Let's Play Xargon!
That's because making a game is a far larger financial risk today. In the 80s and early 90s, a small staff of people, sometimes even just one person, could make a fun game that would sell to a smaller audience, using relatively cheap software. Today the software is horrendously expensive, everything has to be in 3D or HD, and to make up for that it has to sell to a wide audience. It's no wonder that outside of smaller digital distribution titles, companies bend over backwards to copy success.
For 2D, High Definition graphics aren't too expensive, but with 3D the polygons can look really bad if they're not super-detailed.
Last edited by RoboBlue on Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:16, edited 1 time in total.
-
Galaxieretter
- Arachnut
- Posts: 891
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:35
- Location: Lancaster PA
- Contact:
If I may interject-
Mafia II, a gritty telling of a mafia member during the end of WWII and through the 1950's based on factual stories of crime within the United States of America.
The Chronicles of Riddick, a Science Fiction thriller about a criminal who is captured by a band of psychopaths that raid terraformed colonies and turn the captured colonists into living robot organisms and him trying to escape.
Not really the same there. It's all about how someone looks at it. Are they all 3D? Yes. Are they all action-oriented? Yes. Do they use guns? Yes.
WELL THEN IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME GAAAAAME! Damn dude, chill.
That's like saying all movies are the same, and they are. You know, a bunch of big-name actors that we've all seen before. They are all made on film. They all cost millions of dollars. And they all suck. What's the difference between them?
That's like saying ALL STORIES ARE THE SAME. You know, they all have an introduction, they all have a rising action, they all have a climax and they all have a resolution. What's the point, all stories are the same.
It all depends on how you look at it.
I disagree.
The software should be developed in-house, from people who LEARN how to program in either Open GL or DirectX (because there actually isn't any other way to program graphics these days directly to the video memory like you could with VGA.) develop their own editing tools, sound and graphics engines.
My goal in LIFE is to do THIS. For FREE. Make 3D games of super graphics, to the point where you couldn't even run them on 32 bit computers and require the latest graphics equipment. (Not only that, but turn it around and make it work on old hardware but that's just for fun.) Just because that is something I want, and NEED to do in my life before I die. To me, videogames ARE "art."
Yes, there is artwork that is sold, most of it is freaking free, what's the deal? Why aren't we flooded with free 3D games of decent quality?
A lot of today's games ARE vastly different from each other. Take for example, Mafia II and say... The Chronicles of Riddick, Assault on the Dark Athena.tulip wrote:If that were true todays games should be vastly different from each other due to little software and hardware limitations. Yet every new (commercial) game looks and plays exactly the same. But yeah, you got a point, they aren't creative anymore.
Mafia II, a gritty telling of a mafia member during the end of WWII and through the 1950's based on factual stories of crime within the United States of America.
The Chronicles of Riddick, a Science Fiction thriller about a criminal who is captured by a band of psychopaths that raid terraformed colonies and turn the captured colonists into living robot organisms and him trying to escape.
Not really the same there. It's all about how someone looks at it. Are they all 3D? Yes. Are they all action-oriented? Yes. Do they use guns? Yes.
WELL THEN IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME GAAAAAME! Damn dude, chill.
That's like saying all movies are the same, and they are. You know, a bunch of big-name actors that we've all seen before. They are all made on film. They all cost millions of dollars. And they all suck. What's the difference between them?
That's like saying ALL STORIES ARE THE SAME. You know, they all have an introduction, they all have a rising action, they all have a climax and they all have a resolution. What's the point, all stories are the same.
It all depends on how you look at it.
Are you telling me that one person, or a small group of people can NOT produce a 3D game, comparable to the "good" ones made this year?RoboBlue wrote:That's because making a game is a far larger financial risk today. In the 80s and early 90s, a small staff of people, sometimes even just one person, could make a fun game that would sell to a smaller audience, using relatively cheap software. Today the software is horrendously expensive, everything has to be in 3D or HD, and to make up for that it has to sell to a wide audience. It's no wonder that outside of smaller digital distribution titles, companies bend over backwards to copy success.
I disagree.
The software should be developed in-house, from people who LEARN how to program in either Open GL or DirectX (because there actually isn't any other way to program graphics these days directly to the video memory like you could with VGA.) develop their own editing tools, sound and graphics engines.
My goal in LIFE is to do THIS. For FREE. Make 3D games of super graphics, to the point where you couldn't even run them on 32 bit computers and require the latest graphics equipment. (Not only that, but turn it around and make it work on old hardware but that's just for fun.) Just because that is something I want, and NEED to do in my life before I die. To me, videogames ARE "art."
Yes, there is artwork that is sold, most of it is freaking free, what's the deal? Why aren't we flooded with free 3D games of decent quality?
It also depends on the detail of the textures used. You can have a cube, and if it has an ultra-resolution graphic on it, it will look good. If not, it will be all blurry.RoboBlue wrote:For 2D, High Definition graphics aren't too expensive, but with 3D the polygons can look really bad if they're not super-detailed.
Yes, I'm saying that it's almost impossible for a small group of people to produce a financially successful retail game that isn't shovelware.Galaxieretter wrote: Are you telling me that one person, or a small group of people can NOT produce a 3D game, comparable to the "good" ones made this year?
I disagree.
-
kuliwil
- Blue-tongued Yorp
- Posts: 1731
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:51
- Location: Facestalking Commander Spleen.
- Contact:
Disagree: it just takes too long. Plenty of great 3D games have come out of Unis. I'll link u some at a later date.....RoboBlue wrote:Yes, I'm saying that it's almost impossible for a small group of people to produce a financially successful retail game that isn't shovelware.Galaxieretter wrote: Are you telling me that one person, or a small group of people can NOT produce a 3D game, comparable to the "good" ones made this year?
I disagree.
"Hi, I'm Tom Sellick's moustache."
That's pretty much my feeling. I know there are others, but mainstream... not only for games btw, pretty much all commercial media... I curse the guy who invented mainstream.Galaxieretter wrote:Are they all 3D? Yes. Are they all action-oriented? Yes. Do they use guns? Yes.
I wonder, Galax, why you are trying so hard to shield yourself from movies and TV and at the same time you're playing almost all new mainstream games.
You crack me up little buddy!I don't blame the people who want to make a profit, but I do blame the people who buy the same product over and over again, every year. However, I have to admit that I've benefited from that, since more than half of my apartment (furniture, televisions, and movies) is stuff that was either bought at a garage sale or found at the curb. You'd be surprised how often people throw out a perfectly good 52 inch projection TV. 