How to make a creative game in 2010: Ensure your CEO never hears of the game - by thiefinthedark
Eldron on 28/6/2010 at 08:38
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
Always has been about the combination, from my side. I'd be more than happy to chop at least the terminal clause off that sentence if you can provide me with evidence of being wrong, but you haven't done that, yet.
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
Of course I really liked AP and to my mind the biggest intrinsic problem it had was
the engine- UE3 is pretty rubbish if you want to make a multiplatform Deus Ex like game,
it simply cannot deliver the level size required for such a game.I've given you examples, I've tried to explain how it works, I've tried to tell you that obsidian has a history of unoptimized stuff, low experience with the engines they work with, and I've tried to explain how flexible the ue engines have always been, But you keep wanting to attribute the flaws to the engine, even though the predecessor was used to build deus ex.
What's your personal experience with ue3?
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
It's a logical corollary that the smaller the level, the more linear it will be- if you have a level chunk of six rooms there is simply a lot less combinations possible than if you have a level chunk of twelve rooms. If you had 12 rooms and just had them in a long linear line then it's an issue of level design, if you can only have six rooms then it's not, it's a limitation forced by level size. And if you try and force non linearity on those small levels you end up turning large parts of your small areas into nothing other than loading zones, something both Mass Effect and AP suffer from already.
There's rarely the scenario where you'll only have a halfdozen rooms in the budget, there's always enough for non-linearity, but linearity has been very favored, because it leads the player in a helping-hand kind of way, nothing stops developers from doing levels more non-linear, not even the graphical budget.
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
A fair example, and one I had considered. I dismissed it primarily because while the levels are large they are also very limited, most importantly in graphical and other detail quality- sure, they're large, but they're hardly level design to be emulated for a Deus Ex type game. To get an experience with better verisimilitude you'd be far better off with something like Oblivion/ FO3's Gamebryo, for all its technical limitations.
And why would you dismiss it?, it goes with what I said, you can make as massive levels as you want, but you'll always be limited by how much you can put in, not the scale of things, morrowind/OB/F3 was built in a different way, you could call it a streaming environment, but they also followed that rule of not mixing stuff together that would overflow that graphical budget at one time, which is why you'll end up seeing alot of similar stuff at any given time.
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
I brought Bioshock up because it has a lot of stuff which AP (or any other 'Deus Ex like') could benefit from already implemented, things like the potential for campaign persistence, more AI in level with better behaviour patterns, stealth, 'special abilities' etc and all in a package that allows decently detailed and comparatively large levels.
Yep, that's unreal engine, nothing less, nothing more, irrational has worked with it before as I said, that and their previous shock-like design was most likely full of non-linearity much like systemshock2. Actually, alot of those examples are even non-engine specific like AI.
Eldron on 28/6/2010 at 08:51
Quote Posted by Koki
There was no second Deus Ex, SS2, or Thief/2; there was no second Fallout/2, Arcanum or Torment; and there was no second Starcraft, Total Annihilation or Homeworld. Well to be fair both DoW and CoH rejuvenated the RTS genre a bit, but then the genre as a whole promptly died as there are no RTSes on consoles so derp derp
Of course I am talking about tangible things like game mechanics, presentation and writing here, not that "soul" of yours.
Funniest things with these games is that they all came out after the big 3d boom, and everyone whined that there would never be any new good games compared to the golden age of xcom and the likes.
also, in an alternative dimension: firaxis is still doing a civilization title, in 2010! how crazy is that.
also again:
I like my indie games more complex: aquaria, torchlight, minecraft, dwarf fortress.
But I must admit, I'm not a big fan of one-element indie games.
Poetic thief on 28/6/2010 at 15:08
To dethtoll: I would hope that you use your posting style more because you think it makes the board interesting than because you actually believe in it yourself.
The irony is that your response is just about the most typical one when this topic comes up: "You're just looking back through rose-colored glasses!" "It's nothing but nostalgia!"
While that might be true in some cases, I really think people exaggerate the effects of this so-called nostalgia.
Also, what about cases like me? I played system shock 2 for the first time in 2009, and it quickly propelled to the top of my list of favorite games. I played baldur's gate for the first time AFTER I played NWN 2, and still the enjoyed the infinity engine 2-D graphics, and general "atmosphere" of the game more than the modern game.
The fact of the matter is, because those AAA companies today spend so much and are run by CEO's who are business executives first, they don't or feel that they can't focus on creativity. The discussions are focused more on how could they target $uch and $uch a market.
Personally it was quite refreshing to watch that pre-release Alpha Protocol interview with Chris Avellone, and Matt Mclean about choices and consequences in games. It seems evident to me that in the days of Looking Glass Studios, that's the kinds of discussions and focus that game creators had.
Sulphur on 28/6/2010 at 15:35
Quote Posted by Koki
There was no second Deus Ex, SS2, or Thief/2; there was no second Fallout/2, Arcanum or Torment; and there was no second Starcraft, Total Annihilation or Homeworld. Well to be fair both DoW and CoH rejuvenated the RTS genre a bit, but then the genre as a whole promptly died as there are no RTSes on consoles so derp derp
What I find fascinating is that most of the studios behind those games, excepting Relic and Blizzard, were forced to shut shop sooner or later because people didn't buy too many of their games.
Quote:
Of course I am talking about tangible things like game mechanics, presentation and writing here, not that "soul" of yours.
It's not surprising that you can't talk about soul, given your predominant lack of one. What I am surprised about is that you might actually have
liked one of those games on your list for those qualities. Who'd a effing thunked it.
Sulphur on 28/6/2010 at 15:45
Quote Posted by Poetic thief
Also, what about cases like me? I played system shock 2 for the first time in 2009, and it quickly propelled to the top of my list of favorite games. I played baldur's gate for the first time AFTER I played NWN 2, and still the enjoyed the infinity engine 2-D graphics, and general "atmosphere" of the game more than the modern game.
The fact of the matter is, because those AAA companies today spend so much and are run by CEO's who are business executives first, they don't or feel that they can't focus on creativity. The discussions are focused more on how could they target $uch and $uch a market.
Personally it was quite refreshing to watch that pre-release Alpha Protocol interview with Chris Avellone, and Matt Mclean about choices and consequences in games. It seems evident to me that in the days of Looking Glass Studios, that's the kinds of discussions and focus that game creators had.
Are you really incapable of enjoying an unoriginal but well-made game for the sheer craft of it? If that's the case, I pity your situation. Since all video games are inherently derivative, I guess there hasn't been an original game since Pong.
You must probably be bored silly reading or going to the cinema, because all these books and movies coming out these days, why, they're just rehashes of old stuff that came before them.
Poetic thief on 28/6/2010 at 15:53
I think it's less about creativity and more about the focus of the game developers
and how that focus affects the development process. If they're focused more on satisfying their shareholders, they would be much less willing to try something different, and more willing to axe an untested but new feature.
Although your second sentence does apply to me. I generally do not like contemporary movies and books. So I tend to avoid cinemas,and Harry Potter costume parties.
Sulphur on 28/6/2010 at 16:06
I tend to not agree with ya on the creativity bit, but I had an argument about almost that very same thing recently right here, so I'll skippit.
What I am prepared to say is that, while creativity hasn't come to a complete halt in my opinion, instead of leaping along, it's only really inching along. That has a lot to do with the economics of game creation these days - art being the incredible money sink that it is as compared to, say, ten years ago.
About your opinions on books and movies: well, that's simply too bad for ya. While I have nothing positive to say about Harry Potter or costume parties (unless they involve the scintillating chakat heat of fur on fur), I'd feel sorry for anyone who's not experienced The Road (the book), No Country for Old Men, or Memento or Dark City or Pan's Labyrinth, or... well. I could go on.
I suppose you missed Toy Story 2, and don't intend to go for Toy Story 3, because they're familiar stories. Never mind that they're well-told and well-presented and overall very enjoyable ones.
Poetic thief on 28/6/2010 at 16:33
Quote Posted by Sulphur
What I am prepared to say is that, while creativity hasn't come to a complete halt in my opinion, instead of leaping along, it's only really inching along. That has a lot to do with the economics of game creation these days - art being the incredible money sink that it is as compared to, say, ten years ago. .
We actually agree with each other here. Re-read my post.
It's not so much that I'm incapable of enjoying an unoriginal but well crafted gamed. I'm simply more disappointed over the fact that the only reason said game is unoriginal is because the creators were trying to optimize the business end during game creation. Sure, there is a business side to gaming, but the ideal for me would be cases where they focus more on the art side as well.
Let me clarify: If they bring out a modern warfare 3, and it's another blockbuster. Any attempt to enjoy that game would be overshadowed by my disappointment at the blatant milking of a game franchise for strictly financial reasons. Sure it might be a well-crafted, polished and streamlined game, but that won't make up for my disappointment at the developers for playing it safe and delivering the same game over and over.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I do enjoy the occasional movies like Memento, Pan's Labyrinth, Dark city etc. These actually
are creative movies though. I probably won't enjoy Toy story 3, or Avatar 2 for the same reasons as above.
Whether its gaming, music, books, or movies, there is a dual component of business and art. Past directors like Hitchcock seemed better able to strike that balance between art and mainstream appeal (business). Nowadays, it's just mostly sequel after sequel (business) at the expense of the art side.
So its Modern Warfare 3, Twilight book 5, Toy Story 3 etc. :tsktsk:
Eldron on 28/6/2010 at 16:47
Well, as much as you'd appreciate a company not playing it safe, they'll also risk going down in fire.
Making games is a big risk.
but hell, they can still play it safe and go down in fire too if they dont make that safe title fun to play.
