Quote:

Original post by MSW Quote: Original post by Simagery 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. 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.

You quoted me slightly out of context... I was responding to "why is there no investment in indie gamedev?" I was not making an argument against indie gamedev for the love of it (in fact, visit my up-and-coming website AmateurGameDev as evidence of my focus). My argument is essentially the corollary to your statement.

Quote:

I worked in [indie film] trenches for years...

I've dabbled a bit myself, so you don't have to tell me about it. View the distant archives of 35MPH for some tales of our Labor Day Project (that still hasn't happened).

Quote:

But you prolly never heard of Troma.

Please... I have fond memories of watching late night cable in the 80's hoping for a brief glimpse of T&A in the Troma films... of course, I guess it never occured to me that any real T&A would have been edited out for TV, but regardless I sat through my fair share of Troma.

Quote:

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.

Of course, that doesn't prove anything other than that Kevin Smith is the exception to the rule. For every 1 million wannabe filmmakers one may see even minor success, as your example shows. I guess your point is that it's not impossible? Or that the goal is not simply not to be successful (commercially), but rather to entertain yourself? If so, that's fine. I've never argued for or against that.

Quote:

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.

Hmm... that's debatable. With digital advancements, incredibly high quality films can be made for trivial asset costs. Sure, most films require more people (actors), but most games require more staff (artists). Movies are a well-known form. Games, on the otherhand, are not... at least in the context of this thread, which concerns originality in games! [grin]

Quote:

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.

Check my past posts and you'll find I've said nearly the same thing, verbatim, on many occassions. This may not be directed at me specifically (it's an excellent point to make regardless), but I don't want to be misunderstood that I somehow don't think individuals can make excellent games.

In fact, I gave an entire presentation on *individual* game development at the XGDX conference a few years back, and was approached to turn it into a book (still on the back burner), so I'm a huge proponent of what you're describing.

Quote:

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

Agreed. Write what you know. Make games you want to play. But, don't expect others to invest in that vision, plan on doing it yourself.

There's some really unique stuff going on out there.

Take my game development hero, Hideo Kojima: created the first stealth game (that I know of) in the early 80s, evolved that series into (arguably) the most cinematic, postmodern, idea-packed game series in existence.

And for those who say Metal Gear Solid is old hat, maybe you should check out his vampire hunting game that forces you to PLAY IN THE SUNLIGHT because the game has a solar panel on it, and the strength of your sunlight-based anti-vampire attacks is based upon how much light the cartridge is getting.

I find myself wondering, given the scene in MGS2 where Kojima had Snake lecture us (on how videogames are turning us into desensitized zombies who will kill ruthlessly when provoked), how much of that is a comment on the fact that gamers don't spend enough time outdoors?

Oh, and as for the above statement that most of the people here don't play games anymore and don't think like gamers: maybe you should. Hideo Kojima is infamous for taking forever to finish projects because he plays games such Pokemon an average of 6 hours a day... he refers to gaming as his "second job." What does that tell you? Maybe people who want a career making games should play them before they start trying to do design. Maybe a lot of us are out of touch with the average gamer.

The game I'm designing will be text-based, regardless of the fact that it will include what I think are some very highly evolved game mechanics. That way I can actually finish making it someday. And if and when (I am remarkably lazy most of the time; only lately had a massive burst of creative energy again) it's finished and posted online for free (I am not so naive as to believe that I can sell a text-only a game- this is a hobby), how many people would pass over it simply because it has no sound, no graphics? Right. Most of them.

So anyway, here's a game concept I came up with, inspired by reading this thread and thinking WWKD (Kojima):

You're a computer AI in the employ of a totalitarian government. Your job is to impersonate people and disseminate propaganda and false information over the Net (which now contains all popularly distributed media) and build intense personal relationships with various online "friends," all for the sake of manipulating the hell out of them. There are many other AIs like you, so if you get out of line and start feeling sympathy for your sheep, they may report you and get you deleted. The game would be open-ended, and goals would involve achieving independence from the system (via, say, convincing a "friend" of the truth and then convincing them to come steal the box in which your physical existence resides), coming to dominate more and more of the system and turning the manipulation on your puppetmasters, etc., etc. Gameplay would primarily be accomplished through an interface identical to a modern chat program, with a console window on the side that would allow you to perform various hacking operations as well. The game's immersion and postmodernism could be further enhanced by making these actual windows on your PC's desktop (hell, what's one more chat client, anyway), and game help and instructions could be obtained by sending questions to your computerized supervisor, who would help you with them as best as he could.

Further, a number of actual Internet pages (say... 90-100 for incredible depth and frightening immersion) could be created that relate to the gameplay in various ways. Pages that need to be hacked via the fake console window you're given as an AI. Oh, and it could have classic growth-based RPG elements as well, in that you'd learn new hacking techniques from other AIs and such as the game went on.

Add actual connectivity to other players into the chat interface, and you've got a postmodern MMO revolution. But that's another story, for another day.

Shit, I'd play this game for hours every day, if it were built well enough.

Options for dialogue would be mandatory, since true text recognition is still a ways off. You could attempt to type things freeform (Infocom was doing it in the 80s, folks, and so can we), but if you say something that the game's AI can't understand, it will show a message in red in the chat window, saying "OVERRIDE WARNING: SUBJECT'S IMMERSION WILL BE DESTROYED IF YOU PERSIST IN SUCH OBTUSE COMMUNICATORY DEVICES. REALLY SEND (Y/N)?" and if you override, the NPC will express their confusion in an Infocom-esque manner... with the added twist that they will start to suspect that you are not "real," or at least very stupid.

The majority of conversation will happen via preset dialogue options, a la Baldur's Gate, but with wider variety and the option to upload preset pictures, music, and other media to share with your pawns/friends in order to help promote different manipulatory agendas. This will not ruin the immersion, however, for this is how I would do it: when you open a new IM window or come to a juncture in the conversation, a bunch of near-transparent green options will appear below/around the IM window, watermarked onto whatever other windows/desktop you have open at the time. The header of this text will read: "Scanning database- suggested lines of communication as follows:"

There you go: work of ten minutes, and not even remotely related to my primary project. Jesus. Use your fucking imaginations, people. :)

Quote:

Original post by Simagery Please... I have fond memories of watching late night cable in the 80's hoping for a brief glimpse of T&A in the Troma films... of course, I guess it never occured to me that any real T&A would have been edited out for TV, but regardless I sat through my fair share of Troma.

Ok, we agree on most things then ;)

But you watched Troma films for the T&A? No offense but WOW! That takes desperation to a new low!

Quote:

Original post by Simagery Seen many hot women married to poor, ugly guys?

Yeppers, quite a few, too many to count actualy. Same goes for smart people marrying dumb ones and the successful marrying failures...happens ALL the time.

You can very much be poor, ugly, dumb, and a general falure at life and still both get tons of dates with and married to "hot" women. Why? Its because such poor, ugly, dumb, falures of men can still be confident, outgoing, funny, fun to be around, have ambition, and in general have all those intangable attributes women typicaly seek in a mate...If you doubt this, you need to pay more attention.

Honestly, following your outline of natural selection, if women generaly only seek to mate for life with beautiful, successful, smart guys...our whole species would have died out long, LONG ago.

Quote:

Original post by Nytehauq Quote: Original post by Daniel Miller I disagree that large corporations 'rule' American culture. The companies that make what consumers want grow. Those large coporations are in that position because customers buy what they have to offer. It's not a matter of being spoon-fed. Hmmm... Large Corporations put out what they want and think consumers will buy. Consumers...have no choice but to buy what is available, and that's whatever the corporations choose. The less corporations they are, the less they go by what the consumers want and the more they go by what they want the consumers to want. Do you think McDonalds sells fattening fast food because people "just like it?" It's a habit that they profit off of and have a good reason to reinforce. People could just as easily be habitually accustomed to vegetables, but that would require changing current models. People are accustomed to Tolkienistic fantasy worlds, through a combination of limited innovation and corporate control, that's all they get.

If people didn't want the games they wouldn't spend $50 on it. If people didn't want fast food they wouldn't spend money on it either. If they wanted vegetables, they WOULD spend money on them. If there is a demand, someone will come and fill it (legally or illegally, but always). There is clearly a demand for high-production-value low-risk games.

Quote:

Original post by DuranStrife So anyway, here's a game concept I came up with, inspired by reading this thread and thinking WWKD (Kojima): You're a computer AI in the employ of a totalitarian government [...]

Yeah, I thought of something like that too. It would be funny to play as an AI trying to take over the world when in fact you are the only real person in the game world. :)

Precisely. :)

And the fact that the programmed "human" NPCs wouldn't be as smart as you would only help build the player's growing "I am superior to humans" complex that would help drive the game.

We have conquered many of the natural selection laws. And most of those that put death anywhere near us. But that also comes back to bite us in the ass. One example is medicine. Basically a crutch to our entire species. Once we've used the crutch for so long, removing it might be very bad. Genes responsible for diseases or cancers that we believe we are curing are still transferred to children. What happens twenty generations down the road when everyone has these problems? Will we rely on the medicine just as if it were like some of our other crutches, like oxygen and food?

Eh, bit crazy I guess. Sorry for dragging the sub-topic on farther.

Quote:

Original post by MSW Honestly, following your outline of natural selection, if women generaly only seek to mate for life with beautiful, successful, smart guys...our whole species would have died out long, LONG ago.

That's a pretty good one. But you're probably basing this from a heterosexual perspective. As am I. But I doubt women see the same thing. Or at least I hope not, or we're all doomed.

Quote:

But you're probably basing this from a heterosexual perspective.

Not to but in, but logically speaking, unless you're assuming that gays tend to be smarter, this has no bearing on the subject, since such traits should average out between breeders and non-breeders anyway.

Quote:

Original post by DuranStrife There you go: work of ten minutes, and not even remotely related to my primary project. Jesus. Use your fucking imaginations, people. :)

This is bound to sound more offensive than I want it to, but I feel like I must say something to make a point. Your game is not original nor creative. It's a text-based adventure; a Zork clone. A clone of practically one of the oldest games ever made. All of the gameplay has been done to death before. Infocom "I don't understand what you just said" was replaced by dialogue trees for a good reason, because the majority of gamers found typing a hundred things in a futile attempt to figure out that the developer wanted you to say "quaff lemonade" rather than "drink juice" or "sip from glass" or "consume drink" is not fun. Going retro is not "original".

The only arguably "original" thing is the story, which is also not original. Totalitarian government? Check every RPG ever made. Sci-fi future where machines are taking over mankind? Check every sci-fi novel, movie, and anime ever made.

Now, all of this doesn't mean your game will be bad. It might still be fun, and fun is more important than originality. But you certainly have no case claiming that, say, Half-Life or Doom or World of Warcraft are unoriginal and that your design is. Lots of people around here like to think that they're original, and other people on the boards will not say anything to deflate them out of politeness, but the truth is that there is plenty of originality in the retail market, and a lot less originality than you'd like to think in both the indie shareware market and the "games that will never get made but are a cool idea i had" forums.

Quote:

Original post by makeshiftwings This is bound to sound more offensive than I want it to, but I feel like I must say something to make a point. Your game is not original nor creative. It's a text-based adventure; a Zork clone. A clone of practically one of the oldest games ever made.

I disagree. I don't even remember whether the game was supposed to be text-based or not, because that's not important. The innovation comes in with the gameplay, the patterns you must learn to play the game. This is not a game about aiming, or other spatial patterns. It is not about solving puzzles to advance the storyline. It is about manipulating people - about psychological and social patterns. That's innovative.