A different way to make a game.

[Gormech]

I was thinking about the whole structure of how a lot of companies make their games with the whole art department, bugtesters, etc and had a thought.

What if they took current gen tech and diverted all the resources toward making a more in-depth game similar to older generations.

My wording is kind of messed up but the basic thought is something like Final Fantasy Tactics or Tactics A2 and putting it on a console with an extra 1000 or so missions and some new skills instead of using the money that would be used to develop them to make it look like Skyrim.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Alex Graves]

I was thinking about the whole structure of how a lot of companies make their games with the whole art department, bugtesters, etc and had a thought.

What if they took current gen tech and diverted all the resources toward making a more in-depth game similar to older generations.

My wording is kind of messed up but the basic thought is something like Final Fantasy Tactics or Tactics A2 and putting it on a console with an extra 1000 or so missions and some new skills instead of using the money that would be used to develop them to make it look like Skyrim.

Thoughts on this?

I've thought this for some time, for that reason and the other. The other being these new games (like skyrim) the put all this extra work in making it "look amazing" and for most computer gamers I know we play them all on medium or low setting to make sure it runs smooth (especially when you add a few (hundred) mods). Even though that may sound like I'm picking on beth/skyrim it is actually a good example of shoving a disc to the breaking point, my friend said it took him almost 300 hours to finish everything that came in skyrim (no mods/dlc or spending stupid amount of time with enchanting/smithing and such). I don't mind the weird need they had to push the visual tech to its peak but it is unfortunate that most games your lucky to get 40 hours out of it total unless it has a multiplayer you can enjoy (and you need a good net connection for that). Personally I do not care in the slightest how "cool" the game looks if I only played it once it failed its job since games are meant to be an experience not a movie something you watch and go "oh that was nice" and be done with it, hell I still play games on supernintendo/n64/genesis/gameboy/ps1 and love every second of them because they are fun. There are games that it is nice to have the current level of visual tech to go with it, but for the most part the ps2/xbox level graphics are more then great with me (closer to the end of that gen was really nice looking plus a LOT of that gen had amazing aesthetics). For now that I think it is best to let the AAA devs focus on the visual and the indy focus on gameplay/story in a few years we should have a really sweet combo of the two as the current indy devs become AAA as long as they don't forget what is really important. I'm going to leave it at that (already had to stop myself from going off on a rant twice), but yeah it would be nice to have more of them focus on real content then just viusals.

 

[Alex Graves]

i maybe misreading what you mean but isnt this exactly whats happening with a good chunk of kickstarters? things like project eternity where they are devoting their budget into making an older style game but with todays tech.

you simply wont have AAA companies pulling off that though with budgets for development going through the roof they feel they need to make the game appeal appeal to as many people as possible even if that means removing depth, etc as much as alot of people want depth and despite games with graphics like minecraft raking in millions a good chunk of gamers still consider anything 4-5 + years old graphics wise as ancient history and impossible to play because it hurts their eyes

I don't get to check kickstarters that often (no money to help them out either, yet anyway ) but every time I hear about it it seems like most of them are doing good which is always wonderful. Since when do the graphics hurt peoples eyes? I've never heard anyone use that as an excuse to avoid older games, it is usually the older ones can be harder to get a hold of (without being able to use a computer yay emulators ) or they are just to stuck up to play anything "outdated" (the same attitude a lot of retro nutters have towards anything that has come out in recent years).

 

[Gormech]

i maybe misreading what you mean but isnt this exactly whats happening with a good chunk of kickstarters? things like project eternity where they are devoting their budget into making an older style game but with todays tech.

you simply wont have AAA companies pulling off that though with budgets for development going through the roof they feel they need to make the game appeal appeal to as many people as possible even if that means removing depth, etc as much as alot of people want depth and despite games with graphics like minecraft raking in millions a good chunk of gamers still consider anything 4-5 + years old graphics wise as ancient history and impossible to play because it hurts their eyes

You're right. A lot of the kickstarters have been doing something along these lines. While I agree that looking at some of the low-grade stuff can mess with people's vision and stuff, I was trying to mean something along the lines of stylized stuff like Paper Mario or using a lot of the Sprites instead of fully rendered 3d characters. Think along the lines of the first final fantasy or Ragnarok Online.

 

[Luca72]

I think there's a good chance of leaning towards this type of game as game-building software becomes more user friendly. A lot of really unique game concepts are popping up in the indie arena that mimic the look of older games to keep things visually simple. Kickstarter is a good way to scrounge up some cash to making additional missions, but I think there's an even better way - crowdsourcing.

This is how Natural Selection 2 got made - the core programmers came up with some of the main art assets and built the engine, but the bugtesting and some of the additional features were actually put into the game by talented programmers in the community. This meant that some brand new ideas found their way into the game through people who were just volunteering!

So FF: Tactics is a great example. Imagine the main developers building the game engine and general tileset, and leaving it all fairly open source. Then you could have the community develop additional missions and content to run by the developers, and the stuff that seems high enough quality gets put into the final game. If you really wanted to expand possibilities, you could continuously add community-generated content as DLC, so you have a virtually infinite game.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Well some companies sort of do this already take Nippon Ichi for example most famous for the Disgaea series not exactly stunning graphics its got a simple nice art style (imo) but except for the upgrade to HD recently it dosent look any different to the PS2 versions and they werent exactly pushing the graphical envelope back then basically there are PS1 games with better graphics, but they pack a hell of a lot of content into it which they keep building on with each iteration.

They have a fanbase but its niche most people are highly influenced by graphical fidelity you may get lucky and find an audience with your deep game and to those it clicks with they will love you for it but if it dosent look good many will be turned off straight away and if its too convoluted many more will go and if its just content for contents sake well whats the point? I personally couldnt stand FF tactics I played for just over 40 hours and thought nah its definitely not for me so more missions would have done bugger all for me.

Its all about knowing your market and catering to them thats why big highly marketed games have to look pretty, more underground games or games that dont feature graphics as a main selling point i.e say puzzle games can go for depth.

Im being pretty general here but point is they should focus their attention on the key design areas relevant to their game whether thats graphics, content, depth, breadth or whatever they shouldnt do something just because it goes against the grain they should design the game intelligently with resources spent in the correct ways.

Also more content does not necessarily mean better value.