Content Pack Contemplations
by Don Hogan · 04/08/2007 (2:22 am) · 7 comments
Finding myself at a point of indecision, I thought I would turn to the community for some input.
I've been working on a content pack for a while and wanted to get some feedback before I really started to dig into the full-on creation / packaging / marketing stage. I consider what I've done so far to be proof of concept for the big picture, and I've gotten in some R&D to answer questions I had as well. I feel like I now have a good handle on how much work will be involved and what I would be inclined to deliver in a pack. That said, getting community feedback is certainly the next and most important step to moving forward or not.
The overall idea is a pack that would allow you to build a castle / keep of your design in Torque's Editor. It is a fairly granular system to allow for flexibility and hopefully improve performance from DTS objects.
The general content would be for basic building blocks of foundations, walls, and towers of varying sizes. On top of that base would then be a variety of props that could be placed to further personalize the structure.
TGE and TGEA would both be supported, and some of my R&D was in that direction to see what I was getting into with an art pipeline for both engines.
A high level goal / concept would be to write a script to let the user create a castle in MAX and write out a simgroup that could be cut and pasted into the mission - the point being that you could leverage Max's placement tools for faster construction. Admittedly that has a limited audience, as I would have no way of providing similar functionality for other packages. Knowing that, I'm not sure if that would be worth the time investment.
I do feel that providing the source files for the art is a necessity to bring value and usefulness to the pack, so I would include the Max files and exports in various formats.
A very real issue, however, is that fantasy seems to be the most common pack to get done and I have to wonder (as others have) if it's just getting old. So, my questions to anyone reading would be:
Has fantasy content just been beaten to boredom and disinterest?
If you are interested in this type of fantasy asset, what would make it useful to you?
Do you think that production oriented scripts like I described are useful to enough people to have a place in a content pack?
Is not having DIF objects provided a deal-breaker for you?
If you're not interested in fantasy, what is it that you want? Sci-fi? Present day?
(This last question is definitely not meant to come across as "What do I need to do to get your money?" I'm curious about trends and interests; I picked fantasy because my day job was sci-fi for 6 years and I wanted a break.)
This small enclosure is what I've been using for my R&D. It shows most of the pieces I've prototyped, and a handful of quick and dirty props.
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_01.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_02.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_03.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_04.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_05.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_06.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_10.jpg
Finally, a very ambitious "what if" scenario. This has been a personal project for a while, but what if it were part of a content pack?
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_town_01.jpg
Thanks to all for taking the time to read this.
I've been working on a content pack for a while and wanted to get some feedback before I really started to dig into the full-on creation / packaging / marketing stage. I consider what I've done so far to be proof of concept for the big picture, and I've gotten in some R&D to answer questions I had as well. I feel like I now have a good handle on how much work will be involved and what I would be inclined to deliver in a pack. That said, getting community feedback is certainly the next and most important step to moving forward or not.
The overall idea is a pack that would allow you to build a castle / keep of your design in Torque's Editor. It is a fairly granular system to allow for flexibility and hopefully improve performance from DTS objects.
The general content would be for basic building blocks of foundations, walls, and towers of varying sizes. On top of that base would then be a variety of props that could be placed to further personalize the structure.
TGE and TGEA would both be supported, and some of my R&D was in that direction to see what I was getting into with an art pipeline for both engines.
A high level goal / concept would be to write a script to let the user create a castle in MAX and write out a simgroup that could be cut and pasted into the mission - the point being that you could leverage Max's placement tools for faster construction. Admittedly that has a limited audience, as I would have no way of providing similar functionality for other packages. Knowing that, I'm not sure if that would be worth the time investment.
I do feel that providing the source files for the art is a necessity to bring value and usefulness to the pack, so I would include the Max files and exports in various formats.
A very real issue, however, is that fantasy seems to be the most common pack to get done and I have to wonder (as others have) if it's just getting old. So, my questions to anyone reading would be:
Has fantasy content just been beaten to boredom and disinterest?
If you are interested in this type of fantasy asset, what would make it useful to you?
Do you think that production oriented scripts like I described are useful to enough people to have a place in a content pack?
Is not having DIF objects provided a deal-breaker for you?
If you're not interested in fantasy, what is it that you want? Sci-fi? Present day?
(This last question is definitely not meant to come across as "What do I need to do to get your money?" I'm curious about trends and interests; I picked fantasy because my day job was sci-fi for 6 years and I wanted a break.)
This small enclosure is what I've been using for my R&D. It shows most of the pieces I've prototyped, and a handful of quick and dirty props.
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_01.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_02.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_03.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_04.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_05.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_06.jpg
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_04-07-07_10.jpg
Finally, a very ambitious "what if" scenario. This has been a personal project for a while, but what if it were part of a content pack?
www.donhogan.com/Torque/screens/04-07-07/WIP_town_01.jpg
Thanks to all for taking the time to read this.
#2
Fantasy is the way to go. There so many people doing RPG and MMO stuff, that your widest market is in fact doing a fantasy pack. I prefer High medieval style meself, similar to what you are showcasing.
The MAX script Idea sounds interesting and novel however the structures your portraying NEED to be dif.
Im rather serious here. I use max for almost everything and I have many a times wished I could just do levels in Max for TGE but its just not the way to work with the engine. I learned to live with the limitations and would never trade a dif structure for a dts in that scope.
Seeing your images I would say those wall sections and towers are easily created in Constructor.
To get my money: the things you showed as dif and additional props as dts. And with constructor... baked in too mmm yummy baked dts... ;)
Oh yeah and always put source in a pack. No source, no sale. Most people want to modify the packs, with adding detail changing shape or replacing textures.
Cheers
04/08/2007 (3:34 am)
Hi DonFantasy is the way to go. There so many people doing RPG and MMO stuff, that your widest market is in fact doing a fantasy pack. I prefer High medieval style meself, similar to what you are showcasing.
The MAX script Idea sounds interesting and novel however the structures your portraying NEED to be dif.
Im rather serious here. I use max for almost everything and I have many a times wished I could just do levels in Max for TGE but its just not the way to work with the engine. I learned to live with the limitations and would never trade a dif structure for a dts in that scope.
Seeing your images I would say those wall sections and towers are easily created in Constructor.
To get my money: the things you showed as dif and additional props as dts. And with constructor... baked in too mmm yummy baked dts... ;)
Oh yeah and always put source in a pack. No source, no sale. Most people want to modify the packs, with adding detail changing shape or replacing textures.
Cheers
#3
You are correct that they're easily made in Constructor, in fact one or two already have been. ;) However, what I can't get in Constructor is the kind of UV mapping I have come to expect in my models. Even with the solid controls that are there, aligning texture seams across the sides of the crenellations is practically impossible, and maintaining pixel density between objects is painful. I am, however, a UV fanatic. Seriously.
The modeling aspect is fairly easy, I only say fairly because CSG modelers just make bad decisions with brush layouts, IMO. Even so, Constructor is insanely superior to all the competitors, it is a very nice application to be certain; I'm just spoiled by polysoup engines I guess.
At this time, I'm still trying to decide on DIF. My biggest problem being that I would have to put out a package where the 2 versions were (to me) not equal in quality. Of course, if the end user has source files, they can obviously tweak things to suit their needs.
I'll also confess that I'm having a hard time understanding how a DIF is superior to a well made, reasonably sized DTS. In the example image, the surrounding wall (minus walkways) is 15 DTS objects. So, none particularly large, each with LODs and convex collisions. In my understanding, a DIF is going to cull better because the brushes are so much smaller - but since these objects are in fact pretty simple and large cubes - I just have to wonder how much increase in performance there would be. *shrug* I'm just thinking out loud at this point; I need to dig into the technical side of it some more.
I certainly agree on the need for source files. For a content pack to be anything more than a placeholder and have real value, you have to give the user freedom to make it match their needs, art style and expectations.
Thanks again,
Don
04/08/2007 (4:53 am)
Thanks for the feedback so far, i appreciate it. You are correct that they're easily made in Constructor, in fact one or two already have been. ;) However, what I can't get in Constructor is the kind of UV mapping I have come to expect in my models. Even with the solid controls that are there, aligning texture seams across the sides of the crenellations is practically impossible, and maintaining pixel density between objects is painful. I am, however, a UV fanatic. Seriously.
The modeling aspect is fairly easy, I only say fairly because CSG modelers just make bad decisions with brush layouts, IMO. Even so, Constructor is insanely superior to all the competitors, it is a very nice application to be certain; I'm just spoiled by polysoup engines I guess.
At this time, I'm still trying to decide on DIF. My biggest problem being that I would have to put out a package where the 2 versions were (to me) not equal in quality. Of course, if the end user has source files, they can obviously tweak things to suit their needs.
I'll also confess that I'm having a hard time understanding how a DIF is superior to a well made, reasonably sized DTS. In the example image, the surrounding wall (minus walkways) is 15 DTS objects. So, none particularly large, each with LODs and convex collisions. In my understanding, a DIF is going to cull better because the brushes are so much smaller - but since these objects are in fact pretty simple and large cubes - I just have to wonder how much increase in performance there would be. *shrug* I'm just thinking out loud at this point; I need to dig into the technical side of it some more.
I certainly agree on the need for source files. For a content pack to be anything more than a placeholder and have real value, you have to give the user freedom to make it match their needs, art style and expectations.
Thanks again,
Don
#5
04/08/2007 (1:33 pm)
Boat pack:) My wife is awesome at the visuals. What kind of stuff you looking for? Code? 
#6
I like your idea, thou I'm not into RPG games as much as RTS and FPS I'm more of a Sci-fi pack guy myself but the market is very open to all content packs, not just RPG or RTS or Sci-fi based. Its a wide open market and you need to focus on what your best at, don't do it just cause you think theres a need for something, cause if you do a pack that sucks, it will come back to haunt you (ie no sales, bad rap). I wish you the best on the pack.
There are also tons of other places to market your pack then just GG, if its in Max or 3ds formats, then try expanding your reach to other modeling sites, plus GG. And *Never* go exclusive on any deal, it will only lock you in to your contract for x amount of years and you can't expand out, I know, I did this once and it will never happen again. By doing so it costed (and still is costing) me more sales that I could have reaped from going a non-exclusive route on the deal. But too, if the money is there and you like the terms of being locked in, that's all that counts... you, the maker being happy with what you got in the end.
Again best of luck.
Will
Digital Lightstorm
Waskom, Tx
dlstorminc@yahoo.com
04/08/2007 (3:40 pm)
Don:I like your idea, thou I'm not into RPG games as much as RTS and FPS I'm more of a Sci-fi pack guy myself but the market is very open to all content packs, not just RPG or RTS or Sci-fi based. Its a wide open market and you need to focus on what your best at, don't do it just cause you think theres a need for something, cause if you do a pack that sucks, it will come back to haunt you (ie no sales, bad rap). I wish you the best on the pack.
There are also tons of other places to market your pack then just GG, if its in Max or 3ds formats, then try expanding your reach to other modeling sites, plus GG. And *Never* go exclusive on any deal, it will only lock you in to your contract for x amount of years and you can't expand out, I know, I did this once and it will never happen again. By doing so it costed (and still is costing) me more sales that I could have reaped from going a non-exclusive route on the deal. But too, if the money is there and you like the terms of being locked in, that's all that counts... you, the maker being happy with what you got in the end.
Again best of luck.
Will
Digital Lightstorm
Waskom, Tx
dlstorminc@yahoo.com
#7
@Will: I certainly agree about doing what's also fun, simply chasing a dollar is not something I'm interested in - hence my disclaimer on the last question. As much as anything, the castle system is an idea I'd been wanting to do, and as I was organizing it I wondered if it would make a nice content pack.
Having followed several pack artists' progress and read their thoughts about the process afterwards, I know that I need to proceed very carefully if I commit to doing it - for exactly the reasons you state. Thak's comment was fully expected, and meshes with your warning in my opinion - if I decide to DIFs, I better make them really good ones.
04/08/2007 (4:57 pm)
@Vashner & James: That's a very interesting content theme and very nice boat model! A lot of ideas come to mind thinking about various marine-oriented themes and props. James, I owe you a big "Thanks!" for the blog about free tools that you use. I love cMap and have found it invaluable for sorting out priorites and expanding concepts.@Will: I certainly agree about doing what's also fun, simply chasing a dollar is not something I'm interested in - hence my disclaimer on the last question. As much as anything, the castle system is an idea I'd been wanting to do, and as I was organizing it I wondered if it would make a nice content pack.
Having followed several pack artists' progress and read their thoughts about the process afterwards, I know that I need to proceed very carefully if I commit to doing it - for exactly the reasons you state. Thak's comment was fully expected, and meshes with your warning in my opinion - if I decide to DIFs, I better make them really good ones.
Torque 3D Owner Michael Branin