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)
#62
I hope this is not directed at me. I used to post a lot and try to help people, but I just don't have the time to do one on one tech support anymore. We did release the content packs and the fact that I was getting the same questions time and time again factored into the decision of what to make. If anyone needs a working example of a shape, they are a click away.
Releasing content packs was not the reason I stopped helping as much as I used to.. it is because I need to do work in order to make money in order to live. At least we tried to provide example to work from.
On the opinions thing.. I agree..everyone is entitled to an opinion.. but this does not mean everyones opinion is of equal weight in the mind of the individual reading this thread.
What I find here in this thread is a few people warning about a problem that does not yet exist, will probably never exist, and even if it did start to go that way, the downside would be outweighed by all the good things that content packs do.
I respect everyones right to have an opinion, and I stopped posting in this thread because I personally decided to just agree to disagree. For everyone else, do your own research.. look at the opinions in this thread, and then look at what the posters have produced. To me, it is telling that those speaking out for content packs have shipped products, and those speaking out against content packs for the most part have not shipped anything.
Once you have been through the entire process of making and shipping a game, you look for ways to make it easier the next time you do it. You identify the places in development that could be streamlined and sped up.
In my eyes, some of the posts above are from those who have never really been through the process so they don't really know what the issues are.. Some of the posts are inflamatory, and offer some really really bad advice.
I think it is fine if people want to follow bad advice.. it is up to you, the reader, to make your own decision about this subject.
11/02/2004 (5:31 am)
Quote:But i have seen some of the guys that did reply in this thread have stopped replying when people need help
I hope this is not directed at me. I used to post a lot and try to help people, but I just don't have the time to do one on one tech support anymore. We did release the content packs and the fact that I was getting the same questions time and time again factored into the decision of what to make. If anyone needs a working example of a shape, they are a click away.
Releasing content packs was not the reason I stopped helping as much as I used to.. it is because I need to do work in order to make money in order to live. At least we tried to provide example to work from.
On the opinions thing.. I agree..everyone is entitled to an opinion.. but this does not mean everyones opinion is of equal weight in the mind of the individual reading this thread.
What I find here in this thread is a few people warning about a problem that does not yet exist, will probably never exist, and even if it did start to go that way, the downside would be outweighed by all the good things that content packs do.
I respect everyones right to have an opinion, and I stopped posting in this thread because I personally decided to just agree to disagree. For everyone else, do your own research.. look at the opinions in this thread, and then look at what the posters have produced. To me, it is telling that those speaking out for content packs have shipped products, and those speaking out against content packs for the most part have not shipped anything.
Once you have been through the entire process of making and shipping a game, you look for ways to make it easier the next time you do it. You identify the places in development that could be streamlined and sped up.
In my eyes, some of the posts above are from those who have never really been through the process so they don't really know what the issues are.. Some of the posts are inflamatory, and offer some really really bad advice.
I think it is fine if people want to follow bad advice.. it is up to you, the reader, to make your own decision about this subject.
#63
I'm gonna do a Joe and exit the thread as its getting nowhere. If people aren't going to change their opinions on the above debate, then I doubt they are going to change their opinion on any further debate.
My opinion: Content Packs are great learning tools, and useful for saving time and using as content in your game if you modify them.
I personally will make all my own content as thats what I enjoy doing. But I may purchase content packs in the future if I want to see how something works, or I'd like a rigged mesh to modify and retexture.
11/02/2004 (1:48 pm)
Billy > I didn't say raging, you misread meI'm gonna do a Joe and exit the thread as its getting nowhere. If people aren't going to change their opinions on the above debate, then I doubt they are going to change their opinion on any further debate.
My opinion: Content Packs are great learning tools, and useful for saving time and using as content in your game if you modify them.
I personally will make all my own content as thats what I enjoy doing. But I may purchase content packs in the future if I want to see how something works, or I'd like a rigged mesh to modify and retexture.
#64
This is pretty much what I see too.
I could be wrong, but we really need to look at how ALL industries re-use resources. Computers share very similar components. Car manufacturers have been building cars based off very similar models for decades. Hollywood constantly modifies its assets to fit the movie (an alien from "Close Encounters" was retooled to create "E.T."). I was in Graphic Design for years, and we constantly re-used images.
*ahem*, um yeah, with very little modification these CAN. Remove Batmans cape, remove the pointy ears and add the appropriate skin... "Holy Crap BATMAN, you are now Spider-man". With todays skeletal-based systems, this is even easier to do (as opposed to manipulating every frame of the mesh in the old days).
In fact, if a few artists would simply get off their asses and use their imagination, they can do some amazing things with content packs. Who says a mailbox has to be a mailbox? it can be a computer terminal, a building, a generator.... flip it upside down... what does it look like now?
I think it was Joe that modified the Orc a little in order to create the Blue Guy (whatever his name is). Is this correct? If so, this enforces the notion that content packs provide a massive amount of versatility- as long as the artist is capable of tapping into it.
11/02/2004 (2:21 pm)
Quote:
To me, it is telling that those speaking out for content packs have shipped products, and those speaking out against content packs for the most part have not shipped anything.
This is pretty much what I see too.
I could be wrong, but we really need to look at how ALL industries re-use resources. Computers share very similar components. Car manufacturers have been building cars based off very similar models for decades. Hollywood constantly modifies its assets to fit the movie (an alien from "Close Encounters" was retooled to create "E.T."). I was in Graphic Design for years, and we constantly re-used images.
Quote:
Godzilla cant be an Alien or Batman cant be Spiderman.
*ahem*, um yeah, with very little modification these CAN. Remove Batmans cape, remove the pointy ears and add the appropriate skin... "Holy Crap BATMAN, you are now Spider-man". With todays skeletal-based systems, this is even easier to do (as opposed to manipulating every frame of the mesh in the old days).
In fact, if a few artists would simply get off their asses and use their imagination, they can do some amazing things with content packs. Who says a mailbox has to be a mailbox? it can be a computer terminal, a building, a generator.... flip it upside down... what does it look like now?
I think it was Joe that modified the Orc a little in order to create the Blue Guy (whatever his name is). Is this correct? If so, this enforces the notion that content packs provide a massive amount of versatility- as long as the artist is capable of tapping into it.
#65
11/02/2004 (2:30 pm)
@Randal: (feel free to correct me if im wrong) The blue guy is far from a modification from the Orc, infact I dont think there is any orc in him.. unless it shares the skeleton.
#66
edit: also want to add that if anyone saw the boomball robots at the IGC, they use the same skeleton and animations as the girl pack that we are going to release.
11/02/2004 (2:38 pm)
The Blue Guys uses the skeleton from the orc, but not the mesh.. the new shader orc however, used the old orc mesh as a leaping off point.. strangley enough, the old orc used the mesh from an old characrer model I never finished (demo man 3) and a goat model that I built in 1998 as a starting point..edit: also want to add that if anyone saw the boomball robots at the IGC, they use the same skeleton and animations as the girl pack that we are going to release.
#67
That was a really cool moment. :)
11/02/2004 (2:41 pm)
I'm probably considered biased so I won't get involved to heavily in this thread, but I recently saw some of my content packs used in a situation I didn't see at all when I was making them. Some of the prefabs were retextured in a cartoony style and used as jumps and bridges & things in a cartoony racing game. I had no idea that they were there are first, and I overlooked them several times until I realized they were from the content packs I released. The only reason I found them was I was specifically looking for them too....That was a really cool moment. :)
#68
11/02/2004 (2:44 pm)
Thanks for the correction. I knew the skeleton/animation looked similar. I haven't looked into the actual orc mesh, so I just assumed the armor was removed and some minor tweaking to the mesh was done (its pretty easy to make thinner arms/legs).
#69
I really think the guys who make the content packs are real good of what they are doing.
Its not my point to give people that want this badly a wrong feeling.
I have a opinion and should not be judged because i haven't yet released any products ..
@Randall i was talking about the first guy that draw these guys on paper not the models :)
@Synditech
Say some nice words to everyone and end this thread :)
11/02/2004 (3:21 pm)
I will not put more fire on this thread .I really think the guys who make the content packs are real good of what they are doing.
Its not my point to give people that want this badly a wrong feeling.
I have a opinion and should not be judged because i haven't yet released any products ..
@Randall i was talking about the first guy that draw these guys on paper not the models :)
@Synditech
Say some nice words to everyone and end this thread :)
#70
11/02/2004 (3:31 pm)
It doesnt matter if the game is Torque based, Unreal based, or other, and it uses the same cars, boats, trains, rocks, trees, buildings or other element, the bottom line is gameplay. If that doesn't hold the players attention and call out to be played over and over, then custom made content wont cut it either.
#71
good to see some friendly discussion going on though even if we dont all agree :)
11/02/2004 (6:00 pm)
@Billy : Aha yeah I think the thread is well past its bedtime :) good to see some friendly discussion going on though even if we dont all agree :)
#72
The reason is plain and simple, it provides access to a vast library of high quality artwork at a low cost.
As a professional multimedia developer I purchase stock photography from the same places as most of the huge national ad companies. I regularly see photos I've glanced over or have even used before in all kinds of advertising on a daily basis.
The average person viewing an ad, brochure or flash animation or even a game is looking at the entire composition and not at the individual elements of the design.
The reuse of resources is common in all of the creative industries and in my opinion a welcome addition to the gaming industry.
11/02/2004 (8:22 pm)
Just a side note to this thread that some of the other developers had touched on. The stock art industry extends far beyond the gameing industry. Probably 70-80% of the photos you see in printed advertising, corporate web pages and other multi-media is art purchased from stock art providers.The reason is plain and simple, it provides access to a vast library of high quality artwork at a low cost.
As a professional multimedia developer I purchase stock photography from the same places as most of the huge national ad companies. I regularly see photos I've glanced over or have even used before in all kinds of advertising on a daily basis.
The average person viewing an ad, brochure or flash animation or even a game is looking at the entire composition and not at the individual elements of the design.
The reuse of resources is common in all of the creative industries and in my opinion a welcome addition to the gaming industry.
#73
Using stock graphics, sound and gameply might explain that. I do understand photography being a heavy user of stock graphics, but there are billions of availible images, and they are much easier to manipulate.
You have to admit that originality is going downhill. Even the great 2004 titles are just remakes. I'd really like the industry to beef up the originality department. Of course, everythings basically been done for games. We would need new input devices to go anyfurther.
11/04/2004 (6:57 am)
Well, I guess then it really makes it obvious why games and media in general are going down hill in quality for most people. I've hav'nt seen anything that's grabbed my attention for years. How many times can people remake tetris for gods sake?Using stock graphics, sound and gameply might explain that. I do understand photography being a heavy user of stock graphics, but there are billions of availible images, and they are much easier to manipulate.
You have to admit that originality is going downhill. Even the great 2004 titles are just remakes. I'd really like the industry to beef up the originality department. Of course, everythings basically been done for games. We would need new input devices to go anyfurther.
#74
11/04/2004 (7:00 am)
I believe the originality factor in the mainstream gaming industry has less to do with stock art assets than it has to do with the "rehash what sold last year" mentality that is prevalent.
#75
In terms of sales, these fresh ideas with great style are blown out of the water by remakes and movie IP. I personally don't like the way it is going... but gamers are voting with their pocket books. If you want to see more new IP.. but games that use new IP. Don't buy sequels and remakes. If the remakes were not sucessful, they would not be made.. if the games with original IP were successful, there would be more.
In terms of our game, we created a style that we wanted, and created a game that we wanted. It may not interest you.. but that was not our goal. We made a game that interested us (and did not interest any big publishers) and we think that in terms of look, and what we did (combine fun cartoony graphics with a pretty hardcore shooter) was pretty unique. Did you purchase our game? Are you supporting the games and game developers and publishers that are trying to make unique games with unique IP and unique art styles?
All of that being said.. this has nothing to do with stock art assets. I don't know what keeps compelling me to post in this trainwreck of a thread...
Lets move on people...
11/04/2004 (7:16 am)
Have you played 'Beyond Good and Evil' or 'PikMin'? Original games with good ideas and great style and content are there.. In terms of sales, these fresh ideas with great style are blown out of the water by remakes and movie IP. I personally don't like the way it is going... but gamers are voting with their pocket books. If you want to see more new IP.. but games that use new IP. Don't buy sequels and remakes. If the remakes were not sucessful, they would not be made.. if the games with original IP were successful, there would be more.
In terms of our game, we created a style that we wanted, and created a game that we wanted. It may not interest you.. but that was not our goal. We made a game that interested us (and did not interest any big publishers) and we think that in terms of look, and what we did (combine fun cartoony graphics with a pretty hardcore shooter) was pretty unique. Did you purchase our game? Are you supporting the games and game developers and publishers that are trying to make unique games with unique IP and unique art styles?
All of that being said.. this has nothing to do with stock art assets. I don't know what keeps compelling me to post in this trainwreck of a thread...
Lets move on people...
#76
I like arguing about a decades old practice....
For the record, I bought your game. I even liked it :)
11/04/2004 (1:47 pm)
Aww, Joe, but why? I like arguing about a decades old practice....
For the record, I bought your game. I even liked it :)
#77
I do agree with what appears to be the primary concern Matt has: I would be very dissapointed to purchase a commercial game that was simply a buffet of commonly available art content packs with no modified/enchanced unique content.
11/04/2004 (1:52 pm)
The thread should die, I agree, but for the record, for my project "content packs" that are art only will almost guaranteed never make it into a commercial project--they are planned to be used for prototyping and producing a demo product capable of attracting investors once our business plan milestones indicate we're ready for that.I do agree with what appears to be the primary concern Matt has: I would be very dissapointed to purchase a commercial game that was simply a buffet of commonly available art content packs with no modified/enchanced unique content.
Jan "Monsterfish" Timmer
I understand what you're saying, about the whole godzilla, batman idea. But don't you agree that there are certain objects in games which don't have to be custom build.
Wouldn't it be grate if developers could focus there attention to the main 'characters' / 'stuff' in the game. And be able to use a huge resource of default objects for the rest of the level. I don't believe that those games will look the same. By combining different default objects and using different textures I bet you wouldn't notice it.