etc., etc.

[Jul 16, 2012, 9:11 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments

View

9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

Re: etc., etc.

Jul 17, 2012, 03:47

eRe4s3r

It's not better when you think about 2D games either, 4000 tile sprites with about 30 animated characters sets you back about $100.000 to $200.000 that is still a lot of money, and the prime reason why so many indies just go for low-fidelty 3D-art (because artists can make "not great, but OK" models much faster. For 50 low-poly models without fancy sculpting involved and 200 2d-rendered subsystems (say, for a space game) you need at most $25k. If you know this it makes you realize why so many kickstarters ask for 100k to 200k, unless the game aims to look exceptionally crap the cost for good art is high. And it is reality that the highest cost in game development is art/sound. Thats why so many indy games have bad art and sound. Unless they were exceptionally lucky with finding funding.

Re: etc., etc.

Jul 17, 2012, 03:15

Flatline

eRe4s3r wrote on Jul 17, 2012, 03:11: I know, as a 3d-artist I am asking and hoping for better tools for nearly a decade now. The current sculpting/unwrapping/hard-modeling is completely stupid if you want to make feature rich environments. You need 200+ artists to make a 10 hour game if you want detailed graphics and fidelity. That is completely insane. QFT. And even at 50k a year, you're looking at 10 million a year in 3d modeling alone with those numbers.

Re: etc., etc.

Jul 17, 2012, 03:11

eRe4s3r

I know, as a 3d-artist I am asking and hoping for better tools for nearly a decade now. The current sculpting/unwrapping/hard-modeling is completely stupid if you want to make feature rich environments. You need 200+ artists to make a 10 hour game if you want detailed graphics and fidelity. That is completely insane.

Re: etc., etc.

Jul 17, 2012, 03:05

Flatline

eRe4s3r wrote on Jul 17, 2012, 02:21: But that is a direct result of lack of innovation. I am sure if they cared, they could make great unique or very fun PC and Console games, even if both run on both platforms. As long as controls/settings are fine. My point merely is that big studios do not innovate. Look at RTS or FPS genres. No innovation, literally NILL. And Activision -> COD -> Starcraft 2 -> Diablo 3 perfectly demonstrate the point. COD is COD... Starcraft 2 is a direct SC1 clone (stagnation). Diablo 3 does less things than Diablo 2: LOD (regression!) and sadly people buy this crap by the boatload. And wonder why no new cool games come out from the big studios. Despite the crap DRM, only Ubisoft actually releases (some) non-standard games. I just wish they would drop this stupid DRM because that would net em so much good-will.... but meh Not only that, but it's costing more and more to make AAA titles. Today's AAA title has a dev cost that is in excess of most blockbuster movies, and is on par with sht like Transformers and stuff. The lack of innovation behind these budgets is the same reason why we have lack of innovation in the movie industry. The risk of blowing 2-400 million (including advertising) means that very few truly dangerous/out there games are going to be made on a AAA budget. You'll still have a few occasional novel AAA games out there like you have novel AAA movies, but generally speaking, unless the next generation of technology focuses on bringing down* production costs for top end visuals, you're going to have an even worse time next generation. It's part of why the Unreal engine has been rampaging through the industry: there's tools to make content more cost efficient. I dunno how do it, it needs to be done. We're basically still pushing the same 3d technology that we were 15 years ago, but the poly counts have skyrocketed and we are inching closer towards photorealistic lighting and effects. It's still an incredibly labor intensive process. Edit: I'm not seeing our salvation in the indie areas either. Don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic indie efforts out there. But every time I see buzz for an indie game, I get wary. My eyes glaze every time I see another tower defense derivative (of which I can play aprox. eleventy billion of on Newgrounds), another 2d platformer (unless it has something really unique behind it), or god forbid the words "procedurally generated". A lot of indie games that get buzz I try, and find that they lack developmental polish. High concept, but the game itself is missing timing or structure or straight fun. Partially this is because I suspect the indie movement hasn't really vivisected what makes fun games fun, the way people have vivisected movies. How many people go back and play Metroid: Prime and take notes on the timing of unlocks and how to make backtracking easy and interesting? This comment was edited on Jul 17, 2012, 03:11.

Re: etc., etc.

Jul 17, 2012, 02:21

eRe4s3r

But that is a direct result of lack of innovation. I am sure if they cared, they could make great unique or very fun PC and Console games, even if both run on both platforms. As long as controls/settings are fine. My point merely is that big studios do not innovate. Look at RTS or FPS genres. No innovation, literally NILL. And Activision -> COD -> Starcraft 2 -> Diablo 3 perfectly demonstrate the point. COD is COD... Starcraft 2 is a direct SC1 clone (stagnation). Diablo 3 does less things than Diablo 2: LOD (regression!) and sadly people buy this crap by the boatload. And wonder why no new cool games come out from the big studios. Despite the crap DRM, only Ubisoft actually releases (some) non-standard games. I just wish they would drop this stupid DRM because that would net em so much good-will.... but meh

Re: etc., etc.

Jul 17, 2012, 02:04

Kitkoan

eRe4s3r wrote on Jul 16, 2012, 22:39:
Activision is the pestilent boil of the Industry.. so no surprise there. There were never so many games coming up like this year, so the Industry is certainly not dead. It's just the big studios that have a problem, because big studios usually do not do new fresh stuff.

More like the big studios are trying to pound a square (console-style gaming) peg through a round (computer-style gaming) hole and not understanding why it's not working well




automatically refuses to place horse heads in anyone's bed

Re: etc., etc.

Jul 16, 2012, 22:39

eRe4s3r

Activision is the pestilent boil of the Industry.. so no surprise there. There were never so many games coming up like this year, so the Industry is certainly not dead. It's just the big studios that have a problem, because big studios usually do not do new fresh stuff.

Re: etc., etc.

Jul 16, 2012, 21:52

RollinThundr

ASeven wrote on Jul 16, 2012, 21:20: Heh, no demand for Activision stock. This is going to give Microsoft or whomever even more reasons to offer a lower price per share, not to even mention what it means for the industry that such shares have such reported low demand. But but the industry is stronger than it's ever been! Just ask Beamer!

Re: etc., etc.

Jul 16, 2012, 21:20

ASeven

Heh, no demand for Activision stock. This is going to give Microsoft or whomever even more reasons to offer a lower price per share, not to even mention what it means for the industry that such shares have such reported low demand.

9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >