Why older games are still better and why games do not depend on trends.

Discussion in 'Game Design, Development And Publishing' started by Misty, Jul 10, 2018.

  1. HayManMarc

    HayManMarc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    895
    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). ;)
     
    Orak likes this.
  2. Orak

    Orak Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Posts:
    58
    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)
     
  3. RichHopefulComposer

    RichHopefulComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,376
     
  4. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    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.
     
    Toque likes this.
  5. Toque

    Toque Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Posts:
    1,007
    I think what your saying is valid but I think what the OP was stating that older games are better newer games.

    So how do you measure this?

    Someone stated that it could be measured by comparing sales.

    Does commercial success mean it was a good game?

    But yes money drives the industry. Like making movies.

    I agree.
     
    RichHopefulComposer likes this.
  6. RichHopefulComposer

    RichHopefulComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,376
    @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?

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018
    Rob likes this.
  7. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    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.
    From a developers point of view - good game is a game which makes money. It only depends on his ethics and attitude, if the game makes money "the hard way" or the "sneaky way".

    Let's face one thing. Making games is not a peace of cake. It needs time, talent, knowledge, experience, creativity and a lot of money to put that all together.
     
  8. RichHopefulComposer

    RichHopefulComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,376
    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.

    Also, most of things in this world that make a massive amounts of money are ****, because again, the things that rake in billions of dollars do so almost always do so by appealing to the lowest common denominator possible. Appealing to every idiot out there is very hard to do without compromising the actual quality of the product. That's a different argument though, I guess. We're talking about how to judge the worth of games, not about the worth of specific games. For what it's worth, I do think gamers are more savvy than most consumers, so I do think that most blockbuster games have more redeeming qualities than, for example, their music or movie counterparts.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018
  9. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    There is no way to measure "greatness" in any kind of art... end.

    Is there any objective factor we can classify games? Yes - sales/income. Is this kind of classification relevant to game's artistic values? No.
    Is there a game developer which would be sad if his game was more popular than he expected? I dont think so.
     
    Toque and RichHopefulComposer like this.
  10. RichHopefulComposer

    RichHopefulComposer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,376
    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!
     
    Toque and Smiechu like this.
  11. Toque

    Toque Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Posts:
    1,007
    After chasing my own tail with this. That is my conclusion.

    I think the only fact is we could never come to a 100% consensus on any game.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018
    RichHopefulComposer likes this.
  12. Alessio

    Alessio Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    109
    You can, in reality.

    Dark Souls, the game i'm playing right now, has a lore you can either follor or ignore totally. Very luckly, the lore is not even presented in an overly melodramatic way to the point of being cringey. Some players, like me, play it mainly for the gameplay, and it's a lot of fun (and not even as impossible as the internet says, git gud casul), and the very light but very deep storyline (it's deep not because FEEEELZ LOOK AT MEEH IMA WOJAK, but because the lore isn't explained directly but through dialogues, imagery and item descriptions) doesn't get in the way of gameplay in any way. Dark Souls is the first modern Playstation game that is actually satisfying me on all aspects (i dislike first person games in general, i prefer third person).

    Unfortunately, many games today repeat the same old formula or put story before gameplay, and for the latter, they could have made a TV series or a movie instead. Played two hours of Uncharted, i stopped playing because too many cutscenes. The new Tomb Raider made me cringe every minute, and gameplay wasn't anything of innovative, at all. The last Assassin's Creed game i played was Unity. Screw that franchise now. Kingdom Hearts? The mix between Disney and Final Fantasy is nice enough (but i'm getting pretty biased in these times because i can't stand what's going on Hollywood these days, for example, creeps like Johnny Depp should be never publicized in any way), but the second game has a two-hours long intro full of cutscene, and that bored the hell out of me... and the series is convoluted anyway, you don't understand what's going on. Sometimes, even Nintendo falls on this trap and ruin otherwise decent or great games (Other M, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa), but when they don't they make the best games. Super Mario Odissey was near perfect. Nintendo also brillantly implement mechanics like fast travel, incorporating it within the lore (Breath of the Wild but even Dark Souls, which is not Nintendo, have teleporting; other games have just bland fast travel, like Assassin's Creed games and their clones).

    Game design is very complex. Very few games can mix plot and gameplay very well (Undertale is successful at this), but game designers are generally awful writers, with few exceptions, and i wish they stopped writing stories and started to focus on gameplay ins
     
    RichHopefulComposer likes this.
  13. YanBG

    YanBG Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2016
    Posts:
    574
    We are all older than most gamers(heck even most GM users :D), that's probably why tastes differ and i also like older games. Funny thing is i recently discovered some of them, which are good but weren't the most popular in their time(european studios).

    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.
     
  14. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    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.
    I can't even play the original n64 version because of the lag and the graphics are so garb.

    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.

    Also time-splitters is garb, you are telling me the equivalent of pop/rap music is the mozart of society. Time splitters is a garb game doesnt even have blood in it and its not a real shooting game like quake or even generic fps arcadesims like cs go. I have never played fortnight but I would hazard a guess that at least Fortnight is an actual proper shoot em up game. I mean even the health bar of Timesplitters looks worse than a default GM game. And the AI looks straight from a FPS Creator map from the 2000's. The lighting engine is also horrendous, it makes Goldeneye's lighting look even next-gen.
    If your map is so good then show me it then.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  15. GMWolf

    GMWolf aka fel666

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    3,393
    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.
     
  16. Dragon Studios

    Dragon Studios Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2016
    Posts:
    8
    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.
     
  17. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    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.

    For the rest of you, you still lose. Older games better than new.

    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.

    Okay here's an example. Instead of hype, instead what comes to mind is the pp meme "Make it stop".

    Here's the difference. Wave Race 64 was an atmospheric game with great music.

    Then they come out with Racing Utopia, which has better physics, but no soul. It's like gaming is the equivalent of pop music, bombarding you ads and with no substance, it feels more fun to stare at a wall sometimes actually.

    Goldeneye Wii is a perfect example. They took out fun actors like Pierce Brosnan and Sean Bean and replaced Sean Bean with a no-name you've never even heard of. Then they replaced the interesting levels of the original and put instead generic FPS surplus from the junkyard heap. And I don't even think they got the control room right from the movie, and the antenna cradle isn't even in the game if I remember correctly.

    EDIT: I youtube'd and apparently there is some kind of cradle level at the end of Goldeneye Wii. Obviously it was very forgettable. I watched the video and now I have a headache. Games are supposed to be fun to watch, yet somehow after watching the game for only 20 minutes, I feel sick and more ill than before. That's 20 minutes of my life I will never get back. I think gaming is trying to open a portal of hell or something. Because modern shooters seem to be about godly enemies who mostly riddle you with bullets and hardly ever miss, and then you go into cover, only to come out and be riddled with bullets again, it feels more like a masochism simulator than an actual game.

    The video looked like nothing like the original movie at all, and more importantly the game just doesn't give you the cool vibe of the original goldeneye movie, all it gives you is a headache. Daniel Craig is not even a good bond and the videogame reflects this, it feels more like a Call of Duty game than a bond game. Daniel Craig acts more like a soldier than a spy, again it seems like a game to be riddled with endless bullets, wait for cover and be riddled with bullets some more. The autoaim of goldeneye wii is even easier to use and easier to kill enemies than the original game.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  18. GMWolf

    GMWolf aka fel666

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    3,393
    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.
     
  19. Rob

    Rob Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Posts:
    680
    First post should be modified : "Please only post if you're gonna agree with me."
     
    Siolfor the Jackal likes this.
  20. Toque

    Toque Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Posts:
    1,007
    "why I love older games and why I think they are better than todays crap"
    Probably even a better topic title.

    At least Misty last post has a passionate argument. So I respect that. Staying away from the nutty stuff.
     
  21. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    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.
     
  22. Siolfor the Jackal

    Siolfor the Jackal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    755
    This is hilarious
     
    Misty and Khao like this.
  23. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    @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...
     
  24. Dragon Studios

    Dragon Studios Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2016
    Posts:
    8
    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.
     
  25. Alessio

    Alessio Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    109
    Misty:
    Also Misty:
    [​IMG]
     
  26. Dragon Studios

    Dragon Studios Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2016
    Posts:
    8
    Are you implying that The Last of Us is not worth more than 10 dollars?
     
  27. kupo15

    kupo15 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    769
    I just have to say Timesplitters 2 was an amazing game. Never played 1 and Future Perfect was bad. That is all :)
     
    Siolfor the Jackal likes this.
  28. YanBG

    YanBG Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2016
    Posts:
    574
    So what games did you made @Misty ? That is getting similar to community chat or offtopic. Sure you gave us advice to not be trending but it's all pretty vague.
     
  29. GMWolf

    GMWolf aka fel666

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    3,393
    I'm leaving this topic, it wasn't constructive to begin with, and I doubt it ever will.
     
    BaBiA Game Studio likes this.
  30. The Frontier

    The Frontier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2018
    Posts:
    8
    @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.
     
    Misty likes this.
  31. Micah_DS

    Micah_DS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2016
    Posts:
    499
    Gotta say, every time @Misty said "garb", I thought of clothing as opposed to "garbage". :p

    But anyway, too bad this couldn't have been a more proper discussion, but that's usually how it goes with this stuff on the internet.
    Still, guess I'll throw out a few of my thoughts and observations, just for the heck of it:
    • Some old games shined more than some new games, due to limitations pushing devs to make everything count.
      i.e. These days, the resources games can use are so high that all kinds of games can be made with large levels/worlds and loads of content, even when using high-level programming languages, such as GML. If a dev doesn't know how to limit and focus their game's content, they can end up with a game that's loaded with content, yet nothing stands out, so it's not really memorable in the end.
      Sometimes less is more, because the less there is, the more opportunity the player has to notice it on a deeper level.
    • Of course, as everyone knows, some old games shine brighter because we have nostalgia for them.
      I really didn't need to say this though, since it's been beaten more than that poor old dead horse.
    • Some games were the first of a genre, so after that 'new experience' has been out for a while, maybe it's not so sparkly and interesting anymore?
    I probably only said what others have already brought up. I admit that I started skimming through posts after I realized where the topic was going, so that's why. It's hard to pick out the good stuff in discussions like these, and there's usually a more time-efficient way of learning about the realities of what makes a good game, etc.
     
    Misty likes this.
  32. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    I won 2nd place in an official gm jam.

    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. This was what my 100k topic was about, but it got closed, when you are poor it is hard to gain traction, and when you are already successful it is easily to make a perpetual money machine. This is the difference between tesla and edison, edison got the millions and public adoration while tesla became famous but only famous to the elite. Everyone knows famous sports players and actors but there are many famous true artists who remain obscure to the masses and general public.
     
  33. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    Thing is, I have played modern games already.

    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.
    They don't hold a candle to it. They are artsy fartsy games. They are nice and probably good games. But 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.

    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.
    Doesn't have to be online multiplayer, but at least local coop or split-screen or something.

    Timesplitters bullets of an ak47 were as slow as a bow and arrow. How is this good? It felt like a kiddie game.

    That is exactly what I am saying. Why is it so hard for people to simply admit this?

    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.

    For instance, I was looking at the real-life bathroom tile. It looked nice to me. When I moved the specular on the tile moved. But in videogames they just approximate it with equations. The physics of light are not real. Especially this is the case with Ambient Occlusion mapping. It is a lazy way to not have to bake lightmaps into your game. But it is somehow off somehow because the light behavoir is not really the same as real life. Ambient occlusion is litterally the equivalent of putting a photoshop glow effect over everything. It's cheap and looks tacky. But that isn't even my main complaint. I am actually fine with ambient occlusion, because the other games look far worse with that new good-graphics effect that I can't even explain. Same with the new zelda, I prefer the polygonal look of the original honestly.

    Also, sorry about the double post, it was an accident.
     
  34. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    If I would have a million dollars I would never ever invest it in such a risky investment as game development :D. Maybe if I would have 100 million I could give it a try as part of investment diversification. :D

    P.S.
    To be honest? I'm quite sure that with 1 million dollars I could make "objectively" much better game as you :p
     
  35. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    Well I, for one, am rooting for you to get that 100 million dollars. :)

    And lets make it a competition, you give me a million dollars, you give yourself a million dollars and we see whose game is objectively the greatest :)
     
    Smiechu likes this.
  36. Toque

    Toque Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Posts:
    1,007
    Because your wrong........and your right. Some will agree and some won't.

    I actually like a lot of your sane arguments. Games based of perfect mechanics, a good story, simple designs and art, unique colour palettes, likeable characters........ these make great games. A lot of the modern stuff you really don't need. Modern stuff by itself doesn't make great games. If you start with the modern stuff and wrap a mediocre game around it you still have a mediocre game. I think thats the take home.

    This is music to my ears. If I can master a few of these things I may be able to make a great game some day. Its not easy but if you focus on these things its possible.
     
    Misty likes this.
  37. BattleRifle BR55

    BattleRifle BR55 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Posts:
    962
    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.
     
    rIKmAN likes this.
  38. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    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.

    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.
     
  39. BattleRifle BR55

    BattleRifle BR55 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Posts:
    962
    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 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?
     
  40. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    Oh yes, I forgot. Witcher 3 is the 1 modern game that has a 5 star rating that I forgot to mention.

    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.
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  41. YanBG

    YanBG Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2016
    Posts:
    574
    Lol i doubt that went to the workers. If someone gives a million he'll want to own the game.
     
  42. BattleRifle BR55

    BattleRifle BR55 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Posts:
    962
    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.

    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'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.


    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. In fact, it looks like you're just viewing a game's budget from that of a solo, middle-class indie developer with bright, starry eyes. Of course spending several thousand on one particular resource is going to look exasperatingly expensive - hell, I'm not looking forward to the modules and licenses I'll have to purchase once my FPS is ready to go multiplatform, but it's not a lot in the grand scheme of things. I also have no idea where you're going with the profits the game made. If that's how payouts worked, my biggest issue of the day would be deciding which Lamborghini to drive to my warehouse job.
     
  43. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    @Misty lol... so indeed you would make a Goldeneye remake with my 1 million dollars!!! I knew it!!!
     
  44. Toque

    Toque Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Posts:
    1,007
    Well it was the best game ever made so why not? Wise investment.
     
    Misty likes this.
  45. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    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.
     
  46. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    One afternoon? Prove it by doing it and uploading the video showing proof.

    Also, sorry for double posting, I can't figure out how to delete the post and put it inside the first post. It's just whenever I see amazing claims I get hyper and reactively post immediately.

    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. :cool:
    Games are a synergy of harmony - they must have both good gameplay and good artists in order to be appealing and popular. If a game has good gameplay, but artistry that just does not go well with the game, it will not sell. Low poly games still require artists behind the wheel.


    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  47. YanBG

    YanBG Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2016
    Posts:
    574
    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.
     
  48. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    I don't think you are understanding.

    First, copy and quoting wont delete my double post, which is the main issue here.

    Second, I already have experience working in teams and other games. I would be the main manager and hire someone to help with the marketing. I might also hire a second programmer if I end up running into fatigue or am stumped by something (though, I rarely am stumped so I might not have to pay for a second programmer.)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice