« O’Reilly Style Cover Designer | Home | January ‘08 Round Table – UPDATE 01/31 »
XFire Debate Annex, Part One
By Corvus | January 31, 2008
Fellow Debate Club panelist and indie developer Jay Barnson and I decided that we’d like to address some of the Xfire community questions that weren’t addressed during the official debate. So we’ve compiled a list (honestly, Jay compiled it) of questions and plan on answering a few each Thursday for the next several weeks.
Our first two questions come courtesy of Shamus Young McLaserPants at Twenty Sided, who posted his unanswered questions for all the world to see and therefore slipped to the top of the question queue.
1) RPGs seem really over-represented in indie games. (Or, you could say they are under-represented in mainstream games.) Why do you think indie developers favor RPGs so much?
As many people have pointed out to Shamus, RPGs aren’t actually well represented in the indie scene if you take a look at the big picture. But I think what Shamus is trying to get at here is that on average, there are more indie RPGs than AAA RPGs in any given year. That assumption, of course, means ignoring all the JRPGs, the MMOs and the Sword and Sorcery dungeon crawlers (many of which are being released on the DS (woohoo!)). But if we narrow our definition of RPG to mean western style, AD&D-descended stat-based games with plenty of delivery quests and little to no need for any manual dexterity… he’s got a point.
Many of the comments on Shamus’s post pointed out that RPGs don’t need top notch graphics and are therefore easier and cheaper to develop… to which I reply, “HA! Are you MAD?!” Listen, I (that’s the theoretic ‘I’) could download any number of open source engines and cobble together a nice looking FPS for you. Seriously. While attaining the polygon-pushing power of the Unreal Engine is outside an indie engine’s grasp, OGRE, Crystal Space and Sauerbraten all provide increasingly impressive visuals with every release. Not to mention, I could use the HL2 engine, or the Unreal engine, and via extensive modding, create entirely new games with those engines level of graphics fidelity.
The fact is, RPG development is expensive. It requires a lot of time, a lot of talent and a lot of patience. The underlying mechanics of a FPS are pretty simple, even if it’s an innovative approach like Portal. The mechanics underlying a RPG are complex! Trust me, even designing the combat mechanics for a pen and paper RPG can be an extensive process of balancing and refining. The reason indie devs are willing to tackle this niche RPG market is that not only do we have the passion to make this sort of game, but we don’t have an accounting department to answer to. Publishers want to maximize return on investment. Spend as little as possible on development, sell as many copies as possible. That means that sprawling RPGs simply don’t get funded much anymore. The vast majority of people who buy them don’t experience a vast majority of the content, so a publisher looks at a spreadsheet (or four) and asks, “Why pay to build the content?”
Indie devs are not only able to follow their bliss and we get by on much smaller profit margins. Many of us work an extra job, or work under contract for other games, or both in order to pay the bills. This allows us the luxury of taking our time and making exactly the game we want to play and hoping another fifty or a hundred people will want to play it too.
2) Naturally indie games have to use older technology, which is less labor intensive and doesn’t require (as much) expensive software. But I don’t think that’s the only reason to do so. Certainly the older graphics – done right – can have a certain stylistic appeal as well. The other reason to aim low on the tech tree is so that you can hit the widest possible base of users instead of just the fanboys with $3,000 computers. If you could use any graphics technology you wanted – from Infocom to Crysis – where would you choose to go?
Okay, anyone who’s read ten percent of my blog (that’s an in-joke for the people who’ve read eighteen percent or more) is probably aware of my opinion on graphics, which I summed up in a comment elsewhere:
Designers with little to say have photo-realism. Designers with a lot to say have art direction.
Seriously. The push towards photo-realism is some macho-bullshit competition with Hollywood. Hollywood wants their CGI to look real because (by and large) they’ve got actual actors standing in front of it. Game designers want their CGI to look real… because… because… why? “Lack of imagination” springs to mind. I’m all for using photo-realistic technology if you have access to it… but say something with it. Use it to surprise me. Use it to trick me. Use it to challenge my assumptions about reality–my reality or the game’s reality, I don’t care. Just use it as something other than a crutch to cover up the fact that you’re still producing the same f*cking games you’ve been producing for the last twenty f*cking years.
Okay. Calming down. Go, right now, and fire up TF2 and listen to the developer commentary. They discuss the impact of using a unique visual aesthetic and how it dramatically improved the design process, resulting in a stronger product. It’s brilliant and it’s heartening.
Now, was there a question I was supposed to answer? Oh, yes. If I could use any technology/engine I wanted, where would I choose to go? Honestly, when I think about existing engines that I’d like to use only one game springs to mind–Wind Waker. It features simple yet expressive characters, it’s capable of rendering a sprawling world, has awesome wave physics and runs on modest hardware. (And, of course, it’d run on the Wii.) Based upon the visual style of the game, as well as the interface (not the UI per se, but character control, etc), I can see the Wind Waker engine ultimately being a great client for the HoneyComb Engine. But given my current level of coding expertise, I’m starting with a command line interface, moving to a simple GUI with buttons and text, then moving to a web based interface and possibly an isometric or 2d client and, finally, a full 3D client. By the time I reach that point, who knows what tech will be available to me? All I can tell you is that I’ll spend more time ensuring the gameplay is compelling and worth experiencing than I’ll spend getting more polygons on the screen.
Jay’s answers to these questions can be found at his blog, Tales of the Rampant Coyote . Tune in next week when we share what we’d do , “If we had a million dollars” and answer other questions too!
Tagged:indie-games, question annex, xfire debate. | 12 Comments »
January 31st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
One thing I think you misread on the representation of RPG’s in indie games is that the difficulties in putting together an RPG are better aligned to the programmer’s mindset. That is, I can sit here and model out how combat would happen. I could write automated tests to see how different situations vary the results and modify my calculations accordingly.
However, if I actually had to make a decent 3-D model, I don’t even know where to begin. I mean I’ve played with various tools and I can make a lovely glass or a box, or maybe some very half ass stick figurish representation of a person, but I it is absolutely a stretch for me.
So it would be much much easier for me to put together a game that’s more dependent on clever algorithms than one that’s dependent on passable graphics. One of the reasons I think that good mods for FPS games are relatively few and far between is that you’ve got people who know graphics and people who know coding and it’s a rarity that both of these groups are working together on one project unless they are paid to do so.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
That’s an excellent point, Steve.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Herb Flower – who is currently working on LinkRealms – commented to me a few months ago about the mod scene and how difficult it is now. Back in the days when Quake II and Half-Life 1 ruled the world, the Mod Scene was much more vibrant – because anybody could create passable models with a little bit of practice and a few days of effort. Nowadays – according to him (I’ve not kept track of things) – that’s dried up a lot. The demands of the newer engines are such that it appears beyond the capabilities of some kid with a copy of MilkShape and Hammer.
An FPS is pretty boring, from a programming perspective. But yeah – an RPG sounds rich and inviting from a mechanical perspective. Too bad the content requirements are through the roof.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I don’t generally classify the Japanese RPG’s as true RPG’s anymore than I classify dungeon crawlers as RPG’s. I see the Japanese games as more like interactive stories, whose outcomes will generally be predetermined so long as the player goes down the paths the storyteller has provided.
That said, when you take away those style of games it does leave a dearth of RPG games for consoles and PC’s alike. Everything is relative. I think Steve’s point is very valid though, with a general lack of RPG content and the algorithmic nature of RPG systems they are more desirable projects.
I also think RPG systems have another appeal in that if you’re passionate enough to do an indie game, especially on the side, telling a story may be of greater importance to you. While we’ve seen some great stories come out of other genres, RPG’s are often one of the easiest approaches to telling a story, especially one that might have multiple resolutions and outcomes.
As for the comment -
Just use it as something other than a crutch to cover up the fact that you’re still producing the same f*cking games you’ve been producing for the last twenty f*cking years.
That’s just gold.
Seriously, I will not downplay the importance of graphics in gaming, but good graphics do not make for a good game by themselves. I think the current generation of uber-critical and uber-jaded gamers is a direct result of growing up with games that they’ve been told are good but are ultimately shallow. I honestly think we have gamers out there that truly do not understand what makes a game great because all they hear anymore is “This game looks great but is too short”. That’s like 90% of the reviews for any game these days.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Coyote: I’ve heard the same from Josh at Cathode Tan.
Jason: I quite agree on the story passion point. Perhaps designers who are driven by story tend to go the indie route because they don’t want a marketing executive telling them how to express their story?
January 31st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Designers with little to say have photo-realism. Designers with a lot to say have art direction.
Haha, that’s great, I will keep that in Mind.
Game designers want their CGI to look real… because… because… why? “Lack of imagination” springs to mind.
Oh it is not that simple. There are very good reasons to choose Photorealism. First of all, there is this strange belief that if you push the graphics hard enough, you will cross some magical threshold and people won’t be able to tell if they are playing a game or watching a live stream. They might even unable to tell fiction from reality apart. As this wasn’t ridiculous enough, the same game designers additionally believe that these qualities would somehow lead to an better playing experience. If I weren’t sure if I’m in a real sports car or not, I wouldn’t take my chances, stop and get out (and maybe later sell that sweet sports car on eBay).
Another reason is something Jonathan Blow mentioned in his latest talk. It is easy to improve programming if you have a certain, objective goal. You can then apply the scientific method to find which is the optimum solution to that problem. Photorealism is such a certain, objective goal. You make your computer render a scene and then you check it against the real world to figure out what effects are needed to make it look even more realistic. However, if you have some nebulous “artistic vision” as your goal, it becomes very difficult and frustrating to do programming for it, especially if the guy with the “astistic vision” isn’t you and isn’t a programmer. In this case, programming becomes very hard – more like design where there are no answers, only choices and determining the optimum solution is impossible. For indies, setting different visual goals then photorealism is easy because mostly, the art and programming comes from the same guy. They have less problems doing some innovative visual programming.
As much as I agree with you about the value of descent Art Direction, I don’t see photorealism as such a bad thing. There is a redeeming factor. By trying to replicate the real world in every little detail, we discover and learn about those details. As a result, we understand our world better. It’s like reverse-engineering the world, at least from the visual standpoint. Compute rgames are perfect for this because they are interactive and allow much less “tricks” to hide the imperfections. CGI in Movies looks so much better because then can fake their incompetence away… you know: “Just add a lens flare, nobody will notice”…
January 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Clearly, if we look to cinematography, achieving photo-realism doesn’t rule out art direction. And while your premise that trying to recreate reality teaches us more about reality is compelling, I doubt that it’s providing the same level of experience to the audience. That would be easier to do with… well, art direction!
Perhaps I’m crazy, but it seems to me that you just defined art, not to mention the human experience. If I had my druthers, I’d rather experience art and learn about the human experience via viedogames and learn more about my world by going outside and experiencing it.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
[...] to my second question. I don’t want to steal his thunder by excerpting him here, so just check it out for yourself. Also, I should point out that Amanda Fitch answered my questions here in the [...]
February 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
The real reason games want photorealism is twofold:
1) Hollywood has photorealism, so that’s the standard
2) If your competitor has it and you don’t, it’s harder to mask that you’re creating the same game under all that shiny.
It’s the cycle of “they create better graphics because people expect better graphics, driving sales”.
The initial reaction to the Wii was ‘oh noes, them thar graphix don’t have the shiny’. Then people realized that it was about the games, not the shiny.
And life went on.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Richard, do you see how your numbered reasons are the same reasons I listed, only couched in terms that make it sound just a teeny bit less like asshattery?
February 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Sorry, didn’t notice. Sometimes I’m slow on the uptake.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
No need for apologies, I just wanted to clarify!