I just looked at the 10 finalists of IGF competition. They are all wonderful..and I feel lacked behind 1000 miles . However, I notice some of them are inventive, new gameplay (i.e. real-time chess, golf+baseball)..some others...stay with the same old gameplays, but with remarkably wonderful graphics. A chess game..the old turn-based chess game, requires nVidia GeForce, ATI Radeon graphics card. Wow..that's an amazing requirements. But, is it really necessary? I also notice that in indie games that I have downloaded so far, from GDNet contests, forums, other sites, etc, although they have crappy 2D sprites, they run in 1024x768! I mean..geez...look at those blank spaces, the game itself does not even need such high resolution. Why would some people try to make their games requirement so high...and forgetting about the content of the game? Isn't it bad in terms of marketing and popularity? "Look, I just make a tetris clone. You need at least Radeon 9700 to play it, because it's running in 1600x1200 with vertex shader, bla bla bla." OK, now, it's a little bit personal, but it's a perfect example. Not long ago, one of us (GDnet members) just posted his new game and asked people to test it. Well, people gave comments and opinions. I downloaded and run it. Boom, title screen in the center, as usual, but..."where's the menu?"..oh it's on the top left corner of the screen, and takes about...5% of the screen? The game is running in a high resolution. Need your opinions, especially from those who love to make games in high resolution. My compiler generates one error message: "does not compile." [edited by - alnite on December 11, 2002 5:19:47 AM]

Necessary? Probably not. But if you are part of a small team, you are usually lucky to complete a nice polished game. Usually making sure your game work on old hardware isnt a high priority.

You also need to consider audience. Usually the games I make I just intend for myself and maybe some friends to play, usually it just ends up being a learning experience for myself. Maybe post some screen shots online and maybe a few other people will try it. Im just not that concerned with making sure lower end systems can run my game, cause well, I just dont care.

That being said, the Indie games that ARE trying to appeal to more people should probably be able to run at lower resolutions and on non-cutitng-edge video cards. I havent played all the entries, so I wont comment on any individual game.

Ratman

You should always try to learn as much from a project as possible - that´s why the shaders on the tetris clone.

From a marketing perspective real flash graphics, etc. is a good thing, it''s something you can see and something you can easily point at to show that the game is "good". Gameplay is not something you can point at and say look at this, you cant after all show the gameplay on the box.

Having said this, there does seem to be (in my opinion) far too much concentration on having state-of-the-art 3D graphics with all the bits. In some cases this is actually required (take your FPS for example). However in "most" cases it''s an optional bonus.

It does depend on what you''re trying to achieve at the end of the day. If you''re just trying to learn a new 3D techinque or whatever, then ok, fine, go mad with the graphics. If on the otherhand you''re trying to produce a decent game then get the gameplay in place before going graphics mad.

"Flashy graphics" doesn''t necessarily mean "hi-res" graphics. Any 3D app can (and should) be scalable (that is, work with different screen resolutions). You can say that your sprites are aimed at certain resolution, but you can''t honestly say the same about most 3D models.

quote: Original post by Ratman
You also need to consider audience. Usually the games I make I just intend for myself and maybe some friends to play, usually it just ends up being a learning experience for myself. Maybe post some screen shots online and maybe a few other people will try it. Im just not that concerned with making sure lower end systems can run my game, cause well, I just dont care.

You are probably right. I have completely forgotten about audiences. Maybe some people just don''t care that their games run in 1024x768, although the game has only 5 tiny sprites.

quote: Original post by Chentzilla
"Flashy graphics" doesn''t necessarily mean "hi-res" graphics. Any 3D app can (and should) be scalable (that is, work with different screen resolutions). You can say that your sprites are aimed at certain resolution, but you can''t honestly say the same about most 3D models.

Well, it never meant so, but they are usually related. I was talking about 2D games. Well, not just 2D, but any part of the game that is 2D, such as title screen, loading screen, etc. Sometimes, there are imbalances there. Resolution too high, menu too small, result? Empty spaces everywhere. Since 3D models can somehow "fill" the entire screen without losing their quality, this is not an issue in 3D.

However, still, some games, even commercial games, are developed to show off the most remarkably visual effects and completely forgetting the gameplay. NightWraith is true, visual effects is the first thing that impresseses people when they look at the game, but I don''t think it''s more important than gameplay.

My compiler generates one error message: "does not compile."

EXCESSIVE visual fx are the cancer of the game industry.

I agree with the original poster (Tetris really needs a GeForce?... What''s the next? Minesweeper needing a dolby surround capable sound card?), but I think the real problem goes beyond the disproportionated requeriments. Just a few questions:

-> Is "Metal Gear Solid" really funnier than "Metal Gear" (1985, runs on a 3''85MHz computer with 128Kb RAM and 256x192 pixels)? Or it has just a "better look"?

-> Does market/players need things like "OpenGL Tetris", "Virtual Reallity Tic-Tac-Toe"? Or would be a lot better to develop really NEW, INNOVATIVE games?

-> If I want to be proud of my games, I''ll try to do something with interest: please, there are a huge lot of engines out there... But what about new ideas, or not-so-new ideas, but ideas with a minuscle representation? I mean: We don''t need another "Mario Bros" clone, but what about an "Adventures of Lolo 1/2/3" clone?



...if only 8_bits_nostalgia was contagious...

theNestruo

Syntax error in 2410
Ok

Metal Gear Solid was also a big step forward in gameplay and had several extremely innovative features. Games and girls have that much in common; the pretty ones aren''t always dumb.

People often make games like Tetris clones because they want to actually finish a game. It is easy for a single developer to spend so much time working out a fresh idea that it never gets finished.

--
http://www.3dcgi.com/

quote: Original post by alnite
"Look, I just make a tetris clone. You need at least Radeon 9700 to play it, because it''s running in 1600x1200 with vertex shader, bla bla bla."

I think that is entirely appropriate. If it''s not taking advantage of that kind of hardware, then what is the point of it? Afterall, if you want a Tetris game with less than dazzling graphics, I''m sure they''re out there to be had.