|
|
Account Name: scottm
Email address: scottm@finger.3drealms.com
----------
========================================
May 15, 2001
Most of the company is leaving for E3 tomorrow. Really looking forward to
a fun show. Will finally get to see the Gamecube and Xbox, though I'm not
expecting much from the Xbox and still hold on to my prediction from a year
ago (in this spot) that it will be the number three console behind the PS2
and Gamecube.
Looking forward to seeing a long list of PC games, like Warcraft 3, Raven's
3D games (consistently very good, one of the underrated developers in the
industry), Return to Castle Wolfenstein (especially since Apogee was
involved with the first one, nearly 10 years ago), Dungeon Siege (lame
generic name, but I think this will be a killer game), Unreal 2,
Anachronox, and there are always cool surprises, too.
I'm hoping for a good reaction for our DNF and Max Payne videos, plus Max
will have backroom demos going on and those are always fun to sit in on to
see the press' reaction. Also, for Max, it'll be a great way to get a
reading on what people think of this nearly finished game while there's
still a little of bit of time for some tweaking.
The DNF and Max videos will be available on the Internet May 17th, the
first day of the E3 show, so for those fans not at the show, we didn't want
to leave you out of the fun. Also, CNN requested and received a copy of
both videos, so they might appear (in part) on TV, too. (CNN usually has
decent coverage of E3.)
Hope you're able to see what we've been up to
========================================
March 17, 2000
A few concerns about Microsoft's coming X-Box console:
[1] A big knock against all next-gen consoles, now that they have the graphics horse power
to matter, is that TV screens are relatively low-resolution monitors that cannot deliver the
clean, detailed images of a PC monitor. Until HDTV is wide spread, this gives a BIG advantage
to PCs.
[2] Typically, in a given major market, only the top two brands will be highly successful, and
I think everyone has good reason to believe Sony is a lock as one of those two. Nintendo or
Sega both have a very strong chance at being the other one, since both of those companies
are solely focused on the gaming market and that gives them many business and marketing
advantages. Nintendo, ESPECIALLY, seems like a sure-thing because of their very strong
gaming brands, like Zelda, Mario Bros., Donkey Kong, and Pokémon. And even the PC itself
must be considered a formidable game platform.
[3] It's just not convenient or easy to use a mouse in front of a TV, so that's a big-time PC,
and an advantage that makes games that are best played on PCs (FPS and RTS games,
among others), often too hard to play on the X-Box as with the other consoles.
[4] If Microsoft believes that anyone will want to use the Internet and do their email, etc. on
a TV-based console system, they will been proven wrong. I just don't see people putting up
with that kind of hassle, and reading text on fuzzy TVs, and doing anything on the X-Box that
is far better suited to a PC. Maybe when a desk in front of TV screens become standard
equipment, then consoles will have a prayer at becoming more than just a game machine.
[5] I foresee that the majority of X-Box games will be enhanced ports of PC games. This will
be a serious problem for the X-Box's identity, because I don't see many developers making
original content and brands for it--the majority of developers will still make games for the PC
and then choose to port them to the X-Box. I predict most developers who develop games
for the PC will simply say, "Hey, let's do an X-Box version, too!"
[6] It's hard to imagine that any hardcore PC game players will buy the X-Box. People with
PCs will stick with PCs because PCs are by far the better game playing machine (assuming the
PC has a generally equal CPU and 3D graphics card, and PCs for sale when the X-Box comes
out should easily exceed the X-Box's CPU power, and be close to equal with the 3D graphics
card), because they easily support the mouse (you're setting at a desk!), and the monitor is
capable of displaying text that's readable in something wider than a 50 column mode! Also,
the PC has many other applications, and it has a keyboard (imagine trying to play a FPS
without a mouse and a keyboard--and think about all those keyboard shortcut keys for so
many other games), making it the best all-in-one solution for most people. Quite simply, few
people with a PC, I think, will switch to the X-Box to play games when it's easier to stay put
on the PC. Sure, some people with older PCs may buy an X-Box to play high-end PC games,
but I think that's a small percentage of us. Overall, stripped down PCs that are reduced to
game machines doesn't seem like a winning idea, because a PC is so much better, and PC
prices are becoming much less a barrier for people who might otherwise buy a console
machine.
In addition to these six points, I'll address a few comments I've seen in the press. David
Cage, CEO of Quantic Dream, is quoted as saying in the current issue of NextGen: "[The] PC
is probably condemned to disappear [as a game machine]...The reason is simple, you need to
pay about five to ten times more to have a good PC than a console." The fallacy with this
comment is that people buy PCs to do more than play games, and they buy them for the
complete package of things that can be done with them. Quite simply, PCs will never be
replaced by consoles as the preferred device to use the Internet and run other non-game
applications--and even many game genres are better suited to PCs than consoles.
Rob Dyer, a V.P. with Eidos, says in the same article: "I'm going way out on a limb, but I
think the PC is going to cease to be any kind of viable platform within the next 18 to 24
months. It's going to be completely supplanted by Microsoft's X-Box or whatever else." You
have to admire a bold claim like this, but it just isn't going to happen. PCs, due to their wide
utility, will always be around, and always be a solid platform for game developers. The X-Box
will not replace the PC as a game platform, no way.
The X-Box will have near impossible time competing against the PC, PS2 and Dolphin. And all
four cannot succeed, the market cannot support this many successful game platforms.
Microsoft of course has big money, so many people think that's an automatic win, but big
money doesn't mean success, otherwise companies like Gateway, Dell and Compaq would
have never had incredible success against IBM in the PC market. Influence and positioning are
more important than money, and Sony and Nintendo both have far better positioning
(Microsoft really isn't known as a game company by the general public), and both Sony and
Nintendo have strong influence, too, probably better than Microsoft in the game channels.
The things that the X-Box will have in its favor, such as being a fixed and stable hardware
platform, and a low price compared to PCs, may not be enough to overtake the other top
consoles and the PC itself. Strange as it may seem, the X-Box might have a better chance of
being successful, IF it was not so much like the PC, inviting mostly PC ports rather than
entirely original projects and brands.
========================================
Sept. 18, 1998
The current PC Gamer and other recent magazine editions have run articles listing the best 50 or
100 games of all time. My concern is that these lists often don't include older, groundbreaking
games. For example, should not a game like Wolfenstein 3-D be included because it kicked-off the
3D first-person shooter genre? Should not Myst be a lock because it's the best selling game of all
time, and therefore the most popular game in PC history? And how can any such list omit
revolutionary and great games like M.U.L.E., and Wing Commander, and Tetris?!
Any Best Games Ever list without these games can't be a Best Games Ever list.
Wolfenstein 3-D is outdated and surpassed by six years of technically better 3D shooters. Same
with the other games listed above. And that's the problem with these lists: They often don't take
into account how influential and innovative a game was for its time. Instead, these lists mostly
comprise themselves with games released in the past few years. Do lists of the Best Novels Ever
or Best Movies Ever only contain recent titles? Absolutely not.
This is why I prefer Computer Gaming World magazine's Hall of Fame over lists of the Best Games
Ever. A Hall of Fame ignores games that are current hits and recognizes games that stand the
test of time, impact the industry and influence their genre. Best Games Ever lists contain too
many games that come and go, but once a game makes the Hall of Fame list, it's there forever,
and for good reason.
I'm not sure who would manage it, but I'd like to see an industry sanctioned Hall of Fame. The
SPA (Software Publishers Association) seems like an obvious choice to handle this, except they've
shown themselves to be utterly inept with their annual Codie Awards, an industry farce that
should be put to death like an annoying mosquito.
Unless something more official is formed, the CGW Hall of Fame will likely remain the best listing of
our industry's best games, especially from a historical perspective.
========================================
July 8, 1998
A few people have reminded me that many months ago I said that I'd write about
the negative effects that realistic and improved graphics have had on the game
industry. I guess it's time to pontificate. Who knows, I might even have a
valid point or two--sometimes I get lucky that way.
Let's get this straight: Everyone loves the improved graphics we're seeing in
today's games. The key problem is that too often developers focus on graphics
and lose focus gameplay issues.
This is why most FMV (full motion video) games fell flat on their pompous
faces. This is why the convergence of Hollywood and Silicon Valley won't
revolutionize the game industry. This is why Rocket Science never had a
chance.
Spin the date dial back to the late 70's and early 80's, when graphics were
1-bit, we're talking black and white, but included masterworks like Asteroids,
Space Invaders, Space War, Battlezone, and Pong. Other 1-bit games used
colored plastic overlays on the monitor itself, like Star Castle, Armor
Attack, and Warlords, and on some machines those overlays even lined up
correctly.
But you know what, as unrealistic as those graphics were, those games were
addictively fun. Later games like Pac Man, Galaxian, Missile Command,
Tempest, Defender, and Centipede graduated to 2-bit (4 color), and even 4-bit
(16 color) graphics. But still, the graphics weren't the selling point--it
was still the balanced, polished gameplay. Designers back then for the most
part designed their games with gameplay in mind first, and the graphics were
simply a medium to bring their game to life. Look how these older games have
been fondly remembered over the years. There's a single, solid reason for
that: Gameplay.
Nowadays, with graphics standards escalating on nearly a monthly basis, it's
tough for developers to focus long and hard on the juicy meat of game design.
Imagine what the game chess might be like if the game designers had focused
too much attention on the quality of the wooden or stone pieces, and the
detail and shape of the pieces (polygon count?). I can't imagine that these
were important considerations when the game of chess evolved, meaning chess'
gameplay (game rules and the interaction of the pieces) mattered most and
could be polished without competing distractions.
However, game players like to see something that looks better than they've
seen before. That's what puts the pressure on developers to focus on better
graphics, and that deducts time from gameplay balance and polishing.
Perhaps the real enemy of gameplay is advancing technology, such as faster
CPUs and new 3D accelerated cards. If we could freeze hardware technology for
five years, then all developers could stop competing so hard on the graphics
front and once again give due attention to gameplay concerns. We might even
have more time to think of a few more original games, since we wouldn't have
the crutch of just doing what's been done before but with a better graphics
engine.
I think gameplay is the victim of advancing technology, which favors
advancements in graphics over advancements in game design. It's a rare
development team that can overcome the seduction of advancing technology and
give gameplay issues proper focus. Every developers' first step in this
direction is to be aware of the problem...
========================================
June 22, 1998
Geoff Keighley, editor of GameSlice, wrote an interesting article on shareware
games today:
http://www.gameslice.com/editorial/0622share.shtml
In it, he asks "Why aren’t there any new shareware companies or any exciting
new shareware games being released?"
Having been involved in the shareware industry since 1986, often in key ways,
I think I can answer this question.
Nowadays, it more often than not takes 10 to 20 person teams to make
competitive games. It used to be much different, and not all that long ago.
For example, in the early years of Apogee's existence, up until 1993, it was
normal for a shareware development team to have only 3 to 5 developers, and in
some cases these developers had day jobs, too.
The original Duke Nukem (a platform style game, technically superior to
anything comparable), released in mid-1991, was created by two full-time
developers (Todd Replogle and Allen Blum), plus a few people who contributed
bits and pieces (including me--I designed all the levels in the shareware
episode and did most of the game's sound effects). This game sold 1500 copies
a month for nearly a year, at $30 a pop, with no middleman retailer or
publisher. Apogee was grossing $45,000 a month on a game that took six months
and maybe $20,000 total to make. Todd made a significant portion of that.
Shareware in those days was a gold mine because there wasn't much competition,
even from the retail market, where maybe 40 to 80 games were released a
year--not the 1200+ that are released in recent years.
The stakes are so much higher now that the game industry is so competitive. I
can't see that any small, unfunded shareware team has much of a chance unless
that team breaks into a new area or opens up a new genre. Even Wolfenstein
3-D needed heavy funding from Apogee to get done. id Software had to be
guaranteed a significant five-figure advance before they agreed to do the
game. In hindsight that advance was insignificant, considering what the game
made for both companies!
Lots of people think Wolfenstein 3-D came out of nowhere to blow away the
industry, but that was not the case. By that time id was a professionally run
company with several successful Commander Keen games behind them, and they had
an incredible work ethic from their days working in the sweat shop known as
Softdisk, cranking out a quality game a month (one of those games being the
precursor to Wolfenstein 3-D, a 3D EGA title, Catacombs 3-D.)
Geoff asks, "Shareware, where are you?" The answer is not that shareware has
changed, the answer is that the entire game industry has become
hyper-competitive, and this makes it very tough for small, unfunded teams to
surprise the world with something that stands out. It's sad, but it's the
price of progress.
========================================
May 1, 1998
Resume Writing Tips for the Game Industry and Beyond:
I see maybe 150 resumes each year. Most contain too much information and the
wrong emphasis on what's important. In the past few months many people have
asked me to review their resume and offer tips, so I've written this "standard
reply" to use in the future, which I'll share here.
[1] Don't exceed a page in length. Not even Albert Einstein, Benjamin
Franklin or Thomas Edison have the credentials to exceed one page. In fact,
the longer your resume, the more it looks like you're trying to hide the fact
that you don't have much going for you. Short, concise resumes are those that
actually get read.
[2] Include all forms of contact information, including address, phone, fax
and email. Make yourself easy to reach.
[3] The first section is titled "Objective." Make this one or two sentences,
absolutely no more. Do not write a me-oriented objective ("I'm looking for
position that exploits my design strengths, furthers my growth, and has real
opportunities for advancement.") Instead, write a company oriented objective
that shows you're team and goal oriented ("I'm a team player looking to help
develop innovative games that achieve the company's vision and design goals.")
Short and sweet works best here.
[4] Next, in bullet point form, list three to five highlights, each one
physical line long. This is the area in which you really sell yourself!
Readers typically look here first because it summarizes your achievements and
value. Einstein, for example, might mention these things:
* Wrote Special Theory of Relativity, disproving several of Newton's laws
* Showed how mass and energy were equivalent (E=MC^2)
* Received the Nobel Prize in 1921
* Predicted existence of black holes 50 years before being detected
* Involved with the creation of atomic bomb
[5] After this, briefly mention your work history, but only as it pertains to
the job you're going after. Don't mention unrelated positions that don't help
your cause. Instead, say that you can provide an extensive work history upon
request. Don't bother putting down that you flipped hamburgers or bagged
grociers (unless you're appying for a job in those industries).
[6] In the education section, don't mention high school, only college and
other related training. Once again, you can mention that a more complete
education history is available on request.
For programmers, do not list every language and operating system under the
sun, which makes you look like a jack of all trades but a master of none.
You're much better off listing one or two languages as your "expertise," and
if you know more say you're also "familiar with the following languages."
Another key point is that most companies and developers prefer to hire
specialists, not generalists, so try to position yourself as a graphics
specialist, 3D engine specialist, AI specialist, network/Internet specialist,
etc.
For artists, coders, musicians, etc., you might want to say that samples and
demos are available on request.
[7] Regarding references, go ahead a list two or three, and if you have more
say they're available on request.
[8] The last piece of the puzzle is often overlooked: the cover letter.
This is where you specifically mention why you want to work for the company,
and why you like the company. This is a great place to brown nose a little by
specifically mentioning company products and what you like about the company's
vision, etc. Prospective employers love to think you are applying to their
company because you have a passion for the company. Keep this letter to one
page, don't be too wordy, and maintain professionalism.
Best of luck.
========================================
March 27, 1998
I've gotten a very good response to my recent plans about gameplay and the old
days of the arcade industry, and I've been asked to continue with similar
updates.
First, so you know where I'm coming from, I started playing arcade games in
1976, at the age of 15, but it wasn't until Space Invaders came out that I
become a hopeless addict, spending my last quarter playing arcade games. This
led to several jobs working at arcades in the early 80's, when the industry
was booming and there were arcades on every corner like there are McDonald's
today (this was the pre-Chicken McNugget's era).
I met my future Apogee partner, George Broussard, in high school in 1978,
where we both hung out in the computer room with a teletype time-share system,
and an Apple II. We became friends and ended up working at the same arcades
in the early 80's.
George and I became top experts at many arcade games, and even entered several
tournaments. In one of the biggest Dallas-area tournaments, George took first
place and I got second, out of over 100 competitors.
In those days a top players would often carry around a sheet of paper with
their best scores written down for all the games they were good at. I've
still got my old papers somewhere. We'd bump into other champion class
players and compare scores. George and I would usually have the better
scores, so it occurred to us that we should start an official league of top
game players, and have an official high score database (too bad the Web wasn't
around back then--it would have made it easy for us to do this).
In '82, we formed the NVGPA (National Video Game Players Assoc.), and we were
writing a newsletter, but then the opportunity came for us to write a strategy
book on how to beat the top arcade games of the day, so we pursued that. too.
We really thought the book was going to make us rich. I remember running the
book's potential sale's figures though my mind: In each of the top 250 cities
there must be a least an average of 10,000 game players, and if just 100 of
them bought our book that would be 25,000 sales, plus in all the remaining
cities we should count on at least 5 more books sold in each, which should add
another 25,000 sales. And with each sale george and I get $1 each. Wow,
that's more money than we can make in 5 real years of work--we'd be rich!
But in the six months it took us to write our book about 20 others came out,
and ours didn't make a dent. I think less than 1000 sold, and that didn't
even cover the printing expenses. We saw not a penny for our work.
However, I used the book to get a job as a weekly columnist at the Dallas
Morning News, where I wrote for four years about arcade, home video, and
computer games. And this in turn opened the door to write about 100 articles
and reviews for the top national gaming magazines during the 80's, such as
COMPUTE!, one of the biggest general computing mags of it's time.
George and I, during the mid- and late-80's kept buying all the new computers
(IBM PC, PET, C-64, Amiga, etc) and we continued to code our own games, and
even sell them to small publishers, like Keypunch Software (run by the same
guy who nows runs WizardsWorks, a division of GT Interactive--small world!).
These early years taught us a lot about games, gameplay and gave us a good
"shit filter" about what ideas should make it into a game, and which
shouldn't. I think of all those 1000's of dollars I spent on games back then
as tuition to video game college, which I'm now cashing in on.
That's a brief background check. Soon, I'll write about the negative effects
that realistic graphics have had on the game industry.
[EOF]
|
|
3DRealms...
Also Today...
Yesterday...
Full list
|
|
 |
Copyright © Square
Eight 1998-2016. All Rights Reserved.
The BlueTracker is provided by Webdog.
We are not responsible for the content of the .plans displayed here.
|
|
|
|
|
Twitter 
