When is enough enough
by AndrewOsborne · in General Discussion · 10/28/2004 (4:35 am) · 77 replies
But wouldnt it get to a stage where if many people think like you (obviously they do) and buy these same packs.. you will have the same looking game to an extent :/
I guess it depends on the sort of models they are (ie a military weapons pack compared to the stylised female character pack of gamebeavers)
I guess it depends on the sort of models they are (ie a military weapons pack compared to the stylised female character pack of gamebeavers)
#22
1) Those that buy content packs for placeholders and prototyping.
2) Those that buy content packs as final content.
The creator of this thread, Synditech, is a 3D modeller. I am going to make a bold assumption here, that Synditech feels threatened by the content packs. OR, Synditech is testing the waters to see if the market can support another content pack. Either way, this person needs to grow up.
I'm an artist and 3D modeller. I have never bought a content pack, I don't create content packs. But I definately support the existence of content packs. Just as code snippets and resources have not eliminated the need for a dedicated coder/scriptor on the team, content packs do not eliminate the need for dedicated artists. Just as resources and code snippets do not result in all games playing the same, content packs do not result in all games looking the same.
10/28/2004 (3:58 pm)
I think there are a couple different schools of thought going on here.1) Those that buy content packs for placeholders and prototyping.
2) Those that buy content packs as final content.
The creator of this thread, Synditech, is a 3D modeller. I am going to make a bold assumption here, that Synditech feels threatened by the content packs. OR, Synditech is testing the waters to see if the market can support another content pack. Either way, this person needs to grow up.
I'm an artist and 3D modeller. I have never bought a content pack, I don't create content packs. But I definately support the existence of content packs. Just as code snippets and resources have not eliminated the need for a dedicated coder/scriptor on the team, content packs do not eliminate the need for dedicated artists. Just as resources and code snippets do not result in all games playing the same, content packs do not result in all games looking the same.
#23
I do not dislike content packs!! There are many advantages of content packs which have been noted in here, ie. prototyping quickly, learning tools etc.
My only gripe is that I Hope as more stuff comes out that users are willing to not just buy this and this and this and place it all in then you have a game wow.
Many content packs are useful - the environment packs... every tree looks the same (essentially) plus changing their texture is a pretty painless procedure. but when it comes to genre or theme or style specific models they may look out of place and I hope people dont get caught in the trap of thinking it will be easy to make a game if I have $.
@Randal... Threatened no, Another content pack no, I am mearly just making an observation of the every increasing number of 'content' packs that are in the work :)
oh and grow up? How am I being immature?
10/28/2004 (4:21 pm)
Hey hey hey, I would just like to clear up something here...I do not dislike content packs!! There are many advantages of content packs which have been noted in here, ie. prototyping quickly, learning tools etc.
My only gripe is that I Hope as more stuff comes out that users are willing to not just buy this and this and this and place it all in then you have a game wow.
Many content packs are useful - the environment packs... every tree looks the same (essentially) plus changing their texture is a pretty painless procedure. but when it comes to genre or theme or style specific models they may look out of place and I hope people dont get caught in the trap of thinking it will be easy to make a game if I have $.
@Randal... Threatened no, Another content pack no, I am mearly just making an observation of the every increasing number of 'content' packs that are in the work :)
oh and grow up? How am I being immature?
#24
He does have a point though; which is that some people will see the content packs as a great oppurtinity to prototype their game idea and concept FAST.
They can get a basic feeling of how the gameplay will be and they might attract some art people.
And contentpacks are good for learning stuff. The only reason I'm going to buy BraveTree's girl pack is that I want to see how a professional modeller has made his content for Torque, with animations and everything.
You can learn from it, you can use it as prototyping material, you can use it as final game content (if the license permits) or you just don't have to buy the pack.
Period.
10/28/2004 (4:28 pm)
Synditech: Don't feed the trolls.. just ignore whatever flames he throw at ya. He do it all the time.He does have a point though; which is that some people will see the content packs as a great oppurtinity to prototype their game idea and concept FAST.
They can get a basic feeling of how the gameplay will be and they might attract some art people.
And contentpacks are good for learning stuff. The only reason I'm going to buy BraveTree's girl pack is that I want to see how a professional modeller has made his content for Torque, with animations and everything.
You can learn from it, you can use it as prototyping material, you can use it as final game content (if the license permits) or you just don't have to buy the pack.
Period.
#25
Simply put, content packs rock because they are cheap and can get your game up to speed faster. I have a list of like 20 packs over on the Turbosquid site for scenery models for my game. Do I think it will make it look like every other game? Not at all.
You know why? Because unlike what some people fear, I'm not constructing the whole game out of generic content. I mean, if the BT guys put a few generic trees into Think Tanks, would people notice? After the lighting tweaks, and against the original content and the colors of their levels? Not likely, it would look like the trees fit where they were.
So, it's really a question of what the developer does. I don't believe that someone building a game using all generic material is a good idea because some things(generic characters) may get spotted, or some of the content may not match, but that's not the fault of those who make the content, but the fault of the developer who has the bad taste and judgement to do that to their game. But on the other hand, if someone looks at the packs and says "those rocks would be perfect for my game", then there's nothing but good coming out of it.
As for getting a custom model for $100... Let me list a few points:
1) Jeff and Joe make perfectly valid and great points on this.
2) For indie teams, credit and $100 beats just credit for a model.
3) Not all artists see it that way, and it's their right to charge more for their art(I've charged several times that in the past myself).
4) Like Nauris said, if you're going to go that route, get ready to spend real money too, because a game needs lots of models.
5) Prices like that will get you artists, but remember that you have to have the money to pay them. On my project, I've given out a pay schedule and while the prices are pretty low, I made it clear that that's only what I can afford when the money comes in(which is in drips and drabs when at all). It's a shoestring budget, but the upside of it is that for the people involved, it's at least something. Sure, it pays peanuts, but that's the best it would do where otherwise it wouldn't pay at all, and it doesn't necessarily have to exclude the use of royalties later on, as almost all project promise. Sort of like a down-payment on things, if you follow me. But it's also risky, because it is money... So, it's a double-edged sword, best wielded(IMHO) in conjunction with royalties as a minimum.
6) If you can pull off #5, you're lucky ;)
10/28/2004 (4:29 pm)
I'll throw my 2 cents in here... Simply put, content packs rock because they are cheap and can get your game up to speed faster. I have a list of like 20 packs over on the Turbosquid site for scenery models for my game. Do I think it will make it look like every other game? Not at all.
You know why? Because unlike what some people fear, I'm not constructing the whole game out of generic content. I mean, if the BT guys put a few generic trees into Think Tanks, would people notice? After the lighting tweaks, and against the original content and the colors of their levels? Not likely, it would look like the trees fit where they were.
So, it's really a question of what the developer does. I don't believe that someone building a game using all generic material is a good idea because some things(generic characters) may get spotted, or some of the content may not match, but that's not the fault of those who make the content, but the fault of the developer who has the bad taste and judgement to do that to their game. But on the other hand, if someone looks at the packs and says "those rocks would be perfect for my game", then there's nothing but good coming out of it.
As for getting a custom model for $100... Let me list a few points:
1) Jeff and Joe make perfectly valid and great points on this.
2) For indie teams, credit and $100 beats just credit for a model.
3) Not all artists see it that way, and it's their right to charge more for their art(I've charged several times that in the past myself).
4) Like Nauris said, if you're going to go that route, get ready to spend real money too, because a game needs lots of models.
5) Prices like that will get you artists, but remember that you have to have the money to pay them. On my project, I've given out a pay schedule and while the prices are pretty low, I made it clear that that's only what I can afford when the money comes in(which is in drips and drabs when at all). It's a shoestring budget, but the upside of it is that for the people involved, it's at least something. Sure, it pays peanuts, but that's the best it would do where otherwise it wouldn't pay at all, and it doesn't necessarily have to exclude the use of royalties later on, as almost all project promise. Sort of like a down-payment on things, if you follow me. But it's also risky, because it is money... So, it's a double-edged sword, best wielded(IMHO) in conjunction with royalties as a minimum.
6) If you can pull off #5, you're lucky ;)
#26
Grow up indeed : if you want the seasoned TGE users, be them game dev pros or "serious hobbyists"/part time pros to stick around, they've got to put some food on the table, no ?
As for when enough is enough as far as content or code packs are concerned ?
NEVER :)
GG and the TGE community in general is all about enabling as many people as possible to make great games for the lowest development price possible.
Period.
And btw, this is not a commune, but a community around, yes, a passion for making games, but also around a commercial product to make games, whether for fun or for a living...
Get it ?
10/28/2004 (4:30 pm)
'cause you said something about everybody being out to make a quick buck ?Grow up indeed : if you want the seasoned TGE users, be them game dev pros or "serious hobbyists"/part time pros to stick around, they've got to put some food on the table, no ?
As for when enough is enough as far as content or code packs are concerned ?
NEVER :)
GG and the TGE community in general is all about enabling as many people as possible to make great games for the lowest development price possible.
Period.
And btw, this is not a commune, but a community around, yes, a passion for making games, but also around a commercial product to make games, whether for fun or for a living...
Get it ?
#27
10/28/2004 (4:36 pm)
@Nicolas: Actually that statement was made more in off the cuff, humour (notice the 'heh' and the end?) Im all for it, hey if I had the time to do so Im sure I would have many content packs in the works for some $. If it helps people stay and develop torque/garagegames then great!
#28
Again, how does this affect you exactly? If 10,000 developers want to use the exact same content, let them. Who cares? This only makes the stylized artist even more valuable. If the developers focus is so narrow that they throw in models that are out of place, that is their problem. They are probably cutting corners in other areas as well. Half-assed games get very little notice and sell horribly. It doesn't affect sales of very worthy titles.
Trying to "save" developers from falling into a trap is virtually pointless, and you'll end up banging your head against the wall. They either see it, or they don't.
10/28/2004 (5:03 pm)
Quote:
My only gripe is that I Hope as more stuff comes out that users are willing to not just buy this and this and this and place it all in then you have a game wow.
Many content packs are useful - the environment packs... every tree looks the same (essentially) plus changing their texture is a pretty painless procedure. but when it comes to genre or theme or style specific models they may look out of place and I hope people dont get caught in the trap of thinking it will be easy to make a game if I have $.
Again, how does this affect you exactly? If 10,000 developers want to use the exact same content, let them. Who cares? This only makes the stylized artist even more valuable. If the developers focus is so narrow that they throw in models that are out of place, that is their problem. They are probably cutting corners in other areas as well. Half-assed games get very little notice and sell horribly. It doesn't affect sales of very worthy titles.
Trying to "save" developers from falling into a trap is virtually pointless, and you'll end up banging your head against the wall. They either see it, or they don't.
#29
10/28/2004 (9:03 pm)
@Randall: "Again, how does this affect you exactly?" It doesnt. I am making an observation, if you dont like it thats fine but dont be rude or attack me for it.
#30
You are low on the budget.
You have created Killer AI.
You worlds are perfectly rendered
BUT
You are a lousy artist and your game consist of players that looks more like a rocks with really fat legs, and your interiors looks more like a small village after a realy nasty earthquake. Nobody(well almost nobody) will even notice that the gameplay is acctually pretty good. Thats why content packs are good. If you make good prototype, with good gameplay and apealing graphics & sound I am pretty sure that you will find people who will be interested in making the content for your game much easier. Also It will tell your artist on what type of the artwork you aiming for.
P.S. IMHO of course. Sorry for my english but it's not my native language.
10/28/2004 (9:45 pm)
Imagine this:You are low on the budget.
You have created Killer AI.
You worlds are perfectly rendered
BUT
You are a lousy artist and your game consist of players that looks more like a rocks with really fat legs, and your interiors looks more like a small village after a realy nasty earthquake. Nobody(well almost nobody) will even notice that the gameplay is acctually pretty good. Thats why content packs are good. If you make good prototype, with good gameplay and apealing graphics & sound I am pretty sure that you will find people who will be interested in making the content for your game much easier. Also It will tell your artist on what type of the artwork you aiming for.
P.S. IMHO of course. Sorry for my english but it's not my native language.
#31
I come from the AAA game development industry. Not that everything I ever worked on was AAA :) But I was freaking out when I realized what kind of budgets we were working under... and how that budget was skyrocketing. One of the hot topics was how to hold down those costs.
The problem is that while you may have the capability to render millions and millions of polygons, SOMEBODY still has to create all those polygons. That's a lot of work, and it's only getting worse. Look at those beautiful screenshots of the new Unreal 3 Engine - awesome huh? But how much effort does it take to BUILD all that? You've got guys effectively creating the Sistine Chapel here... it's no trivial affair!
Obviously, having your modelers work to that level of detail on EVERYTHING is insane (and needlessly expensive). But if you have modelers capable of doing that, do you want them wasting their time developing every single chair, dish, dog, and laboratory floor in your game? Not me.
We've learned some lessons from Hollywood, but apparently not the right ones. Does a set designer on a TV show start out by hand-crafting every single piece of furniture, manufacturing every dish, and weaving every rug? Heck no. He hits thrift stores and prop shops and sees what the studio already has in storage. Watch the commentaries and see if they'll talk about where they salvaged all the pieces for a show.
I am specifically thinking of the very EXPENSIVE TV show Firefly - during the commentaries they talked about how the Federal soldiers looked like the guys from Starship Troopers because they re-used those costumes. And one dress from an episode was modified from the costume designer's own wedding dress.
Every game has its own unique needs, but I feel that the solution to the problem of skyrocketing costs will be in the practical sharing / reuse of code, tools, and CONTENT. We're already doing this with sound effects... if you listen carefully, you can hear the same sound effects appearing in games, TV shows, and movies... simple stuff, not worth the time and effort required for a foley artist to try and re-invent the wheel. Music gets licensed rather than custom-crafted for many games now. I don't know about motion-capture animation, but I'll bet that gets re-used a lot too. I think models, and even levels, may be the next step.
Hollywood did that a decade ago when they re-used the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park for the Flintstones movie.
In the end, you will still have plenty of custom content that will need to be made for your game. But that custom content will be used WHERE IT MATTERS - your signature characters, levels, and objects. And you will have to do some customization of existing models - retexturing, maybe some changes of shape to match your vision (turn that antique end table into a futuristic one...) But I think we're going to have to evolve, and learn that it's okay to use some 'stock' content, if we're going to keep budgets down.
I think content packs, and more complete "clearing houses" like GameBeavers - are the way of the future.
10/28/2004 (9:50 pm)
This thread pushes my buttons. Sorry. Rant mode here.I come from the AAA game development industry. Not that everything I ever worked on was AAA :) But I was freaking out when I realized what kind of budgets we were working under... and how that budget was skyrocketing. One of the hot topics was how to hold down those costs.
The problem is that while you may have the capability to render millions and millions of polygons, SOMEBODY still has to create all those polygons. That's a lot of work, and it's only getting worse. Look at those beautiful screenshots of the new Unreal 3 Engine - awesome huh? But how much effort does it take to BUILD all that? You've got guys effectively creating the Sistine Chapel here... it's no trivial affair!
Obviously, having your modelers work to that level of detail on EVERYTHING is insane (and needlessly expensive). But if you have modelers capable of doing that, do you want them wasting their time developing every single chair, dish, dog, and laboratory floor in your game? Not me.
We've learned some lessons from Hollywood, but apparently not the right ones. Does a set designer on a TV show start out by hand-crafting every single piece of furniture, manufacturing every dish, and weaving every rug? Heck no. He hits thrift stores and prop shops and sees what the studio already has in storage. Watch the commentaries and see if they'll talk about where they salvaged all the pieces for a show.
I am specifically thinking of the very EXPENSIVE TV show Firefly - during the commentaries they talked about how the Federal soldiers looked like the guys from Starship Troopers because they re-used those costumes. And one dress from an episode was modified from the costume designer's own wedding dress.
Every game has its own unique needs, but I feel that the solution to the problem of skyrocketing costs will be in the practical sharing / reuse of code, tools, and CONTENT. We're already doing this with sound effects... if you listen carefully, you can hear the same sound effects appearing in games, TV shows, and movies... simple stuff, not worth the time and effort required for a foley artist to try and re-invent the wheel. Music gets licensed rather than custom-crafted for many games now. I don't know about motion-capture animation, but I'll bet that gets re-used a lot too. I think models, and even levels, may be the next step.
Hollywood did that a decade ago when they re-used the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park for the Flintstones movie.
In the end, you will still have plenty of custom content that will need to be made for your game. But that custom content will be used WHERE IT MATTERS - your signature characters, levels, and objects. And you will have to do some customization of existing models - retexturing, maybe some changes of shape to match your vision (turn that antique end table into a futuristic one...) But I think we're going to have to evolve, and learn that it's okay to use some 'stock' content, if we're going to keep budgets down.
I think content packs, and more complete "clearing houses" like GameBeavers - are the way of the future.
#32
Especially a character model that wasnt designed around a specific time period. i.e just a nicely closed male mesh with perhaps a collection of objects based around your theme.
So offer a basic set of sci fi addons if ure doing sci fi (backpacks, helmets, armours)
Or for the fantasy realm offer different clothes setups et..c
basically allowing a non 3d user like myself to select the objects i want on him and where.
Sure your wasting a few polies by not having the backpack as part of the mainshape but for customisation it would be awesome.
Likewise with buildings.
Some basic shapes with various addons. In a way you could offer the base shape for a very small fee and charge individually for the collection of objects you can snapon to that shape.
Sure ull still find some projects that endup with the same collection, but they mind not be organised in the same way, and if worse comes to worse u just retexture it slightly.
Im hoping some of th eupcoming character packs allow a bit of variation and arent stuck on a particular theme.
10/28/2004 (9:57 pm)
I would welcome stock content.Especially a character model that wasnt designed around a specific time period. i.e just a nicely closed male mesh with perhaps a collection of objects based around your theme.
So offer a basic set of sci fi addons if ure doing sci fi (backpacks, helmets, armours)
Or for the fantasy realm offer different clothes setups et..c
basically allowing a non 3d user like myself to select the objects i want on him and where.
Sure your wasting a few polies by not having the backpack as part of the mainshape but for customisation it would be awesome.
Likewise with buildings.
Some basic shapes with various addons. In a way you could offer the base shape for a very small fee and charge individually for the collection of objects you can snapon to that shape.
Sure ull still find some projects that endup with the same collection, but they mind not be organised in the same way, and if worse comes to worse u just retexture it slightly.
Im hoping some of th eupcoming character packs allow a bit of variation and arent stuck on a particular theme.
#33
Both code and 3d assets, and they still sell, and there isn't too much complaining about the games looking similar...
10/29/2004 (3:08 am)
Also, btw, AAA titles have been known to reuse content, not just sounds :)Both code and 3d assets, and they still sell, and there isn't too much complaining about the games looking similar...
#34
Several highquality models for under $100
Most are not game ready, but it is an example of models for $100 or less. I would gladly model something for $100 if I was'nt so busy with my own projects. My texture work is'nt great looking either.
I came off a bit strong in my post. I just think a bunch of "indipendant developers" are not thinking independantly. If you edit the models, that's another story. If all you use in your game are content packs from different artists, its going to look bad.
Everygame sold on garagegames, sell because of that originality in design and gameplay. Use content packs to your hearts content, but be the first one to do so. I'm not buying 2 games with the same artwork, unless the 2nd game seriously adds some amazing gameplay elements.
Content packs should contain lesser attention grabbing objects, that are easy to texture with differant materials. Such as rocks, trees, wood/metal debris, barrels, trashcans, stair wells with rail types, etc. All easily edited by the texture. All easily made unique.
The latest content pack has some nice features, like the castle kit. But most everything else would need editing, or a new texture. That kind of defeats the purpose of buying ready made models.
All of the current content pack items stand out so much, that you would easily notice one model was the same in two different games.
Here is a small tip. Take it how you want. Your never going to find artists interested enough in your game project by showing them content pack models. If you want an artist to contract, show originality in the game design. Your more likely to find a low paid full time artist, if people want to contribute to some amazing new concept. Personally if somone asked me to be an artist on a team, I would rather see programmer art cubes then content pack models. Artists love owning what they create, and would be more willing to show creativity if given a blank canvas. If you start with content pack models, all art will have to mimic those models to continue the illusion of consistant art quality.
10/29/2004 (6:02 am)
All I have to say is www.turbosquid.comSeveral highquality models for under $100
Most are not game ready, but it is an example of models for $100 or less. I would gladly model something for $100 if I was'nt so busy with my own projects. My texture work is'nt great looking either.
I came off a bit strong in my post. I just think a bunch of "indipendant developers" are not thinking independantly. If you edit the models, that's another story. If all you use in your game are content packs from different artists, its going to look bad.
Everygame sold on garagegames, sell because of that originality in design and gameplay. Use content packs to your hearts content, but be the first one to do so. I'm not buying 2 games with the same artwork, unless the 2nd game seriously adds some amazing gameplay elements.
Content packs should contain lesser attention grabbing objects, that are easy to texture with differant materials. Such as rocks, trees, wood/metal debris, barrels, trashcans, stair wells with rail types, etc. All easily edited by the texture. All easily made unique.
The latest content pack has some nice features, like the castle kit. But most everything else would need editing, or a new texture. That kind of defeats the purpose of buying ready made models.
All of the current content pack items stand out so much, that you would easily notice one model was the same in two different games.
Here is a small tip. Take it how you want. Your never going to find artists interested enough in your game project by showing them content pack models. If you want an artist to contract, show originality in the game design. Your more likely to find a low paid full time artist, if people want to contribute to some amazing new concept. Personally if somone asked me to be an artist on a team, I would rather see programmer art cubes then content pack models. Artists love owning what they create, and would be more willing to show creativity if given a blank canvas. If you start with content pack models, all art will have to mimic those models to continue the illusion of consistant art quality.
#35
not game ready is probably one of the biggest understatements I have heard here in this thread.. and *several high quality* models is probably the biggest overstatement I have heard. Having tried the turbosquid route.. I can assure most here that going there for game ready models is like playing russian roulette. If you are lucky, you may get one of the good ones.. more likely is that you will pay money for a mesh that is not all that useful. I am not saying that there are not high quality models on turbosquid.. just warning that you have to wade through a pile of crap in order to find the gems.
@ jay.. excellent post...
10/29/2004 (6:21 am)
Quote:All I have to say is www.turbosquid.com ..Several highquality models for under $100...Most are not game ready,
not game ready is probably one of the biggest understatements I have heard here in this thread.. and *several high quality* models is probably the biggest overstatement I have heard. Having tried the turbosquid route.. I can assure most here that going there for game ready models is like playing russian roulette. If you are lucky, you may get one of the good ones.. more likely is that you will pay money for a mesh that is not all that useful. I am not saying that there are not high quality models on turbosquid.. just warning that you have to wade through a pile of crap in order to find the gems.
@ jay.. excellent post...
#36
I would be intrested. I think it would be a great deal if i wouldn't have to worry about making stones and trees or what ever..
10/29/2004 (6:53 am)
Quote:Your never going to find artists interested enough in your game project by showing them content pack models.
I would be intrested. I think it would be a great deal if i wouldn't have to worry about making stones and trees or what ever..
#38
10/29/2004 (7:08 am)
Quote:All I have to say is www.turbosquid.comThat's completely different than contracting an artist to create individual unique characters for $100. Using Turbosquid is no different than using Aste or BT's content packs (in the context of pre-made content that anyone can purchase, not in terms of testing and development, etc). Tim's packs are under $100 and the amount of man-hours that went into creating the pack would be well over the $89 figure. The BraveTree packs are in the same boat as well. I'm sure the time spent testing them would fall well over their retail price, or even a whole $100 if they were getting minimum wage for their work. But comparing TS to a contracted artist creating game-specific assets doesn't make any sense.
Several highquality models for under $100
#39
Originality is credibility. I personally buy games that attract me graphically and gameplay wise. It's compareable to MODS for unreal 2k4 for example. I would rather spend my download time on maps with custom content, then maps with re-arranged already there content.
I do agree, most games reuse content. But they reuse thier own content. It's not a secret that rock_01 or tree_01 are repeated heavily throughout the same map. But you would'nt all use the Torque Ork as your player model right?
The whole set-design argument is apples to oranges. Look at the number of content packs, and then the number of furniture stores with different peices. Then take a look at why people watch the show. The original characters and story. Movies can get away with things games cant. You can't walkthrough movies and inspect details. You wont care if chairs are reused in the same world. Your focus is on the peices that contain originality. In a game, you cant just escape objects, they exsist right in front of you. The camera does not cut away in 4 second intervals.
I'm not trying to put a hamper on your content pack business. It does sell, granted. It is usefull to programmers, granted. Would you ship a game when you know a previous game already uses your buildings, probably not. Has a game shipped and sold well that uses content packs, I don't see any. Correct me if i'm wrong.
You are all supposed to be developing games, buying content packs is not developing. I would spend the $89 on a modeling book or software, if your serious about the content you want.
On a side note, there are hundreds of starving artists out there who would love to help on a great project. I presented design documents to a concept art forum with a request for interested artists. The idea alone landed me a concept artist who was a lead artist at CORE design UK at the time. He has created enough concept art to keep my project busy well into a deliverable prototype phase. I would take time to ask artists for help, you never know who would be willing to help. 3D artists also love great 2D conceptual work. If you can draw, but lack modeling skills, try approaching www.polycount.com members.
10/29/2004 (7:36 am)
I'm not saying they're bad. Just don't expect two games to ship that use the same content packs. In the small chance that that happens, don't expect people not to notice.Originality is credibility. I personally buy games that attract me graphically and gameplay wise. It's compareable to MODS for unreal 2k4 for example. I would rather spend my download time on maps with custom content, then maps with re-arranged already there content.
I do agree, most games reuse content. But they reuse thier own content. It's not a secret that rock_01 or tree_01 are repeated heavily throughout the same map. But you would'nt all use the Torque Ork as your player model right?
The whole set-design argument is apples to oranges. Look at the number of content packs, and then the number of furniture stores with different peices. Then take a look at why people watch the show. The original characters and story. Movies can get away with things games cant. You can't walkthrough movies and inspect details. You wont care if chairs are reused in the same world. Your focus is on the peices that contain originality. In a game, you cant just escape objects, they exsist right in front of you. The camera does not cut away in 4 second intervals.
I'm not trying to put a hamper on your content pack business. It does sell, granted. It is usefull to programmers, granted. Would you ship a game when you know a previous game already uses your buildings, probably not. Has a game shipped and sold well that uses content packs, I don't see any. Correct me if i'm wrong.
You are all supposed to be developing games, buying content packs is not developing. I would spend the $89 on a modeling book or software, if your serious about the content you want.
On a side note, there are hundreds of starving artists out there who would love to help on a great project. I presented design documents to a concept art forum with a request for interested artists. The idea alone landed me a concept artist who was a lead artist at CORE design UK at the time. He has created enough concept art to keep my project busy well into a deliverable prototype phase. I would take time to ask artists for help, you never know who would be willing to help. 3D artists also love great 2D conceptual work. If you can draw, but lack modeling skills, try approaching www.polycount.com members.
#40
Isn't that getting to the heart of the issue? I never saw anyone complain about the free textures or objects that got handed out by people in the resources section. I've yet to read a snippet comment that reads like:
"You know, you shouldn't be posting this because people need to be learning how to develop this on their own."
I'm sure whoever writes that would be flamed til nice and crispy. But seriously, would anyone here complain if I released my dungeon generator code for free? How about if I sold it? After all, it took months of my time to write it. Or more to the point:
Noone has ever made a comment other than positive when I release something for free, plugin or assets or whatever. However, every time I release anything that costs money, I hear at least one negative comment. And I'm willing to bet every dime in my bank that if all of these content packs were free, this thread wouldn't exist, because these threads never popped up regarding anything that was given away.
10/29/2004 (8:25 am)
This is funny, because people don't complain about the code snippets' reuse being unoriginal, or that people should code those features from scratch because using them isn't really developing a game...Isn't that getting to the heart of the issue? I never saw anyone complain about the free textures or objects that got handed out by people in the resources section. I've yet to read a snippet comment that reads like:
"You know, you shouldn't be posting this because people need to be learning how to develop this on their own."
I'm sure whoever writes that would be flamed til nice and crispy. But seriously, would anyone here complain if I released my dungeon generator code for free? How about if I sold it? After all, it took months of my time to write it. Or more to the point:
Noone has ever made a comment other than positive when I release something for free, plugin or assets or whatever. However, every time I release anything that costs money, I hear at least one negative comment. And I'm willing to bet every dime in my bank that if all of these content packs were free, this thread wouldn't exist, because these threads never popped up regarding anything that was given away.
Torque 3D Owner Billy L
I been around here a while ,some talk about quality works some talk about
doing fast games ,and some about money.
And still i don't see any result of really good ,quality games,that makes a lot of money .
Content packs for learning is one thing but make 20 games with same models
same effects .....wake up guys !!
I left the modding ,map, model and sound making for other games only because i wanted to do my own stuff..
I really wanted do something that nobody did , and use my own imagenation.
I have no problems with the content packs , i buy some if they are good to learn.
-Billy