HayManMarc
Member
Isn't chess the best game ever made? I'm pretty sure it's been ported to PC (and even some consoles, if I'm not mistaken).
You missed my point. It is not about my little cousin, the emulator version of goldeneye nor Minecraft. I could have say the same thing like "My mother won't enjoy Doom and I don't blame her, she'll prefer to play Candycrush"I already stated the N64 version doesn't count. Did you offer him the PC version or the n64? Who would want to play 320x240 eyesore graphics? Nausea is a valid argument, except it isn't valid in your case because I specifically said we are discussing the PC emulated version of goldeneye, and its getting old since I had to say that 5x over the course of this discussion already.
Minecraft is such an original concept, it made a revolution in the video game industry. It allow such a creativity for everyone even for a 5 years old kid. If you think you can make a better or more original game than minecraft, I'll wait. If you don't like the graphics, well again, it is su... well no. I stop here.And yes Minecraft has bad graphics and looks like literal trash.
HOW DARE YOU! Timesplitters is objectively one of the best videogame ever made! The music is awesome and fit perfectly the game, I made the best maps ever with the level editor (my friends agreed with me, they were trully awesome),and no bullets were not slow! This game is definitly in the top 10 for ever, while goldeneye is maybe, 95.Timesplitters is garb, the level editor makes levels that look like garb, and the gunplay is garb, you just shoot slow bullets that look stupid. It lacks any kind of serious feeling or visceral feeling to the gameplay, plus the music sucks and is stupid.
If a have appeals to many people, I think it's safe to say it was a success; it was a good game
Sales don't prove anything, though.
Otherwise McDonald's would be the best restaurant in the world, some ****ty rap star would be the best "musician," and Fortnite would be the best game.
That's all trash, obviously. The most popular stuff in the world is the most popular stuff in the world because it appeals to the lowest common denominator. Read: idiots with no taste.
I think what your saying is valid but I think what the OP was stating that older games are better newer games.It makes me laugh when peaple assume that art (any sort) is not connected with money...
Hello! Wake up! Everybody wants to make a living, and living from making art is a dream come true for 99,99% of the artists. Even if they say they will never go commercial, the very first second they see that popularity and $$$ knocks on the door thay change their mind very fast.
So I would like to switch now to a little bit more game developer thinking:
First and basic aim of any commercial game developer is to earn money! There are many ways to achive the goal. Every of them involves big investment (even when you are a indi developer, you invest your time, you also need money to live, during this time). Here are te most likely scenarios:
1. Classic - create a great game with deep artistic values, creativity, innovation, high quality, something fresh and hope that that it will hit attentiom of millions of peaple.
2. Continiue/copy a already successful game idea - make it better, more interesting, with new features/story, so the players which liked the predecessor will also play the new game.
3. Base your game on a successful franchise, there are alweys milions of peaple willing to buy anything which has something to do with their beloved "thing".
4. Unethical - create a game-similar product, designed and calculated to hit the biggest audience possible, and implement systems (i.e. micropayements) which will squeeze the most money as possible.
So basically no.1. has the highest chance to give a higly artistic result, but highest risk of failure.
From the game developer/producer point of view.
If you do it for fun? It's not important - it's for fun and would be great if the game would be a commercial success, but nothing happens if not.
If you do it for a living or you are a company which wants to grow. You want to be sure that the time and money you invest or some other peaple invested in your project will pay off. The history of gaming is full of big developers which games didn't gain the assumed popularity=income and the companys ware closed/sold.
Please don't underestimate the money factor in the whole story.
No, it doesn't. That's why "successful," "popular," and "good," are three different words. A game that's commercially successful is successful, obviously, at least commercially. It's probably popular, unless it had a tiny budget. It might be good, but it's just as likely to be trite trash. People in this thread are writing long posts arbitrarily conflating "popular" with "good," but that doesn't make any sense; I could release the same exact game under different conditions and see wildly different amounts of commercial success. That proves a game's success isn't a measure of how good it is - there are tons of games whose popularity are basically the result of random dice rolls.Does commercial success mean it was a good game?
It's a general conclusion, as there was another false statement, that most of the things which are popular / make a lot of money are $h!t.@Smiechu: Who are you talking to, and what's your conclusion for what a great game is? That was a long post, but I don't think you addressed anybody's arguments here...who said games aren't connected to money?
1.) That depends on the developer. There are plenty of hobbyists out there who make games just for the love of games, never planning on seeing any money. Are their opinions worth less than the pros aiming for nothing but money?From a developers point of view - good game is a game which makes money.
There is no way to measure "greatness" in any kind of art... end.1.) That depends on the developer. There are plenty of hobbyists out there who make games just for the love of games, never planning on seeing any money. Are their opinions worth less than the pros aiming for nothing but money?
2.)"It's a great game if it met the goals of the developer" is a very shaky argument anyway. If that was the case, the best games in the world would be click-the-clown clones, because the developers were 100% successful in their goal of learning the very basics of GameMaker.
I don't think we can connect a game's worth with the developer's opinion of it. Every game in the world would be "the best game ever," hahah.
And Metacritic scores, like I said awhile back. I'd trust those over sales.Is there any objective factor we can classify games? Yes - sales/income.
After chasing my own tail with this. That is my conclusion.And Metacritic scores, like I said awhile back. I'd trust those over sales.
There's no measuring stick for greatness, yet, no. I think a reviewer with a love for games and a well of experience and perspective on the medium can use enough fuzzy logic to ballpark a game's worth, though. Some reviewers will miss the point of some great games, but I think as a whole, they're usually pretty good.
You're right there's no easy way to decide which games are great, though. I could write a twenty page thesis papers on why my favorite games are the best games ever, but the person reading the paper still needs the faculties, experience, and perspective to really understand where I'm coming from. (Funny anecdote: I wrote my final paper for a college writing class on how Mario Galaxy was a near-perfect game. Got an A+ and the comment "You've convinced me to buy a Wii and give games a try." I was really happy about that. I hope he loves games now, haha.)
It's the same as any art. I think we could dig down and objectively measure how good games are if we tried hard enough and decided on objectively good traits of games. It would take thirty thousand pages to do so, though, so we collectively throw our hands up and say "it's just subjective," hahah!
You can, in reality.But gameplay is part of the experience! You can’t separate the two!
I don't think anyone should bash the indies though, do you even play these games that look bad? The AAA should be blamed more, they make so many similar games to lower the risk because many interests are involved. I'd even say anything new would come from the smaller studios.Why games are getting worse not better: as Indie game developers grow in number, more people working on a lower budget and hobbyists come into the market, younger developers join the scene, inexperienced and non-talented, uninspired gamers become game makers, and thus the industry is overrun by crap-ware, making the good AAA games get outnumbered by such turds. Less games find originality as time goes on; this is true with good and bad games alike.
Obviously if you show a modern child raised on Halo the eyewatering graphics of a chugging N64, he will have a biased opinion against it. So yes it does matter whether or not you showed him the emulated version first.You missed my point. It is not about my little cousin, the emulator version of goldeneye nor Minecraft. I could have say the same thing like "My mother won't enjoy Doom and I don't blame her, she'll prefer to play Candycrush"
Minecraft is such an original concept, it made a revolution in the video game industry. It allow such a creativity for everyone even for a 5 years old kid. If you think you can make a better or more original game than minecraft, I'll wait. If you don't like the graphics, well again, it is su... well no. I stop here.
HOW DARE YOU! Timesplitters is objectively one of the best videogame ever made! The music is awesome and fit perfectly the game, I made the best maps ever with the level editor (my friends agreed with me, they were trully awesome),and no bullets were not slow! This game is definitly in the top 10 for ever, while goldeneye is maybe, 95.
I'm out. It could be interesting, but it is non sense. (just my opinion)
And paintball / Airsoft was around before doom, etc too!Minecraft is not even original. Legos were around for years, and they do it better and have more interesting shapes. Minecraft is impressive from a technical standpoint but not in the artistic/creative sense.
Oh no! Whatever will we do without blood in games!doesnt even have blood in it
I thought originality was one of your criteria for a good game.its not a real shooting game like quake or even generic fps arcadesims like cs go
In many ways it's not. Battle royale is not shoot them up. It is a shooter game, but not shoot them up.I have never played fortnight but I would hazard a guess that at least Fortnight is an actual proper shoot em up game.
You can say the same thing about Goldeneye and guns.Minecraft is not even original. Legos were around for years, and they do it better and have more interesting shapes. Minecraft is impressive from a technical standpoint but not in the artistic/creative sense.
Look, you win. If I could go back in time and save the game industry, I would not remove Timesplitters from the timeline. Timesplitters is so bad its good. It really is. I think the game was fated to be made, like mario. Imagine what life would be if Mario did not exist. Timesplitters is crucial for holding together the timeline, it is the fabric of the gamespace. Even though the game is objectively terrible, without it the game industry would be missing a piece of its soul.And paintball / Airsoft was around before doom, etc too!
Oh no! Whatever will we do without blood in games!
I thought originality was one of your criteria for a good game.
In many ways it's not. Battle royale is not shoot them up. It is a shooter game, but not shoot them up.
Yeah it is. Remember how I said certain games are fated to be made? Well modern games just seem pumped out and soulless. Like plastic. It's like they have no consequence to the timeline, no relevance to the gamespace. They are just plastic pumped out into the steaming void like bombarding you with meaningless ads of commercialism.You can say the same thing about Goldeneye and guns.
Look, every era has good games and bad games. The 80s had Super Mario Bros. and Castlevania, but they also had E. T. (the game).
The 90s had Ocarina of Time and Goldeneye 007, but they also had the CD-i Nintendo games.
The 00s had Shadow of the Colossus and Portal, but they also had Sonic 06.
The 10s have Ori and the Blind Forest, Cuphead (both indie games, by the way), The Last of Us and Breath of the Wild, but they also have Battlefront II.
A game's quality isn't defined by its release year.
I wasn't saying Timesplitter was good (I haven't ever played it).Look, you win. If I could go back in time and save the game industry, I would not remove Timesplitters from the timeline. Timesplitters is so bad its good. It really is. I think the game was fated to be made, like mario. Imagine what life would be if Mario did not exist. Timesplitters is crucial for holding together the timeline, it is the fabric of the gamespace. Even though the game is objectively terrible, without it the game industry would be missing a piece of its soul.
Yet you refute the evidence presented against that argument.Yeah it is. Remember how I said certain games are fated to be made? Well modern games just seem pumped out and soulless. Like plastic. It's like they have no consequence to the timeline, no relevance to the gamespace. They are just plastic pumped out into the steaming void like bombarding you with meaningless ads of commercialism.
Oh, thought you were the guy who was worshipping timesplitters.I wasn't saying Timesplitter was good (I haven't ever played it).
I was saying that your arguments are flawed. But if you can't tell that...
Yet you refute the evidence presented against that argument.
We have presented you with a multitude of quality games that were made througout the ages. You don't even acknowledge that.
First of all, it tries to look like Fleischer cartoons.Oh, thought you were the guy who was worshipping timesplitters.
Okay so the "data" is Witcher 3. Never played it but it looked boring and generic. I hear it is good. Maybe it is good, but nothing I would go crazy over.
Saw the video of Ori. It looked good but still not the equivalent of Halo 1 on release day. Not really a revolutionary game, just a nice casual title to pay 9 dollars for.
What next, Cuphead? Trendy hipster nonsense nothing more, you must be joking. It tries to be a Disney cartoon, but the devs were too underfunded and lazy to make animated cutscene. Why do you make a game in the style of a Disney cartoon, but have no animated cutscenes? And what about the gameplay? It's basically Alien Hominid HD, but less funny. A decent game for sure, but nothing I would pay more than 5 dollars for.
The Last of Us and Breath of the Wilds are the only 2 games I'd actually think about paying more than 10 dollars for.
Also Misty:- Okay so the "data" is Witcher 3. Never played it but it looked boring and generic...
- Saw the video of Ori... Not really a revolutionary game, just a nice casual title to pay 9 dollars for.
- What next, Cuphead? Trendy hipster nonsense nothing more, you must be joking...
The Last of Us and Breath of the Wilds are the only 2 games I'd actually think about paying more than 10 dollars for.
I won 2nd place in an official gm jam.@Misty
If your on this forum, your probably making a game, or made one or two already.
Can you show me what are your working on? From the attitude and arguments it must be a masterpiece of all time, or a GoldenEye clone.
Seriously, judging something never even playing it is a highest form of ignorance and simply childish. Like I would hear my 4yo son:
- son please try and eat strawberries, their are delicious and sweet...
- noooo!! Thair not!! Their awful!! I hate them!!
- but you didn't even tried them...
- no i don't want to, I can see thair awful...
- just take a small bite...
- (he licks the strawbery just to show me he did try)
- bllleeeee!!! It's disgusting!!!
- yeah ok... nevermind we'll eat them with mama, take a banana if your hungry...
- ok...
Thing is, I have played modern games already.@Misty
Seriously, judging something never even playing it is a highest form of ignorance and simply childish. Like I would hear my 4yo son:
- son please try and eat strawberries, their are delicious and sweet...
- noooo!! Thair not!! Their awful!! I hate them!!
- but you didn't even tried them...
- ok...
They aren't even the same genre as Halo. They are side scrolling genre. And lets compare it to a truly successful and innovative of the genre: Smash Bros.First of all, it tries to look like Fleischer cartoons.
Secondly, I have played Ori, Cuphead, The Last of Us, Breath of the Wild and Halo, and I can say that the first three, in my opinion, are much better than Halo.
Seriously, you should try playing modern games before saying that all of them are terrible. Cuphead has marvelously designed bosses that you can't really judge by watching a video, and Ori is full of great stuff.
If it has no multiplayer then what it is an artsy fartsy experience, like watching a movie. A movie should be worth no more than 15 dollars.Are you implying that The Last of Us is not worth more than 10 dollars?
Timesplitters bullets of an ak47 were as slow as a bow and arrow. How is this good? It felt like a kiddie game.I just have to say Timesplitters 2 was an amazing game. Never played 1 and Future Perfect was bad. That is all
That is exactly what I am saying. Why is it so hard for people to simply admit this?@Misty
I think you are a little bit lost with your argumentation. But you are generally right, new games lack this small spark of magic the older games have.
Yes this is exactly it. Games these days are too try hard and cluttered. There is too much in it. I also hate the good graphics of games. I notice the more detailed graphics games get lower ratings. The lower ratings are objective. Something about the graphics is weird and overloads my mind. Like this one game, it was in the arabian desert and the graphics were the best I ever seen. It made me feel weird and I did not want to play. Maybe it is a form of uncanny valley, where once the graphics reach past a certain point, it starts to feel off somehow. The only good graphics I want to play is if it looks exactly the same as real life. It just feels weird this new graphic effect they put in all games. Like its suddenly off.Gotta say, every time @Misty said "garb", I thought of clothing as opposed to "garbage".
- Sometimes less is more, because the less there is, the more opportunity the player has to notice it on a deeper level.
If I would have a million dollars I would never ever invest it in such a risky investment as game development . Maybe if I would have 100 million I could give it a try as part of investment diversification.If you donate me a million dollars I can prove I can make a game thats better than anything on the market and then some.
Well I, for one, am rooting for you to get that 100 million dollars.If I would have a million dollars I would never ever invest it in such a risky investment as game development . Maybe if I would have 100 million I could give it a try as part of investment diversification.
P.S.
To be honest? I'm quite sure that with 1 million dollars I could make "objectively" much better game as you
Because your wrong........and your right. Some will agree and some won't.That is exactly what I am saying. Why is it so hard for people to simply admit this?
Is the money to pay other people, or to comfortably support yourself for a decade or two while you work? If the former, ideas always seem grander and more interesting until they are executed, and I'd try being more humble; if the latter, please stop wasting time by not working, and give the industry its much-needed gems.But obviously I don't have the budget to make a AAA game. If you donate me a million dollars I can prove I can make a game thats better than anything on the market and then some..
Its nothing personal, and yet the facts are objective. For example, you go on Xbox what do you see are the best 5 star games? Daytona, Turok. What other high rated games are there? Only Batman and Borderlands, and they aren't even action games, they are point and click adventures.Is the money to pay other people, or to comfortably support yourself for a decade or two while you work? If the former, ideas always seem grander and more interesting until they are executed, and I'd try being more humble; if the latter, please stop wasting time by not working, and give the industry its much-needed gems.
So far, this topic has come across to me as your personal issues trying to mask themselves as objective arguments. As a result, I have nothing further to add.
What list(s) are you looking at, exactly? Going through Microsoft and Metacritic user scores, all I'm seeing are relatively recent games topping the charts. On Metacritic, the "boring" and "generic" Witcher 3 from 2015 is #2 on Xbox, and #3 for all platforms. The Microsoft store has it listed as #1 on the Xbox One. I'm really curious to know where you're getting your statistics from.Its nothing personal, and yet the facts are objective. For example, you go on Xbox what do you see are the best 5 star games? Daytona, Turok. What other high rated games are there? Only Batman and Borderlands, and they aren't even action games, they are point and click adventures.
So what does it say? Says older games are better than new.
Oh yes and what other high rated 5 star game is there? Time Hat Princess, which is a throwback to Mario 64 and Dr. Who old shows.
I know you're not talking about making ultra realistic 3D graphics, but there's something funny about how older, simpler graphics are more appealing to you than the realistic graphics of the modern age, yet graphics are the one thing holding you back from changing the industry, which isn't even defined by graphics. Seems like a shame considering how successful games like Minecraft and Undertale are. Why not give it a go anyway instead of throwing away history-altering concepts?Now as for the million dollars, I will spend it on artists of course. That is the main thing holding me down. Not even the programming, but that it simply takes too long to make assets.
Oh yes, I forgot. Witcher 3 is the 1 modern game that has a 5 star rating that I forgot to mention.What list(s) are you looking at, exactly? Going through Microsoft and Metacritic user scores, all I'm seeing are relatively recent games topping the charts. On Metacritic, the "boring" and "generic" Witcher 3 from 2015 is #2 on Xbox, and #3 for all platforms. The Microsoft store has it listed as #1 on the Xbox One. I'm really curious to know where you're getting your statistics from.
I dont want to make a game using the Minecraft engine because it has awful graphics, also Undertale graphics are not as bad as you may think.I know you're not talking about making ultra realistic 3D graphics, but there's something funny about how older, simpler graphics are more appealing to you than the realistic graphics of the modern age, yet graphics are the one thing holding you back from changing the industry, which isn't even defined by graphics. Seems like a shame considering how successful games like Minecraft and Undertale are. Why not give it a go anyway instead of throwing away history-altering concepts?
I used Witcher 3 as an example based on your description of it. I was curious to know what list you were using to explain older games being higher rated as the ones I found tended to focus on more recent games - obviously, there is some bias as the internet is larger now with more younger people than ever, so you're going to see newer stuff have both a larger focus and influence, but it didn't stop REmake's original 2002 GCN release from taking the top spot of all time according to Metacritic users, with The Witcher 3 just two spots behind it.Oh yes, I forgot. Witcher 3 is the 1 modern game that has a 5 star rating that I forgot to mention.
I wasn't calling Undertale ugly, I was more so commenting on its simplicity that didn't stop the characters from becoming charming and recognizable, pushing the game to the stellar heights it achieved. My overall point was that not being able to have high quality graphics shouldn't be holding you back from putting out the excellent title(s) you are apparently withholding from the world, as it sounds like graphics would be selling your game more than the actual gameplay.I dont want to make a game using the Minecraft engine because it has awful graphics, also Undertale graphics are not as bad as you may think.
I'm not sure where you were going with the Goldeneye example. Yes, game development was hell during the older times and software is now much easier with better output capabilities, but the bigger issues came from hardware limitations, not art. I could knock out Facility in a lazy afternoon, not weeks, and that's with modelling software from 2003 at the latest, software I still use to this day to make levels, characters, weapons, vehicles, and other objects vastly more detailed than anything Goldeneye has to offer. It wouldn't even cost me anything, either. Note that I'm talking about recreating the level, as you stated.The other thing is, making those 3d games even from 1997 is a ton of work. Do you know how hard it would be to recreate one of the goldeneye64 levels by hand? It would take forever, weeks even. And do you have any idea how much money it cost to make those animations? It costs 8000 dollars to do those mocap animations and that's not even counting the technical time it took to import and load the animations into the game.
And do you know EA games spends 25 million on making a game nowadays, 1 million is not asking for much and back in the days of n64 the budget seems reasonable. Do you know the original goldeneye64 took 2 million dollars to make? Plus I need some left over for marketing.
The original goldeneye was extremely profitable, 64 people worked on it and since it made 250 million dollars, if every person on staff got paid equally then that averages out to 3.9 million dollars per worker.
I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't, I'm just saying 1 million dollars is a fairly low amount to make a good AAA game. I am saying it is a handicap and the big studios usually get much more money to work with, and even with such a handicap I could make a greater game than them. EA can spend 100 million a game, 75 goes to marketing and the other 25 million goes to game development. I stated this to counter the expectations that I am expected to make AAA games all by myself and on a zero budget, and to say that 1 million was not asking for much and rather on the low side of the spectrum.@Misty lol... so indeed you would make a Goldeneye remake with my 1 million dollars!!! I knew it!!!
One afternoon? Prove it by doing it and uploading the video showing proof.I'm not sure where you were going with the Goldeneye example. Yes, game development was hell during the older times and software is now much easier with better output capabilities, but the bigger issues came from hardware limitations, not art. I could knock out Facility in a lazy afternoon, not weeks, and that's with modelling software from 2003 at the latest, software I still use to this day to make levels, characters, weapons, vehicles, and other objects vastly more detailed than anything Goldeneye has to offer. It wouldn't even cost me anything, either. Note that I'm talking about recreating the level, as you stated.
Again, you'd be suprised. Most of the popular games have a very coherent art style and artistry behind it. They are not just slapped together ms Paint graphics like most of my jam games.I wasn't calling Undertale ugly, I was more so commenting on its simplicity that didn't stop the characters from becoming charming and recognizable, pushing the game to the stellar heights it achieved. My overall point was that not being able to have high quality graphics shouldn't be holding you back from putting out the excellent title(s) you are apparently withholding from the world, as it sounds like graphics would be selling your game more than the actual gameplay.
Again, you'd be suprised at how expensive it can be. Did you know it on average costs about 20k just to create one animated fighting character for a fighting game? Second, I would need the million also, to get a couple of massages here and there to heal my back pains and physical lethargy from how much work I would do. Usually I do not work that hard on my own games, to avoid burnout, but for this game I would work hard and give it my all, which would drain me and give me back pains, so I would need massages at least once a week, as it will vastly improve my productivity and get rid of my fatigue. And that's being frugal, actual rich people like Bob Hope got to have a massage once a day.I wonder the kind of people you would be hiring if you needed at least three quarters of a million dollars to get your art assets, and what kind of crazy marketing you would be doing to need the final quarter. You're vastly inflating the budget unless you're intending to either hire an entire college full of art students, or to give your handful of artists enough to live a year in blissful luxury just for a few weeks' worth of work.
I don't think you are understanding.You can copy the qoute and paste in edit.
Before making AAA, you'll need to gain more experience and do some work for other teams. Learn how the biz works, see how your manager is doing it. That's separate job from a pure game designer.