|
Sigma-X posted:Yeah man goon company wooo At least you could change somebody else's job title for 10$.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
I'd like to be Lead spaz please
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:At least you could change somebody else's job title for 10$. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
For my first idea: It's a bit like Final Fantasy, mixed with Grand Theft Auto and Modern Warfare oh and it's an MMO. Paycheque pls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
Aliginge posted:For my first idea:
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
1 word: Zombies. But instead of just zombies, they're, like, zombie ORCS!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
it's for App Store and Steam $0.99 (free at first)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
My idea is like Halo, just better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
M4rk posted:Scary. There are real people who think like this on the internet, and some are in guilds I'm a part of. Scarier? They're old and have kids. You'd think they'd have learned a bit about how games are made by now. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
Black Eagle posted:Even scarier, there are many developers who share these ideas. Most of their games won't see the light of day, but they're still there, waiting for their big chance to make the ultimate blockbuster. If only someone would take a chance on my dota/halo/tf2/wow/cod like mmorpg 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Irish Taxi Driver posted:If only someone would take a chance on my dota/halo/tf2/wow/cod like mmorpg so an MMO version of Monday Night combat in space? -- Some good games could come out of one or two throwaway Ideas I suppose. I'm busy writing and concept arting up an Arcade racing game based off one sentence my friend said "This game would be so much better if it had subjective gravity", He was talking about Trackmania so I took the challenge to at least write it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
Solus posted:so an MMO version of Monday Night combat in space? I dunno, I was trying to throw out a bunch of games that couldn't mix, should've thrown a racing game and a card game in too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Irish Taxi Driver posted:I dunno, I was trying to throw out a bunch of games that couldn't mix, should've thrown a racing game and a card game in too. multiple levels and game modes  and yeah it does scare me what some people come up with Highschooler posted:You should make a game where you start out with $300,000.00 called "Hoppin' Hydraulics." You go to the car lot and buy any kind of car you want. Then you go to a place where you can paint your car. Then go to a place where you can buy hydraulics,NOS,tires,or anything you need. Then,if you are ready,go and enter all kinds of hydraulic contests,racing contests,or just ride the steet showing off you car. Make it for Playstation one and two,and computer. Thank you for listening. kid posted:I would like to know if you could make a better bloody roar game for the x box system because it is hard to get into game development . But if you can create a better bloody roar game please make it for x box or playstation either is fine with me .But please if you can make it add these players,Yugo,Long,Greg,Alice,Gado,Xion, Shina,Stun,Bakaryu,Fox,Mitsuko,or if you can't do this well thanks for listening but if you can i'll buy it for $600 dallors.Or Make A RPG Fighting Game With a Tiger,Ape,Fox,Warthog,Lion,Wolf,Leoard, Rabbit,Mole,Unborn,Beetle,and more,you know like bloody roar games,so if you make i'll pay $600 or more. sure I realise these ones are from young people but I have seen ones from people in their thirties. It leads to a lot of  combined with 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Highschooler posted:You should make a game where you start out with $300,000.00 called "Hoppin' Hydraulics." You go to the car lot and buy any kind of car you want. Then you go to a place where you can paint your car. Then go to a place where you can buy hydraulics,NOS,tires,or anything you need. Then,if you are ready,go and enter all kinds of hydraulic contests,racing contests,or just ride the steet showing off you car. Make it for Playstation one and two,and computer. Thank you for listening. Joking aside, I worked with a DJ (who collaborated with NIN) at Sony who explained his MMO concept to me like so. code:
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
Black Eagle posted:Sounds like management material! This game was already made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
Vino posted:Yeah, but define "good code." If they're just sorting people by skill level and culling the bottom then I'll turn out on the top of the list. But I've done a few programming tests where they're looking for more than just that during the test. They want to see if I do "extensible/data driven" versus "quickly written and fun" or if I'm thorough with test cases and thinking about security or if I'm more of a systems architect or whatever. Concept artist and PR are pretty niche roles. It seems like the founders ought to be able to cover these while in lean-and-mean mode. Edit: Gaslamp Games is one dev and one artist (plus some contractor/vendor part-time help with web and bizdev stuff). They did a fantastic job with PR and obviously with art concept/style.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Amrosorma posted:This game was already made. And later was made unironically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:And later was made unironically. You missed a step 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
Solus posted:multiple levels and game modes Honestly, it doesn't surprise me that much that people well into their 30's still think like that. Design is a skill, and like with any skill, you won't really develop it unless you actually make the effort to practice it. It's very easy to end up with a job that doesn't require an analytic mindset, even within the games industry itself. It's difficult for designers to fathom because it's the kind of skill that once you've developed it, you start to use it intuitively. It's impossible to see things from a shallow perspective once you've gotten used to looking deeper, since that's just how your thought process functions now (this is why tvtropes has the motto "TV Tropes will ruin your life"). ...Actually now that I think about it, this might be why game designers are always crying for more depth in games, when the sales numbers clearly demonstrate that what the general public wants is "dumber and simpler"; designers just can't fathom the idea that someone might not derive enjoyment from something incredibly deep and complex, because that's how they're used to playing games. They like to tear games to pieces and get disappointed when they discover there's nothing much below the surface. Meanwhile, the rest of the world never looks past the surface and gets frustrated when a deeper understanding of the game is required to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Honestly, it doesn't surprise me that much that people well into their 30's still think like that. Design is a skill, and like with any skill, you won't really develop it unless you actually make the effort to practice it. It's very easy to end up with a job that doesn't require an analytic mindset, even within the games industry itself. It's difficult for designers to fathom because it's the kind of skill that once you've developed it, you start to use it intuitively. It's impossible to see things from a shallow perspective once you've gotten used to looking deeper, since that's just how your thought process functions now (this is why tvtropes has the motto "TV Tropes will ruin your life").
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 02:25
|
|
|
Best idea: It's a driving game right, so you drive along the street until you meet a guy at a stoplight. He can then challenge you to a race, if you accept you both get 30 seconds to set up your car. Except instead of setting up your car with like turning on the NOS or something you get to place 6 cards into an "action queue". These cards are all things like "do a burnout" "quote fast and the furious" "engage turbo" etc. So you see it's like a driving game, but then it's also a CCG! But wait, there's a twist. right before the race begins a dice rolls 6 times for each player. This determines what order the cards in the action queue play out, so now you r race can play out like: "activate NOS stage 1", "engage turbo", "honk horn 3 times", "shift into 5th", "step on brakes", "activate NOS stage 2". Winner is the guy who finishes the race/doesn't crash. I'll take my million dollars in quarters please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
A Child posted:You should make a game where you start out with $300,000.00 called "Hoppin' Hydraulics." You go to the car lot and buy any kind of car you want. Then you go to a place where you can paint your car. Then go to a place where you can buy hydraulics,NOS,tires,or anything you need. Then,if you are ready,go and enter all kinds of hydraulic contests,racing contests,or just ride the steet showing off you car. Make it for Playstation one and two,and computer. Thank you for listening. yeah I tested this game it was called pimp my ride
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:Concept artist and PR are pretty niche roles. It seems like the founders ought to be able to cover these while in lean-and-mean mode. I don't think those are niche roles. They maybe don't have to be full time but I would definitely want someone who's highly skilled in each of those things. A team of artist needs a strong direction and an art style goal, and unless you have the next Minecraft you're going to need some good PR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
Vino posted:I don't think those are niche roles. They maybe don't have to be full time but I would definitely want someone who's highly skilled in each of those things. A team of artist needs a strong direction and an art style goal, and unless you have the next Minecraft you're going to need some good PR. I think his point wasn't so much that they're "niche", but that they're the kinds of roles that only exist in larger companies. They are absolutely important, but if your budget is such that you can only afford to hire three people, it's unlikely that a dedicated concept artist or PR director will be one of those three.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
Amrosorma posted:You missed a step Fuel had a beautiful soul. The Cheshire Cat posted:Meanwhile, the rest of the world never looks past the surface and gets frustrated when a deeper understanding of the game is required to succeed. Eh, that sort of thought seems like it could lead to a "Our customers are idiots" mindset. That doesn't seem like the right approach to take, though I do agree a game's design should be easy to understand. That doesn't mean a game can't have depth, though! It's all about creating layers, like an onion. My favorite moments in games have been when I did get curious, scratched the surface a bit, and instead of hitting a wall, was rewarded. As long as I can go beyond the surface and get moments like that in a game to inspire the next generation of idea people (and have made my company/myself a lot of money) I'll have done my job. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
MustardFacial posted:Best idea: It's a driving game right, so you drive along the street until you meet a guy at a stoplight. He can then challenge you to a race, if you accept you both get 30 seconds to set up your car. Except instead of setting up your car with like turning on the NOS or something you get to place 6 cards into an "action queue". These cards are all things like "do a burnout" "quote fast and the furious" "engage turbo" etc. So you see it's like a driving game, but then it's also a CCG! Obviously you have a microtransactions store to buy new cards right? Also your car gets advertising decals for targeted ads unless you pay to deck it out in microtransaction designs. Additionally you have to pay for gas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Obviously you have a microtransactions store to buy new cards right? Also your car gets advertising decals for targeted ads unless you pay to deck it out in microtransaction designs. Additionally you have to pay for gas. But don't worry, the game comes with a $50 virtual gas card.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 05:07
|
|
|
cgeq posted:Eh, that sort of thought seems like it could lead to a "Our customers are idiots" mindset. That doesn't seem like the right approach to take, though I do agree a game's design should be easy to understand. That doesn't mean a game can't have depth, though! It's all about creating layers, like an onion. My favorite moments in games have been when I did get curious, scratched the surface a bit, and instead of hitting a wall, was rewarded. As long as I can go beyond the surface and get moments like that in a game to inspire the next generation of idea people (and have made my company/myself a lot of money) I'll have done my job. I agree with this, but in practice it's VERY difficult to design a game that rewards multiple levels of depth equally, so I don't blame a lot of developers for not being able to pull it off. The main problem is that if you have a game that can easily be completed without learning any the intricate details, it raises the question of whether or not those details actually contribute anything meaningful to the game. Difficulty levels are usually used to counter this, but then you run into the problem of stubborn people refusing to play on "easy" because they feel like it's an insult to the skills they don't actually have (and then complaining that the game is too hard).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I agree with this, but in practice it's VERY difficult to design a game that rewards multiple levels of depth equally, so I don't blame a lot of developers for not being able to pull it off. The main problem is that if you have a game that can easily be completed without learning any the intricate details, it raises the question of whether or not those details actually contribute anything meaningful to the game. Difficulty levels are usually used to counter this, but then you run into the problem of stubborn people refusing to play on "easy" because they feel like it's an insult to the skills they don't actually have (and then complaining that the game is too hard). I wonder if you could do like a self-adjusting difficulty based on player performance. But, you know, done in an intelligent way and with other options and not the lazy Oblivion way. Though that idea falls in the category of not seeing the forest for all the trees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
Amrosorma posted:You missed a step Vino posted:unless you have the next Minecraft you're going to need some good PR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
Black Eagle posted:The conversation I paraphrased happened in 2005 or 2006. That's my opinion, of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 05:53
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Obviously you have a microtransactions store to buy new cards right? Also your car gets advertising decals for targeted ads unless you pay to deck it out in microtransaction designs. Additionally you have to pay for gas. Oh right, I completely forgot to add this to the original GDD, but it was my intention all along therefore it was my design  There will also be weekly sponsored quests that allow you to get more cars. However since all of the quests are sponsored the cars you get will all be donk and will all look like this:  And in one fell swoop I've successfully bridged the gap between facebook games and console. You can buy me out Zynga, but it'll cost you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
Black Eagle posted:If nobody on the founding team has substantial experience with management and business development, don't take your time with bringing aboard someone who does have that experience. If you want to have any chance at lasting success, creative leadership alone is not enough. Seconding this. Too many game companies fail before they get started because the founders' first order of business is getting company credit cards and buying themselves the best dev machines/office space/car service. If you don't have someone with good business sense before you obtain funding, you will most likely have some catastrophic holes in your business plan/production schedule. An example: don't sign a 7-year unbreakable lease unless you actually have a product and cash flow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I agree with this, but in practice it's VERY difficult to design a game that rewards multiple levels of depth equally, so I don't blame a lot of developers for not being able to pull it off. The main problem is that if you have a game that can easily be completed without learning any the intricate details, it raises the question of whether or not those details actually contribute anything meaningful to the game. Difficulty levels are usually used to counter this, but then you run into the problem of stubborn people refusing to play on "easy" because they feel like it's an insult to the skills they don't actually have (and then complaining that the game is too hard). You could probably do it fairly easily with an end-of-level rating system. Make it so that getting through a level is reasonably easy, but getting through it well requires a lot of skill and mastery. Getting through a level without dying? Easy. Getting through a level without getting hit/getting all pickups/secrets/under a certain time? That's going to require some skill. It leaves it up to the player as to whether or not they actually want a challenge or if they just want to see the story. Of course you'll still get a tiny subset of people bitching that they didn't die often enough, but you can't please everyone. (Also, gently caress people that always play games on hard and then complain that a game is too hard).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 05:58
|
|
|
AntiPseudonym posted:(Also, gently caress people that always play games on hard and then complain that a game is too hard).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 06:02
|
|
|
M4rk posted:Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, if a gamer never notices the efforts of a studio/publisher's PR department and instead believes a game's hype is 99% organic, then the PR department is probably doing a great job. Probably. That's my opinion, of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
AntiPseudonym posted:You could probably do it fairly easily with an end-of-level rating system. Make it so that getting through a level is reasonably easy, but getting through it well requires a lot of skill and mastery. Getting through a level without dying? Easy. Getting through a level without getting hit/getting all pickups/secrets/under a certain time? That's going to require some skill. It leaves it up to the player as to whether or not they actually want a challenge or if they just want to see the story. ***This following assumes you're making a platformer*** If you want difficulty scaling you really only need hooks in the game to track three things: - number of times the player died - time it took to complete the level - number of secrets obtained average all of those numbers out into a single unit and compare that number against a table of difficulties you've already figured out through playtesting/pure math. If the players number is within a certain range (whatever works out best for gameplay, for the purposes of this example let's say within 10) then you use that range. If the player's number is on the cusp of two ranges, use the higher range until the player dies 7 times consecutively, then drop them down to the lower range. If the player still dies consecutively drop them again until they complete the level. The next level starts at whatever the last passed difficulty was*. *This of course assumes you have level design that properly scales in difficulty. Say for example you're in world 3, if 3-5 is a massive jump in difficulty from 3-4 or 3-6 then the above system breaks possibly for the next few levels. It should autocorrect itself, though there may be something I'm missing as this system is purely off the top of my head and I haven't done any of the math on it to find the bugs. [edit] Also, I think it's necessary for players to die a number of times in a row in order to feel a challenge. IMHO death in games is a slap in the face of "you're doing something wrong. Use a mechanic you haven't tried before, switch up your strategy." If a player is able to get through an area on the first time but have difficulty doing so, then that's great it's really what you want. However so situations are so difficult to design and are often so subjective on how the player plays it that the only way to properly accomplish it is to take away some level of control for the player (eg Company of Heroes had a mission called "Carentan" where you had to defend a french village from the impending Nazi assault. regardless of what you did the mission always played the same way because it's objectives were such to force players into front loading their defense at the frontlines of the battle. These frontlines were always eventually destroyed through artillery leaving the player with only a handful of units to defend the town with until help (that you didn't know was coming) arrived. The secret is, you could never lose this battle. It didn't matter how many units you lost in the initial artillery strike your remaining forces were never wiped out. Health multipliers, unit construction multipliers, even unit damage values were increased for your side to ensure the player always made it through to the inevitable allied reinforcement.) As soon as the initial Nazi artillery barrage happened, the player essentially lost all control of the game in their favour. Now, most players didn't realize this and the feeling of pulling a complete victory out of your rear end is the reason why Carentan remains one of the single best moments in RTS gaming, but when you consider the amount of control the player lost to lose everything and win it all back again you start to realize how many angles you must consider and how difficult it is to fake that tense "against all odds" feeling again. MustardFacial fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Aug 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 06:22
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I think his point wasn't so much that they're "niche", but that they're the kinds of roles that only exist in larger companies. They are absolutely important, but if your budget is such that you can only afford to hire three people, it's unlikely that a dedicated concept artist or PR director will be one of those three. I'd prefer a great concept artist that can do game art too than a great game artist who can't relate the game's art direction to the other artists. The beginning of a project is the best time to figure out a consistent art direction. Black Eagle posted:I have a burning hatred for the popular fib that Minecraft is some sort of grassroots "if you build it, they will come" phenomenon. Persson engaged in quite a bit of marketing and public relations. "If you build it, they will come" is utter tripe. Reality doesn't work that way. Yeah I remember that thread, but that's not quite what I was saying. Persson did a good bit of "grassroots" marketing, but he had the perfect storm of game design and deployment to back it up. You can't just make any old game and do the same marketing and get Persson's results. Minecraft has the special quality of making people want to post screenshots and share their creations, which spreads the game, and also it's a hell of a great game. Persson didn't need a dedicated PR person because he made a game that does a lot of its own marketing. Most games don't really do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 06:46
|
|
|
MustardFacial posted:[edit] Also, I think it's necessary for players to die a number of times in a row in order to feel a challenge. Although the problem with that solution is that it doesn't cater for the people that don't want a challenge, which is a major problem with story-focused games. Max Payne had a similar difficulty-scaling technique, but because I played conservatively I ended up constantly facing enemies that would absolutely wreck my poo poo because I hadn't died in a while. I didn't want that challenge; I wanted to see how the story continued and I kept being cockblocked by a design that was assuming that I wouldn't be having any fun unless I died a certain number of times. Scaling difficulty is, to a player that doesn't actively want a challenge, a system that punishes you for doing well. (That said, I have no problems with auto-adjusting difficulty being an option for people that want it).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 07:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
I think an interesting approach to difficulty settings would be to break out of the "easy/medium/hard" mold and instead allow the player to set individual features. Dungeon Hack is a great example of this, where it had presets for easy, medium, and hard, but then you could go in and set a whole bunch of different custom options like "food rarity" or "underwater level" or "enable undead enemies". The Civilization games have a similar setup with custom games. I think part of the problem is that while designers recognize the problem (that being that there is no one difficulty balance that will appeal to everyone), they end up deciding to just cater to one specific crowd rather than allowing players to customize their preferences according to how masochistic they are. Even something as simple as New Vegas' "Hardcore" mode, that enables certain features independent of the actual difficulty setting can work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 07:40
|
|