us know if you enjoy it.
- The crude-but-playable prototype from two years ago. There's a clear line of ancestry there, but it's always nice to see how things have evolved.
- A bit on how the game's focus changed, and why we incorporated building elements into it.
- A segment on the actual development process, from the initial concept to media development, coding, and refining.
- Outtakes! Maybe you'll get a chuckle seeing the early AI as it forced the multi-segmented Parade Dragon to loop in and collide with itself.
- How you can create artwork without a budget or artistic talent.
- Why I think (hope?) indie studios can earn a living.
So, the question that follows from Andy Phelps' article is: will added meta-content make an enjoyable game much better, or should developers spend their time on the game proper?____________________________ ____________________________
Inago Rage - Bound between rooftoops and create your own 3D arenas.
Give the Stress Test a whirl, and let us know if you enjoy it.
Release dates are always tricky, but I think there's a solution aside from Banc of America's proposed delay. Just as the concurrent releases (scroll down) of Batman, Lethal Weapon, and Indiana Jones crushed UHF, high-profile games such as Doom 3 have the potential to utterly destroy the smaller competition, such as our own title, scheduled for an August release. However, here are three ways we hope to avoid being eaten:
Reliance on the Big Launch seems like a losing proposition for all but the highest-profile titles. I'm banking on the slow, steady approach, which may end up with my being able to eat for another year, or my living in a cardboard box. I'll let you know in 2005.
____________________________
Inago Rage - Coming Summer 2004
Tim Sweeney will, in my mind, forever be linked to the wonderful ZZT. This interview, given some time before Unreal 2 is an interesting contrast to the one posted above. In particular, he talks about ease-of-creation:
Hercules: You moved onto to other, bigger projects long ago. It must be good to know that the first thing you ever created is still used/played a lot. Does ZZT still cross your mind, sometimes?
Tim Sweeney: Yes, one of the interesting things to do is contrast ZZT and Unreal, and look at how incredibly far we've come in graphics quality in that time. But also to see how little the industry has progressed -- or maybe even gone backwards in some respects... So, how will game development be 10 years from now? If levels take six months to build, and compiles take 5 hours each, and it costs $20 million to develop a game, then developing games won't be fun or even possible anymore.
I'm a fan of creation tools that are accessible to anyone who can play the game. (Casual players who may not be technically inclined.) As a developer, I'm hoping that we will be among the first to offer something that lets even the most casual user plink around. As a player, I'm hoping that Sweeney has retained this philosophy, and that future Epic offerings let us build -- at least a little bit -- with the same ease that ZZT did.
Independent studios want to create wonderful, experimental titles, but are, in part, held back by business requirements. As businesses, our first priority is to become profitable, and the least-risky way to do this is to create more traditional offerings. (The same is true for large development houses.) Fortunately for us, better middleware tools and increased publicity can free us of this constraint. The former will allow us to experiment and develop easier; the latter will allow us to reach an audience now reserved for the large publishers. As these conditions improve, you'll see independents take more risks.
Middleware comprises the audio libraries, AI plugins, and 3D engines such as Torque, Conitec A6, and FMOD. These tidbits are the lifeblood of independents. Without them, we'd have to code everything from scratch, and you'd see even more Tetris clones than you do now -- little innovation. With them, we're freed from the low-level stuff. We can create games that look and sound good enough to attract consumers. As middleware improves, it'll become even easier to experiment and innovate.
Publicity is trickier -- while events such as the Independent Games Festival allow us to bend the ears of larger publications, it's still the big studios that are going to command the previews and exclusives. Having approached a number of print publications, I've found that it can be difficult to secure a sizable preview for our game, even though I think folks might like to hear about where we're innovating. But even this is improving; sites like The Adrenaline Vault are particularly indie-friendly, often posting press releases from smaller development studios.
I think, then, that it's only a matter of time before the smaller studios attempt experimental titles in substantial numbers. Many will be terrible; some will be great fun. But as it becomes easier to experiment, you bet we'll be doing more of it, simply because we can.
To a developer, easy cross-platform compatibility is great. But compatibility among platforms in different markets is priceless.
I love free stuff. If I can get cross-platform development for free (or close), I'll take it. The ability to create a substantial application and have it run well on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux means I can reach a greater audience. But what XNA promises is almost impossible to resist: the ability to develop a substantial game that runs on your desktop, in your livingroom, and on your keychain -- three large markets that do not directly compete.
Applications drive an operating system; a stack of exceptional programs give consumers a reason to buy your OS. A complaint I've long had with Palm is that they haven't made it easier to develop for Palm OS. Microsoft gives its development environment away for free. In fact, it's possible to develop simple games concurrently for Windows Desktop and Pocket PC. If XNA can make it possible for a small studio such as mine to develop our more complex offerings concurrently for Windows and Pocket PC, will I care about Palm OS, Mac OS, or Linux?
What I'd like to see from companies such as Apple and PalmSource are environments like Torque, which makes it possible to write for Windows, Mac OS, and Linux by abstracting each environment. But Torque is really an ad-hoc solution (in both senses of the term); it's not a hollistic system, and it's not supported by the OS vendors. Though an awkward combination, if it were possible to develop substantial applications for Mac OS, Palm OS, and Windows, I might. But if XNA allows me to develop substantial applications for Windows, Pocket PC, and the Xbox concurrently -- three different, juicy markets -- that's even better.
There are reasons why a game publisher might not want a website to post its screenshots with others, but I wonder if there might just be an error in the linked article.
...without the permission of the game publisher, a violation of Japanese copyright law.
In independent games, the question of quality-by-association comes up when a company approaches a developer with a request to include its game in a CD compilation. One side of the argument is that the presence of a title on a shovelware compilation can detract from its perceived quality -- your game might appear among a hundred Sokoban clones, or in an extreme case, you might see children's software next to more adult software. So, it is conceivable that publishers might have considered association with this website (archived here) a bad thing.
But I don't buy it. Entire conferences are devoted to publicity, and as they say, no publicity is bad publicity. (To wit, I'd talk up my postman about my software if I thought it'd help. He's a nice guy; we talk about other things.) The only tidbit that screams copyright violation as I understand it is this: Of this collection, several hundred were allegedly found to have been taken from magazines and overseas game sites...
However, I do not understand the end of that sentence:
To my knowledge, it is not illegal in the States to take and post a screenshot of a movie or game to the Web; my understanding Japanese intellectual property laws is limited, but given the number of Japanese film/gaming sites that do this, I don't believe that game publishers have any say over what screenshots are presented. I think 1Up may have meant this, instead:
without the permission of the website's publisher, a violation of Japanese copyright law.
_________________________
I long for the day when Google stops asking me, "Did you mean: inigo rage"
But what's most interesting is that people give them little stories:
I've been told that people live out fantasies through their sims, but I didn't believe it until I saw these profiles. This seems so similar to the play of children with dolls; I have to wonder if people would express themselves more if given the chance. (Such things are frowned upon in general. Even among geeks, there's a limit to the amount of doofiness someone can display -- Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! (mpeg).) While the story tidbits written by these Sims players are simplistic -- they sound like kids' fantasies now -- I think they'll improve, given time. Maybe they'll even become interesting in their own right. And for that, I will argue that video games can be great.
There will be no attempt to give [comics] serious consideration on aesthetic grounds, because they are simply not worth it. -- Margaret Dalziel, 'Comics in New Zealand,' Landfall, March 1955.
The graphic novel format is a great way to tell a story within a computer game; and it's possible to do this without astronomical production values. First-rate CGI cinematics are outside the reach of smaller studios; and even in-engine cinematics require artists, programmers, and voice actors to do right. Given budgetary constraints, their talents are often needed elsewhere, (else you'll get a pretty game with no gameplay). And while you can more cheaply tell a story through a screen full of text, few gamers want to read a novella between a game's levels. The graphic novel strikes a great balance between the two extremes -- done right, it can be both visually powerful and expressive in narrative.
Recently and notably, it's been used in Freedom Force and Max Payne. It may be that these games have legitimized the graphic novel's use, or that the public will simply consider future titles that go this route as being derivative. I'm banking on the former, as it would allow independents to do more with less (so to speak). Our upcoming game will tell its story this way -- a trio of photo shoots and an artist slaving over a mouse make the costs very reasonable. (Here's an example of the result, written earlier today.)
Without the graphic novel, we simply wouldn't have the resources to tell a story that players would want to hear. With it, we have a shot at telling them a story they'll enjoy.
__________________________
Random Trivia: The voice actress who played Mona Sax in Max Payne 2 also did the voiceover work for Jane Lane in MTV's Daria.
On March 1 1990, the offices of Steve Jackson Games, in Austin, Texas, were raided by the U.S. Secret Service as part of a nationwide investigation of data piracy... More than three years later, a federal court awarded damages and attorneys' fees to the game company...
The EFF also has a Top Ten most mis-reported elements of the case:
This instance with Sega's fictional character, though embarassing for the FBI, is certainly preferable to the above.
_________________________
I long for the day when Google stops asking me, "Did you mean: inigo rage"
I always tell people about the customer who e-mailed us, telling us that our first game as an independent studio was helping her with a neurological condition. An excerpt from her letter:
I have rather severe neurologic problems in some areas of my brain and your game is helping me to regain some use of those areas that are "resting."
It was a great thing to hear.
______________________________
Trivia: The tagline under EA's M.U.L.E describes it as "a game in which up to four players attempt to settle a distant planet with the so-called help of a mule-like machine they all learn to hate.
Here's Garriott's take on Tabula Rasa about a year ago.
I believe that the market will force the MMOG industry to abolish the up-front fee within a few years. Some publishers are already doing that (and more), but the majority seem dead-set on requiring me to pay $49.95 to test the waters. This has kept me away from some that I might otherwise enjoy. Those that offer free trials are in the minority, and should do more to tout their low-barrier-to-entry. Horizons, made by the same folks who brought us the excellent Mordor, might be good, but until about ten minutes ago, I had assumed that they, too, required the initial investment to try out.
Commercial and shareware demos exist because there's so much competition there -- consumers can usually overlook a title that doesn't allow them to kick the tires. Given the sheer number of MMORPGs that exist, I think it it won't be long before their publishers follow suit. Guild Wars' model -- free play, with sales generated from expansions -- is a great way to differentiate it from other games. And what better way to hook someone? C'mon, man. The first one's free.
_______________________________________
Amusing trivia: Will Wright on his first game, Raid on Bungeling Bay: "I found that I was having more fun actually creating and editing these islands than I was actually bombing them in the game."
Cheap techology is great -- make digital cameras inexpensive, offer an SDK to grab their output, and folks will come up with wonderful ideas for how to abuse them. Devices like EyeToy are mostly just oddities now, but I'd like to see them used to popularize gestural interfaces.
Arkane Studios' RPG, Arx Fatalis is one of a handful of titles that offers gestural input, with its mouse-gesture-based spells. But this was more a novelty than a boon for usability -- it would have been easier to cast a spell by clicking icons. Perhaps a sequel will allow you to embellish your runes with serifs to achieve subtle variations on an incantation?
Avant Browser offers up a more useful gestural interface -- and I like it because it allows me to execute common tasks more easily. Rather than having to hit a smallish "new window" icon, I can rudely right-click anywhere on a window and sloppily drag my mouse upwards to open a new window.
EyeToy takes this a step further and does away with the mouse altogether; and though I had modest luck with the thing when I played against the noisy backdrop at Toys "R" Us, here's hoping that it's the first among many such interfaces. Perhaps five years down the road, a) gestures will be common, b) we'll laugh at what Minority Report got wrong, and c) we'll thank goofy gadgets like this one for paving the way.
After all, it was pretty silly to have a "Rat" for the Atari 800.
________________________________________________
The Inago Rage website is now up.
Critiques welcome and appreciated!
- Approaching holiday - Christmas brings about the hottest season in retail, and publishers want to capitalize on this by releasing new titles in time for this. The Christmas push is less pressing for smaller studios that distribute outside of retail.
- Media event - E3 is when all the gaming companies and all the gaming press come together and pretty much stand around in a competition to see who can avoid having a seizure (flash/audio). Or, such was my take on it. There's a huge PR incentive to have content prepared for this event; more eyeballs translates into more potential sales.
- Publisher-imposed milestone - Publishers can withhold payment or cancel projects outright if a team misses milestones; if you're nearing such a deadline, the extra hours may be the difference between a happy publisher and a cranky one.
- Competition - You might have a solid first-person shooter, but if it's released concurrent with Doom III or Half-Life 2, there's a good chance it'll be overlooked. If you own the UHF DVD, you'll hear Al Yankovic lament that his movie went up against Batman, Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon II, among others. You may also have your favorite game that was underrated due to poor timing. (Fortunately, there's always the possibility of a sequel.)
- Budgetary constraints - Especially crucial if a development house is self-funding a title. If a generous publisher sees a promising project go over-budget, they might extend it. If an independent studio runs out of money for going over schedule, it must secure more financing.
- Loss of staff - This can be devastating at project-end. There's no time to train new staff; existing members must take up the slack.
Game development is a wonderful vocation, but as with anything, too much of a crunch (the death-march) results in burnout. There must be ways we can mitigate some of the above causes. Less reliance on outside investment is one, but maybe that's wishful thinking my part.One aspect of Postal 2 that I haven't seen in other crime-centric games is the ability to forcibly enter a suburban home. That, itself, is a step beyond the acts of personal violation we've seen in other titles. GTA-3 allows you to eject an adult from his car and take it for your own. I feel relatively safe when I'm in my car; and I'd feel relatively well-violated if someone snatched me from it. But I imagine that's nothing compared to being abducted (or otherwise intruded upon) in the sanctity of my own home. (Violation of person would be an even more extreme example.)
Postal 2's creators believe there's an appeal in the act of violating another human being. A Clockwork Orange shows us a group of people who enjoy this; their behavior is perfectly believable. The 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment shows us that the capacity for cruelty and abuse of control can exist in all of us. Games like Thief (audio/flash) distance us from this by changing the setting somewhat. In breaking into those medieval homes, there exists the sense of being somewhere I shouldn't, but I never really felt like I was terrifying anyone. Knowing what we do about human nature, would the Thief series sell even better if the victims were people from our own experience?
The consensus here seems to be that Running With Scissors will not gain much by porting the title to Linux. Would an improvement to gameplay make a title centering on home-invasion more interesting?
If you enjoyed Every Extend, you might also enjoy Kenta Cho's Tumiki Fighters, A7Xpg, or my personal favorite, Parsec 47. Tumiki Fighters is a stylish shooter, where pieces of your battered enemies glom onto your ship; eventually, you become a behemoth that can't help but stumble into incoming fire. I love Parsec 47, because it brings me back to arcades during the early '80s. MAME does this in a nostalgic manner, but Parsec does a great job of overwhelming the player with bright, flashy, fun graphics. It's what I remember arcade games to be.
Cho's games are why I'll contend that smaller developers can still wow audiences with style -- Parsec's not art-centric-beautiful, the way Doom III is; it's just damned pretty.
I'm hoping that Electronic Arts's transition from boutique software house to publishing juggernaut leaves room for -- well -- other boutique software houses. Many here must recall the early days of EA. They published titles that their small teams were passionate about; and while I've enjoyed many of EA's recent, grander offerings, they appeal to me in a much different way.
For the time being, the advent of a middleware industry is making it easier -- not harder -- for smaller studios to produce good-looking titles with depth. Consider that there are many audio libraries, 3D engines, and AI middleware libraries which are quite reasonably priced. Smaller studios seem to go strange and wonderful directions with these; (if you haven't already, try some of the Indie Game Jam titles, which make use of a simple, standardized physics engine).
I labor under the impression that the gaming public has a desire for boutique products; if I'm wrong, I don't mind taking my licks and moving to something more productive.
"If Microsoft can woo more developers to Xbox, the balance of power in the next round could change."
I'm blatantly biased here, but I'd be thrilled if Microsoft were to make overtures to the independent game developer community. Some noises were made along those lines in November, 2000, but they didn't follow up tangibly. As an independent developer, I don't feel drawn towards Xbox development the way I did, Pocket PC development. In that arena, MS gave the development tools away for free, (something I always felt Palm should have done to keep Pocket PC from gaining market share from 2001 onward).
Xbox development is said to be technically similar to Windows desktop development, so from a development standpoint, I imagine that authors of 95/2K/XP software would feel comfortable developing for the console. Further, 3d engines such as Torque and Conitec's 3DGS make it possible for modest-sized groups to develop popular titles. But both the developers of such engines, and the developers of games, face restrictions imposed by the console manufacturer(s). Conitec's Doug Poston states his case -- the manufacturers make the cost-of-entry too high for smaller studios.
Does the manufacturer-imposed barrier-to-entry for console development raise the quality of games, or does it mean fewer interesting titles and less experimentation? (I suppose the businessman-side of me would be thrilled if larger studios abandoned the desktop PC, leaving the market open. But somehow, I think that'd be a phyrric victory for all of us.)