Are original games really more of a con than a pro?

jbskaggs

going back to our discussion on games as voices and much more than just time killers.

I want yall's thoughts on the other side of the coin- that games as art- that are not easily categorized or understood are very difficult to find success financially or popularly as they can't be pigeon holed into a easily defined genres.

I know many people say they do it just for the art of it- but then when their game is a flop they abandon game making. Some have done even more drastic things- and I think they believed their art would somehow be popular or financially successful. And they pumped a decade of their life, money, time, and sacrificed many things and the game was DOA hitwise, And when they see something like flappy birds or whatnot it makes them sick.

When I made my cancer game I made it for me and for other people with cancer I knew and I never tried to market or make it a hit because I never made it to be a hit. But it was made in less than a month.

I just wonder how often in life art becomes a trap, just like anything else when it is unbalanced and becomes as addiction rather than a healthy part of living.

cybereality

So I think games should be art, not that they always are. To give an example, I think the original Stan Lee Spider-Man comic was art. It was an original story, had some meaning, and was very good visually for the time. But I would consider the latest Spider-Man movie, which made a bazillion dollars, to be not art. A corporate cash grab. Yes, people were entertained, and the studio made their money, but they did it for the wrong reasons. I didn't watch the movie, so maybe it was good, but I have seen some of the other ones and they are not deep. There really is no reason to make them, except to make money. This is not art.

I consider myself an artist, though I'm not great at drawing and mostly studied programming. But I have a good eye and a vision, and I have stories I want to tell. So far what I've released have been tech demos, and not even my original artwork, but it was my composition. And I thought they came out well, but haven't made more than a few hundred dollars, even while being great quality. But I kind of don't care at this point. I accomplished what I wanted, and I'm proud, so that's enough for me. And my latest project is too weird. I don't think people even know what to think of it. Which is fine, not everyone has to understand (or even has the context or experience to begin to understand). And the people that get it I'm sure will be happy. But I'll probably never make any money cause it's too out there.

But that is fine. I'd much rather make an artistic masterpiece that flops, than waste my life making some Flappy Bird clones, even if I got rich, the money would be worthless. I mean, you need some amount of money to live and survive, but everything that is worthwhile in life is not for sale. Like knowledge, and understanding, and love, and peace. None of that costs any money. You could be broke and go sit under a tree like the Buddha and have a spiritual awakening in a few hours. But other people may spend their whole life chasing money or fame or vanity, even if they reach it, they won't be happy and will ultimately realize they wasted their life.

jbskaggs

I dont know though If I can put you out there with most other people. ;)

There wasa an old movie with Shirley Temple called the BLUEBIRD OF HAPPINESS I think its on youtube now, but it goes into this some.

For me I am wondering more about the person who says its about the art- but in reality in their hearts its about the cash.

Another thing different about you - is you used to be inside the gaming industries back in the flash days- where everything about corporate gamemaking seemed to suck the fun out of gamemaking. I dont dont mind making Flappy Bird if someone I love wanted tio me make it for them. But it would be kind of boring now - in the same way, I want to make something that people find useful and I can make new friends and connect with people - people I may never meet or maybe havent been born.

cybereality

Well yes. When I got into the industry, it was when Flash was huge. I did make some money, but I was working for clients, it was not my original work. But I got to make some cool games. But the reason I got into it was because of the whole indie scene for Flash (not sure the term indie even existed back then). It was just some kids in their parent's house making weird games for fun, and releasing them for free on Newgrounds or eBaum's World, or whatever. None of those people really made any sort of money or even had any thought they would make any money. They did it cause it was fun and they wanted to do it. I mean, of course the most successful people did get jobs, or started companies or whatever, and a lot of them are older now and either working in the industry or making mobile games, sure. But that wasn't the point.

This is the problem today, and why we have hundreds of games coming out every day and almost none of them are any good. Cause new developers are thinking of it like some get rich quick scheme. Or they think Steam is American Idol. Even if they have technical or art skills, they don't have the vision. They are copying other developers, that copied other developers, in a game of telephone where no one has an original idea or anything they want to say for any meaningful reason. And that is why they all fail. Cause there is no substance there.

If you do something because you think you will make money, you will make no money. If you try all day to be famous, no one will ever hear of you. But if your heart is in the right place, and you do something because you have an interesting story that needs to be told, or you want to help people, or whatever, then you at least have a chance. I mean, there still is some luck involved. People have to see your game, and you have to market it right, and the timing has to be right, etc. Which are things not totally in your control. But you have to at least make the thing honest to begin with.

Erich_L

The idea for my first game attempt (Stactory) took me a year and a half to spawn. It's perfect IMO- limited scale, one person doable, fits the category of games I like, and has a novel idea I haven't enjoyed before in games: physics + factory + efficiency. But my vision was really just to finish it and have it start out as a puzzle game. That vision was not strong or deep enough to get that gritty artistic satisfaction.

Recently I figured out the game's setting (our own solar system's asteroid belt) and have also settled on a worthwhile purpose- to give players and myself a deeper understanding of the solar system we live in. Even tho my last paper is still not done- I've started back up on development on this game and I feel great about it. :#

cybereality

I think that's great. Not everything has to be your magnum opus, and as long as it has some originality or purpose, I think it's fine. Your game in particular I think is definitely original, and I like the move to space. I mean, I've seen other physics games, it's not totally out there, but also not exactly like anything else I've played. Which is good, at least people will have some idea of the gameplay from seeing a video and you are more likely to get downloads/sales.

And I think games that try to be educational (as in educational games) fail, because they are not rooted in fun, and also kids may think of them like homework. But if you can make a good game that just happens to have educational benefit, I think that is more useful. I would even consider Assassin's Creed mildly educational. Though it was not historically accurate, it is probably one of the better (or best) games that make you feel like you are really in a historical setting. Lots of other games are set in old times, but the world is not realistic. In Assassin's Creed you felt like you were there. I think this is one reason it was so popular.

Erich_L

I really appreciate the encouragement. If not for your help way back with UV maps I probably would have gone completely crazy by now. My friend who's a great 3d modeller couldn't even figure it out at the time. A game needs idea IMO needs to be good enough that you're willing to do millions of google searches and be willing to ask for help when you really get crunched.

cybereality

Oh yeah, I forgot about that UV thing. I had to figure that out a while ago to make a circular progress bar in Unity. I spent like a whole day getting it working, only for someone to tell me on the forum that it was already built-in, LOL.

fire7side

I know I don't like games that are just another game in some genre, but the genres are tried and true and that makes it easier for the player to pick it up and start playing. I don't get a lot of games that are supposedly art at all because they don't have a goal, they don't have a win situation, so they are supposedly art. I usually play them for a few minutes, shrug my shoulders and move on. I like when games have a compelling story, but if they completely omit game play, or just sort of throw it in, it doesn't work either. There are games that don't need a story and it would be a hindrance, also. Sometimes it's just the mood I'm in. I don't feel like doing something deep, just some interesting puzzle to solve. Really, for me, the magic moment is when they have a compelling story and somehow managed to fit in game play that feels like it's a part of it. Pretty rare and the games I find like that are generally only mildly popular. I really hate games that force you to make this crucial decision like deciding who should live and who should die. I think it's stupid. Hardly anyone will ever be called to make a decision like that. They make a big deal out of it and tell you how deep it is. What a joke, it's just the same old game and they threw that in. I think indies mostly give up on games because they took on too large of a project and even if they would finish, it would never really be good. You just need a lot of failures along the way. As an indy, though, there has to be something a little different or special about your game. Your graphics aren't going to measure up to a huge team of professionals.

DeanOrTori

Maybe a con financially / effort wise

I dont think its inherently a bad idea to make a game as art though. Not that I know the most about making games as art, my games are more.... IDK how to say. typical? but no matter what game you're making, you should be prepared for the possibility that it will flop... that's what i try to prepare myself for anyway.

I think video games have potential to be an amazing art form. I've been trying to play more indie games myself lately, since I want to see what others do, and also see what people who don't necessarily have to worry about the marketability can do with games. Since big games put so much money in them, they have to worry about making that back, is what I mean

RE: story in games... I agree with fire7side, about "I really hate games that force you to make this crucial decision like deciding who should live and who should die". It seems like a cheap emotional tactic, rather than actually putting in effort to make the player feel something, IMO

sorry if im super rambly. I usually just lurk, but wanted to comment today.

newmodels

Choose your own adventure book? I don't like those type of games either, because then I have to play over and over again to try and see the whole story. And then you miss things, such as a player character you could have had. Repeating the game over and over again is a pain for me. But I see that from the money grabber for the AAA studio, you have to purchase the walk-thru to play it correctly. Nintendo Power for example.

I see video games as an artwork. The graphics, game play, music, sound and story. I like making them, it's what I do rather than playing games. Problem is the time it takes for producing the graphics. I work on trying to make quick and cheap graphics to get the game moving. Because I just don't have enough time for the work needed for higher quality graphics. I try to make them look good.

cybereality

Indie games can have better graphics than AAA games. Look at Sable. I would consider this looking better than the new Call of Duty. And in 10 years, CoD will probably look dated, but this game will look just as good.

jbskaggs

Triple AAA game art t me is nearly identical. I cant tell the games apart sometimes by a screen shot becuase they look so similar.

Indie games may not have the budget or number of artists but they are free to express themselves how they wish without interference from accounting troll.

In a few aaa games I have seen some of the most beautiful scenes I have ever seen. Oddly enough they were never part of main quests but usually optional dlc or side quests. Their main quests usually had the same psuedo generic art every one else did.

fire7side

I think the animation, special effects, and realism is amazing in AAA games. They just fall short on having any real depth of story and the game play is repetitive and overly morbid and violent. There are games like Sable, but mostly you can spot indy game graphics quite a ways back. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though, because simple graphics sometimes enhance the game play and story if the other two have enough depth. Even Sable has fairly simple graphics. It just works in that environment. That's kind of a key. You have to choose a game that will work in relatively simple graphics and use it to your advantage. Like for me. I want characters but I know I won't be able to have that many and the environment will be smaller, not open world, so the game has to fit those confines.

cybereality

@jbskaggs said: There wasa an old movie with Shirley Temple called the BLUEBIRD OF HAPPINESS I think its on youtube now, but it goes into this some.

The movie is called "The Blue Bird" and it's on YouTube for free (I guess public domain since the film is from 1940). I just watched it and it was amazing. Best movie ever. Such a touching story with deep meaning. It came out 80 years ago and is probably better than any of the children's films they made since. Never heard of it before, I bet if parent's showed this to their kids instead of Disney princess movies or Michael Bay's Transformers, the world would be a better place.

cybereality

I mean, I like realism too. I did try very hard to make Ella look real, and I think it worked. So there is value in that (though I think my future projects will be stylized). In any case, I just don't think the Call of Duty or Battlefield look good. Yes, the graphics are impressive, the same way a Michael Bay movie explosions are impressive, but it's just not meaningful. There was this game Spec Ops The Line, that, on the surface, was a military shooter, but it was actually something else entirely. And some of the flashback/dream sequences were very stylized and looked like 2D paintings. And the game had a reason to exist, it had a message. I would explain it, but you should check it out if you never played it.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/50300/Spec_Ops_The_Line/

Also, graphics have been getting worse. At the beginning of 3D graphics, like around 2000 we were very limited in poly count, resolution, etc. So the games were basic. But I would say 2010 was the peak. We had enough power, OpenGL and DirectX could do programmable shaders, which opened up artists to do basically whatever they wanted (you could probably make a game today with DirectX9 and modern algorithms and it would look just as good as anything today, similar to how Godot uses OpenGL ES and I was able to make my demos that look amazing). Just look at Alice Madness Returns from 2011. Granted it was published by EA, but the team that made it was small (for AAA standards). Better graphics than stuff in 2022 and the game came out a decade ago. It's on Xbox Game Pass for free if you sub.

https://www.xbox.com/en-CA/games/store/alice-madness-returns/bsnzhrckc13j

This drive toward faster hardware makes no sense. The computer I own is capable of rendering photo-realistic graphics in real time. We don't need new video cards or processors. I have a 16-core CPU, but even modern 6-core CPUs are not being utilized in software at all. We don't need more hardware. If programmers could figure out how to use what we have, we could probably double, triple, or more, the performance, even with much better graphics. And the graphics themselves are not as important as the art. People are chasing the wrong things.

jbskaggs

here is one that is hand painted like late 1800's fantasy art.

cybereality

Yeah, Child of Light was basically a perfect game. You can't get better than that.

jbskaggs

@cybereality said: Yeah, Child of Light was basically a perfect game. You can't get better than that.

I discovered it today on stadia and played it. It is fun and pretty.