3 years from now...

#21 i know the visual part is a small piece of the whole game, but is there a way to improve this in the torque engine? i mean its awesome for exterior maps in the out open, but the buildings are a bit crappy if u ask me. can this be because the mappers are sh*t or what? (i know u can use the worldcraft from hl and the q2/3 mapmaker (forgot the name/ which version of q) and ive seen awesome maps in hl... and hl is like the stoneage compared to torque.

im asking this because im a bit bussy on learning about game creatons etc and i want to buy an engine (probably torque) someday, but for now i want to keep it with modeling and (trying) to mod other games.

perhaps this is a bit awkward askin this but can u guys give some examples of other inexpansife engines?

#22 Ouch! Jeff really hit the spot there, I must now go and tend to my wounds...
:( sorry

#23 Alright, you guys really must not pay any attention... I think we were trying to save this as a bit of a surprise for you, and also to avoid hearing "When's the release?!??" questions, but the Tactical Assault team (the team I'm associated with) has completed DOT3 bumpmapping as well as complete Cg shader support within torque. We WILL be releasing both enhancements to the community as soon as we feel they are ready and we are sure the majority of the bugs are worked out (and we've had a chance to play with them a bit, to give us a head start...)

~ Jeff

#24 I have to disagree with Jeff Tunnell.

People are not going to buy a game because it has "heart" or it supposedly plays good or it's cheap. Most gamers aren't that type sadly, and the truth is that most of them won't play a game if its graphics aren't at least on par with last year's technology. While I agree that it's not all about money, I certainly want my game to be at least recognized for all the work I'd put into it.

You should worry about the future. Only the fool focuses on the present--especially in business. Advising people to not care about the future is like telling them that it doesn't matter. It does, and people need to be concerned about it.

We are not in the days of Atari and the arcade anymore.

#25 "most of them won't play a game if its graphics aren't at least on par with last year's technology"?
Don't you think that is a bit of an overstatement? I don't think anyone will throw away a game a year after they get it just because it's graphics are starting to look dated. The important thing is that they look good, solid, professional. Part of the problem with Torque might be that there aren't many examples of what a real Torque game can look like, since most of what you see are dev shots.

Oh yes, Anthony you are right about the textures thing. When I said more polygons + more hardware, I kinda meant more "stuff" + more hardware. Basically, just higher numbers than before. 8 textures instead of 1, 7000 polys instead of 1500, 256 mb of ram instead of 16, etc... you know the deal. It will always improve graphics, and most of it can be done by modelers and texture artists alone.

#26 Here's a poll/petition to get spheres into QuArK: forums.gamedesign.net/viewtopic.php?t=4191 This is a chance to make a small, but significant difference with absolutely no work involved. Just the poll.

And for those that read my other forum msg: Sorry for the double-post! ;-) As a developer I'm getting a bit tired, myself, of complaints. Let's have some action! :-)

Eric Forhan
www.trajectoryzone.com

#27

Quote:the truth is that most of them won't play a game if its graphics aren't at least on par with last year's technology.

I'd have to disagree. I just popped over to the stats page on GameSpy for shits'n'giggles and then dropped into Gamespy to look at the lists. Half-Life has approx 108,000 people playing on it and the graphics are what, 4 years old? Yes I know that accounts for the mods as well, but even those haven't advanced it that far. Unreal Tournament has 5,500 and UT2K3 has 4,800 playing. Tribes1 and Quake II have about 1000 people each. Getting even more obscure and lower tallies, Kingpin has 85 and Rune has 120. Those are all old games with people still playing them at 2 in the afternoon on a Tuesday.

#28 That all depends on the market you pick, Steve. Go after the hard core, I-Want-Bleeding-Edge-and-I-want-it-NOW gamer, and yep - you better be concerned with things like visual fidelity.

However, at the same time, you better be prepared to spend the money, time, and resources to develop a game like that. Good luck. You probably won't succeed at it (note the word probably. It can happen.) Take a look at the teams nessisary to do content development, etc. The money nessisary is astronomical at times. The labor alone is a killer.

My opinion of pretty much ignore the issue today is based on this:

If you want to go after the hardcore game market, you'll need the resources to support the development process through the entire developement and release cycle. No matter how long you think it's going to take, it's going to take longer if you don't have a full-time development staff. Hmm.. but if you don't have funding to do that, then what?

Ignore tomarrow, and start making less ambitious games today that attack the MUCH larger, but stranger Casual Gamer market. That's where I make my sales right now, and plan on continuing to. When you get a continuing revenue stream that can support a programming department to do the job, then get more concerned about the business strategy nessisary to make a game that runs with the Big Boys. If that's the area you want to get into.

Because of the way I've structured things, if something happens and I decide Torque won't be viable for the next big project after Trajectory Zone, I'm flexible - I evaluate what's out there, what fits my needs, and retool if nessisary. (So far, it does fall within my evaluated needs - partially because I read the forums, see what's possible, how it's been implemented, etc., and prep to implement what I do need to add to the engine.)

For most of us Indies, trying to go play with the Big Boys is one heck of a mistake. We just don't have the resources. Trajectory Zone is a medium sized game, and it's taking a team of 9 people to do it. However, the other title in development, Maze Panic!, is only requiring 4 people for the project - it's much smaller. How many people do you think it takes to do a title like Deus Ex 2?

Anyway - that's why I say don't be as concerned about the future. Most of us who will actually complete and ship a game will do the game in a short timeframe, and pick on nitches that aren't glutted. make our money, and move to the next project. You can do more projects in a shorter time, you are more flexible on what technologies and tools that you want to use in the project, etc. And overall, the returns based on the time you've put into it are better, IMO (but that's just an opinion, don't take it as fact.)

Torque makes a great vehicle for doing something like this - quickly going from an idea to a finished product. For that - don't worry about the future, just get the job done. The state of engines isn't going to change that much if you are only spending 2 months in development (like Maze Panic!). If you are honestly planning on falling within the 18 month average development time for most 'hardcore' titles, that's a different story. Then you need to be acutely aware of the failings of the engine you are using, what's coming out, and how to top it. (Sometimes refered to as the Technological Arms Race. Generally considered to be a bad thing for us Indies to get involved with.)

As for disagreeing with Jeff T.'s comments... well, I have fanatical Boulder Panic! and Tile Panic! customers. They bought the game because they liked the style of play, the challenge it offers, etc. They didn't buy it because of DOT3 Bumpmapping. And because I picked on something like that when I started Midnight Ryder Technologies, I get a check every month. No one ever emails me complaining that the game looks like hell (even if I think it does ;-) They just enjoy it, and I get nice little checks every month for it. Not huge checks, but, checks. I've been getting them since... 1999 or 2000, can't remember when I released my first game.

Not everyone gauges a game just by the eye candy. Only a percentage does. The rest of 'em buy based off of interest in the concepts, game style, advertising, word of mouth, sometimes reviews, impulse buys, etc.

The other thing about disagreeing with Jeff T.'s comments - well, just gonna point out something interesting here: how many games has Jeff been involved with? If John Carmac looks at you, and give you advice, do you ignore him? How about any other industry vet who's shipped more boxes than you've ever seen in your life? Nope, you don't. Listen to da' man, he knows about what he's saying. Granted, I'm also not saying he's infalable, but, he's a lot more likely to release yet another game, and he knows the market. (Heck, Monster Stuidos is getting to release two more very soon! Marble Blast looks great, and uses only two pieces that aren't part of the stock engine - the marble physics, and the stencil shadows.)

Wow... that was a long rant. Sorry ;-)

#29 Ditto what Davis said ;) thanks for saving me the trouble of typing it.

#30 If I had the energy I would of posted that one myself!

- Melv.

#31 Pff. You're wrong.

Two words can prove my point alone: Doom III.

And yes, I do ignore John Carmack. He IS, after all, the man who said two weeks ago that Use buttons in a shooter are just a "gimmick". Why should I listen to him about game design anymore than I should listen to Jeff about game programming?

It boggles the mind if you ask me.

Experience, yeah it's helpful, but bias for your style of a game isn't when giving out advice to novice game developers.

The fact is that the main reason games like Unreal and Half-Life sold so hugely was because because of their graphics, and they then became more popular if they had great gameplay. Proof: Try to remember the last shooter whose graphics didn't make a huge splash on the market that's still played today. I bet you can't name one.

Counterstrike does not count as a "game." It had Half-Life's name, and names can sell more than graphics can. It became immensely popular several months AFTER it was released as a HL mod.

Yeah, people still play Half-Life and CS. But if Half-Life had used, say the X-Engine from Daggerfall, do you honestly think people would have still bought it for the gameplay? I doubt it. They look at the box and see nice screenshots. Then, once they're interested, they read the text to see if it's the kind of game they want. I even do it sometimes.

That's the majority of gamers; obvisously it doesn't go for RPG fans, puzzle gamers, and strategy gamers (the group I like to call the "Thought Club"). Most of the others just want a game with eye candy where you kill people. Everything else is secondary. The gameplay, as I said before, is a second thought that comes after the person actually OWNS the game.

Graphics sell games.

It's gameplay that makes them last. Gameplay, no matter how you see it in the majority of the market, simply doesn't SELL them.

It's what makes them a classic.

Do you see my point? I personally don't make games for money. The main project I'm working on, a second version of TES II: Daggerfall, will be using what some may consider an older engine. But you can't ignore the cold facts of the industry. And these are the facts.

#32 I disagree. Check the sales numbers for Quake, Doom, etc...

And then look at the numbers for WarCraft, Diablo, and the Sims.

You are trying to tell me that Blizards games sold because of the graphics?

#33 The reason Doom and Quake still sell is because they have names. I said that. They are from id Software, and id has a name.

Not to mention that both of them WERE revolutionary engines of their time.

Diablo II? Diablo II has a name. And Diablo 1 was known for its then state-of-the-art graphics. Read the reviews of Diablo, and you'll quickly see what I mean. Same goes for WarCraft.

The Sims is one of those very rare games that DID sell because of its gameplay--it was a completely new idea and it work incredibly well. But I don't think you'll find anyone who says that it had bad graphics for 2000.

#34 "That's the majority of gamers; obvisously it doesn't go for RPG fans, puzzle gamers, and strategy gamers (the group I like to call the "Thought Club"). Most of the others just want a game with eye candy where you kill people. Everything else is secondary."

Heh, way to backtrack. That's not the majority of gamers. That's majority of hardcore gamers and those mostly confined to the FPS genre. The fact is the majority of pc game revenue gained in the market is off of the casual gamers. Whose machines are not top of the line nor capable of mind blowing top tech graphics. Hardcore gamers are tech savvy and smaller in numbers comparitively. It is a niche market, one that is driven by those with their finger on the pulse of the technology (ie: Carmack). Those moguls also carry fat wallets and have many more years experience at it. If you want to compete in that market, more power to ya. Be sure to send a postcard.

On my previous statement, I wasn't refering to the gameplay. You said "the truth is that most of them won't play a game if its graphics aren't at least on par with last year's technology" and I showed the figures of those currently playing games over a year old (some much further in the rear age wise). The fact remains, people are playing games whose technology are far under last year's tech. Nothing more, nothing less. That was my point. They haven't abandoned them for newer graphics.

Saying Jeff doesn't know the game market is like saying Greenspan doesn't know shit about money (I'm being sarcastic). I think I'd trust his seasoned assessment over someone who only bears the viewpoint of a single customer and has never produced a game.

#35 Steve: Not to be a jerk but... Where's your marketing research? I ask this because I did just that - true marketing research. It was a required portion of my Business Plan & Marketing Plan, 'specially because I was working with a management group at one point (back in early 2001). What you are saying sounds more like you are lookin' for facts that fit your model, rather than looking at NPD sales data for PC titles.

Yes, such research exists. It's expensive, but, it's worth a lot of money to know your markets. Right now, the Hardcore market is the smaller slice of the market. The Sims, RollerCoaster Tychoon, and most strategy games tend to blow away most FPS and hardcore titles away when it comes to year end sales data.

(That reminds me of something I had planed to doing - releasing the research information from my Marketing Plan, sans any NPD data that you ain't supposed to re-release. I wouldn't mind having an NPD subscription now... too bad it runs around $3K for some of thier reports :-P

#36 Steve, you are asking us to totally dismiss free advice given by two men in the field with proven track records, only to go on your thoughts?

Something smells fishy... which brings me to

Quote:Once upon a time there were three billy goats called Gruff. In the winter they lived in a barn in the valleyspring came they , but when the longed to travel up to the mountains to eat the lush sweet grass.

On their way to the mountains the three Billy Goats Gruff had to cross a rushing river. But there was only one bridge across it, made of wooden planks. And underneath the bridge there lived a terrible, ugly, one-eyed troll.

Nobody was allowed to cross the bridge without the troll's permission - and nobody ever got permission. He always ate them up.

The smallest Billy Goat Gruff was first to reach the bridge. Trippity-trop, trippity-trop went his little hooves as he trotted over the wooden planks. Ting- tang, ting-tang went the little bell round his neck.

"Who's that trotting over my bridge?" growled the troll from under the planks.

"Billy Goat Gruff," squeaked the smallest goat in his little voice. "I'm only going up to the mountain to eat the sweet spring grass."

"Oh no, you're not!" said the troll. "I'm going to eat you for breakfast!"

"Oh no, please Mr Troll," pleaded the goat. "I'm only the smallest Billy Goat Gruff. I'm much too tiny for you to eat, and I wouldn't taste very good. Why don't you wait for my brother, the second Billy Goat Gruff? He's much bigger than me and would be much more tasty."

The troll did not want to waste his time on a little goat if there was a bigger and better one to eat. "All right, you can cross my bridge," he grunted. "Go and get fatter on the mountain and I'll eat you on your way back!"

So the smallest Billy Goat Gruff skipped across to the other side.

The troll did not have to wait long for the second Billy Goat Gruff. Clip-clop, clip-clop went his hooves as he clattered over the wooden planks. Ding-dong, ding-dong went the bell around his neck.

"Who's that clattering across my bridge?" screamed the troll, suddenly appearing from under the planks.

"Billy Goat Gruff," said the second goat in his middle-sized voice. "I'm going up to the mountain to eat the lovely spring grass."

"Oh no you're not!" said the troll. "I'm going to eat you for breakfast."

"Oh, no, please," said the second goat. "I may be bigger than the first Billy Goat Gruff, but I'm much smaller than my brother, the third Billy Goat Gruff. Why don't you wait for him? He would be much more of a meal than me."

The troll was getting very hungry, but he did not want to waste his appetite on a middle-sized goat if there was an even bigger one to come. "All right, you can cross my bridge," he rumbled. "Go and get fatter on the mountain and I'll eat you on your way back!"

So the middle-sized Billy Goat Gruff scampered across to the other side.

The troll did not have to wait long for the third Billy Goat Gruff. Tromp-tramp, tromp-tramp went his hooves as he stomped across the wooden planks. Bong-bang, bong-bang went the big bell round his neck.

"Who's that stomping over my bridge?" roared the troll, resting his chin on his hands.

"Billy Goat Gruff," said the third goat in a deep voice. "I'm going up to the mountain to eat the lush spring grass."

"Oh no you're not," said the troll as he clambered up on to the bridge. "I'm going to eat you for breakfast!"

"That's what you think," said the biggest Billy Goat Gruff. Then he lowered his horns, galloped along the bridge and butted the ugly troll. Up, up, up went the troll into the air... then down, down, down into the rushing river below. He disappeared below the swirling waters, and was drowned.

"So much for his breakfast," thought the biggest Billy Goat Gruff. "Now what about mine!" And he walked in triumph over the bridge to join his two brothers on the mountain pastures. From then on anyone could cross the bridge whenever they liked - thanks to the three Billy Goats Gruff.

--Eric

#37 More work.. less forums..


-J

#38 Man I haven't read 3 billy goats gruff in such a long time, as a kid I loved that story.

#39 Yeah I agree, as long as torque pretty much trounces other engines on those respects, might as well keep torque alive and continue to upgrade it!

#40 @Jeff "thats sounds like my boss" and i think your being a little harsh on a valuable point, so i will be too! graphicaly TGE sucks, the eye candy enhancements have been from the community. Graphics rightly or wrongly is what initialy sells the product, from package to ingame/ (demo,s), if tge cant or isnt willing to compete in the graphics states, it will go the way of other good, "dated" products.