You Can Do it!

Submit your own resources!

William Lee Sims   (Jun 02, 2006 at 22:03 GMT)

I write games as a hobby, not to sell them. I struggled with TGE for over a year, prototyping ideas and learning the art tools that were available. I fortunately stumbled onto a game idea that worked and my friends loved. This got me going.

I must admit that if my C++ skills weren't where they are at, I probably would have given up. I used several other engines, ranging from free to $20,000. After investing some time into TGE, I've learned that nothing I've used before beats this network layer and the speed of the TGE. The greatest thing I've learned about TGE is that if I'm willing to put in the effort, very little can't be done.

I've thrown together an action game, a board game conversion, and a puzzle game in just a weekend each. While it may take me several months to refine them, I can see my ideas quite quickly, which I love.

I will also say that I appreciate all of the resources that ThinkTanks submitted. I use the optimization one with every project, revisiting what will work best with my current game. I'm looking forward to anything you might share.

Stefan Lundmark   (Jun 02, 2006 at 22:06 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Thanks for another interesting blog.

Aaron Ellis   (Jun 02, 2006 at 22:12 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

The watermarked challenge in that image is amazing. It's so easy for us to make excuses for our delays and failures. But overcoming all obstacles to reach our goals is a much tougher road. Fortunately, there are a lot of inspiring overcomers in this community -- and many of them are eager to help the rest of us. That's pretty cool.

James Bond   (Jun 02, 2006 at 22:24 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

With only three developers in the team you must have a really good woking relationship. How did you get a great team focused?

Joe Maruschak   (Jun 02, 2006 at 22:27 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@ James.

We all worked for several years at a game company on the same games. We already had a good working relationship. When we all got layed off, we had to do something, and we had no other skills. The possibility of hunger and homelessness has a wonderful way of focusing the mind. I am going to touch on this is a later blog that will talk about how 'bootstrapping' has a way of keeping one focused.

Prairie Games   (Jun 02, 2006 at 22:29 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

GG is a success and therefore a target. If you dig deep enough, everyone, including the GG founders have likely made it a target for their frustrations, anxiety, exhaustion, etc at least once :)

Online communities are mostly good. There are always a few, what we call around the Prairie Games campfire, "assholes". It's usually best to ignore them and focus on the voices that make you feel good about what you are doing. These people are mostly just frustrated by their own lives... and there is nothing you can do for them that's good enough.

On making games with TGE. here's something I like to point out: Prairie Games has 2 staff members. Lara had never made a game before Minions of Mirth... or worked with a game engine before... TGE was the FIRST game engine she worked with... and she was very productive with it.

So, if a girl, who never made a game before, can do it. YOU CAN TOO :)

Edit: Typos
Edited on Jun 03, 2006 00:19 GMT

Adam deGrandis   (Jun 02, 2006 at 22:40 GMT)

Great post, Joe. Really struck a cord with me on this one. :)

Paul /*Wedge*/ DElia   (Jun 02, 2006 at 22:44 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

It's true, most of the people that complain are the ones who are lacking in their own ability to make anything. TGE is phenomenally deep and powerful for those that know how to work within themselves instead of the engine. It takes a high level of skill and drive to make a finished game product no matter what tools you're using. TGE doesn't make it so you need any less of that, only that's it's more feasable fewer people can do something great in a shorter time with a smaller budget.

Channa Langley   (Jun 02, 2006 at 22:45 GMT)

That is a very inspiring blog Joe, and its great to see the ones who have done it and while I haven't played Think Tanks yet, I have played Wildlife Tycoon : Venture Africa, and have seen Think Tanks on the shelves and they are indeed testament that it can be done by anyone willing to put forth the effort and work needed to do it, the tools are there, all you have to do is utilize them and you can do it. :) Great blog!

Pat Wilson   (Jun 02, 2006 at 23:13 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Joe has an amazing ability to collect and refine the feelings and thoughts of those around him, and to take those feelings and thoughts and weave them into a positive and constructive quilt.

I declare this blog to be the win.

Thijs Sloesen   (Jun 02, 2006 at 23:32 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

This is indeed an inspiring blog, Joe. Thanks a lot for that. And I want to note something that I've noticed while being a GG community member for several years now (I was here when ThinkTanks shipped! ;).

Not only is GG making (and practically giving away) great and professional tools for the entire community to benefit from in realizing their dreams. In fact, posts like this one (and posts by Jeff, for instance) show that the GG employees really care about their community and really want to help people succeed in realizing those dreams. You guys give valuable insight information in what drives an indie game business, and try to be a motivator for everyone around. And really, everybody needs that kick from Jeff or the push from Joe at some point around. These blogs show us that it is possible. And more importantly, they try to show us how. And I for one appreciate that very much!

Also, for those who are flaming at GG because they don't like the way GG sets their tools on the market:
think about it. GG could also just create these wonderfull tools for themselves, and crank out one game after another. In a typical organisation that is noted on the stock market, companies go out of their ways to develop reusable assets, tools, and knowledge. Why? Because it gives them an advantage over the competitor. I think the very fact that GG shares so much with the community proves that they really want to help - and not just make money. If they were after the latter, they would just make games. And make them so fast, we would never have a chance. But guess what? They don't :-)

I have one question though, Joe. One of the hardest things I think in making games (and especially unfunded game projects) is finding a game idea. The idea itself isn't too hard to find I guess, but the thing that makes it so hard is to shape an idea so that it is actually feasible. And equally important: that it will sell. I tend to loose myself when designing a game to the extend that the game turns into a scope creep. The game gets way too big for me - even with a small team - to develop. Then, when I cut features, somehow the game doesn't seem that much fun again. And that can be demoralizing. So I was wondering if you have any tips on this topic? How can one go about designing a game that is fun, but fits in the indie market and is actually feasible? I know this is a big subject, and I'm not asking help for designing the next big thing. But I could use some pointers as to how to keep sight of realism when designing a game.

Alex Rice   (Jun 02, 2006 at 23:51 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Josh - ha ha! that's throwing down the gauntlet :-)

@Joe - nice blog. I am a TGB user and would love to hear more about how it's being used internally at GG (without giving away any ultra-sekret stuff of course)
Edited on Jun 02, 2006 23:51 GMT

Alex Rice   (Jun 02, 2006 at 23:57 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Thijs , have you read the blog by the Puzzle Poker developer? forgot his name . He talks about the whole development process and even has a screenshot of the prototype of the game- which was real interesting for me. I have trouble separating between prototype and production features. Testing the core gameplay and finding out whether it's actually fun. That's key.

Nicolas Quijano   (Jun 02, 2006 at 23:57 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Well said Joe as usual :)
No bullshit, direct but still diplomatic is your style : that you're still passionate and fiery about gamedev after all this time is testament to your dedication...
Let the whiny wankers (just not to use Josh's term for them, hehe) moan, lament, and whatever else they might do : TGE is in no way perfect (but then, nothing is), but let them try coping with a proprietary engine from major or minor leagues studios for a change that has no notion of being "driveable" by scripts, or any thought of reusability : at least, TGE was used on many projects at Dynamix, even if what we got back then was basically a somewhat stripped Tribes 2 codedump, and hence a lot of multiplayer fps baggage, it was usable as is, and you can always strip away a lot of things if you're the least competent.
And even though Unreal is in theory true middleware, it got started as a game, not an engine. To boot, it's got its fair share of ugly warts and idiosyncracies.
Plus, most licensees don't get it in source form, enough said.
And well, compare the prices for what you get....
I think people for the most part don't understand what it means to make games at this point in time, and what they're getting when they license viable technology : this is no beginner sandbox, it's the real thing.
Things are so comparmentalized in regular studios that people never see the overall picture...
Licensing tech and trying to make your own game with a tenth of the resources available to the 800 pound gorillas is very different, and shoves your face into how complex modern gamedev can be.
Again, thank you for your passion, your integrity and well, being who you are :)
Cheers bud, stay true

Affectworks   (Jun 03, 2006 at 00:22 GMT)

Nicely put. I have to agree with Josh Ritter above when he simply states "GG is a success and therefore a target." It really doesn't matter which game forum you go to, there will always be people not happy with the end product. It's not balanced enough, this needs toned down, this needs toned up, but since this is a developer site those complaints will be aimed towards the support side instead.

I think a lot of people (when we started our project I was guilty of this as well) would expect to be handheld throughout the entire development process, and I noticed this "At some point, those who undertake a project need to take responsibility for what they are attempting and do what it takes to get it done." and I nodded my head in agreement.

Part of the fun for me as an artist working with Maya and TGE was getting hand held through the basics and then starting experimenting on my own. Can I do this? No. Allright. How about this? Cool, that worked.

Fredrik S
2+2 = 3, yeah? No? Huh.. I better be the artist then.

Matt Laurenson   (Jun 03, 2006 at 01:15 GMT)

hmmm...i didnt even realise there was any bad mouthing going on - heh, then again i dont use the forums
much..probably once very 600 years or so. AnyhoO - tis about time joe started using irc again, dont think ive
seen him there for..er..ages - probably has something to do with him being less dedictated than me ;) :p

probably shouldnt joke..oh well too late.

Joe Maruschak   (Jun 03, 2006 at 01:52 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@ Thijs,

The advice I give everyone is to think small and prototype fully the main interactive component of the game. It has to feel good to 'do' whatver you do in the game. If this part is not right, then it is not worth thinking about how to make it fun by adding a zillion levels, or whatever.

That is how I separate it in my head.. make it fun, and then worry about how to make it sellable.

If the things that you think would be fun are too big, then think of smaller ideas.

I went to teagames.com, and I was amazed at how they leveraged 2-3 basic play mechanics into a bunch of really simple (yet fun) games. I got a thousand ideas after going to their site. I always think of a core idea or theme, and then try to create something that is fun given the resources I have. If, after I have what is developed, a fun, but unsellable game, then I would think about adding features or adding value in some other way. This is actually a huge subject that deserves it's own blog (which I plan to write someday)..

first, it needs to be fun. If it is not interesting to interact with, then it will go nowhere. Then, after it is fun, it has to have value to someone who will purchase it. What sort of value? well, a lot of the casual games are going with increased production value. Little games with a lot of bling. This seems to work for certain game types. Other casual games have actually made the bling itself something that is enjoyable (chuzzle). traditionally, games add value by adding poundage.. and this is something I would not advise doing. Make it simple, make it fun, and then worry about how to make what you have sellable. if you cannot make it good and small, put the idea on the shelf for later, and come up with a different idea.

@Alex Rice

Lots of stuff going on. After the game I am working on ships, I will be helping out with docs and demos and making TGB really well documented and fun to learn. Right now, I am finishing up on a TGB based game (that happens to have both some heavy physics going on, and Multiplayer).. it was quite the pressure cooker for TGB, and it really made it clear to us what we had to do to make the engine better for end users. (we suffered the pain so you won't have to).

the article you mentioned was one posted by Kevin Ryan. It is good stuff, and the way people should work if they want to get stuff fun quick.

@ Nick,

Trying to stay true.. the years and the kids are taking a bit of the 'punk' out of me, but I am trying to keep it as real as I can.

@ Matt

I stopped going onto IRC when I discovered that sticking a burning pencil in my eye acheived the same amoutn of pain, but required much less effort.

Ray Noolness Gebhardt   (Jun 03, 2006 at 01:53 GMT)

Its nice to see you back Joe. I always think of you as the buddha of game design (after seeing your chats on the IRC). Everything you said is the truth. What it comes down to, is if you don't have the drive to succeed, you never will. Its not easy to make anything, let alone something as large scope as a game. You need drive and dedication or else you will never make it to the end. No matter what technologoy you use, whether its Torque, custom code or something like the Unreal engine, you will never succeed if you give up.
Edited on Jun 03, 2006 01:54 GMT

Alexander "taualex" Gaevoy   (Jun 03, 2006 at 01:57 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Joe, the root problem of the Engine vs. Engine flame war is in fact that people take the most of things personaly, not professionaly. I know, a game is someone's child, it's very difficult to stand against the critisism aimed at it.

We all need to learn how to be rejected in the business world and take it professionaly. Nothing personal, just business, you know...

And the truth is Torque team engaged itself in a very ambitious task - deliver a game platform. The platform is in development, and the main features are becoming outdated fast. It's not like just finish a game on crunch time, publish it and be done with it. It's - SERVICE.
Anyway, Torque "was" and "is" a masterpiece in it's own kind, the product which "delivers", but only with a big effort of a programmer. Finally, TGB is going gold, feature full and ready for script-only game development, so it's competetive with "mature" products like Blitz, etc. It just takes time...

Joshua Dallman   (Jun 03, 2006 at 02:36 GMT)

I think it's awesome that I can roll up to GG offices, walk in, and have 6 guys play my game and give feedback with no special connections to GG. What other game/tools company can you do that at, I mean really??

As for the tools, I'll never forget when the lead programmer asked if we were going to upgrade the engine for our game to 1.4. I said "if the old version was good enough to ship orbz and thinktanks then it's good enough for me."

Kevin Ryan   (Jun 03, 2006 at 02:42 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Quote:

---

We were smart in terms of what we chose to create, and how we went about.

---

You certainly were.

Where I live up here in the High Sierras we have lots of large granite outcroppings. Somes place the road down into the valley goes around them and other places it is obvious that they used dynamite to blast a path through.

When driving into town a couple of weeks ago I was thinking game design/development is like that. You have to decide which rocks to just make a path around and which rocks to take the longer more difficult effort to blast through.

Jeremy Alessi   (Jun 03, 2006 at 03:04 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Man I've missed your blogs Joe! It's good to hear from you!

I've had this same debate with many people myself. From my perspective every tool has a purpose and the most important thing you said was:

Quote:

---

We were smart in terms of what we chose to create, and how we went about.

---

Basically, some people aren't smart about what they choose to create period and the real kicker is that some of the other tools out there don't let you know right up front how difficult it will be to actually make a finished product out of your game concept. Torque on the other hand will stop you dead in your tracks if you don't know what you're doing with it. I have to admit that it happens to me with some things too. There are some things that I'm knowledgeable enough to get working with Torque and other things that I'm still clueless about. I guess the important thing is accepting the blame squarely on your own shoulders. However, that can get old after you've spent days on end fighting with a C++ compiler while doing some big custom modification that you know you could have 'working' with another tool in 1/10th the time.

A good way to put it:

Torque can do anything, can you?

Of course this probably isn't the best attitude from a business perspective. People are always looking for the solution, which is most dynamic and easy to use simultaneously.

The way I see Torque is that it's easy to use as it comes stock for certain games. I only began Oust in Torque because I thought I would be capable of doing it "out of the box". I ended up getting into the engine, which wasn't as bad as I initially thought ... but still that's the other side of Torque. That's the truly dynamic side of Torque but it's also the side of Torque that many people will not be capable of changing to suit their needs, not without a lot of education.

There are other tools out there, which give you the dynamic edge of Torque's C++ code but with the abstraction and ease of its script code, not to mention a 'blank slate' which doesn't require you to sift through 500,000 lines of someone else's code. I think it's just up to people to choose which tool is better for the job. Obviously, Torque's a great engine but it's got this clause which basically says "make a game inside the Tribes box, or decipher our 500,000 lines of C++ code in order to make something outside of that box".

I'll tell it as straight as anyone else in case you can't tell. Of course staying true as true can be, every engine comes with a similar clause. I came to Torque primarily because other tools I used came with the clause "make any game you want, so long as it plays on a Windows PC and you don't need to make a single modification to the source code".

At the end of the day it still just comes down to the age-old phrase "use the right tool for the job".

Joe Maruschak   (Jun 03, 2006 at 03:15 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@ Alexander,

I beg to differ on the engine vs. engine thread. I am open to criticism on what I create. I eat that stuff up. Criticism and review makes things better.

Open criticism of the products GarageGames makes and distributes (and what you read on the forums) is actually quite mild when compared to the standards of what we internally want the products to be. I read all of it very carefully so I can better understand the needs of the community and do what I can to help guide things in the directions that I perceive will provide value to the community.

In engine vs. engine threads, it never seems to be an intellgent dicsussion, and from my perspective, the dicussion is often too broad and unfocused to give any constructive input. for a specific application, one application might be better than another.. in a general sense, it seems like just wasted effort. Unless you are trying to do something specific, then to compare an engine vs. another engine does not seem relevant. Particularly when it comes to graphics, it just confuses me. I looked at the screenshot of the pirate game that was posted few days ago and compare it to the Perfect Dark Zero (which looked like they hosed everything down with laquer) and I think, what are people arguing about?

What I did not like in the particular thread was the implication that a game could not be produced with the TGE, in particular, because I was involved with one that did ship using the TGE. After that, I was involved in a product that shipped on the XBox using the TSE. When people cross the line and start making attacks on the intentions or the integrity of those involved making the tools, then it gets personal.

People can compare all they want, and argue about whatever they want. I am too busy making stuff to get into arguements about it.

My main point with this post was not to pimp the engine.. but to fire people up. Our engine(s) will constantly be improving because we want to make games and we want to help other to make games. We want to make things better than they are, and we are going to do it no matter what anyone says or thinks is going on.

It is a call to action, to get people to beleive in themselves and start making cool stuff. I have tried (and will continue to try) to help as much as I can to get people making the games that they want to make, and impart whatever wisdom I have gained along the way in the hopes it might help them.

As for the featureset of the TGE becoming outdated, you are welcome to your opionion. The outdated feature set allowed a very small team on a tight schedule to create the #1 revenue generator on XBox Live Arcade on the 360. Is the featureset a limiting factor for the games I want to make? Not at all. My big problem is finding the time and people to work on all the stuff I want to make, and most of it is acheivable with the technology we have right now.

Is the engine good enough to make a game? yeah.. and then some. Is it as good as I want it to be? no, it is not yet, and we are working on that.

We are working on making the tech better, and part of this process is us using the engines to make games with. We put the engines through the ringer by working on what might be ambitious projects with tight scehdules. We know what works and what doesn't, and what it takes to make games and get them distributed.

If people think this tech does not provide them with what they need to make a game, I have no problem with it. They can go to whatever other technology they want that will help them acheive their dream.

What gets me is when people start blaming others (and in particular the company I now work for) for standing in the way of their dream by not providing what they need to make their dream a reality. The success of anyone who reads what I write depends on them, not on me, and not on GG.

The Torque teams (and GG in general) will continue to take on ambitious tasks. We do it because it needs to be done, and no one else is attempting to do it. Our hope is that we will allow others to get through a door that was once closed, and allow them to create the things they want and share them with the world.

Ray Noolness Gebhardt   (Jun 03, 2006 at 03:29 GMT)

This is the big problem with a game development tool. There are two ways to go about implementing a product that allows someone to make a game. You can do things 100% correctly, but have a huge learning curve in order to be able to use the product. On the other end of the spectum, you can side step certain issues to some extent, to create a platform that is easy to use.

TGE and TSE do things the "right way". What it boils down to, is you need a skill programmer to make something that works with it. That is not at all a bad thing, if you have skilled software engineers to program your game. Its not easy though, because you have to handle everything yourself when you code a custom game object for TGE / TSE. You have to do the movement code, animation code, networking and so on manually. You are given a very nice framework to work with, and a lot of helper functionality to make your development experience easier, but you really need to know what you are doing.

TGB is on the other end of the spectrum. Its designed to allow you to make a game as quickly as possible. It does make sacrifices in some aspects to make that possible. You do not have full control of the movement, the interpolation of movement and so on out of the box. So in the end you have a lot less control over how the whole system work. Its possible to modify the code, in order for it to operate differently, but in a way that's defeating the point of how TGB is designed.

So in otherwords there are tools provided by Garage Games that serve both design philosophies. The tools aren't the biggest problem with people getting games done. Its really easy to say something like "I want to make games" or "I want to be a rock star". Its a lot harder to actually do the work to actually make those things happen. There are so many people that make games full time, and you are competing against them (whether you have a full time job or not). If you want to create something as high quality as lets say Think Tanks, its really really hard. It took three highly skilled individuals a year to complete. That is a massive undertaking.

Right now you as a developer have better tools than anyone in the history of video games has ever had. I am serious about this too. Do you have to program your own software based 3D rendering engine? No. Do you have to program in pure assembly for a platform that has just enough cycles to diplay sprites on the screen? No. Do you have to do weird optimizations where you use bit shifting instead of multiplication and division? Once again the answer is no.

As long as you keep the scope of you game small, and you are will to spend six months of hard work, with a couple of people on your team, you will complete your game. Will your first game sell a million copies and make you enough money to be on easy street? Most likely the answer is no. If you keep cranking out games, and never give up, will you be able to quit your day job? The answer is definitely. But are you willing to put in the effort, that is the question.

Joe Maruschak   (Jun 03, 2006 at 03:56 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Quote:

---

Of course this probably isn't the best attitude from a business perspective. People are always looking for the solution, which is most dynamic and easy to use simultaneously.

---

Jeremy,

we are not trying to fully place the burden back on people.

We are trying to make the best tools, make them the easiest to use, make them robust, make them so they work on as many platforms as possible, document all of it, and have them work with as many tools as we can (often looking to support free or open source tools). It is a tall order, and we are aware of the magnitude of the task. We think we have broken it down into reasonable chunks, and we are doing what we can as fast as we can to get there.

We are working to make it easier. We are not drawing a line in the sand and telling people to do it themselves.. what we are trying to say is that we are working on it.. and it will take time, and at some point, we can only do so much to enable. Eventually we will get there.. someday, we will have a toolset that anyone can use to make anything they desire. That day is not today. We are not asking for forgiveness, we are just hoping that people will understand this and take some initiative to make it happen. You certainly have done this.

I hope to get people to understand and embrace the concept. Sometimes we have to go a little further, and sometimes the individual has to do more to get their idea more in line with their abilities and resources. Sometimes it is a little of both.. it is a grey line. We are getting there, but it will not happen all at once.

J.C. Smith   (Jun 03, 2006 at 06:16 GMT)

My two cents... I've worked with many engines over the years. I'm an impulse buyer. I take a look at a new engine, if it looks interesting I want to dissect it, so I buy a license if its reasonable. Over the years I've licensed pretty much every low cost engine on the market, ranging up to $1250 for a license. Of all of them I can say with no hesitation that Torque is the best deal out there. The TGE renderer is outdated as compared to something like C4, which is a fantastic renderer. When people do the comparisons to C4 or other engines, what they usually forget is the full package. Torque is the full package. You won't find another engine in the price range that has the level of features, quality of networking, GUI, vehicles, indoor/outdoor rendering and in-game editors that can match Torque. It's a hands down, no brainer in my opinion. I'm not mentioning TSE, because it just isn't ready yet.

When it comes to documentation though, I can see both sides of that fence. First off I think the collection of information you can find here at Garagegames, in the forums and resources, trumps any other engine in existance at this point. A few years ago it was hard, now it's easy. Indie coders with limited knowledge can piece together parts of resources and build a decent product in relatively short time just by researching this web site. What I think it is though, is a cop out. If you can't create what you want to create, it's easier to blame the documentation, or the engine, or someone else on your team, than to man up and say what needs to be said, "I don't yet have the skills to create what I want created." And that will only improve with practice and perseverence.

Alexander "taualex" Gaevoy   (Jun 03, 2006 at 06:35 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

"We are not drawing a line in the sand and telling people to do it themselves.. what we are trying to say is that we are working on it.. and it will take time"...

...and the focus is not yet on the tools or engine, that's why people are getting frustrated...
That's understandable that GG should stay afloat, that's why GG is busy with it's own game projects, "procrastinating" with the featureset/toolset. On one hand it makes people (GG customers) nervous (gives them impression of uncertainty in platform's future), on the other hand, it bulletproof the engine (it's been developed in usage). Not enough marketing was done by GG to keep people updated. I just noticed that the number of unsatisfied customers is growing in GG community. It's a sad fact.

It's repeated over and over that games can be done with TGE and TSE. That's true, BUT what indie has enough time to patch bugs, add features (that are standart by this moment, e.g. BSP is so last centure technology -> I would like to have octree in my arsenal to optimize perfomance, I want to support non-shader and shader video cards in ONE application to save my development time) to the core platform? Few. Indies better concentrate on game dynamics then that, otherwise he/she should go fulltime to acomplish the idea, very very few can do that.
Joe, you understand that better as nobody else. I have a feeling that the definition of "indie" is blurring somehow now in GG community.

Games can be done in TGE, I admit it, but indies would like to have better tools that save their short free time and resources -> Is it the GG's slogan 5 years ago? ;)

Prairie Games   (Jun 03, 2006 at 06:50 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

The tools are freaking sweet for making some types of games. The kinds of games that GG, rightly, suggests you make...

I have yet to see GarageGames making or promoting the creation of "big games" with tremendous technical requirements... if you want to push the boundries, expect to do a lot of work.

Alexander "taualex" Gaevoy   (Jun 03, 2006 at 06:57 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

At some point of view, you are right Josh, but I didnt mean "big games" at all...
For instance, even small games can benefit from a nice little touch of shaders to kick up the perfomance, instead of software emulation (like TLK). Even your MOM could use ability to run good on non-shader cards and run smoothly on shader ones just with one executable, otherwise you spent other man-months to port it from TGE to TSE ;) I've seen your .plan post, you are going to add a lot "standard" features to TGE/TSE to be "comfortable"..

Prairie Games   (Jun 03, 2006 at 07:02 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

If I was making casual games targeting anything BUT XBox360, shaders and anything requiring octrees would be the first thing out the window.

Yes, I am doing a lot of work with TSE. I am confident that the work is worth it and that we'll have a great system. I used to get really upset about GG not doing this, that, or the other thing. It turned out that this was my problem and not theirs...

Pat Wilson   (Jun 03, 2006 at 08:06 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

I don't think tools are getting neglected at all. TGB is a massive step forward in GG tools, Constructor is in beta, and some of the optimizations Brian is doing on TSE rendering are pretty stunning. There are currently more simultanious programming projects going on right now than we've ever had, and there are sub-projects of those projects, as well. For the first time we are able to do project planning and development by slightly-more than the seat of our pants.

Then we have the massive project that is Break Into Games, website improvements, a massive library of documentation and tutorials written for TGB, art projects, and the unrelenting work of the biz-dev team to continue to open doors for indies all over.

Last year was exciting in the doors that were opened. (Last year, this month, TSE ran for the first time on the Xbox 360.) This year will dwarf last year, I think. We live in exciting times; come along for the ride.

Alex Rice   (Jun 03, 2006 at 08:39 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Alexander - sorry to be so blunt but I think you could benefit to read Joe's entire post, then step back and "look in the mirror".

Quote:

---

If an individual cannot get a product to the shipping state, or cannot begin their project because of some perceived 'lack' of tools or documentation or funding or <insert gripe here>, then that person needs to take a look in the mirror.

---

Myself , I looking in the mirror too and I see a prototype of a fun game made with TGB :-)

Stephen Zepp   (Jun 03, 2006 at 08:58 GMT)

Quote:

---

I just noticed that the number of unsatisfied customers is growing in GG community. It's a sad fact.

---

(from Alexander)

Ahh, but unfortunately what isn't blatently obvious is that while the number of unsatisfied customers is growing slowly, the number of satisfied customers is growing at orders of magnitude higher rates...it's just that the happy customers are the ones actually making games instead of complaining about x, y, or z...

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone specifically, and especially not you Alexander, but I wanted to point out that the observation you made is a bit one sided--of course when a customer base grows, the unsatisfied portion is going to grow as well, but in this case, with all of our tools, it's not nearly as high a rate (nor even an increasing rate) that the other side of the equation has.

Nauris Krauze   (Jun 03, 2006 at 11:50 GMT)

I guess the grumpiness comes simply from not fully understanding what an undertaking making a game is. Even a simple, bare bones, little game. No matter what tech you are using, you`re going to have to pour buckets of sweat in it and start to hate it at some point, until one day the features are complete, the art is there and game suddenly unravels before you in its full beauty, without need to imagine how this or that will look "when its done", and all you can do is look dumbly in the screen, marveling at it.
If you break in the middle of the process or have too short attention span and jump from idea to idea, project to project, you will end up with nothing to show and deep urge to blame something for your failures.

And, btw, Noolness, Joe can not possibly be buddha of game design. He looks too skinny to me :)

Alexander "taualex" Gaevoy   (Jun 03, 2006 at 17:57 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Josh,
@Stephen,
@Pat,
@Alex Rice:


1st things first :) : I wasn't bashing Torque platform at all, please, read my post again. My point is much bigger picture than that. GG does awesome job, but "something" is missing in the whole picture...
IMHO, GG needs to tell more about its progress on its development, so people know that they are investing money in a live and developing technology (like in any business), more .plans telling what was achieved recently, etc. Sometimes community "feels" lost ;) I like you guys, but I may tell that the "geek" nature (of any programmer) leaves PR behind ;)

Alex, your quote is very true and mirrors my philosophy as well. That's true that an individual should be very dedicated to his/her dream to make it happen. But then, how MUCH time he/she can devote to it?... That's why indies are looking for "complete" solutions, not because they "cannot", but because they dont have time for everything. Unfortunatly, not everybody can secure funding...

Everything that was said by me was said with good intension.

Prairie Games   (Jun 03, 2006 at 18:22 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Alexander: It's clear that you have good intentions. Otherwise, folks probably wouldn't be responding to you.

Quote:

---

But then, how MUCH time he/she can devote to it?... That's why indies are looking for "complete" solutions, not because they "cannot", but because they dont have time for everything. Unfortunatly, not everybody can secure funding...

---

This is where I disagree with you.

Life is about choices and sacrifices. You simply cannot have it all. If you value your nice car, your neighborhood, your day job, your television programs, whatever is causing you to not have time, resources, or whatever to make your game and you have unrealistic expectations of what you can make: no engine is going to solve your dilemma.

Joe Maruschak   (Jun 03, 2006 at 18:38 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@ Alexander,

I hear you. The decision to not give more frequent progress updates was not a intentional one. It happens because everyone is head down working on stuff. My silence as of late is a result of working hard on many things. Everyone else at GarageGames is also working on many, many cool things.. in fact, most are working on the same things many people are complaining about.

We are telling people what is happening, but a lot of that is hidden in the day to day communications in the forums, addressing specific issues. The development teams have not made a concerntrated effort to communicate the day to day activities of what they are doing. Perhaps we should do this.. my feeling is that the developers would rather spend their time working on getting the technology out the door than talking about what they are planning on doing.

Some of the developer actually ARE telling people what they are doing. Read Matt Fairfax's plan, or Matt Langely's, or Justin DuJardin.. read their forum posts.

Right now, I can't talk about the projects I am working on.. but they are all pretty cool, and the community is already benefitting from some of the 'secret' things that have been going on in the form of the tools and technology that are derived from working on the projects that we just can't talk about yet.

As for the time thing.. I understand it totally, but I have no pity for anyone who claims they have none. I worked full time while going to school full time, and no one paid my way. Now I am married, have a 3 year old daughter, and I work quite a bit as well (my work often bleeds over into the evening and weekends). Time is my most precious resource.

We are doing what we can to make things better and easier, but lack of funding and lack of time are complaints that I personally don't wan't to hear about. If someone does not have funding or time, that is their problem, not mine.

I am working hard with a bunch of like minded individuals to provide the hammers, the nails, the screwsdrivers, the bulldozers and the cranes.. we are working on the hammer swinging machine for those that don't want to learn how to swing a hammer, and we have a background project for the automated bulldozer driver. Eventually, we may create the 'create my dream house' button.

Until then, if someone tries to build the Taj Mahal, and tries to blame me because I did not do enough to help, well.. I will respond that I did my best, and provided everything in my power that they needed to build the Taj Mahal, ask them questions about where they failed so I can help make it easier for the next Taj Mahal attempt, and then advise them that building the Taj Mahal was probably not a good choice. I am not going to take to heart that their failure is my fault.

I am here to help contribute to peoples success. I am not here to hand it to anyone. I am not going to take credit for anyones success.. and I am not going to suffer the blame for anyones failure.

As for how much time someone can devote to their dream? that is a deeply personal question that has no one answer. My answer was that I could devote all my time to it. I did. and I have been at it for 5 years now.

I am not saying that all can do this, or shoudl do this.. .but you will get out of it what you put into it. The tools have gotten way easier, and they will continue to improve. Every month that passes, it gets that much easier. I see it as a continuum. We don't at some point pass a magical gate where it becomes 'easy'.. we just keep approaching it slowly and steadily.

So, your message is heard.. we have heard it long ago, and we are taking steps to improve things. We will keep pushing, and if you feel that it is still not easy enough or quick enough, then all I can do is look at what impediments are holding you back, understand them, and look to create technology or documentation to help correct the impediments to your success. These will get thrown on the stack with all the other feature requests.. and we will prioritize them and work on them.

In the meantime, anyone working on a game will either stop and wait for us, or they will push forward. Both are the choice of the individual, and I would personally prefer that they own that choice.

Alexander "taualex" Gaevoy   (Jun 03, 2006 at 18:43 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Josh:

Quote:

---

Life is about choices and sacrifices. You simply cannot have it all.

---

That's why I drive Saturn SL1 1997 (no car payments) and live in an apartment (no morgage and expensive householding expences) ;) with a dream of moving into a house as soon as my indie business will get stable.
But still, I'm on contract positions to support my small family; and my time is tight.

Nicolas Quijano   (Jun 04, 2006 at 00:40 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Alex, there is no complete solution, in the sense that making a game is always going to be hard work...
And frankly, I largely prefer GG's approach to announcements than the over hyped PR that is the norm in the game industry.
And to boot, they've been providing their improvements to the engine since release for free to current licensees. Yes, this might change, but they need to be able to sustain themselves as a business somehow.
To mention Unreal again, you license a certain point release, and only get sporadic updates to that release : a license for Unreal 2.5 doesn't get you Unreal 3.
And if you're making a game, you should never base your project development timeline on future developments of the tech you've licensed : that's just bad business, as shit can happen in so many ways that you absolutely do not want to do that.
Frankly, it's also quite clear what you get when you license GG technologies if you bother to do the least bit of homework before doing so, and have a fair idea of what you're getting into : again, this is no hobbyist sandbox like DarkBasic and co, but realworld gametech, with warts and all.
You either leverage it, learn to fight as little as possible with it, or license other tech, or build from scratch (which can be a totally viable option, don't get me wrong)
As for TSE not being ready to ship games, it's already been used to ship multiple titles on xbox and one so far on xbox 360 : yes, it might be missing some parity of features with TGE, but it's definitely usable as is. Yes, it might involve more work than using TGE but any serious team that's going to finish a viable, quality game can certainly consider it, and decide whether they have the time and know how to tackle a project's development with it.
It always strikes me as bizarre that people tend to expect more from GG than any other middleware vendor that charges orders of magnitude more for their tech, that usually only covers part of what TGE gives you out of the box.
I fully understand why GG employees are not more active on the forums or IRC : it's been 5 years or so, and while there is a great community, there is also a mass of lazy, clueless folks (not saying you are Alex) who will clamor for GG help with questions that have been answered 100s of times on the forums, or whose first post is about how they disagree with design decisions that went into GG's tech design, etc.
Reading that drivel takes its toll, and I don't think I'm the only one who'd rather see them working on their project and tech to keep the company and spirit going, than pandering to a very vocal, but in the end, ultimately very unproductive mass...
I'm no blind fan boy of GG as I've told Jeff, and others many times, I sometimes disagree with the choices they make, but I respect their spirit, their drive : they are one of the reasons I still consider game development as a way to make a living after bitter experiences in that world, both indie and mainstream.
If one of the pioneers of the industry still has that gleam in his eye, we should look in the mirror when we face the hardships of shipping a game, not blame them, or the tech, or whatever else : middleware is there to leverage, so if a certain product doesn't suit you, try something else, etc.
Again, this is not particularly directed at you Alex, so do not get me wrong :)
Cheers all, stay true, and keep on torquin' !!!

Alexander "taualex" Gaevoy   (Jun 04, 2006 at 01:41 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

No offense taken, Nicolas, and I see your point.
Edited on Jun 04, 2006 01:42 GMT

Eric Elwell   (Jun 04, 2006 at 03:22 GMT)

Make stuff!

Nauris Krauze   (Jun 04, 2006 at 08:43 GMT)

Quote:

---

Make stuff!

---

Hehe, you cant really say it any better.

Aun Arinyasak   (Jun 04, 2006 at 17:47 GMT)

@ GG crew

I bought both TGE and TGB and

I am a satisfied customer.!!

:)

Thijs Sloesen   (Jun 05, 2006 at 21:40 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Alex:

I saw the post, that was also a good read. Thanks for the tip!

@Joe:

I think I see what you mean. Most game ideas I have are for great adventure / rpg games, and obviously way too big for me alone to handle at this point. I'll try to search for inspiration elsewhere. That site you mentioned surely looked like a nice place to sniff around :)

So I'm off to prototype a little idea I have. It's not the next big thing, but might be fun enough to get a few people interested. Thanks for your inspiring posts!

Joe Maruschak   (Jun 06, 2006 at 13:48 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Thijs,

For an adventrue/rpg, I would not suggest it for a small team, but I would not shy away from it if that is what gives you passion. What I would suggest is to start small.. to make a 1-3 level 'adventure', and really get a handle on what makes whatever you make fun. or, make a top down 2d RPG or adventure game, with some interesting levels.

a long time ago clark and I talked about a strategy game called 'primitive culture'. The characters for the game would be primitives (cubes, speheres, etc..) this would greatly reduce the art needs and leave us time to focus on finding some interesting game mechanics (and prototype and iterate on them). I don't see why a similar approach could not be used for an RPG..

the thought here is to find a way to make an idea 'doable' with the resources you have at your disposal.

Gary Preston   (Jun 06, 2006 at 14:28 GMT)

Quote:

---

I guess the grumpiness comes simply from not fully understanding what an undertaking making a game is. Even a simple, bare bones, little game.

---

Nauris is pretty much correct imho, how many people start out with far reaching ideas when in reality those ideas are way way way beyond their current skill level. That isn't to say they'll never accomplish those goals, just that the time taken will be a whole lot longer than if they started smaller and developed the appropriate skills/experience to help tackle the larger game they've envisaged.

The better the tech gets (TGE/TSE/TGB...) the more people starting out to build their first game will expect to make better games. For example if someone is looking to create an FPS style game and loads up the starter.fps, the first thing to pop into their heads will probably be "wow, I don't need to do abc or xyz or... it's already done, that means I've got time to <insert lots of super cool sounding ideas here>" when in reality just taking the starter.fps and turning it into a fully fledged and polished shooter would be enough work for most, let alone all the extra fluff of ideas.

No matter how far the engine/documentation/tools improve all that will do is lower the entry bar and yet at the same time people will never be satisfied, they'll just raise their own expectations of what they "should" be able to accomplish with the engine, then when they fall short will still blame the tools. Lower entry + higher expectations = more complaints. It's bound to happen sadly :(

Those that succeed will be the ones that upon falling short put in more and more effort to aquire the missing skills needed to get over the next hurdle. Sadly many people want an instant "make my game" fix.

When you consider a commercial game was made just a month or so after the first alpha release of T2D, it proves that the tech IS good enough, so long as you have the will to make a game you can even if the tech isn't perfect for your situation (and it never really will be). I'm sure the same applies to TSE. NOTE: By will I don't mean that rush of enthusiasm you get during the first few weeks to a month of working on an idea, but the will to continue to work on the same idea months and months down the line when you may have lost interest and have a boat load of new "better" ideas you'd rather be working on.

Great post Joe, some really interesting comments as well :)
Edited on Jun 06, 2006 14:29 GMT

James Bond   (Jun 09, 2006 at 03:09 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

i will not be satified untill GG put that 'Make Game' button in. Please GG hurry :P

Thijs Sloesen   (Jun 10, 2006 at 19:20 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Joe:

Thanks again for your thoughts. I like your approach of turning your weaknesses into a strength of the game. I was actually working on a small adventure game a couple of months ago. Until my hard drive crashed... So now I am making backups and the current prototype I am making is just "lines and triangles" -- doesn't look too sweet, but allows me to focus on the important stuff :)

Joe Maruschak   (Jun 11, 2006 at 15:19 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Thijs,

that is t a good thing. taking this sort of approach is, what I feel, really the best way to go. It frees you from the constraints of needing outside help.. it allows you to get started and keep moving (gated only by your skills and desire to work). The other side benefit is that if the game is fun, you will no immediately, as you will not be distracted by the look. It will also focus your thinking on what is really necessary. At some point, you will be saying to yourself, man.. I am not getting any feeback here.. I really need to add a sound to alert the player he is in danger of dying (or a particle effect, or.. whatver) it really forces you to be very specific about each and every design element in the game.

Good luck!

Tim Heldna   (Jun 24, 2006 at 15:51 GMT)

Hi Joe Maruschak,

I think I know the post you're referring to.

I don't think anyone discredits or doubts the effort or achievements accomplished by BraveTree. A point was merely raised that some of the BraveTree staff were on the original Tribes development team, therefore having an inside knowledge of the Torque game engine.

I have no idea how much truth is in that statement however I do know it's not completely inaccurate. I remember seeing video footage which was taken from a news clip which featured Garage Games and an interview from a BraveTree employee who mentions Think Tanks, the Tank Pack and the fact that he was part of the original Tribes development team. He then went on to say that this assisted BraveTree in the creation of Think Tanks and the Tank Pack.

I am a happy member of many different game engine communities, and the biggest complaints I hear about Garage Games and their products can be narrowed down to two areas.

1) High amount of bugs
2) Time taken between announcing a product and its subsequent release

I tend to agree.

I'm doing the best I can with Toque. I successfully completed an Icarnegie Information Technology course as well as obtaining a diploma in software development. I have studied Java, Visual Basic and am currently studying C++. I have my own business, website and actively provide assistance on these forums and promote Garage Games and their products. My point is I don't fall into the category of people who complain just because they're too under qualified to use Torque.

When I downloaded 1.4 of TGE, I have to say I was surprised at the amount of bugs that were present. The first time I ran it the program crashed because of my firewall and the alt-tab issue. The list of bugs in 1.4 is huge, and led me to purchase another game engine. I still use Torque, and will continue to do so. However I wish concerns raised by the community were taken more seriously.

With respect from an indie who is trying to make it to an indie who has made it.

Joe Maruschak   (Jun 24, 2006 at 16:56 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Tim,

we did indeed work at Dynamix and we were involved with the Tribes series of games. This did give us a head start on getting to work with the engine. It should be noted though that for ThinkTanks, we did a whole new physics model (for the tanks), wrote, from scratch, new AI, and all that with one coder (the amazing Dr. Clark Fagot). We did it in 18 man months. We self funded, and we did not get any special help from the folks at GarageGames.

I am not trying to say we did not have advantages on the tech end (in terms of understanding it), but we still had to come up with a game idea, make the game, and fix all the bugs we encountered to ship the game.

Now, John Quigley, who we hired, was not a Dynamix employee. He was a community member who took it upon himself to do the Linux port of the TGE. He also did the majority of the heavy lifting on the XBox version of ThinkTanks. Matt Fairfax, who is doing constructor, did not work at Dynamix, and Mark McCoy, another non-Dynamix guy, is the guy behind the slick and oh-so-clean GUI for MBU.

So, while the founding members of BraveTree were from Dynamix, 3 of the 5 members of BraveTree were not.. they were all from the community.

Looking at the current compostion of GarageGames, 25% of the crew is ex-Dynamix (8 of 30), and 3 of the 7 are non coders. Most of the rest came from the community. It also should be noted

When people look at the stuff we do, there is always this specualtion that it could not be done without some 'inside' knowledge. You need knowledge, for sure, but there is nothing being kept secret. It should be noted that the MBU team was, for the most part, made of non-Dynamix folks.

It also should be noted that 21-6, Prarie Games, Maxgaming, Large Animal, NerdRiot, etc.. were able to create completed games with the tech.

I am not trying to say there are no bugs or that the documentation needs to be better. We know it, and we are working on it.

On the slowness between releasees.. not planned, we had to jump on XBox 360. If we did not get our foot in that door it might have closed forever. We had a serious plan to address this last year, and XBox 360 and MBU threw a little monkey wrench in that. It was a move we made from a philosophical perspective.. we had to get in that channel and do well, to make some noise about indiedom.

Criticism like yours, is well presented, and taken to heart. We are aware of it, and we are working on it.

The point I was trying to make is, that no bug or lack of documentation will stop anyone from shipping a game with any of our tools or tech. Many have shipped with TGE, TSE, and TGB. Bugs are annoying, but there is nothing in there that is a showstopper.

Personally, I suppose I might be a little desensitized to bugs. The TGE is light years ahead of where it was when we were at Dynamix, and having worked with some notoriously buggy tools (3DSMax) over the years, I would not be a good person to be the judge of the degree of bugginess.

I do know that when we encountered a problem, we moved forward.

For the motivated people, we are more than willing to help out in any way we can. We (collectively) spend a lot of time helping people with their issues.. the help usually extends well beyond normal work hours, and most of the GG employees spend a good deal of their 'free' time on the forums or reviewing someones work to help them get it working.

Over the past few years, most of us have been in a situation where we are trying to help and teach, and we are met with hostility. When someone has a specific bug, they ask, and usually, the response is very quick. Then we have situations where the person has a very general question.. something like. "I got the TGE, I merged in all these resources, and it does not work.. you guys need to fix it, oh, and by the way, you suck'. Paraphrased for sure.. but that is the kind of stuff where the only response we can give is.. well, somewhere between the time you got the engine and now, you either screwed something up.. or you are trying to put together resources that don't work together.. you are the first one who has done so, and we have no idea what is going wrong..so, help us to understand what you don't understand so we can help you to understand.

on the art end.. I keep hearing about people having problems with the art pipeline, and I had one individual say, "the docs for 3dsmax suck! there should be a section is there that walks you through something simple, like a box".. how can I reply to that? chapter one, section one of the max docs outline the exporting of a box.

referring back to the orginal thread.. it was again, the insinuation that somehow GG was trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes and that the engine was unusable in it's current form. It insults us as if you knew the people behind GG and understood the motivations, you would know how far from the truth such accusations are.

This rant was mostly to get it off my chest. I have been (and continue to be) as supportive as I can of people and try to teach them in any way I can to help them acheive their dreams. It is something that is close to my heart, and part of who I am as a person.

thanks for your commetns, we are trying.

Tim Heldna   (Jun 24, 2006 at 17:51 GMT)

Wow, thank you for putting so much thought into your response to my post.

I agree with what you wrote. I agree that the bugs that exist in Torque are not serious enough to prevent a project from being completed. However they are a hindrance and it would be nice to see them ironed out, especially since most of them have been resolved by the community and fixes have been made publicly available.

I know what it's like to need to get things of ones chest. Kudos to you for being diplomatic despite the hurtful and disrespectful comments directed towards you and your company.

Thanks for listening and taking me seriously!

Joe Maruschak   (Jun 25, 2006 at 14:53 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Tim,

I hear you on the hindrance part of it. We know it and we are working on it. So, here is how it is. We are focused on a bunch of things, hopefully this outline will make sense.

We are working on new tech and docs. We make games with the tech to ensrue the products we are selling are actually up to the task of creating professional level games. We are making docs to help people make their games, and we are supporting the engines by way of improvments and bug fixes.

We now have a bunch of different flavors of the engine, and each fix has to be vetted and looked at to make sure it is not introducing a bug and will not cascade into problems in the other engines.

so, it is a balancing act.. if we speed up releases, they will be buggier (we are trying to make them more stable).. if we focus all of our energy on supporting older products, we are not coming out with the new products people are asking for.

we do have a priority list, and we have identified some things (like Constructor) that are higher in priority than certain bug fixes. lack of a decent interior tool is a big problem.. we were hoping for a while someone would make something better, but it did not happen, so we are doing it ourselves. this takes some people away from other tasks..

so, docs are getting better, tech is getting better, and new tools are being made to address issues.. and we are putting the new tools through a trial by fire on real products.

not as fast as anyone would like, but we are moving forward on all of them. We are not going to abandon all products in a push to move one product out the door a little faster, and we are not going to take people away from making games with the products, as the bug fixing that happens in production is actually much more useful as it identifies the showstopper bugs and workflow issues and helps us to assign prioroties to the bugs and issues.

hopefully that makes some sense..

You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.

Home | Products | Solutions | Downloads | Support | Search | About Us
Copyright © GarageGames.com 2000 - 2008 All Rights Reserved