Tell me, did you come up with a GDD first? If you have completed your GDD and the market side of it... you can tell whether or not there is a demand or profit to be made in small mmorpg games. It is actually hard to make money from kids, which means not only do you have to impress the kids, but the parents who will want to invest in their kid's play time.
To be honest with you, there is a huge growing market for such games, not just for kids though. We are approaching the age where small flash games, java games, web based/cell phone games, even on social networking sites, can rake in serious "monies".
Look at Maple Story for example. It is a simple platformer that makes millions with its mmorpg structure. Kids and Adults play it.
Look at FarmVille, the facebook game. They also make way too much "monies" and it was developed in Flash using actionscript.
A french company created a mmorpg using flash as well as some java i think... could be wrong on that and its doing quite well. You might have heard of it, its called Dofus Online. http://www.dofus.com/en
Take a look at sprite based MMORPGs such as Ragnarok Online.
Needless to say, you should continue but make sure you do your market research and create a solid GDD before going any further. For more information on a GDD check out Chris Taylor's template http://www.runawaystudios.com/articles/chris_taylor_gdd.asp
My advice would be to focus on the growing cellphone and web gaming world first. These markets are good for one or small man teams and can still make a profit to start.
don't bother if you can't make graphics that don't take advantage of new technology then i'm not going to play it
it shows your lack of skill and ruins immersion
I've seen people loose their lives to Tetris. The world around them goes away- even the passage of time is ignored. There's immersion- There's a bunch of squares.
Hi-quality gfx helps- but a crappy game w great gfx will break immersion more than a great game w/crappy gfx.
Nope. BOTH will break immersion. The analogy to tetris is bonus. Tetris suck you in because of its slot machine type quality. No one will be immerse in a fictional world playing tetris.
don't bother if you can't make graphics that don't take advantage of new technology then i'm not going to play it
it shows your lack of skill and ruins immersion
I've seen people loose their lives to Tetris. The world around them goes away- even the passage of time is ignored. There's immersion- There's a bunch of squares.
Hi-quality gfx helps- but a crappy game w great gfx will break immersion more than a great game w/crappy gfx.
Nope. BOTH will break immersion. The analogy to tetris is bonus. Tetris suck you in because of its slot machine type quality. No one will be immerse in a fictional world playing tetris.
This is incorrect, bad game design will ruin immersion through an effect called alienation. Games do not need good graphics to be imersive. You can still be immersed to this day by games like Zork which literally have no graphics, and its all due to the design and gameplay. People can get immersed in Tetris through the challenge. It is the same reason why arcades were popular not long after Space War was invented. It has to do with the challenge, which is created through a rule set. The graphics didnt matter, just the interaction and challenge.
I also think you do not really understand what the word Immersion really means in the context of a game. If you are immersed, your mind is fully into the game play, alienation, is when you realize you are the player looking at a screen thinking about what you see and do. Movies are good examples of this effect, you can be completely dawn into a narrative and its visual elements, but the moment the bad actor or cheesy lines come into play, you are drawn away from the screen and realize you are the viewer. You then view the image as a spectator, noticing elements that are critical... aka critical thinking, rather than being completely drawn into the narrative. Narrative in this regards is also the game play for games.
Thus, graphics are not the main factor of immersion, in fact they are not even needed. In some cases, the best graphics can cause alienation where as worse graphics will not. What this says is that graphics are not necessary for the immersion factor, done right they can help it. Higher end graphics require higher end detail. Lack of that detail will ruin immersion.
don't bother if you can't make graphics that don't take advantage of new technology then i'm not going to play it
it shows your lack of skill and ruins immersion
I've seen people loose their lives to Tetris. The world around them goes away- even the passage of time is ignored. There's immersion- There's a bunch of squares.
Hi-quality gfx helps- but a crappy game w great gfx will break immersion more than a great game w/crappy gfx.
Nope. BOTH will break immersion. The analogy to tetris is bonus. Tetris suck you in because of its slot machine type quality. No one will be immerse in a fictional world playing tetris.
This is incorrect, bad game design will ruin immersion through an effect called alienation. Games do not need good graphics to be imersive. You can still be immersed to this day by games like Zork which literally have no graphics, and its all due to the design and gameplay. People can get immersed in Tetris through the challenge. It is the same reason why arcades were popular not long after Space War was invented. It has to do with the challenge, which is created through a rule set. The graphics didnt matter, just the interaction and challenge.
I also think you do not really understand what the word Immersion really means in the context of a game. If you are immersed, your mind is fully into the game play, alienation, is when you realize you are the player looking at a screen thinking about what you see and do. Movies are good examples of this effect, you can be completely dawn into a narrative and its visual elements, but the moment the bad actor or cheesy lines come into play, you are drawn away from the screen and realize you are the viewer. You then view the image as a spectator, noticing elements that are critical... aka critical thinking, rather than being completely drawn into the narrative. Narrative in this regards is also the game play for games.
Thus, graphics are not the main factor of immersion, in fact they are not even needed. In some cases, the best graphics can cause alienation where as worse graphics will not. What this says is that graphics are not necessary for the immersion factor, done right they can help it. Higher end graphics require higher end detail. Lack of that detail will ruin immersion.
Contradictions.
You are saying a pixelated 2D batman that you can hardly tell between him & the joker, gives the SAME immersion as Batman doing a up-side down take-down in 3D with lighting effect like in the game Arkam Asylum .. LOL
And why argue for good games with bad graphics? There are plenty of good games with GOOD graphics. If i can get both, why should i settle for only one?
And you think COD Modern Warfare 2 will be such a good game if the scenes do not look real?
Fuck graphics, its all about style....think Shadowbane here, I just loved the style of the world. Graphics were terrible, but I loved them. Get 1 or 2 guys who can design neat looking armor/weapons (I'll send you a couple perhaps for free) and put them into the game in a simple, yet stylized way. Sounds like a fun project
Those aren't contradictions. Yes- a great looking batman with funky controls, or illogical solutions, or overly simple or diffiult combat/puzzles can all ruin the game. The bits you highlight clearly capture the point. The idea is to make a good game- no matter the level of graphics. If you can do both- bonus- but nowadays, indie devs often have to make sacrifices. Would you rather 'interact' with a 'tech demo'- or play a 'fun game'- because that may be the choice because it all takes time- though the media content can actually be a lot of money too.
That is a false dilemma in legal jargon. I do NOT have to choose between a "tech demo" and a "fun game" because there are PLENTY of fun game with great graphics. Such a choice is irrelevant when there are more than enough fun + good looking games than i have time to play them.
And while indie devs have to make sacrifices, I do not.
Even aside from MMOs, I have more than enough good SP games to kill my time. I am on the Batman Arkam game now (great game), marvel ultimate alliance 2 waiting in the wing for me to play. And Dante's Inferno is coming up. I haven't played Halo ODST, Gear of War 2, or Assassin Creed 1 or 2 yet.
Now you tell me why do i have to consider anything that is not a good game with good graphics?
Do not attempt to make a 3D MMORPG by yourself. Even if you had the programming and artistic skills, I wouldn't suggest doing it. Making a 3D MMO by yourself would take many years (How long has Love been in development?).
Just look at Mortal Online. It's been in development for about two years (which is not a lot of time in MMO development), is using an excellent, fully documented, established engine and a small team of people and they're still nowhere near done. They're being forced to release early because they're out of funds.
I'm not trying to discourage you, but undertaking a project of this scope is going to be insanely difficult. MMOs are by far the hardest type of games to make. I'd suggest getting an artist to help you. You can definitely find someone out there who's willing to work for free who has similar ambitions. Your final product will be much better with the extra help.
I'd also suggest that you don't set a six month deadline for a beta product. Give yourself a more realistic timeline and make sure you set milestones. Pre-production is very important. You need to make sure you have everything down on paper before you even touch a computer. Growing a game organically as you create your engine can work, but it's a very dangerous path to head down. Being prepared and having everything planned out will make your work flow much quicker and drastically reduce the chances you'll hit a roadblock of "What do I do next?". That kind of pause in development can derail an entire project.
In short:
Plan ahead. Be realistic with yourself and know your own abilities. Get help. Never give up on your dream.
I think consistency of style is more important than graphics that verge on real life.
EQ2 shoots for real life graphics and the graphics are consistant in style for the most part. I remember crawling down into some dungeon only to find a very plastic looking ladder. It ruined the immersion.
Any style will do, even line or ascii art, but it has to be consistent.
Yes it may work. For example o game is very popular, also travian is ... Those games are not mmo but same routin may work for a mmo too. In that way you don' need any graphics.
On the other hand, most of the people seems interested with the graphics in a mmo. I am not one of them , but even i played aion a few months because of nice graphics.
When i was younger i was playing FRP games without any graphics we were rolling dices , you rolled 20 critical !!! YAY , believe me it was more amazing than most of the computer games. It shows that if you can inspire people , if your story hits the hearts and if people knows where to find your product i believe that you can achieve more than you imagine.
I am not a guru of those things please don't misunderstood me , i can say you should believe your self.
graphics for me personally is not the be all end all factor of the game - sure it does play a part in it, but it comes down to the gameplay itself, how customisable is it, how much can you do and so forth.
now i keep coming back to this little hope of mine in all these posts regarding new mmo's and future is that damn i hope the game is something along the lines of pokemon and or digimon...like purely but in 3d/2d in a sense, dosnt have to be smooth or dx10 stuff but have the gameplay haha.
Those aren't contradictions. Yes- a great looking batman with funky controls, or illogical solutions, or overly simple or diffiult combat/puzzles can all ruin the game. The bits you highlight clearly capture the point. The idea is to make a good game- no matter the level of graphics. If you can do both- bonus- but nowadays, indie devs often have to make sacrifices. Would you rather 'interact' with a 'tech demo'- or play a 'fun game'- because that may be the choice because it all takes time- though the media content can actually be a lot of money too. That is a false dilemma in legal jargon. I do NOT have to choose between a "tech demo" and a "fun game" because there are PLENTY of fun game with great graphics. Such a choice is irrelevant when there are more than enough fun + good looking games than i have time to play them. And while indie devs have to make sacrifices, I do not. Even aside from MMOs, I have more than enough good SP games to kill my time. I am on the Batman Arkam game now (great game), marvel ultimate alliance 2 waiting in the wing for me to play. And Dante's Inferno is coming up. I haven't played Halo ODST, Gear of War 2, or Assassin Creed 1 or 2 yet. Now you tell me why do i have to consider anything that is not a good game with good graphics?
You're right. When given the reality of limited resources (let's say a total lump of $10,000- the devs own input being 'worth' $2,000 of that), a dev has another option- mediocrity- to make a game which has no focus toward excellence in either realm (say $5,000 toward each). So- an average looking, average playing middle of the road game can be done (which you wouldn't buy) or can be done instead with $8,000 & $2,000 toward excellence in gfx (which you'd buy, then chuckl) or gameplay (which you wouldn't buy- but might enjoy). This isn't a realistic example- but it's more realistic than you just arbitrarily believing people don't do both because it simply suits them not to.
I don't know what legal jargon you're talking about. Um. 'illogical', 'money'?.
Anyway, I'm not telling you that you 'have to' anything- but being aware of indie limits means you won't tell a kid working with paper, pasta, glue and crayons to remake the Battle of Gettysburg-in 3d. Not that it can't be done- but it can't be done in twenty minutes- which is about how long that kid has before the rich kids collaborating at the next table do that, and a teaser of the First World War done on a giant cardboard, 12 kinds of pasta and acrylic paints.
So- don't support indie devs. Play popular, 'me too' mainstream games- they are the fun and pretty ones after all.
Whether you know it or not, you're the one missing out.
"False dilemma" .. a term i picked up at LSAT.
And no, i don't support indie devs. And with limited play time, I am ALREADY missing out on great fun game with great graphics (never have time to play assassin creed, or Prototype, or Fable 1 & 2, or finish Dragon's Age, mass effect, Fallout 3 or Oblivion for example). I highly doubt any indie dev would have games better than those.
Missing out is not a big deal. Time is limited. I am already missing out on many good books, and good movies, and good mainstream games. Missing out on some indie dev that is likely to have bad graphics .. not high on my priority list. There is a LONG list of GREAT games i have to play before i would even think about some indie stuff which is likely to have subpar graphics, and lack of polish/features.
Those aren't contradictions. Yes- a great looking batman with funky controls, or illogical solutions, or overly simple or diffiult combat/puzzles can all ruin the game. The bits you highlight clearly capture the point. The idea is to make a good game- no matter the level of graphics. If you can do both- bonus- but nowadays, indie devs often have to make sacrifices. Would you rather 'interact' with a 'tech demo'- or play a 'fun game'- because that may be the choice because it all takes time- though the media content can actually be a lot of money too. That is a false dilemma in legal jargon. I do NOT have to choose between a "tech demo" and a "fun game" because there are PLENTY of fun game with great graphics. Such a choice is irrelevant when there are more than enough fun + good looking games than i have time to play them. And while indie devs have to make sacrifices, I do not. ...
I don't know what legal jargon you're talking about. Um. 'illogical', 'money'?.
...
"False dilemma" .. a term i picked up at LSAT.
And no, i don't support indie devs. And with limited play time, I am ALREADY missing out on great fun game with great graphics (never have time to play assassin creed, or Prototype, or Fable 1 & 2, or finish Dragon's Age, mass effect, Fallout 3 or Oblivion for example). I highly doubt any indie dev would have games better than those.
Missing out is not a big deal. Time is limited. I am already missing out on many good books, and good movies, and good mainstream games. Missing out on some indie dev that is likely to have bad graphics .. not high on my priority list. There is a LONG list of GREAT games i have to play before i would even think about some indie stuff which is likely to have subpar graphics, and lack of polish/features.
Well first off, it's not. The phrase 'because that may be' introduced the possibility of more options. Further, my example of budget constraints illustrates why 'polarization' of either option is possible- so though the 'false dilemma' needs a forced choice between two leveraged options, my illustration was one more of 'optimized' choices- and why they're realistic. You can pay for pretty, you can pay for 'fun'- or anything in between (or you can pay twice as much for both). I also forgot to mention that 'twice' as pretty is almost guaranteed to cost 8-16x as much- if not more- but that's another discussion.
I have actually played half those games you list- and they are hyped more than great, though all fairly solid. And by your standards- no indy gamer could easily meet them-- all those games utilized a 50+ man dev team. Only the 'best' for you (by the narrow definition that you define as 'good').
I guess all that can be said on 'missing out' is 'good for you'- you'll never know what you missed. Funny how someone who apparently considered at least studying for law lives by a perversion of of the 'ignorance is bliss (though it won't stand up in court)' motto. Maybe you should see what this noise is about. Nope- never mind- not 'shiny'- can't be good.
If you decide you do want to play a great indie game, try Mount & Blade- which is changing RPG combat for the better, or Braid- which will challenge your mind with the most innovative puzzles ever. Seriously. (As an aside, the creator of Braid (perhaps knowing about people like yourself :-) sat on the game pretty much completed for 3 years while he paid an artist out of his own pocket to do polished graphics). A very well-designed game- the last stage being called the best boss level in a platformer ever.
Anyway, enjoy what you like- but be careful-- one day you may get roped into trying something you clearly shouldn't- and being disappointed when you do anyway...
Nah .. i was just helping an ex-gf preparing the LSAT .. never consider law myself.
There are enough indie games on Xbox Arcade .. most are waste of time. Sure i don't know what i miss .. but from what i have tried .. it is 99% time wasted trying to play indie games (look at all the shitty stuff on the iphone). I would much rather not waste the time and play something solid.
And ur taste may vary but i have yet to see an indie game .. anywhere .. that matches any of the games i listed. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Plus, a false dilemma means that there is a false choice between fun gameplay and graphics.
There is NONE for me. Take Batman Arkam Asylum as an example. That option alone eliminate the false choice. It is a good fun game with great graphics. You are confused between an indie dev and me. Sure and indie dev may not to choose between the two because he has limited budget.
However, i DO NOT have to choose between fun gameplay & graphics because I can choose any game on the market, and once again there are plenty with both.
Braid is on XBox Arcade. There is a free demo. It was (and prob still is) the #1 game on the list, beating out several big company games by being brilliant in design. That apparently counts for something among many people who are not you.
I gave a link to what a false dilemma means. I also pointed out why I don't consider my proposition to be one. It's a dilemma- but not false under the constraints of budget- which is a real constraint.
I played Batman Arkham Asylum. I had to put it down- it was over-scripted, silly and illogical to me. But it was pretty.
The guy who started this thread may be part of some big game production house- and if so, your opinion is merited- otherwise he is indie, and apparently is not likely to be able to satisfy your standards. Yes, yes- you can buy things. What he wants is useful feedback.
Maybe a suggestion he can actually use? How to make his game a game you might actually buy?
I'm interested.
Well, one man's heaven is another man's hell. Arkham is SO entertaining precisely because of the scripting. I like my games have polished & content. I guess you don't like scripted raids in your MMOs, and you probably don't like Half Life (which is a monumental great game that started off with all the scripting in FPS) either.
As far as useful feedback to him .... two points:
1) don't waste your time to do it on your own if you want my market segment. You will never have good enough production values to capture the market. If you don't mind niche, do go ahead but don't expect I (or my market segment) pay attention.
2) If the idea is good, try to sell it to the management of big production houses. A good idea backed up by know-how and good execution beats a good idea bastardized in some unpolished half-baked version.
Gaming is about a total experience. In this day & age, just game mechanics won't cut it. You need good game mechanics, good content on top of the mechanics, good presentation (NOT only graphics .. but visual/audio, atmosphere, everything), and polish (buttons have to be intuitive, things have to work, controls have to be responsive).
Make a browser based rpg and include an android/iphone app
My friends and i used to play utopia like crazy in highschool and that game was a simple strategy game that was supported by adds and was honestly a lot of fun.
Well, you're right about the heaven/hell thing. I don't think it's a bad game, just kindof disappointing. It starts out with you needing to fall into the role of Batman- 'solve' the joker's Riddle- then, you use a gamey device, look at some stuff, and 'poof' the door unlatches. Because? Um... The game needed to move forward, that's why. This is yet another game where your role as the main character really falls so far from it's potential. It's just kinda sad, really. Batman- super-genius- batcave full of the best science & technology has to offer- has a utility belt in every game that's filled with... Oh- that's right. No utility belt (or a severely reduced 'tools' list). Hard to write a 'puzzle' for someone that has 20 plus solutions on hand at all time. Smoke Pellets & Knockout pellets (under the Smoke pellet heading) being just some under-used options. But that's why he's the Batman- plans ahead. Or... not. We won't even talk about the open comms to home, the computer (with AI), or the car that has it's own complement of perks and comes when called. Or the plane, or boat, or robot-batman, or... (sigh) I'm ok with scripting- long as it's 'realistic'- or even better 'open' (or at least multi-resolution) Getting the 'bad' ending inspires replay value. I didn't feel the scripting felt 'plausable'. Interacting with the intermissions between cut-scenes just seems kinda-silly- unless you can believe you 'made' it happen. Most games like this you're just along for the ride. Before Batman even began there were at least a half dozen things I would have wanted to do different- and I'm not a 'super-genius' who's matched wits with the joker dozens of times. Any idiot can see the inevitable- and can also see 'the real Batman' would have never let it get so far. In Half-Life, things start out messed up. You're no one special, and your only weapon is a friggin crowbar. Most things after that fall into place as best they can- even though scripted. There's a big difference. And game mechanics? 'You can batarang- but only to these 'batarang here' signs- because 20 Gargoyles in an Asylum is normal & won't spook crazy people. I'm obviously overthinking this- but not really- I guess the designers could be accused of underthinking it instead. They wanted to ship a 'Batman game', and this 'watered down' essence of the bat-game is what was shipped. The rest would be a lot of work. And a lot of fun. Anyway my take on your point 1 is that having a reasonable expectation of 'market response' is a good plan. Trying to capture certain portions of the market (casual gamers, 'power' gamers) may prove fruitless. You have to know your target audience- especially if they're not the ones you targetted. As for point 2, I'll just say it's possible- but highly unlikely. Until you have something to actually show off- models or (preferably) 'proof of concept' You're just another guy on the forums with an idea. One of many. Any developer worth talking to in MMO design prob has 50+ people with ideas they're probably ignoring already (as far as 'original', 'not related to our project' ideas go)- why go out looking when you're ignoring the in-house help? Delivering the 'Total experience' is a good idea. In some areas it's almost essential. But realisticly there are a lot of web-based games making good money with sub-par everything, because they're just plain fun- or (in the case of crap like Mafia/Vampire/(Other loosely veiled skin) Wars- addicting. Free crap- social connections, timed responses- drawing you in even though the core game is broken. I don't want to make one of those- but they make a lotta money. And who woulda thought it looking at the things? Maybe this guy will find such a niche. Stranger things have happened. Take care.
I think your expectation of the batman game is just not what they are shooting for. I don't think their aim is to include very many things for you to do .. but give a great experience with the limited stuff. Surely you may not agree but the game is getting a 90+% on gamerankings.com and i fully agree with the general assessment.
For example, the dynamic combo fighting is simple to pull off, and very nice with visual impacts and goes beyond just pretty graphics. I don't think i want to spend a lot of time defending this game and just want to say that i like it a lot (the atmosphere is great) and it is receiving BOTH critical and business success.
In terms of what the OP should do ... i am not very optimistic. Very few people can break out in the game business. If one has to ignore the total experience, because he cannot afford it, and have to focus on one or two good concepts ... the concepts have to be so powerful, so ahead of everything else to break out. And that is one in a million.
Just look at the iphone market. Even by now, the bigger production (still small compared to console or MMOs, but much bigger than the garage shop operations by now) are starting to take a bigger chunk of the pie. Just look at the success of gameloft.
Breaking in is tough. But you forget WOW has the crappiest level of graphics of pretty much the whole MMO market- and still the biggest marketshare. But it can be done- look at Mount & Blade (mentioned before). Started out as a husband & wife project, now it's apparently retail distibuted by Paradox Interactive. The graphics- though not stellar- are quite good- but the gameplay gets raves whenever it's talked about.
No it does not. It has the best art direction in the industry. Graphics != polygon count .. art direction is more important. Blizzard don't skim on art assets. WOW (and warcraft 3) looks better than many games with much higher polygon count.
Comments
Puddinlover
Tell me, did you come up with a GDD first? If you have completed your GDD and the market side of it... you can tell whether or not there is a demand or profit to be made in small mmorpg games. It is actually hard to make money from kids, which means not only do you have to impress the kids, but the parents who will want to invest in their kid's play time.
To be honest with you, there is a huge growing market for such games, not just for kids though. We are approaching the age where small flash games, java games, web based/cell phone games, even on social networking sites, can rake in serious "monies".
Look at Maple Story for example. It is a simple platformer that makes millions with its mmorpg structure. Kids and Adults play it.
Look at FarmVille, the facebook game. They also make way too much "monies" and it was developed in Flash using actionscript.
A french company created a mmorpg using flash as well as some java i think... could be wrong on that and its doing quite well. You might have heard of it, its called Dofus Online. http://www.dofus.com/en
Take a look at sprite based MMORPGs such as Ragnarok Online.
Needless to say, you should continue but make sure you do your market research and create a solid GDD before going any further. For more information on a GDD check out Chris Taylor's template http://www.runawaystudios.com/articles/chris_taylor_gdd.asp
My advice would be to focus on the growing cellphone and web gaming world first. These markets are good for one or small man teams and can still make a profit to start.
I've seen people loose their lives to Tetris. The world around them goes away- even the passage of time is ignored. There's immersion- There's a bunch of squares.
Hi-quality gfx helps- but a crappy game w great gfx will break immersion more than a great game w/crappy gfx.
Nope. BOTH will break immersion. The analogy to tetris is bonus. Tetris suck you in because of its slot machine type quality. No one will be immerse in a fictional world playing tetris.
I've seen people loose their lives to Tetris. The world around them goes away- even the passage of time is ignored. There's immersion- There's a bunch of squares.
Hi-quality gfx helps- but a crappy game w great gfx will break immersion more than a great game w/crappy gfx.
Nope. BOTH will break immersion. The analogy to tetris is bonus. Tetris suck you in because of its slot machine type quality. No one will be immerse in a fictional world playing tetris.
This is incorrect, bad game design will ruin immersion through an effect called alienation. Games do not need good graphics to be imersive. You can still be immersed to this day by games like Zork which literally have no graphics, and its all due to the design and gameplay. People can get immersed in Tetris through the challenge. It is the same reason why arcades were popular not long after Space War was invented. It has to do with the challenge, which is created through a rule set. The graphics didnt matter, just the interaction and challenge.
I also think you do not really understand what the word Immersion really means in the context of a game. If you are immersed, your mind is fully into the game play, alienation, is when you realize you are the player looking at a screen thinking about what you see and do. Movies are good examples of this effect, you can be completely dawn into a narrative and its visual elements, but the moment the bad actor or cheesy lines come into play, you are drawn away from the screen and realize you are the viewer. You then view the image as a spectator, noticing elements that are critical... aka critical thinking, rather than being completely drawn into the narrative. Narrative in this regards is also the game play for games.
Thus, graphics are not the main factor of immersion, in fact they are not even needed. In some cases, the best graphics can cause alienation where as worse graphics will not. What this says is that graphics are not necessary for the immersion factor, done right they can help it. Higher end graphics require higher end detail. Lack of that detail will ruin immersion.
I've seen people loose their lives to Tetris. The world around them goes away- even the passage of time is ignored. There's immersion- There's a bunch of squares.
Hi-quality gfx helps- but a crappy game w great gfx will break immersion more than a great game w/crappy gfx.
Nope. BOTH will break immersion. The analogy to tetris is bonus. Tetris suck you in because of its slot machine type quality. No one will be immerse in a fictional world playing tetris.
This is incorrect, bad game design will ruin immersion through an effect called alienation. Games do not need good graphics to be imersive. You can still be immersed to this day by games like Zork which literally have no graphics, and its all due to the design and gameplay. People can get immersed in Tetris through the challenge. It is the same reason why arcades were popular not long after Space War was invented. It has to do with the challenge, which is created through a rule set. The graphics didnt matter, just the interaction and challenge.
I also think you do not really understand what the word Immersion really means in the context of a game. If you are immersed, your mind is fully into the game play, alienation, is when you realize you are the player looking at a screen thinking about what you see and do. Movies are good examples of this effect, you can be completely dawn into a narrative and its visual elements, but the moment the bad actor or cheesy lines come into play, you are drawn away from the screen and realize you are the viewer. You then view the image as a spectator, noticing elements that are critical... aka critical thinking, rather than being completely drawn into the narrative. Narrative in this regards is also the game play for games.
Thus, graphics are not the main factor of immersion, in fact they are not even needed. In some cases, the best graphics can cause alienation where as worse graphics will not. What this says is that graphics are not necessary for the immersion factor, done right they can help it. Higher end graphics require higher end detail. Lack of that detail will ruin immersion.
Contradictions.
You are saying a pixelated 2D batman that you can hardly tell between him & the joker, gives the SAME immersion as Batman doing a up-side down take-down in 3D with lighting effect like in the game Arkam Asylum .. LOL
And why argue for good games with bad graphics? There are plenty of good games with GOOD graphics. If i can get both, why should i settle for only one?
And you think COD Modern Warfare 2 will be such a good game if the scenes do not look real?
Puddinlover - watched the vid - read the post.
Fuck graphics, its all about style....think Shadowbane here, I just loved the style of the world. Graphics were terrible, but I loved them. Get 1 or 2 guys who can design neat looking armor/weapons (I'll send you a couple perhaps for free) and put them into the game in a simple, yet stylized way. Sounds like a fun project
I play all ghame
Graphics, IMHO, don't really matter only 3 key elements matter.
-Gameplay
-Community
-UI/Controls - I can't stand a game with a UI that doesn't flow or controls like F12 for jump and Cntrl-D-Alt to do a double jump
.
Those aren't contradictions. Yes- a great looking batman with funky controls, or illogical solutions, or overly simple or diffiult combat/puzzles can all ruin the game. The bits you highlight clearly capture the point. The idea is to make a good game- no matter the level of graphics. If you can do both- bonus- but nowadays, indie devs often have to make sacrifices. Would you rather 'interact' with a 'tech demo'- or play a 'fun game'- because that may be the choice because it all takes time- though the media content can actually be a lot of money too.
That is a false dilemma in legal jargon. I do NOT have to choose between a "tech demo" and a "fun game" because there are PLENTY of fun game with great graphics. Such a choice is irrelevant when there are more than enough fun + good looking games than i have time to play them.
And while indie devs have to make sacrifices, I do not.
Even aside from MMOs, I have more than enough good SP games to kill my time. I am on the Batman Arkam game now (great game), marvel ultimate alliance 2 waiting in the wing for me to play. And Dante's Inferno is coming up. I haven't played Halo ODST, Gear of War 2, or Assassin Creed 1 or 2 yet.
Now you tell me why do i have to consider anything that is not a good game with good graphics?
Do not attempt to make a 3D MMORPG by yourself. Even if you had the programming and artistic skills, I wouldn't suggest doing it. Making a 3D MMO by yourself would take many years (How long has Love been in development?).
Just look at Mortal Online. It's been in development for about two years (which is not a lot of time in MMO development), is using an excellent, fully documented, established engine and a small team of people and they're still nowhere near done. They're being forced to release early because they're out of funds.
I'm not trying to discourage you, but undertaking a project of this scope is going to be insanely difficult. MMOs are by far the hardest type of games to make. I'd suggest getting an artist to help you. You can definitely find someone out there who's willing to work for free who has similar ambitions. Your final product will be much better with the extra help.
I'd also suggest that you don't set a six month deadline for a beta product. Give yourself a more realistic timeline and make sure you set milestones. Pre-production is very important. You need to make sure you have everything down on paper before you even touch a computer. Growing a game organically as you create your engine can work, but it's a very dangerous path to head down. Being prepared and having everything planned out will make your work flow much quicker and drastically reduce the chances you'll hit a roadblock of "What do I do next?". That kind of pause in development can derail an entire project.
In short:
Plan ahead. Be realistic with yourself and know your own abilities. Get help. Never give up on your dream.
I think consistency of style is more important than graphics that verge on real life.
EQ2 shoots for real life graphics and the graphics are consistant in style for the most part. I remember crawling down into some dungeon only to find a very plastic looking ladder. It ruined the immersion.
Any style will do, even line or ascii art, but it has to be consistent.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
.
.
Yes it may work. For example o game is very popular, also travian is ... Those games are not mmo but same routin may work for a mmo too. In that way you don' need any graphics.
On the other hand, most of the people seems interested with the graphics in a mmo. I am not one of them , but even i played aion a few months because of nice graphics.
When i was younger i was playing FRP games without any graphics
we were rolling dices , you rolled 20 critical !!! YAY , believe me it was more amazing than most of the computer games. It shows that if you can inspire people , if your story hits the hearts and if people knows where to find your product i believe that you can achieve more than you imagine.
I am not a guru of those things please don't misunderstood me , i can say you should believe your self.
graphics for me personally is not the be all end all factor of the game - sure it does play a part in it, but it comes down to the gameplay itself, how customisable is it, how much can you do and so forth.
now i keep coming back to this little hope of mine in all these posts regarding new mmo's and future is that damn i hope the game is something along the lines of pokemon and or digimon...like purely but in 3d/2d in a sense, dosnt have to be smooth or dx10 stuff but have the gameplay haha.
good luck
You're right. When given the reality of limited resources (let's say a total lump of $10,000- the devs own input being 'worth' $2,000 of that), a dev has another option- mediocrity- to make a game which has no focus toward excellence in either realm (say $5,000 toward each). So- an average looking, average playing middle of the road game can be done (which you wouldn't buy) or can be done instead with $8,000 & $2,000 toward excellence in gfx (which you'd buy, then chuckl) or gameplay (which you wouldn't buy- but might enjoy). This isn't a realistic example- but it's more realistic than you just arbitrarily believing people don't do both because it simply suits them not to.
I don't know what legal jargon you're talking about. Um. 'illogical', 'money'?.
Anyway, I'm not telling you that you 'have to' anything- but being aware of indie limits means you won't tell a kid working with paper, pasta, glue and crayons to remake the Battle of Gettysburg-in 3d. Not that it can't be done- but it can't be done in twenty minutes- which is about how long that kid has before the rich kids collaborating at the next table do that, and a teaser of the First World War done on a giant cardboard, 12 kinds of pasta and acrylic paints.
So- don't support indie devs. Play popular, 'me too' mainstream games- they are the fun and pretty ones after all.
Whether you know it or not, you're the one missing out.
"False dilemma" .. a term i picked up at LSAT.
And no, i don't support indie devs. And with limited play time, I am ALREADY missing out on great fun game with great graphics (never have time to play assassin creed, or Prototype, or Fable 1 & 2, or finish Dragon's Age, mass effect, Fallout 3 or Oblivion for example). I highly doubt any indie dev would have games better than those.
Missing out is not a big deal. Time is limited. I am already missing out on many good books, and good movies, and good mainstream games. Missing out on some indie dev that is likely to have bad graphics .. not high on my priority list. There is a LONG list of GREAT games i have to play before i would even think about some indie stuff which is likely to have subpar graphics, and lack of polish/features.
.
I don't know what legal jargon you're talking about. Um. 'illogical', 'money'?.
..."False dilemma" .. a term i picked up at LSAT.
And no, i don't support indie devs. And with limited play time, I am ALREADY missing out on great fun game with great graphics (never have time to play assassin creed, or Prototype, or Fable 1 & 2, or finish Dragon's Age, mass effect, Fallout 3 or Oblivion for example). I highly doubt any indie dev would have games better than those.
Missing out is not a big deal. Time is limited. I am already missing out on many good books, and good movies, and good mainstream games. Missing out on some indie dev that is likely to have bad graphics .. not high on my priority list. There is a LONG list of GREAT games i have to play before i would even think about some indie stuff which is likely to have subpar graphics, and lack of polish/features.
Well first off, it's not. The phrase 'because that may be' introduced the possibility of more options. Further, my example of budget constraints illustrates why 'polarization' of either option is possible- so though the 'false dilemma' needs a forced choice between two leveraged options, my illustration was one more of 'optimized' choices- and why they're realistic. You can pay for pretty, you can pay for 'fun'- or anything in between (or you can pay twice as much for both). I also forgot to mention that 'twice' as pretty is almost guaranteed to cost 8-16x as much- if not more- but that's another discussion.
Oh- and your grading standard for a good game is a Fallacy of Neccesity, though it could just be called cherry picking.
I have actually played half those games you list- and they are hyped more than great, though all fairly solid. And by your standards- no indy gamer could easily meet them-- all those games utilized a 50+ man dev team. Only the 'best' for you (by the narrow definition that you define as 'good').
I guess all that can be said on 'missing out' is 'good for you'- you'll never know what you missed. Funny how someone who apparently considered at least studying for law lives by a perversion of of the 'ignorance is bliss (though it won't stand up in court)' motto. Maybe you should see what this noise is about. Nope- never mind- not 'shiny'- can't be good.
If you decide you do want to play a great indie game, try Mount & Blade- which is changing RPG combat for the better, or Braid- which will challenge your mind with the most innovative puzzles ever. Seriously. (As an aside, the creator of Braid (perhaps knowing about people like yourself :-) sat on the game pretty much completed for 3 years while he paid an artist out of his own pocket to do polished graphics). A very well-designed game- the last stage being called the best boss level in a platformer ever.
Anyway, enjoy what you like- but be careful-- one day you may get roped into trying something you clearly shouldn't- and being disappointed when you do anyway...
Nah .. i was just helping an ex-gf preparing the LSAT .. never consider law myself.
There are enough indie games on Xbox Arcade .. most are waste of time. Sure i don't know what i miss .. but from what i have tried .. it is 99% time wasted trying to play indie games (look at all the shitty stuff on the iphone). I would much rather not waste the time and play something solid.
And ur taste may vary but i have yet to see an indie game .. anywhere .. that matches any of the games i listed. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Plus, a false dilemma means that there is a false choice between fun gameplay and graphics.
There is NONE for me. Take Batman Arkam Asylum as an example. That option alone eliminate the false choice. It is a good fun game with great graphics. You are confused between an indie dev and me. Sure and indie dev may not to choose between the two because he has limited budget.
However, i DO NOT have to choose between fun gameplay & graphics because I can choose any game on the market, and once again there are plenty with both.
.
Braid is on XBox Arcade. There is a free demo. It was (and prob still is) the #1 game on the list, beating out several big company games by being brilliant in design. That apparently counts for something among many people who are not you.
I gave a link to what a false dilemma means. I also pointed out why I don't consider my proposition to be one. It's a dilemma- but not false under the constraints of budget- which is a real constraint.
I played Batman Arkham Asylum. I had to put it down- it was over-scripted, silly and illogical to me. But it was pretty.
The guy who started this thread may be part of some big game production house- and if so, your opinion is merited- otherwise he is indie, and apparently is not likely to be able to satisfy your standards. Yes, yes- you can buy things. What he wants is useful feedback.
Maybe a suggestion he can actually use? How to make his game a game you might actually buy?
I'm interested.
Well, one man's heaven is another man's hell. Arkham is SO entertaining precisely because of the scripting. I like my games have polished & content. I guess you don't like scripted raids in your MMOs, and you probably don't like Half Life (which is a monumental great game that started off with all the scripting in FPS) either.
As far as useful feedback to him .... two points:
1) don't waste your time to do it on your own if you want my market segment. You will never have good enough production values to capture the market. If you don't mind niche, do go ahead but don't expect I (or my market segment) pay attention.
2) If the idea is good, try to sell it to the management of big production houses. A good idea backed up by know-how and good execution beats a good idea bastardized in some unpolished half-baked version.
Gaming is about a total experience. In this day & age, just game mechanics won't cut it. You need good game mechanics, good content on top of the mechanics, good presentation (NOT only graphics .. but visual/audio, atmosphere, everything), and polish (buttons have to be intuitive, things have to work, controls have to be responsive).
Missing anything makes a sub-standard game.
Make a browser based rpg and include an android/iphone app
My friends and i used to play utopia like crazy in highschool and that game was a simple strategy game that was supported by adds and was honestly a lot of fun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(online_game)
By looking at your video you obviously know how to code so do something better than that.
.
Go for it but if you are worried about using realmcrafters dx7 graphics just wait for Realmcrafter professional. Its in Beta and will support dx9
I think your expectation of the batman game is just not what they are shooting for. I don't think their aim is to include very many things for you to do .. but give a great experience with the limited stuff. Surely you may not agree but the game is getting a 90+% on gamerankings.com and i fully agree with the general assessment.
For example, the dynamic combo fighting is simple to pull off, and very nice with visual impacts and goes beyond just pretty graphics. I don't think i want to spend a lot of time defending this game and just want to say that i like it a lot (the atmosphere is great) and it is receiving BOTH critical and business success.
In terms of what the OP should do ... i am not very optimistic. Very few people can break out in the game business. If one has to ignore the total experience, because he cannot afford it, and have to focus on one or two good concepts ... the concepts have to be so powerful, so ahead of everything else to break out. And that is one in a million.
Just look at the iphone market. Even by now, the bigger production (still small compared to console or MMOs, but much bigger than the garage shop operations by now) are starting to take a bigger chunk of the pie. Just look at the success of gameloft.
.
Breaking in is tough. But you forget WOW has the crappiest level of graphics of pretty much the whole MMO market- and still the biggest marketshare. But it can be done- look at Mount & Blade (mentioned before). Started out as a husband & wife project, now it's apparently retail distibuted by Paradox Interactive. The graphics- though not stellar- are quite good- but the gameplay gets raves whenever it's talked about.
No it does not. It has the best art direction in the industry. Graphics != polygon count .. art direction is more important. Blizzard don't skim on art assets. WOW (and warcraft 3) looks better than many games with much higher polygon count.