Quote:

Original post by KestIf you sell to the casual gamers, you might have one successful game if you're lucky, but most of these guys won't even know your company's name. If you sell to the hardcore gamers, all you have to do is make sure the game is damn fun to play. They'll read about it, buy it, beat it, tell their friends about, then be waiting for the sequel.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet a few professional game marketing departments would say that it's the casual gamers who just want a fun game, and will read about it, buy it, beat it, and tell their friends about it; while the hardcore crowd will pirate it, criticize it endlessly on the official message boards, attempt to get others to boycott the company, demand incessantly that the developers cater to their every desire, and eventually claim that they were brainwashed into playing the game in the first place when they're finally done with it. I sort of get the feeling that only hardcore gamers see hardcore gamers as reasonable people. ;)

Quote:

Original post by makeshiftwings Quote: Original post by KestIf you sell to the casual gamers, you might have one successful game if you're lucky, but most of these guys won't even know your company's name. If you sell to the hardcore gamers, all you have to do is make sure the game is damn fun to play. They'll read about it, buy it, beat it, tell their friends about, then be waiting for the sequel. Actually, I'd be willing to bet a few professional game marketing departments would say that it's the casual gamers who just want a fun game, and will read about it, buy it, beat it, and tell their friends about it; while the hardcore crowd will pirate it, criticize it endlessly on the official message boards, attempt to get others to boycott the company, demand incessantly that the developers cater to their every desire, and eventually claim that they were brainwashed into playing the game in the first place when they're finally done with it. I sort of get the feeling that only hardcore gamers see hardcore gamers as reasonable people. ;)

holy shit we have a winner

I think what several readers are getting at is that we need a consensus about HOW indie gaming should be done, not really whether it has a place in the marketplace--look at how many people subscribe to game dev. If only a tiny fraction of gamers are interested, and looking into development each year, you have a huge amount of interest being generated.

If we could get hard (as hard as statistics can be) verifiable data about some aspect of gaming that could be used as a proposal, and start a pattern of designers following something like a 9 step plan to development, nay indie development, then you would have a huge increase in the popularity of games.

The problem is this: the major corporations involved are trying to do just this, and their interest in independent developers is at best an afterthought. You don't pussyfoot with corporations; you break in and make them noticed.

As far as I'm concerned, this argument can go on forever; just think how you could use that anger to better purpose, and form a constructive idea of how to get your dream game off the ground.

Quote:

Original post by Simagery It's not here, not yet. And it won't be coming anytime soon considering the pervasive attitudes that fill the indie movement. An indie movement exists in film because investors have some expectation of a return. They have an expectation of a return because a niche film can find a niche audience that'll pay money to see it. Some game indies would argue that there's a niche audience willing to pay. Maybe. But they're not willing to pay enough to offset the development costs required. This is true for several reasons. First, unlike most indie moviemakers -- who focus largely on telling very "small" stories on minimal budget -- most indie game developers focus on developing tech for tech's sake (because they are engineers, not artists or designers). And tech is expensive because tech is full of unkowns which means risk. And creating entertainment for people, designing games or writing movies, is already high risk because the majority of attempts fail, even when they are competently executed. Second, lots of indie gamedevs are "above" being concerned with what the audience wants. That's fine, unless you have a desire to pay the bills, in which case if you're not listening to your audience then you're very unlikely to convert them into customers. Art for art's sake is great, but creating a painting on a canvas is far quicker and cheaper than creating a game. Why is there no investment in indie gamedev? The same reason there's no investment in non-indie gamedev. Sure, publishers "invest" but really they're just outsourcing product development. Very unrisky (though still far too risky relative to things like the movie industry). Of all the things that the game industry emulates from the movie industry, project investment is one that it should copy entirely. And to truly protect investors, we need to think like movie producers and seek insurances like completition bonds to mitigate the risk to investors. And we have to expect less money then we've used in the past, and we have to invent less tech than we have in the past, and we have to focus more on our audience (and potential audience) than we do on ourselves. If you want to make games for yourself, you're a hobbyist. If you want to make games for other people but don't listen to them, then you're an amateur. If you want to make games for other people, and more importantly, you want to make games that other people want (i.e. you listen to them), then, and only then, are you a professional.

Woah, talk about out of touch!

The vast majority of independant films are self financed, most WONT make thier money back, most WONT find a audiance. They are largely made for the love of the film art form. I worked in those trenches for years, at best you could hope your film would be accepted in a film festival, and from there possably a distributer would then pick it up. And if you made a nitche film (horror being the most pervasive), you could hope that a direct to video/DVD distributer picks it up. But then again with the miracle of modern technology it isn't hard to self distribute your work (akin to self publishing in the game/music/book industries)...in fact that is what most do now, and its the very basis for the decade old "micro-budget" film industry.

Troma doesnt make money by listening ecplicitly to what filmgoers want. they make and pick up for distribution films that they like, they sell the kinds of films that make them happy, the kind of films they themselves want to see (and they are a odd tastless bunch). Troma is a nitche all to itself, and the music/books/game industries all share simular nitche centered success stories...

But you prolly never heard of Troma.


When Kevin Smith made Clerks he didn't consult with audiances, didn't listen to film fans, didn't get thier input on what they wanted. He just got a bunch of friends together and self financed his films production WHILE STILL HOLDING DOWN A DAY JOB! He and his friends made a film that they wanted to see, he had no hopes to reach his current fame and fortune.

And that is film, which requires a LOT more investment in equipment then video games do, requires a lot more people to be involved, a lot more technical issues to be resolved, and a lot more capitol to develop grainy 16mm black and white filmstock before any results can be seen.

There is no reason you cant develop video games in your spare time and make a little money once its completed. Nothing is stopping you from achieveing that goal. You DONT need bump mapped spectral highlighted cutting edge 3D graphics, you dont need to compete with the polished luster of the major leagues. You can eventualy earn a liveing off a exploiting a beloved nitch (key is you gotta love that nitche to begin with)...and you dont need financial backing to get started...you already have the PC, and enough spare time to post on message boards.

Just make the kinds of games YOU want to play, make the games you want to see get made.

Quote:

Original post by makeshiftwings Actually, I'd be willing to bet a few professional game marketing departments would say that it's the casual gamers who just want a fun game, and will read about it, buy it, beat it, and tell their friends about it; while the hardcore crowd will pirate it, criticize it endlessly on the official message boards, attempt to get others to boycott the company, demand incessantly that the developers cater to their every desire, and eventually claim that they were brainwashed into playing the game in the first place when they're finally done with it. I sort of get the feeling that only hardcore gamers see hardcore gamers as reasonable people. ;)

I think you're confusing casual with hardcore, and hardcore with raging fanatics. Why in the hell would any player with love for the game fight against the company that developed it? Sounds like nonsense.

The only thing I can imagine is that these professional game marketing departments are only seeing the outside shell of what's really there. Do they not know that the majority of hardcore gamers are passive and quiet? They've saved the world hundreds of times. The volume on life has been turned down a notch.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by makeshiftwings Actually, I'd be willing to bet a few professional game marketing departments would say that it's the casual gamers who just want a fun game, and will read about it, buy it, beat it, and tell their friends about it; while the hardcore crowd will pirate it, criticize it endlessly on the official message boards, attempt to get others to boycott the company, demand incessantly that the developers cater to their every desire, and eventually claim that they were brainwashed into playing the game in the first place when they're finally done with it. I sort of get the feeling that only hardcore gamers see hardcore gamers as reasonable people. ;) I think you're confusing casual with hardcore, and hardcore with raging fanatics. Why in the hell would any player with love for the game fight against the company that developed it? Sounds like nonsense. The only thing I can imagine is that these professional game marketing departments are only seeing the outside shell of what's really there. Do they not know that the majority of hardcore gamers are passive and quiet? They've saved the world hundreds of times. The volume on life has been turned down a notch.

Well, I have to admit that Nintendo has seen some responses like that recently with the direction they're taking with Wii. It's not going to be the premiere console for 'hardcore gamers', and it's taking some serious heat for that. But if you just want to have short, fun gaming experiences, then it's probably better than buying a 360 or PS3.

I didn't read the whole thread so I might be reapeating some stuff.

First, having originality dosen't mean having a game that is not realisitc. It also dosne't mean having a simple game. Both of which seem to be the characteristics you are saying today's games are lacking. Which are seperate things from originality.

Simple and unrealistic are two things that seem to go togather quite well, and vice versa, but people don't want to pay 50 dollars for a game that they only get about 3 hours of gameplay out of before it gets old (Try sitting down and playing pacman for a 2 hours straight, then compare that to counterstrike where people can play for 6 hours straight without getting bored). But people do still enjoy those games, so for a token at the arcade, or go to a website and play them for free online, but those aren't going to get paid for.

As for creativity in games, I think there is alot of unoriginality. But when developers put millions into games, they aren't going to take a chance in having it not sale. But also if they completly copy another game they will end up not selling either. So they find a safe medium between the two, and as long as people are buying games at the medium that they set then they will keep doing the same thing.

Quote:

Original post by MSW Woah, talk about out of touch! The vast majority of independant films are self financed, most WONT make thier money back, most WONT find a audiance. They are largely made for the love of the film art form. I worked in those trenches for years, at best you could hope your film would be accepted in a film festival, and from there possably a distributer would then pick it up. And if you made a nitche film (horror being the most pervasive), you could hope that a direct to video/DVD distributer picks it up. But then again with the miracle of modern technology it isn't hard to self distribute your work (akin to self publishing in the game/music/book industries)...in fact that is what most do now, and its the very basis for the decade old "micro-budget" film industry.

AMEN!!! Preach it!!!

I find it absolutely amusing how many people here talk about the film industry yet have no clue how it really works, trying to pretend that there's some magical investment network funnelling money to indie filmmakers when no such thing exists.

Kevin Smith paid for Clerks by maxing out his credit cards to the tune of $28,000; credit cards he obtained by lying about his employment and income. If Clerks had flopped he would have been seriously screwed. Robert Rodriguez funded Desperado with $7000 he obtained by volunteering for experimental drug trials. And those are just two notable examples from the indie film world. Sure, they both got people throwing money at them later, but that wasn't until after they'd already proven they could make a commercially successful film. (And in the case of Smith, they started holding back after his second film flopped.) But then John Romero would have never gotten the funding to start Ion Storm if it not for his involvement with Doom (Which I guess makes Daikatana his Mallrats >.> ).

Edit: Can't close italics with a [/t] >.>

Quote:

It seems like all games nowadays are trying to be life-like, full of realism. Nothing seems original to me, but instead just a copy off existing concepts or previous creations. Is it just me? Does anyone else feel this way?

You should entertain the notion that games are, in fact, as original today as they were twenty years ago and it is you who have changed.

Quote:

Original post by nicksterdomus It's the same now. There's a few gems among many failures. To me, that just seems like a normal thing for entertainment in general, not just video games.

I think that is true for pretty much every creative process. Even nature mostly comes up with uninspired clones. And before genetic recombination was invented, that's what everything was! The whole universe just keeps on learning how to be more creative.

Anyway, I'm not worried. I don't have any trouble finding fun games or thinking of original ones. :)