...because of missing artists! Let's face it people, the factor "art" is almost always underestimated when it comes to develop a game. Even if the coders are AAA, their work is worth nothing if there is no art for it. This may lead to games with a good potential, but lacking good art. Have a look at Vega Strike for example: good intentions, good progress, but it looks UGLY! Mainly because there is NO artist on earth not demanding heaps of cash for good game art. The same applies to musicians and level artists. Oh well, of course there are many persons who want to participate in developing a game as a hobby. However, 99% of these people lack skill. It's as simple as that. Worse, lacking ANY artists, programmers see no other way than to do the game art by themselves. I dunno; it's a chicken-and-egg situation. If the project does not have nice screenshots, people won't join. Without them, no better art is done, so no better presentation is possible.

Hold on, you forget that if the graphics were good, the creators wouldn't give away the game for free anymore since they know they can get money for it ;)

It's not just good artists though. There is a HUGE difference between the coding skills necessary for a shareware game and a AAA game. So professional programmers wouldn't work for free either. And so would sound guys, FMV creators, etc. etc.

The problem isn't really as simple as you make it out to be...

Nope... its just because in the moment a game becomes a GOOD or OUTSTANDING or AAA game... then it becomes commercial :)

Luck!
Guimo

Planeshift?

Comparing how good a game is to the art that is in it, is rather one dimensional.

A game at it's least granular has three parts, Audio,Visual,Interaction

People that do not have an art staff simply need to make games that are not art intensive.

So, lets not go into things thinking that art is the do-all and end-all of game development, it is only 1/3 of the pie.

There are good games out there. Free for the masses, as you put it, with nice art. Many artists do work on indie projects to build up a portfolio, a lot of this time the project will be released for free.

The real problem is in programmers (and artists) ability to approach and 'recruit' members of the other forte. Many programmers lack the social ability or just can't stand the way artists act. Somehow, i dont think this will ever be fixed; instead it will continue how it is, those that have the skills to 'sell' their projects to others will continue to do so and those that dont will remain without a programmer or without good art.

This applies to indie game developers and perhaps it should be addressed.

I for one will vouch, for all of the artists that have joined our team, I have not been able to stand any of them, they seem to have a very one track mind, and dont wish to do any other kind of art than what they already do, plus they feel as if they need to change things *like programatic systems* on a whim to suit what 'they' feel would be better, in short, very self centered.

I think Joust3d is looking pretty good and that game is going to be free when it comes out. You can check it out over at www.joust3d.com I'd say their artwork is top notch.

Most of the artists I have worked with have been very professional (well they are professionals). They are quirkly, but that's 'cuz they are artists. To be honest I've had more problem with prima donna programmers than all the artists combined.

The reason you won't see manuy good free games is the simple fact that if it's good some might pay for it. If someone will pay me for it I feel morally obligated to let them.

I duno, some of my favorite games on the C=64 were not exactly graphically advanced... But still quite fun, nonetheless.

Of course, 'good' is very subjective.


I tend to think you are right however but for different reasons..

1. Good games sell.

2. Money makes the world (pompous assumption of capitalism) go around.

3. Living costs money.

I want to make really good games. I don't however want to be living in the gutter because I gave them away.