Messages

1

TalkBack / RE:Games Too Complicated? Carmack Agrees.

« on: August 25, 2003, 08:28:27 PM »

Quote
It saddens me that even a game developer has missed the point.

Ah, but I haven't missed the point. There is a buzz going around about publishers trying to keep games in the future under 20 gameplay hours, so the players wont spend so much time playing one game, and in turn, purchasing more games to keep them entertained. Brilliant strategy for a publisher, horrible for the players. I understand the surface point of it all, but what the hidden message in calling for a "simplification" of games is, that is what interests me far more.

Quote
Games, even RPG's, don't HAVE to be complex.  You can simplify what it takes to play the game without "dumbing it down" or shortening the game.

True, we both know this, but is that surface level talk of simplification the only level there truly is? The things I've heard from other independents is making me wonder. For the gamers' sakes, I hope it is.

Quote
A context-sensitive control scheme that has been thought out well in advance can allow anyone to pick up a game and start to play immediately, rather than needing to expose the user to a lot of needless data.  Some users enjoy having to read a thick manual, but not everyone does.

Agreed, especially when dealing with console games. Players usually pop the disc and and pick up the controller and figure out the buttons as they go along in the game, one of the reasons a good in-game tutorial is one of the better approaches, and spare the paper. In this vein, I can think of one game that used more buttons than probably needed to: Lord of the Rings: Two Towers. Great game, can't knock it, but some of the combos were borderline ludicrous.

Quote
Just because you have a controller with eight buttons or a keyboard with 80+ buttons, doesn't mean you HAVE to use them all. This is what Nintendo means by simplifying games.  Not making them easier, or shortening them.  Just taking out needless complexity to make the game more accessible.

As I said, I hope you're right on this, that this is all they mean. This news came to me in the same week that I heard two different sources informing me that game publishers are making a push to keep games shorter as their new marketing scheme. If you can disprove these sources, then all the better. Yet, having combined all this news together, it makes me question the definition of "simplification" in the eyes of the publishers.

Perhaps I'm reading too deep into the topic, I've been guilty of such before. I'd rather that be the case again, than there being alterior motives.

Randy Wilson
Founder/Team Lead
Broken Attitude Studios
http://www.brokenattitude.com

2

TalkBack / RE:Games Too Complicated? Carmack Agrees.

« on: August 24, 2003, 07:50:13 PM »

As the head of a game development company, I have to strongly disagree with this whole policy of shortening games or simplifying them. There is a plethora of simple games, much to the dismay of anyone with an IQ that outranks their shoe size. This talk of simplification of games is nothing new, its been going on for years, especially by Sony's hand (not to pick a particular company and bash, just an example). The unfortunate trend is that games are getting shorter and shorter, regardless of genre. So, instead of getting 40-60 hours of gameplay for $50, you're now starting to get 15-25 hours of gameplay for $50. [p]

This whole process is just the capitalism side trying to take over the creative side of the game industry. If the publisher can get out more games, since they are being developed nice and simple, then they can get a whole ton of titles and have a larger percentage of the possibility of one of the titles being their "big hit". The simplification of games won't hurt them at all, it will hurt the consumer, and especially in the genre of rpg type games, where the complex story and the delicate weaving of character, plot and the unfolding of the overall tale is the main thing. What I can chalk up this new thought process of simplifying games to is simply the laziness and apathy to pour one's heart and soul into a game for the sake of making a game.  It seems that the developers out there these days forget about designing a game for the love of making the game, and only focus on their cash reward.

So we have the big companies looking at RPGs and wanting to simplify them. Folks, RPGs by nature are not simple, they never were before the reign of video games, and they never were during the age of video games. RPGs are complex, and until you've actually sat down and started working on a development team to design one, it's hard to truly appreciate the architecture behind it. Which brings me to my next point, regarding Carmack. Sure, he's a legend, but mostly of of FPS games, but FPS games are simpler in nature than an rpg, thus why you see so many more FPS games flooding the PC market as opposed to traditional rpgs (not including MMORPGS- different element). It's easy to bash a genre that you don't specialize in. It's not different than someone on this forum never playing a PS2 or xbox before and bashing the system anyway. Carmack's word on this matter has the value equivalent to a pack of JuicyFruit.

Look at it this way, when you beat a game, regardless of genre, you feel accomplished. Yet, with an RPG, when you beat it, if designed well, you feel like you just finished reading an amazing book, and want it to continue on. I know the feeling, as I've had it once before, when I completed Zelda: Ocarina of Time (I know, not really rpg, but close enough in element). I was glad that I beat the game..but then I wanted more.. I wanted to continue on, living through the characters. What will happen if the developers are forced to simplify their rpgs is this: there will be a lot of squeezing of elements, less weaponry, less races, less moves, less spells...basically all the elements a developer puts into giving an rpg replay value will be lost, and the game MIGHT be good for a play once through... and then the story will be simplified and you'll get a 6th grade reader version of the story, which would leave a lot of unanswered questions for the player.

As a developer and head of a gaming company, I find this interesting, especially in the view of Nintendo, as we are working on pitching our adventure rpg to them before the year's end, and our game is quite complex. Should prove interesting indeed. Personally, I think all games, regardless of genre should be made longer and more in-depth. After all, the players are paying good money , they should get their money's worth.

Randy Wilson
Founder/Team Lead
Broken Attitude Studios
http://www.brokenattitude.com


 

3

General Gaming / Need clarification on a rumor: ATI and Microsoft

« on: June 30, 2003, 02:23:21 PM »

Quote
And ATI want to crush Nvidia thats why ATI have accepted the Xbox job.

The original point of this post was to see if this was true in any form....sprong.com mentioned this on their site, but no other site had posted anything on ATI's stance in this. As of right now, it sounds more like Microsoft needing someone to make their GPU...a "source close to Nvidia" isnt quite selling the idea that ATI has accepted the Microsoft offer, if one was even made yet. I was asking around to see if there's anything out their with more weight to it, something like a quote from ATI on the issue.

[BrianSLA]

4

General Gaming / Need clarification on a rumor: ATI and Microsoft

« on: June 26, 2003, 03:53:29 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLAAs for ATI and Nintendo and ATI and Microsoft...... who will get ATI's next? Who knows. Although I think that ATI will go with Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't want to work with Nvidia again and Nvidia doesn't want to work with Microsoft again.

True, but Nintendo has already signed a contract with ATI, so its not like ATI is going to or even CAN drop them. My question was if this rumor with Microsoft and ATI held any weight. After all, what would a "source close to Nvidia" know about ATI's intent. Im not trying to sound like a fanboy or anything, but the way I translate that article at sprong.com is "Microsoft isnt working with Nvidia, so they're going to try and get a deal with ATI" not what everyone else is translating as "ATI is making the next Microsoft console GPU". I think that people take things out of context too easily.

The reason I made the original post was because I found Gamasutra.com quoting the sprong.com article. While I dont know the validity of sprong.com, I wouldn't imagine a big developer resource like Gamasutra quoting some possible scenario from a 3rd party website. They are usually noted to quote only directly from the parties involved.

I guess I was just seeing if there was any more official word on the matter, meaning directly from ATI. A "source close to Nvidia" does as much for me as someone on a fanboy website telling me "A homeless man named Jojo, who lives around the corner from me told me that...."

5

General Gaming / Need clarification on a rumor: ATI and Microsoft

« on: June 25, 2003, 06:15:54 PM »

I read a post on gamasutra.com which got a source from sprong.com about speculation of ATI signing a production contract with Microsoft. According to this speculation and the source at sprong.com, they say that a "source close to NVIDIA" says that the relationship between Microsoft and Nvidia went bad and that Microsoft is having ATI make their graphics processor instead.

Now, we all know that its old news that Nintendo and ATI already have a contract going for the next Nintendo console. Yet, this news says that ATI is designing the Micosofot console graphics too.... Im finding this extremely difficult to believe, since any proper business would not try to damage an exisiting relationship with a client by working with their competitor. Since ATI and Nintendo already signed the deal for the next gen production, I really doubt that ATI would have gone into contract with Microsoft as well for the same task.

Also, the source... "a source close to Nvidia" isnt exactly selling me on the news. Now if it was a source at ATI, then I could believe it. Personally, I think the translation of all this is "Microsoft pissed off Nvidia and they're trying to stall and buy time to find a way to develop their graphics system" and that ATI has nothing to do with this at all.

Now, why did I post this? I want other people's thoughts on the matter, or any more credible news for or against this bit of information. When the news is posted on places like theregister.com and enquirer.com, it holds no weight... but for a respectable site like gamasutra.com to even mention this, it catches my attention as something that needs to be addressed and resolved with facts.  

[mouse_clicker]

6

Nintendo Gaming / Nintendo Nexus: Next-gen name?

« on: June 23, 2003, 01:46:17 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Nexus sounds great, but I'm pretty sure the name has already been copyrighted by another company for some completely different product.
Xeon

Yes, this is anold article, but I wanted to clear up something... you cant copyright a name, you can only trademark it... and the trademark only applies to products within that field of products. So there can be a Nestle Nexus candy bar, a Toyota Nexus car, a Yamaha Nexus synthesizer, and a Nintendo Nexus video game system. So its, not out of the realm of possibilities. =)

Back to your regularly scheduled antics...

[Licken34]

7

TalkBack / Nintendo: The Problems, The Plans and The Future

« on: May 12, 2003, 09:17:04 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Licken34
An interesting read indeed, but I do have my qualms with certain issues and certain people’s responses.

1)   Raze, games are being cancelled for the Gamecube, more so now than ever in fact. However, most of these are games that you and I and maybe even the average Joe wouldn’t care about. Just because Nintendo is landing a few big deals with a few companies (and notice that not every deal is set for exclusivity) doesn’t mean that it isn’t losing ground to ‘PS2/XBOX Only’ titles, check out any multi-console magazine or website for proof.

It depends on what stance you take on it really. The trend I've been seeing is more games being multi-console, including the GameCube. Sure, there are some games being cancelled, but there are more games being added to the list than there are being taken away, at leas thtat's what the 2003 trend has presented to us so far. One major misconception with the general public is that they believe a title is pulled because the system it was being produced for was faltering. This is not the case 90% of the time. See, when a development house of any rank signs on with a publisher, they have to abide by the publisher's rules. Now, there are only a select number of publishers that are authorized by Nintendo. If the development house doesn't sign a contract with a Nintendo-authorized publisher, then they cannot make games for Nintendo's systems. If they sign on with a different publisher, but later on decide to expand to the Nintendo audience, they have to sign a seperate deal with an authorized publisher.

What happens here is, the same game has two publishers. Publishers by nature are bloodsucking vampires and basically demand either exclusive deals within their company or demand the rights to the game. What you have is the ragdoll affect.... two people pulling on opposite arms. The development house is the ragdoll in the middle and the two publishers are the people pulling. What ensues at this point is something similar to a bid war. Both publishers try to lure the development house to sign only with them. So, the developer is left to make a decision.

Like I said, this isn't always the case, but is often the majority. Some other reasons for game cancellations:
- Funding withdrawn or exhausted
- Major conflicts among staff in the development house
- Failure to meet deadlines/milestones
- Shift of resources to another project
- Franchise rights revoked
- Aggresive investor providing large percentage of budget makes personal request/has a vendetta against one of the game companies
- Development house disbands

8

TalkBack / Nintendo: The Problems, The Plans and The Future

« on: May 12, 2003, 04:04:53 AM »

Hmm. just starting to read over this. Have to disagree with Fran on this one, regarding 3rd party development. He states that more titles are being made for PS2/Xbox only..but if you actually studied the trend since 2001, the amount of 3rd party support for GC has increased. Where was the Final Fantasy and Metal Gear series back in 2001, for a raw example? No hope of coming to the GameCube then.

I am truly amazed that these young cats that are "gaming journalists" (nearly chokes on laughter) think that they understand the market. I am the CEO of a new development house (shameless plug - http://www.brokenattitude.com ) and have been studying the market ever since the current generation of consoles released. Its a good thing that these guys dont run a gaming business, because they have no skills at analyzing the industry and fail to be able to predict production trends.  

9

TalkBack / RE: Entertainment Weekly Names Zelda All-Time Top Game

« on: May 06, 2003, 07:16:13 PM »

What? The Olson Twins game didnt make the list!? *gasps in horror*