donky wrote:
Most of this essay makes little sense except as a posture piece dedicated to creatively reshaping the realities of commercial game development in such a way as to justify the point that commercial game developers should open their code. The "Random advice for game hackers" section is the only part worth reading given its comparative lack of empty anti-closed-source rhetoric.
Closed source is his job
From his viewpoint, Open Source in Commercial Games Developer houses that are established now is probably not going to make a difference to the current mindset in those places.
I think that the important point that I was trying to focus on was that the content (art/music) is more important for commercial games now than the code. If you look at the ratio of code to artistic content from 'classic' or 'retro' games - the machine did not lend themselves to megabytes of graphics and sound. The physical mechanics of a game is relatively easy to implement - I think that most of the effort is now spend on making something look nice and filling up those shiny disks you buy with data.
Unfortunately I don't see anyway of breaking this attitude..as games will become like hollywood movies that merely have more and more eyecandy and no substance, and as people get used to a predicable experience, then they probably won't stop buying it. There's a cycle here that will merely perpetuate itself. If you showed the average young games player the likes of Nethack or Robotron, most would probably never think that it is worth playing..
I expect anything that speeds up the signs of progress and brings the end goal closer (either just in mind or actually) is good for that reason. This is why some programmers aim to have a working version at all times - test driven development is a good model to look at for this. I try to maintain a working version, but without the tests (too lazy).
I do this myself. Before I finish up for the evening, everything that I'm work on has to compile and at least run. This has meant that I have been working on things until 4am when I'm due up at 7am, but at least then I can go to bed and not worry that I've left things in a 'unsafe' state.
I'm also someone who writes programs that generate their own datasets - cubes, random seed generated landscapes etc, rather than using external file. The reason for this is due to a lack of tools, but also that I have a test case at all times to test out the code that I am currently working on
I suspect successful development was equal parts graphical/audio dressing, game design, programming and the coordination of it all. I know many games that look and sound great but are about as fun as a piece of soggy toast once the novelty wears off (American McGees Alice, Thief) and games that don't look or sound special but are great fun (Nethack).
It makes me wonder sometimes how the industry can look at a product and release it knowing that it isn't working as a game, or has bugs. As the industry has become more professional, the industry culture has moved from developer to 'suit' in control. And in a lot of cases, the 'suit' is not either a developer or even a games player. I don't think that a generic suit with no hands on experience can develop games. They certainly can't do the job of a doctor, or a soldier, or a scientist, so how do these people wind up in positions of power dictating the 'market'?
Well, I hope I haven't rambled too much
Nope, but I do like the avatar
My girlf would definitely approve
hyphz wrote:
As for "learning to do graphics yourself" - well, that's a controversial viewpoint from the start, because the standard view is that art/graphics are an unlearnable "talent". Plus, of course, if you can do that kind of stuff then you can probably make more from being a graphic artist than you can from a homebrew game or even a commercial one, just because EVERYBODY wants/needs them these days.
I think that learning graphics is not like learning facts from a book. I didn't know how to cook, but by careful experimentation, observation, focus, dedication and practice over time - I think that I can cook pretty well, and know enough about techniques that I can turn to cooking most things. How do people learn to grow things well? Learn to be a good lover? Practice!
I imagine that you can do the same with art. I'm not a natural artist, but over the years did a little here and there, and I think that I can probably get by. I'm not going to be the graphical genius that is Bog, but I think that for game purposes, I could probably at least manage placeholder graphics until a proper artist takes over..
http://erpart.deep-ice.com/arrons_artwork_page_1.htm
I know that people can earn more learning to draw than they can by learning to program. Unfortunately this doesn't help the bedroom coder - so one either uses less swishy graphics and focuses on gameplay, or gets the computer to generate it procedurally, so that he doesn't need to employ expensive artists. If adding an artist/musician to a project puts it outside of your finances to develop something, then you have to find another way.
"Observation is the path to understanding. Self-observation is the path to self-understanding."
