Jeff is right. We suck creatively. Let's do something about it.

#21 Jeff made an excellent point, probably after thumbing through the list of projects on the site - it's pretty eye-opening. It's obvious, though, that I was right when I mentioned that it could be easy to get discouraged after reading it. I don't believe that GG will just sit on FPS/RPG games - I just think that Jeff personally was hoping to see some projects that you might not necessarily associate with the use of TGE. I personally believe it will come in time.

The tough part here is that it's one thing to notice it and say something about it, it's another to try to get groups to move in this direction. I'm not sure what the solution is there. I suggested in Jeff's .plan something along the lines of a design project, which seems interesting.

I had a few thoughts about what kind of game I'd like to see made with TGE, now that Jeff got me thinking along those lines. These aren't terribly original, but could be fun to make.

First is a golf game of some type. I was leaning towards something more like a fun, cartoony golf game, rather than a hardcore golf sim like Links. You could easily have multiple courses on the same terrain map I think, and be able to accomodate a bunch of players at the same time. Could have tournaments and such.

Second is a skiing game. I can imagine some pretty hazardous courses with steep mountains and lotsa trees to dodge, rocks to jump off of, and the like.

Dave Myers
21-6 Productions

#22 I agree with Anthony, you don't have to go as far as defining a new genre to create a fantastic game.

Imagine the scenario at Valve studios a few years back:

"Yeah, I've a great idea for our debut game! It could be a First Person Shooter where you shoot aliens after a science experiment has gone wrong!"

Probably the most unoriginal game plot ever devised.

The differences weren't in the idea, but in the implementation. The team created a simple, but consistent game world that kept the players belief system intact throughout. This was partly achieved by writing great AI and telling the story via in-game set-pieces instead of pre-rendered cut-scenes. But most importantly the game was fun. It's better to have an unoriginal game that's fun, than an original game that's not.
I think its important that we should remember that "innovation" does not necessarily mean "completely different". Half-Life was innovative in many ways, but not in the obvious categories of genre or storyline.

#23 I agree with Josh, Anthony and Richard.
I think the essence of a great game is not that it is something nobody has ever done before or that nobody has been expecting or whatever, I think it's the STORY and, of course, the implementation of the game (be it the "look", the AI, ...).
Just think of "Black and White" - it WAS innovative, it was new and different, it somehow pushed the envelope, but was it really FUN? For a couple of hours, yes, but not in the long run (at least not for me...) - I never made it past the second island, because it became very boring ... get some food, get enough wood, take care for your creature, get some food, find wood, etc. ... There was no real story, nothing really fascinating...
And then think of Deus Ex... "just another FPS", one might say, but nevertheless it was innovative, too! And it was FUN! Because it had a great story and the overall implementation was outstanding, I think.
So I'm really no FPS or RPG "preacher", but I don't think one should judge a game idea only because it fits into one of these genres - one should look at the story and the ideas behind it - and yes, there really IS some lack of creativity there, but it's not only because it's an FPS or RPG, it's the story or general implementation of the game itself... So if you've got a great story or game idea, it really doesn't matter what genre it is... just go for it!

#24 It's also very hard these days to categorize games into old genres like "FPS" or "RPG" because when you think about it, these genres have been used for years and years. The names have not changed, but the games sure have. A true FPS is something like Wolf3D or Doom...first person view...run around and kill things. Deus Ex is first person...you kill things...but there's more to it. And RPG, we're talkin D&D here. What about Diablo? There's more than just "roleplaying," and actually there really isn't much roleplaying in the sense that you're not playing the role of a thief, or paladin, or wizard. That's why people need to start using more accurate genre descriptions...Diablo is an action-RPG, Deus Ex is an FPS/RPG hybrid.

#25 Hi GG'ers,

Most people tend to create styles within the "box" for what the engine was originally showcased with (I hope I worded that sufficiently to not offend anyone...).

I've noticed that most every game being developed or concieved with Torque is mostly a FPS (a la Tribes, Counter Strike, etc.), or an RPG or FPS/RPG combo, a few driving types (basically based on the Tribes vehicles), etc.

Some of this will be the result of developers seeing what the engine was demo'ed with... and not looking farther than to say "I can improve on that".

Well, not that I am some avante gard type person (sp?), but the game that I and my cohort are developing is not like anything else done with this type of engine (afaik)... as a matter of fact, I don't think there is even one game for the PC in the style that we are doing... I've only seen a very small few console games of a similar style...

Concerning the "inspiration versus perspiration" style of comment made previously in this thread, the entire concept of this game just came to me (no, not in a dream), and the entire plan/script/features/objectives was totally finished in only a few minutes.

My only problem is that even with its interesting style, it is a lot of work for just the two of us...
So it's gonna be a while before we can showcase anything.

David

#26 So what is it you're working on? Just saying:"WE are doing something REALLY cool!" doesn't help very much in this discussion, I think... You should at least give a few details on what's so special and unique about your idea...

#27 "Most people tend to create styles within the "box" for what the engine was originally showcased with (I hope I worded that sufficiently to not offend anyone...)."

Now this I would agree with. I said something similar to Jeff's original rant.

If someone (at GG or otherwise) could release another, smaller demo that wasn't geared to FPS type games, then just maybe developers would broaden their genre horizons just a little.

#28 Hi,

Stefan:
So what is it you're working on? Just saying:"WE are doing something REALLY cool!" doesn't help very much in this discussion, I think... You should at least give a few details on what's so special and unique about your idea...

Well, "cool, special, and unique" were not mentioned by me regarding my/our game, however... :-)

Without going into the full lengthy details:
Ever play Tribes 2? It was fun just to start it in single-player and run around the hills and valleys, right?
Think of no guns, no bullets, no tanks or jeeps, no FPS or RPG, just an old-fashioned arcade game of a long long run on foot racing your a** off to get to the finish line first (with lots of surprises and such in between).

The level of detail on this is where we are having problems, our concept designs have a lot of detail items on each level/track, and Torque is not great on frame-rate.

As I said, not a new idea [as far as consoles] (think of Bandicoot or Mad Dash with some reality), but I don't think anyone else is doing this style with this engine, and there is not many of this style on the PC [I wish there were more console/arcade games on the PC, I'm sick of FPS-this, RPG-that, and plane/vehicle/sports simulators]. My design has a few things not found in the two arcade games I mention here.

Of course I hope no one else here has the gall to steal the idea now... :-)

David

#29 A hugely incorrect assumption that a lot of people have when they get into this business is that a good, original idea automatically translates to a good, successful game. This is not the case at all.

The truth is that "cool ideas for a game" are about as hard to come by as tall, tanned blondes in Southern Cali. In other words, they're everywhere. For example, my place of employment shares a small office building with several other companies of various types. Whenever someone from another company finds out that we're a game development house, 9 out of 10 of them immediately reply with, "Cool! I have this great idea for a game. It goes like this..."

And you know what? Some of them ain't all that bad. If you were to poll every gamer on the planet for their pet idea, you'd even find some concepts that were totally original and completely brilliant. But that's not enough to make a good game. A good game comes from a good design, but the basic premise of the game is not the same thing as the game design. It doesn't matter how original or just downright cool your premise is. If the design sucks, so will your game. In fact you'd have much more success if you did something in an ordinary genre that had a great design.

Someone mentioned Half-Life a couple of posts up, and that's an excellent example of what separates the winners from the bargain bin. At its core, HL is just a shooter with a story. There's you, a 1st-person camera, objectives you have to complete in order to move on, and bad guys along the way who try to stop you. Nothing extraordinary about that, is there? And yet Half-Life continues to sell and remain hugely popular. There are thousands upon thousands of HL servers running right now, with thousands of people playing on them.

So what's so cool about a four year old game? Well, Half-Life has a few things going for it.

1. The original game had excellent content. The story was cool and the levels were numerous and well thought out.

Many games that have fantastic ideas at their core fail because the content stinks, or because there just isn't enough of it to make people recommend it to others. People will return a game if they don't feel they got their money's worth. And unless you negotiated an amazing contract, your royalties come only after returns are deducted from sell-through.

2. It was incredibly easy for anyone to quickly grasp all there was to know about how to play. You can play the game to its completion without ever having opened the manual.

Many games fail or at least don't have mass appeal because they're just too hard to play. If the player has to struggle with the UI or master complex sets of rules and interactions of rules then you are by definition selling to a smaller market. Not everyone likes submarine siumlators (I do, but I'm weird like that).

3. The AI soldiers took cover in between firing at you instead of charging at you in a straight line.

These days we pretty much expect good AI like this to be present in a new game (if applicable). If you don't have this, you're behind the times.

4. The art was excellent. Everything about Half-Life looked good, from the textures on the walls to the muzzle flash of your MP5.

You can get into arguments of "creation vs evolution" proportions over whether good gameplay cancels out crappy art. The truth is that your game will lose points both with the reviewers and with the people who buy it if it doesn't look as good as it plays. If your team consists only of programmers and you think you can squeak by because a couple of you are familiar with 3DSMax, you are smoking crack. You absolutely need a competent and talented art team if you want to impress anyone.

5. The engine employed what were, at the time, revolutionary concepts. The skeletal animation system was put to good use by that art team, and according to my memory it was one of the big selling points in the reviews.

6. It's very moddable. TFC, Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat (my favorite HL mod) drive sales and continue to bring in new players. In turn, Valve continues to update the core tech. If it's still selling, it's worth updating so that the mods can continue to be cooler and cooler.


The cool thing about Torque is that you get several of these key points for free. It's capable of looking really, really good. It's easily moddable. The network layer is one of the best in the industry and should provide excellent and stable multiplayer. The real trick is in making your game -- whether it's an FPS or something that doesn't even have a snazzy acronym -- stand out from the crowd. It has to play well, look good, and be fun enough for people to sell more copies for you via word of mouth. Do that, and you've got a winner.

#30 Hi group,

This thread is probably moving off topic, but I just felt I had to air my opinions about a few things (just my nature, sorry)...


I fail to see why so many people always bring up Half Life as their de-facto example of "an excellent example of what separates the winners from the bargain bin", to quote the previous message.
Half Life is a mediocre game at best.
Unreal which was released around the same time (1998) was and is superior in all aspects.
Almost all of the gamers that I know still have Unreal on their systems, few have HalfLife installed anymore...
And don't even get me started on CounterStrike...

GameSpy's "Top 30 Influential" placed Sweeney at #27. For those who have been on an island for the past few years, he's much of the force behind the Unreal Engine.
They gave Warren Spector from Ion Storm #6, mainly because of Deus Ex...
Well what engine did they think Warren Used? DE feels like an Unreal Mod, because for the most part that is exactly what it is. The main reason it has its look and feel is the Unreal Engine.
This is a perfect example of the way the industry thinks.

I am constantly amazed at how little is given towards the Unreal Engine and Sweeney. It's always Q3/Carmack or DE or HL.
Carmack's programming leaves a lot to be desired, much of the coding is a terrible mess, and many mod'ers have walked away from the engine because of this. id has even admitted in released source comments of prior games that the coding is not good. Yet Carmack is looked upon as a god since he writes code that no one can read.
id's only reason for being where they are is the innovation and success of Castle Wolf and Doom.
In a comparison of UE vs Q3, the UE engine has much superior physics and player "connection".

The only reason why Quake3 and HalfLife are popular is because that is what consumers have made them by choice of where their dollars were spent, with that being driven mostly by opinions generated by magazines and media. It has little to do with the actual game itself.

These same types of "industry/media-driven" Q3-vs-UE HL-vs-UE comparisons remind me of so many other similar times when the lesser product is driven to success by media push and the fact that it becomes "cool" to own it or you are part of the "in crowd" if you have it.
Two examples are Halo vs DoA3 on the XBox, and the GeForce3 vs ATI8500.
DoA3 is a significantly better game than Halo in virtually every respect, yet Halo gets the top honors mostly because it is an FPS and few people are into Martial Arts games.
The 8500 swept up the floor with the GeForce3 which angered all of the nVidiots (the 8500 has been the top on the 3DMark chart for a long time for those who would try to refute my statement). In their childishness, the nVidiots have started comparing the 8500 to the GeForce4 now, saying that the G4 is so much better... the G4 is the next generation hardware people! Grow up! The 8500 and G3 are the same generation. Wait until ATI's next gen card comes out, it too will sweep up the floor again with the GeForce4.
[FYI, I don't currently own either of those cards].

Along these same lines is the honors bestowed upon Maxis and their "innovative" Sim game, with the pundits usually commenting on how original it is and the new genre it has spawned. Well, take a look back a few years to the Mattel Intellivision, that's where Maxis got the idea. I was playing "sim city" on two islands on the Intellivision long before Maxis "thought it up" -- it was called Utopia. And IMHO it was more fun since you didn't have to fret over all of the micro-management.

Most people are followers... if Joe VideoGame tells them in his new article in 3DGamerz mag that product "a" is a must-have, people will buy it. If he can convince enough people, and those people tell two people, and so on and so on, it becomes the "must have" fad, whether it is worthy or not. We are a consumer society.

David

#31 I do agree with ya that some of the people at the higher end of the Gamespy "top 30" list shouldn't have been there. Some were essentially one-hit wonders but somehow pass up veterans who have been making good games for years.

As for hardware... anyone who actually tries to argue which is better is an idiot. It's like arguing what color is cooler or if Dragonball Z sucks a little or a lot.

One of the important parts of getting a major hit is timing and advertising. I'm not really going to comment on the Sims, but a lot of things have been done that are innovative but not well-rescieved. They'll go under, and then a while later some other company will take roughly the same idea and make it a hit.

Not because the actual product was better, but because the target audience "got it". Releasing a crap game like Who Wants to be a Millionare wouldn't have sold more than 3 copies unless the game show was such a major hit. The Sims (like Playstation) got picked up into many mainstream outlets. Drew Carey Show, Malcolm in the Middle and pretty much every pop magazine in the world. Games are growing in being socially acceptable, and mainstream will begin to be drawn into mainstream media.

Another example is Grand Theft Auto 3. Personally, I think the game is overrated. It's a good game, but I dont think it's "game of the year" material. Dunno, I guess cause I played GTA1 and 2 so much I don't really see too much improvement in the gameplay. Anyway, this game is probably one of the worst on the market in terms of content not suitable for kids but it's probably the most "pop" of a game since the Sims.

I dunno, but after September 11th I haven't really found killing innocent people to be much fun in games but it seems the public still loves it. Even worse is we're being subjected to another Postal game that the developers claim "Now this time when people beg for their lives they won't keep repeating same lines over! It'll be more realistic!"

I would have thought after September 11th we'd reasess what is fun, but it might have just desensitized us more.

Don't get me wrong. Violence in games is acceptable. Even required in some cases. The problem I have is that many games have violence just for the sake of having it. I think this is something that has hindered the ascent of game development into an art form. Tacky horror-movie style schtick that really does nothing but appeal to the brain damaged idiot inside many of us. Medal of Honor was a step in the right direction. No need for over-the-top blood splatters everywhere, but it still was very realistic... of course we got the idiots behind Soldier of Fortune trying to sell the sequel because now it is even more gore-filled!

Yeah! Let's go shoot puppies and beat up the guy in the wheelchair! Yeaahhh!

#32
"I fail to see why so many people always bring up Half Life as their de-facto example of "an excellent example of what separates the winners from the bargain bin", to quote the previous message."


If I had to guess (and I don't) I would probably say it's because the game is four years old and still has thousands of people playing at any given moment. And it's still on the shelves. How many other four year old games can make the same claim?

If you said "not many", you're correct. And that's why it's an excellent example of how to make a winner of a game: it's 2002 now and it's still making money. These are facts and can't really be argued with. ::shrug::

#33 :nods to GG:

Inspired by this thread, I asked my cs-addict friend how the hell he can play Counter-strike for 12 hours straight at the LAN in the mall, then come home just to play the same game again for 3 more hours. His answer was, "Cause its fun".

CS isn't innovative in any way at all no matter how you look at it. But, because people say its fun,(even though I don't say so) it is the most widely played online game on earth. Something subconsciously is drawing thousands upon thousands of people to this crappy HL mod. The original Tribes has this same effect. After four years I am still addicted to it. I'd hate to think about how many times I've played the Scarabrae map..

If we want a successfull game, we need to figure out what makes this vast majority of hardcore online gamers tick. And I think I may know, I just cant really explain it in writing. You have to figure out this enigma for yourselves..

-aka AnDrOiDeKa

#34 I think they put a subliminal message in the game, I got a headache after playing it for an hour ;)

#35 CS isn't the most popular game in the world. I believe that is owned by Lineage. CS is toted as the most popular online action game though.

And yeah. I despise CS. It crushed a lot of innovative mods, but at least it brought user-made mods to a new level in terms of success. CS killed many HL mods, but Valve took an unoriginal mod and put some cash into it to make it an actual product that attracts tons of guys who like killing people.

Don't get me wrong... I liked it when I first played it. It just lacks depth that the games I enjoy playing have. Yeah, TFC does have more depth. CS is just ping, hacks, and camping. Yawn to the max!

CS is popular because it's mind-numbingly simple (I've met more idiots playing CS than any other game), is semi-realistic (For those angry kids who want to kill people, but don't want ot serve the time), and supported by Valve.

I don't want to label all people who play CS, but I've met more punks in it than any other game.

I don't even understand how people could play it so much. It's like playing Pac-Man for hours on end...

#36 I myself have been thumbing over great but simple addictive games.

One perfect example is Tetris. Such a simple concept which everyone played :)

However i believe i have a quiet unique and fresh gaming idea.

Since im not in a team i dont mind sharing either :) so if anyone would like to pickup this idea i can tell you everything :)

Essentially the game goes back to my old commodore 64 playing days. That game was speedball. Such a simple yet extremely fun sport game.

I realise there is a new speedball game coming out this year and what i have in mind is something similar only it now uses the full potential by having all players use jetpacks :)

You could have varying class weights e.t.c for all your teams and essentially its jetpack around a huge arena trying to score :). You could even get pickups e.t.c to help boost speed e.t.c e.t.c

ANother cool feature is you could support online play quiet easily as well as clan play through the use of seasons and playoffs and clan ladders.

Done ina first person view i think it could be an awesome game idea.

Unfortunely i lack the coding and modelling skills to accomplish it.

So if you wanna know more Let me know :)


Sure its not entirely new and original but its damn fun

#37 Allow me to introduce you to our game, Grav. ;]

You can see a snap of one of our arenas, here, and one with a ball here. These screens are three weeks old, and the structures have come along way since then, as have our textures.

The arena is currently 1/2 kilometer in length, though we'll shrink that some.

Cool to see someone else interested in the concept.

#38 Grav is looking good :)

Need any more designers :P

#39

Quote:I don't even understand how people could play it so much. It's like playing Pac-Man for hours on end...

That says a lot. I am sure that many of the younger members here don't realize the gameplay in a lot of the older games.

I am 32, I first started playing arcade games on a sit-down Pong console and went from there through Space Invaders, Pacman, Defender, Rally-X, Moon Cresta and on and have always held that gameplay beats graphics any day of the week.

I don't think any of us here would disagree with that but what is missing is the inherint design behind those early games that caused them to be so successful, and Pacman is the prime example.

It was (and still is) possible to play Pacman for hours and hours because it was both fun and frustrating. The reason for this is that most people never realized that each of the ghosts actually had ai scripted and each had specific personalities. One of them was the hunter, another was the herder, then you had the floater and finally the one with the giant sign saying "Ignore me, I'm nowhere near you" while still being in the one area you have left to clear.

Since most people never picked up the pattern of the ghosts (and I was one of them) they'd be willing to keep playing since they kept blaming themselves for dying, or for lucky escapes while those with real skill that knew the personailities would play for the one real reason we all played back then...H I G H S C O R E

I don't believe that any of us will really agree on what is a great game and not be able to understand why people play something we hate but the beauty of it is that each person makes the game that's fun to them and thus a wide range of games and designs will eventually filter though the GG system and we will all start to note things we like in all of them, weather from a gameplay stance or a coding stance.

I look at games in the same way I look at music. There are a lot of bands/styles I don't particularly enjoy, but if I have to listen to them then I wil try to take note of technical aspects that I might be able to use or appreciate and I think that will happen for games, especially in a community such as this where everyone is so sharing.

In regards to actual game originallity, I don't think there is any more. All genre's have seemed to been created and now the only thing differentiating games are the technical improvements (which are propogated through all engines eventually) and gameplay, and THIS is the point.

Don't worry about innovation in genre or style, innovate in your gameplay, in your ruleset or story...give players a reason to play your game out of the number available in the same genre and they will play it even if it is a generation behind in graphics/technology terms.

#40 My point was that the incentive to get a highscore is no where near as viable for creating a fun game... at least now.

I could have played Pac Man for hours... a long time ago. Now, I need something more than just a high score to make me want to keep playing a game.

Pac Man was good for what it was, but that gameplay can't hold a candle to pretty much anything we'll see put out this year.

EDIT: I forgot that Grand Theft Auto and Crazy Taxi are also "high score" games for the most part, but they have a bit more depth and freedom. Oh... and they are really fun :P