I see this problem in a variety of industries. People love to consolidate roles to save time and money. But that is actually a large part of the problem. Once in a while, you will find someone who has a technically oriented mind AND is creative and abstract. That's just a really difficult combination of thought process to find in a single person.
Very creative people don't necessarily have the technical skills, nor do they have the capacity to gain those technical skills. But they are rarely invited to the table when it comes to things like game design. Look at almost any job description involving some type of lead world or character design and you'll see that they always want people who also understand the technical side.
Of course, we (the players) see the result of this limitation . . . meaning, look around at what's being done. We often credit those decisions with investor influence, but there's a clear fear of waste in hiring someone who isn't also doing the tech work. And we get lots of stagnation, lots of mimicry, and very slow design changes.
OP's post demonstrates this, he wants someone to not only come up with the idea, but also to think about every technical detail.
Some companies have hired psychologists and economists to help them figure out certain aspects, unfortunately psychologists have been used to determine how to keep people grinding rather than how to improve fun.
you deserve a medal for what you said rusque.. every gamer should read this comment. this is what quzzical fails to understand. game designers should have a some understanding of the technical side of things but its not crucial. game developement should be divided into the creative and the technical. once the ideas have been sketched out, the programmer should review the ideas, and see what is excutable and what is not
so many people like quzzical, bash people over for having ideas(like me,see my posts). the game industry has enough programmers , what it needs is people with ideas(like me), we need a medium where creative people without the techincal understanding can meet up with programmers to develop something unique. untill then , prepare for WOW version 17.0.. the fact is most people, who are knowledgeble in game design usually arent good at doing both , game design and programming, that is why so many game today lack quality.
I see this problem in a variety of industries. People love to consolidate roles to save time and money. But that is actually a large part of the problem. Once in a while, you will find someone who has a technically oriented mind AND is creative and abstract. That's just a really difficult combination of thought process to find in a single person.
Very creative people don't necessarily have the technical skills, nor do they have the capacity to gain those technical skills. But they are rarely invited to the table when it comes to things like game design. Look at almost any job description involving some type of lead world or character design and you'll see that they always want people who also understand the technical side.
Of course, we (the players) see the result of this limitation . . . meaning, look around at what's being done. We often credit those decisions with investor influence, but there's a clear fear of waste in hiring someone who isn't also doing the tech work. And we get lots of stagnation, lots of mimicry, and very slow design changes.
OP's post demonstrates this, he wants someone to not only come up with the idea, but also to think about every technical detail.
Some companies have hired psychologists and economists to help them figure out certain aspects, unfortunately psychologists have been used to determine how to keep people grinding rather than how to improve fun.
you deserve a medal for what you said rusque.. every gamer should read this comment. this is what quzzical fails to understand. game designers should have a some understanding of the technical side of things but its not crucial. game developement should be divided into the creative and the technical. once the ideas have been sketched out, the programmer should review the ideas, and see what is excutable and what is not
so many people like quzzical, bash people over for having ideas(like me,see my posts). the game industry has enough programmers , what it needs is people with ideas(like me), we need a medium where creative people without the techincal understanding can meet up with programmers to develop something unique. untill then , prepare for WOW version 17.0.. the fact is most people, who are knowledgeble in game design usually arent good at doing both , game design and programming, that is why so many game today lack quality.
In an ideal world, you are right it would be nice to seperate the two.
In this world, that is wasted resources.
It is a waste of time and money to pay someone to come up with all the ideas, then have the tech department review them to say we can't do it.
Ideas are easy, coming up with ideas is simply, most of which are not original anyway. Implementation is hard. Most of what people spout on here is either not technically possible yet, or far beyond the scope/resources available.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
In an ideal world, you are right it would be nice to seperate the two.
In this world, that is wasted resources.
It is a waste of time and money to pay someone to come up with all the ideas, then have the tech department review them to say we can't do it.
Ideas are easy, coming up with ideas is simply, most of which are not original anyway. Implementation is hard. Most of what people spout on here is either not technically possible yet, or far beyond the scope/resources available.
Well, let's take a couple real life of examples of success and failure where ideas and technological expertise met and split.
The Witcher series is good, critically acclaimed, gamers generally enjoy it.
Kingdoms of Amalur was mediocre, gamers generally didn't find it very exceptional.
But let's take a deeper look. The Witcher is based off a novel by Andrej Sapkowski - then turned into a game. Projekt Red actually brought him in as a consultant to inform and create a world true to his ideas. The gameplay was also built around his world and has some semblance of innovation as Geralt relies on various potions. So it's not earthshattering, but because it had to match the feeling of the world which the author crafted, you have a more interesting game.
KoA brought in the creative side with RA Salvatore, but they basically segregated him from the gameplay. Which is why is plays like WoW, but has a metric ton of lore and characters who have a lot to say. But players care little for what is being said when the rest of the game is so unsinpired.
Lastly, look at Skyrim, a game which is basically one gigantic lore box with an abysmal combat system. TES games also happen to be some of the buggiest messes that see release. But people love them because there's a ton of interesting stuff inside them that someone (s) thought up.
Is it a waste of money to find creatives to drive the ideas and design? Depends. Ideas aren't easy, not good ones, just because everyone can come up with a boat load of ideas doesn't mean any of them are good or should be made. These forums are great proof of that. You see people with ridiculous laundry lists of what they want.
But my arguement is best served by reality, when the next 50 MMO's come out and everyone is sitting around whining about how they're more of the same and the development houses that made them are downsizing (like we keep seeing over and over) then what will be left to say?
In an ideal world, you are right it would be nice to seperate the two.
In this world, that is wasted resources.
It is a waste of time and money to pay someone to come up with all the ideas, then have the tech department review them to say we can't do it.
Ideas are easy, coming up with ideas is simply, most of which are not original anyway. Implementation is hard. Most of what people spout on here is either not technically possible yet, or far beyond the scope/resources available.
Well, let's take a couple real life of examples of success and failure where ideas and technological expertise met and split.
The Witcher series is good, critically acclaimed, gamers generally enjoy it.
Kingdoms of Amalur was mediocre, gamers generally didn't find it very exceptional.
But let's take a deeper look. The Witcher is based off a novel by Andrej Sapkowski - then turned into a game. Projekt Red actually brought him in as a consultant to inform and create a world true to his ideas. The gameplay was also built around his world and has some semblance of innovation as Geralt relies on various potions. So it's not earthshattering, but because it had to match the feeling of the world which the author crafted, you have a more interesting game.
KoA brought in the creative side with RA Salvatore, but they basically segregated him from the gameplay. Which is why is plays like WoW, but has a metric ton of lore and characters who have a lot to say. But players care little for what is being said when the rest of the game is so unsinpired.
Lastly, look at Skyrim, a game which is basically one gigantic lore box with an abysmal combat system. TES games also happen to be some of the buggiest messes that see release. But people love them because there's a ton of interesting stuff inside them that someone (s) thought up.
Is it a waste of money to find creatives to drive the ideas and design? Depends. Ideas aren't easy, not good ones, just because everyone can come up with a boat load of ideas doesn't mean any of them are good or should be made. These forums are great proof of that. You see people with ridiculous laundry lists of what they want.
But my arguement is best served by reality, when the next 50 MMO's come out and everyone is sitting around whining about how they're more of the same and the development houses that made them are downsizing (like we keep seeing over and over) then what will be left to say?
I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said in many cases it isn't practical and some are examples don't really hold up.
The witcher was allready a success as a book, yes they did have to pay him to have as a consultant, but the people responsible for development would have allready had some idea of what it involved and decided they had the ability and resources to do it.
KoA was a mess, they spent a ton of money. They split the ideas and coding and the game was a flop. They spent way to much money on way to little. Not a great example.
Skyrim was made up by people who have both, they have shown the technical ability (in most cases) and the creative ability to do that.
Your right great ideas are not easy. Great ideas that can be done by the resources available are even less.
People on these boards will whine no matter what comes out.
Making a good game is not just about ideas, IMO that is the least of it, there are lots of good ideas out there. Vanguard had some interesting ideas, the game was crap and to a large extent still is. Making a game is about effective resource use.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I see this problem in a variety of industries. People love to consolidate roles to save time and money. But that is actually a large part of the problem. Once in a while, you will find someone who has a technically oriented mind AND is creative and abstract. That's just a really difficult combination of thought process to find in a single person.
Very creative people don't necessarily have the technical skills, nor do they have the capacity to gain those technical skills. But they are rarely invited to the table when it comes to things like game design. Look at almost any job description involving some type of lead world or character design and you'll see that they always want people who also understand the technical side.
Of course, we (the players) see the result of this limitation . . . meaning, look around at what's being done. We often credit those decisions with investor influence, but there's a clear fear of waste in hiring someone who isn't also doing the tech work. And we get lots of stagnation, lots of mimicry, and very slow design changes.
OP's post demonstrates this, he wants someone to not only come up with the idea, but also to think about every technical detail.
Some companies have hired psychologists and economists to help them figure out certain aspects, unfortunately psychologists have been used to determine how to keep people grinding rather than how to improve fun.
you deserve a medal for what you said rusque.. every gamer should read this comment. this is what quzzical fails to understand. game designers should have a some understanding of the technical side of things but its not crucial. game developement should be divided into the creative and the technical. once the ideas have been sketched out, the programmer should review the ideas, and see what is excutable and what is not
so many people like quzzical, bash people over for having ideas(like me,see my posts). the game industry has enough programmers , what it needs is people with ideas(like me), we need a medium where creative people without the techincal understanding can meet up with programmers to develop something unique. untill then , prepare for WOW version 17.0.. the fact is most people, who are knowledgeble in game design usually arent good at doing both , game design and programming, that is why so many game today lack quality.
In an ideal world, you are right it would be nice to seperate the two.
In this world, that is wasted resources.
It is a waste of time and money to pay someone to come up with all the ideas, then have the tech department review them to say we can't do it.
Ideas are easy, coming up with ideas is simply, most of which are not original anyway. Implementation is hard. Most of what people spout on here is either not technically possible yet, or far beyond the scope/resources available.
Can you give me an example of an idea that's commonly shouted around here that isn't possible to be produced?
i want a better picture of the situation discussed so I am asking for an example.
Ideas are easy, coming up with ideas is simply, most of which are not original anyway. Implementation is hard. Most of what people spout on here is either not technically possible yet, or far beyond the scope/resources available.
Or, worse, they don't even take into consideration how humans behave, let alone how they play games.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
People who say that having a person who is creative and technical is rare forget one thing. Money is rare. There are far more technically AND creatively proficient people than there are funds to have them make games, especially MMOs given that this discussion is in pub and not gg.
Lots of people have ideas for games, including nearly all gamers and a lot of people who aren't gamers. Lots of gamers have ideas that they'd like to see made into a game. Those in the industry typically ignore those ideas as worthless, and rightly so.
But the situation isn't as bad as you think. If you've got the complete set of ideas to make a game, you're halfway there. The problem is that even if you've written a 50 page document detailing what your game will be like, you're probably not 1% of the way to having a complete set of ideas to make a game.
Making a game means you have to fill in the details. Suppose that you want your character to attack. Okay, how does he attack? If the player pressed a button to attack x milliseconds ago, then exactly where should every single vertex in the model be? We need a function of x, and we need it for every single vertex in the model. Oh, you did specify exactly which vertices were in your character model, didn't you? And what data a "vertex" consists of (position, texture coordinates, normal vectors, etc.)? And what color every single pixel in every single texture that your character uses should be. And what happens to the normal vectors as your character moves around.
Exactly how far away can a mob be and get hit? And exactly when do you check? How much damage does your attack do, as a function of your character's stats and gear, the mob's stats and gear, and whatever else you think damage ought to depend on? Speaking of which, what do you think that damage ought to depend on. And how do you determine server-side when the character decided to attack, anyway? We need explicit formulas for everything here. Just saying that the character should be able to attack is so vague as to be completely meaningless.
Every single dialogue line in the game is game ideas. Every single line of quest text is game ideas. Every single formula is game ideas. The geometry of every single model is game ideas. Every single texture is game ideas. You can't just wave your hands and say, there should be a bunch of textures along these lines. You have to fill in all of the details of exactly which color every pixel should be, in which resolution, and how to determine where in which texture you'll check for every single spot in every single model.
But all of that is only half of the work? Yes. The other half includes debugging, so that the game actually works the way your intended. It also includes optimizing performance, so that your game runs at 60 frames per second rather than 60 frames per hour. Sometimes the latter means realizing that you just can't make some of your ideas work acceptably, so you'll have to discard them and come up with new ways to fill in all of the details.
If you have all of the details, then making a computer program out of them isn't really that hard. You might think that you can't do it because you're not a programmer. If you genuinely can't do it, then the problem is almost surely that you can't fill in all of the details. Everyone wants to do the high level ideas, such as whether the game will be a theme park or a sandbox. Few want to fill in the minute details, which is the bulk of the work.
I think you are playing a bit with words and mixing design with ideas. There is a fine line there, where do you want to call it.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
It would probably be better at this juncture to stick with "far beyond the scope/resources available" than sidetrack there.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It would probably be better at this juncture to stick with "far beyond the scope/resources available" than sidetrack there.
You just linked to a list. So pick something. Because seem like you are making the same argument that Quiz does, which is that any idea we post here is bad and can't be done. Seem to generalize, which is why I disagree. So please be more accurate and not link to a large list...
An idea being too "vague" is only because a developer refuses to take said idea and expand on it. If someone said they want forts for pvp for example lets expand the idea.
With forts we could have:
Destructible environments
Catapaults
Trebuchets
Ballistas
Claimed under XX entity(guild/players) for added benefits
Upgrades for said fort
Additional buildings / player homes in or around the fort
As you can see now you can take said idea and start working on the world around it making areas more appealing such as add supply lines or increased resource gathering benefits while having the fort under your control.
So for the example of resource gathering:
Increased quality/ quantity/ gathering speed of wood
Increased quality/ quantity/ growth rate/ gathering speed of food
Increased quality/quantity/ gathering speed of Precious minerals
Now we have a basis for people who might want to take advantage of said fort for crafting and resources. We can seperate the types of resources to where the fort is located. Such as a fort that has the property of wood can be in the middle of a forest.The property for food could be lushious or vast fields. Last but not least a fort in the mountain or on a rocky mountain base, quarry, ontop of the mountain, or even inside the mountain itself for precious minerals.
So where do supply lines fall into play? Well as I stated each of the three forts take advantage of one type of resource gathering. So a fort in the middle of the lushious fields have goods such as food and livestock for sale which could be traded to a fort in the mountains for things like precious minerals such as stone, ores, and even melee weapons; or they can trade with the fort in the forest who can sell items such as different types of lumber or weapons like bows and trebuchets.
These are just a few examples of an idea that started from someone simply saying they want Forts. It's the willingness of the developers ofthe game to then take those ideas if they are even read and transform them into something bigger. Just because the idea is vague doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to impliment into a game. If I myself can simply break this down in to many things in under 5 minutes. There should be no reason why a developer can brainstorm the ideas given by the community in a single workday. Most of these ideas have been done before in previous games. So they're fairly plausable to do.
"If I myself can simply break this down in to many things in under 5 minutes. There should be no reason why a developer can brainstorm the ideas given by the community in a single workday."
Your entire post is a perfect example of the disconnect armchair developers and some 'indie' developers have with what is truly involved in game design, especailly for a massively multiplayer psersistent state world.
What is the impact on the game's economy?
How does it fit with the rest of the transportation and inventory management systems?
Is this for a PvE world or PvP world?
What projects would have to be scratched to create the resources to add this?
What percent of the playerbase would derive value from this?
What are the rewards of these mundane tasks? How do those rewards impact gameplay? the economy? other reward systems?
What is performance impact of these systems on the server? the scene? the install/download size? And, yes, that last one is one of the considerations in many feature decisions.
Does this fit with the vision or theme of the game?
The list of questions that require even more involved answers and even deeper planning goes on and on.
Most tasks seem easy to someone who has no idea what is really required to do them.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Cuathon People who say that having a person who is creative and technical is rare forget one thing. Money is rare. There are far more technically AND creatively proficient people than there are funds to have them make games, especially MMOs given that this discussion is in pub and not gg.
Bioware had tons of money. Floating in it basically.
where was this when they were designing SWTOR? Lets be real here....
money isn't the issue, especially hen Indy developers are pulling off better quality titles...
It would probably be better at this juncture to stick with "far beyond the scope/resources available" than sidetrack there.
You just linked to a list. So pick something. Because seem like you are making the same argument that Quiz does, which is that any idea we post here is bad and can't be done. Seem to generalize, which is why I disagree. So please be more accurate and not link to a large list...
I linked to the quote that I pasted here as a reply. As explained several times to you by several people, there is a difference between what can be done and what can reasonably be done.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It would probably be better at this juncture to stick with "far beyond the scope/resources available" than sidetrack there.
You just linked to a list. So pick something. Because seem like you are making the same argument that Quiz does, which is that any idea we post here is bad and can't be done. Seem to generalize, which is why I disagree. So please be more accurate and not link to a large list...
I linked to the quote that I pasted here as a reply. As explained several times to you by several people, there is a difference between what can be done and what can reasonably be done.
I keep asking you to post these ideas that can't be done. You still havnt shown me an example I requested....
that quote means little. It's meaningless without pointing out what can't be done.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Lots of people have ideas for games, including nearly all gamers and a lot of people who aren't gamers. Lots of gamers have ideas that they'd like to see made into a game. Those in the industry typically ignore those ideas as worthless, and rightly so.
Got this far and had to stop reading it seriously. I did skim the rest though.
I've played great games that are good because of their ideas more so than their execution. The OP suggest that minor things like the amount of damage dealt by an attack is more important than the original concept and I disagree. You don't need to refine an idea to the level that a good game designer would to make a decent game and ideas prior to that stage aren't worthless.
This is exemplified by the fact that game pitches don't start with a 50 page document they start with the concept. They start with it because it is the single most important aspect and most definitive aspect of the game.
Now I will concede that the execution is extremely important and for an unknown or armchair designer, that the idea will never see the light of day unless you can refine and probably do a lot of the actual work towards making it too. However that is far from saying they should be regarded as worthless as the OP says in the opening paragraph.
I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said in many cases it isn't practical and some are examples don't really hold up.
The witcher was allready a success as a book, yes they did have to pay him to have as a consultant, but the people responsible for development would have allready had some idea of what it involved and decided they had the ability and resources to do it.
KoA was a mess, they spent a ton of money. They split the ideas and coding and the game was a flop. They spent way to much money on way to little. Not a great example.
Skyrim was made up by people who have both, they have shown the technical ability (in most cases) and the creative ability to do that.
Your right great ideas are not easy. Great ideas that can be done by the resources available are even less.
People on these boards will whine no matter what comes out.
Making a good game is not just about ideas, IMO that is the least of it, there are lots of good ideas out there. Vanguard had some interesting ideas, the game was crap and to a large extent still is. Making a game is about effective resource use.
KoA was a mess, that's what I said, so it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. They let the wrong people dictate how the gameplay was designed and it came out sucking.
Ideas are definitely not the least of it. Vanguard didn't have any interesting ideas and it sucked technically too. Hence why it flopped.
Effective resource use is extremely important, but who cares how effective your resource use is when you are building on top of a foundation of boring?
How about Rift? Trion has to be one of the fastest content developers out there, they really are fantastic. And Rift was almost great. They had a hint of a single great idea (variety of souls) but no one really developed that idea into something more and it devolved into cookie cutter poopsocks when they failed to realize their greatest asset. So people came and left. So close yet so far.
It's very unfortunate that people and companies do not take the ideas of the player base and use them. They're only hurting themselves because many of those ideas are great and are vastly approved by that community. The developer essentially has the customer brainstorming their game for them. All they truly need to do is pick and choose those ideas.
If only I could afford to be a game designer, but I cannot afford the schooling or the resources to do so. Now that I've read my post I truly wish there was a game like that. *sigh*
Here is an idea that will solve your problem:
Make a lot of money.
By implementing this simple idea you will be able to afford your schooling and will be able to become a game designer. If you do not take the idea and use it, you are only hurting yourself.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I keep asking you to post these ideas that can't be done. You still havnt shown me an example I requested....
that quote means little. It's meaningless without pointing out what can't be done.
Well, dipping back into the past...
A player proposed a certain change to the way crittur loot ("drops") was handled, which was actually quite a nice little idea that Marty (lead dev) really wanted to do.
Unfortunately, implementing this (fairly trivial, on paper) idea involved the full development team revising, individually, several thousand existing subroutines, and a few hundred thousand lines of code to correct a problem that affected virtually everything. Given that this player's idea was essentially cosmetic...too many man-hours, too little benefit.
Plausible idea (it could be done), but not terribly feasible (not quickly and not cheaply).
Those bug-fixes that hang around unfixed for years? Generally involve overhauls that are just too large in scale, in relation to a bug that's basically cosmetic-level...not a game-breaker, just irritating little screen display bug or somesuch.
Remember the Blizzard classic "Why can't we have armor dyes"? Hard-coded colors in the models. Cosmetic change, but one involving oodles of updates and a zillion man-hours. Cost/Benefit involves a lot of decisions for sensible-sounding ideas that could be done if we really wanted it badly enough, but don't expect it by next week.
How do you tell a player that his Pet Idea is cool, and we'd like to do it, but don't expect it for at least a couple of years? The usual answer is to say nothing. Saying anything yields message board firestorm. And the never ending litany of "you promised!', if (for wharever reason) you later decide not to do it after all.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I keep asking you to post these ideas that can't be done. You still havnt shown me an example I requested....
that quote means little. It's meaningless without pointing out what can't be done.
Well, dipping back into the past...
A player proposed a certain change to the way crittur loot ("drops") was handled, which was actually quite a nice little idea that Marty (lead dev) really wanted to do.
Unfortunately, implementing this (fairly trivial, on paper) idea involved the full development team revising, individually, several thousand existing subroutines, and a few hundred thousand lines of code to correct a problem that affected virtually everything. Given that this player's idea was essentially cosmetic...too many man-hours, too little benefit.
Plausible idea (it could be done), but not terribly feasible (not quickly and not cheaply).
Those bug-fixes that hang around unfixed for years? Generally involve overhauls that are just too large in scale, in relation to a bug that's basically cosmetic-level...not a game-breaker, just irritating little screen display bug or somesuch.
Remember the Blizzard classic "Why can't we have armor dyes"? Hard-coded colors in the models. Cosmetic change, but one involving oodles of updates and a zillion man-hours. Cost/Benefit involves a lot of decisions for sensible-sounding ideas that could be done if we really wanted it badly enough, but don't expect it by next week.
How do you tell a player that his Pet Idea is cool, and we'd like to do it, but don't expect it for at least a couple of years? The usual answer is to say nothing. Saying anything yields message board firestorm. And the never ending litany of "you promised!', if (for wharever reason) you later decide not to do it after all.
I think he was asking more for examples for starting in a new game. Trying to implement something such as dyes for armor could be extremely simple in one game, or near impossible in another. That has more to do with coding. Daoc had no problem with dyes, but WoW, which came out later, nope, can't be done.
I think devs take short cuts when making the game, so there is not much flexability later on when they think of something good to add, but are unable to because they wanted to save a little time doing something in the beginning.
There are a lot of good ideas that can be done, and be done easily, for new games, but trying to add to existing games, probably not feasible. Of course there are a lot of bad ideas too that can be added, that 1 person thinks would be cool, but if you think of it in the overall scheme, it just sounds stupid, lol.
It's very unfortunate that people and companies do not take the ideas of the player base and use them. They're only hurting themselves because many of those ideas are great and are vastly approved by that community. The developer essentially has the customer brainstorming their game for them. All they truly need to do is pick and choose those ideas.
If only I could afford to be a game designer, but I cannot afford the schooling or the resources to do so. Now that I've read my post I truly wish there was a game like that. *sigh*
Here is an idea that will solve your problem:
Make a lot of money.
By implementing this simple idea you will be able to afford your schooling and will be able to become a game designer. If you do not take the idea and use it, you are only hurting yourself.
Right, make a lot of money how? That's a better question.
When the schooling for game design costs roughly $110,000 dollars to attend it's fairly hard to come up with that money. So it's easier said than done. If you're going to say that I should just take out a student loan then there's another issue. Due to the fact that I'm under a certain age in my state and my parents are making XX income I cannot obtain federal student aide.
However, I never said I was not trying to get into the gaming world. I am indeed trying to get my foot into the door. Networking is what I'm currently working on. I know game companies; specifically ones that run mmo's are always in need of people in that field. It's an affordable alternative to getting my foot into the door and then working towards something I want to do in that field.
I think the sarcasm translator is broken. I wasn't suggesting a solution. I was merely providing you with a valid 'idea' that would have solved your problem once you found a way to implement it. Of course without that way to implement it, the 'idea' is fairly useless even though it is obvious. I am fairly sure that you would love to implement this 'idea' but are nto doign so because your current situation and resources do not allow it.
It's very unfortunate that people and companies do not take the ideas of the player base and use them. They're only hurting themselves because many of those ideas are great and are vastly approved by that community. The developer essentially has the customer brainstorming their game for them. All they truly need to do is pick and choose those ideas.
If only I could afford to be a game designer, but I cannot afford the schooling or the resources to do so. Now that I've read my post I truly wish there was a game like that. *sigh*
Here is an idea that will solve your problem:
Make a lot of money.
By implementing this simple idea you will be able to afford your schooling and will be able to become a game designer. If you do not take the idea and use it, you are only hurting yourself.
Well played.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think he was asking more for examples for starting in a new game. Trying to implement something such as dyes for armor could be extremely simple in one game, or near impossible in another. That has more to do with coding. Daoc had no problem with dyes, but WoW, which came out later, nope, can't be done.
I think devs take short cuts when making the game, so there is not much flexability later on when they think of something good to add, but are unable to because they wanted to save a little time doing something in the beginning.
There are a lot of good ideas that can be done, and be done easily, for new games, but trying to add to existing games, probably not feasible. Of course there are a lot of bad ideas too that can be added, that 1 person thinks would be cool, but if you think of it in the overall scheme, it just sounds stupid, lol.
"Taking shortcuts" is a key part of the development process. Trying to acccount for every possibility is way to resource intenisive so you figure the best use of those resources. Blizzard took many shortcuts with WoW in order to have it run on lower end systems. As someone who had a lower end computer when WoW came out, I really appreciated that.
As a software devloper I hate it when I have finished developing an application according to a spec and then the client decides that they have a great 'idea' how to improve it and to them it sounds like an easy fix. However, since this was not in the original spec, the design simply cannot fit it in easily.
Comments
you deserve a medal for what you said rusque.. every gamer should read this comment. this is what quzzical fails to understand. game designers should have a some understanding of the technical side of things but its not crucial. game developement should be divided into the creative and the technical. once the ideas have been sketched out, the programmer should review the ideas, and see what is excutable and what is not
so many people like quzzical, bash people over for having ideas(like me,see my posts). the game industry has enough programmers , what it needs is people with ideas(like me), we need a medium where creative people without the techincal understanding can meet up with programmers to develop something unique. untill then , prepare for WOW version 17.0.. the fact is most people, who are knowledgeble in game design usually arent good at doing both , game design and programming, that is why so many game today lack quality.
In an ideal world, you are right it would be nice to seperate the two.
In this world, that is wasted resources.
It is a waste of time and money to pay someone to come up with all the ideas, then have the tech department review them to say we can't do it.
Ideas are easy, coming up with ideas is simply, most of which are not original anyway. Implementation is hard. Most of what people spout on here is either not technically possible yet, or far beyond the scope/resources available.
Well, let's take a couple real life of examples of success and failure where ideas and technological expertise met and split.
The Witcher series is good, critically acclaimed, gamers generally enjoy it.
Kingdoms of Amalur was mediocre, gamers generally didn't find it very exceptional.
But let's take a deeper look. The Witcher is based off a novel by Andrej Sapkowski - then turned into a game. Projekt Red actually brought him in as a consultant to inform and create a world true to his ideas. The gameplay was also built around his world and has some semblance of innovation as Geralt relies on various potions. So it's not earthshattering, but because it had to match the feeling of the world which the author crafted, you have a more interesting game.
KoA brought in the creative side with RA Salvatore, but they basically segregated him from the gameplay. Which is why is plays like WoW, but has a metric ton of lore and characters who have a lot to say. But players care little for what is being said when the rest of the game is so unsinpired.
Lastly, look at Skyrim, a game which is basically one gigantic lore box with an abysmal combat system. TES games also happen to be some of the buggiest messes that see release. But people love them because there's a ton of interesting stuff inside them that someone (s) thought up.
Is it a waste of money to find creatives to drive the ideas and design? Depends. Ideas aren't easy, not good ones, just because everyone can come up with a boat load of ideas doesn't mean any of them are good or should be made. These forums are great proof of that. You see people with ridiculous laundry lists of what they want.
But my arguement is best served by reality, when the next 50 MMO's come out and everyone is sitting around whining about how they're more of the same and the development houses that made them are downsizing (like we keep seeing over and over) then what will be left to say?
I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said in many cases it isn't practical and some are examples don't really hold up.
The witcher was allready a success as a book, yes they did have to pay him to have as a consultant, but the people responsible for development would have allready had some idea of what it involved and decided they had the ability and resources to do it.
KoA was a mess, they spent a ton of money. They split the ideas and coding and the game was a flop. They spent way to much money on way to little. Not a great example.
Skyrim was made up by people who have both, they have shown the technical ability (in most cases) and the creative ability to do that.
Your right great ideas are not easy. Great ideas that can be done by the resources available are even less.
People on these boards will whine no matter what comes out.
Making a good game is not just about ideas, IMO that is the least of it, there are lots of good ideas out there. Vanguard had some interesting ideas, the game was crap and to a large extent still is. Making a game is about effective resource use.
Can you give me an example of an idea that's commonly shouted around here that isn't possible to be produced?
i want a better picture of the situation discussed so I am asking for an example.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Or, worse, they don't even take into consideration how humans behave, let alone how they play games.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think you are playing a bit with words and mixing design with ideas. There is a fine line there, where do you want to call it.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
"...there's a very real difference between plausible and feasible."
It would probably be better at this juncture to stick with "far beyond the scope/resources available" than sidetrack there.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You just linked to a list. So pick something. Because seem like you are making the same argument that Quiz does, which is that any idea we post here is bad and can't be done. Seem to generalize, which is why I disagree. So please be more accurate and not link to a large list...
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
"If I myself can simply break this down in to many things in under 5 minutes. There should be no reason why a developer can brainstorm the ideas given by the community in a single workday."
Your entire post is a perfect example of the disconnect armchair developers and some 'indie' developers have with what is truly involved in game design, especailly for a massively multiplayer psersistent state world.
What is the impact on the game's economy?
How does it fit with the rest of the transportation and inventory management systems?
Is this for a PvE world or PvP world?
What projects would have to be scratched to create the resources to add this?
What percent of the playerbase would derive value from this?
What are the rewards of these mundane tasks? How do those rewards impact gameplay? the economy? other reward systems?
What is performance impact of these systems on the server? the scene? the install/download size? And, yes, that last one is one of the considerations in many feature decisions.
Does this fit with the vision or theme of the game?
The list of questions that require even more involved answers and even deeper planning goes on and on.
Most tasks seem easy to someone who has no idea what is really required to do them.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Bioware had tons of money. Floating in it basically.
where was this when they were designing SWTOR? Lets be real here....
money isn't the issue, especially hen Indy developers are pulling off better quality titles...
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I linked to the quote that I pasted here as a reply. As explained several times to you by several people, there is a difference between what can be done and what can reasonably be done.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I keep asking you to post these ideas that can't be done. You still havnt shown me an example I requested....
that quote means little. It's meaningless without pointing out what can't be done.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Got this far and had to stop reading it seriously. I did skim the rest though.
I've played great games that are good because of their ideas more so than their execution. The OP suggest that minor things like the amount of damage dealt by an attack is more important than the original concept and I disagree. You don't need to refine an idea to the level that a good game designer would to make a decent game and ideas prior to that stage aren't worthless.
This is exemplified by the fact that game pitches don't start with a 50 page document they start with the concept. They start with it because it is the single most important aspect and most definitive aspect of the game.
Now I will concede that the execution is extremely important and for an unknown or armchair designer, that the idea will never see the light of day unless you can refine and probably do a lot of the actual work towards making it too. However that is far from saying they should be regarded as worthless as the OP says in the opening paragraph.
KoA was a mess, that's what I said, so it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. They let the wrong people dictate how the gameplay was designed and it came out sucking.
Ideas are definitely not the least of it. Vanguard didn't have any interesting ideas and it sucked technically too. Hence why it flopped.
Effective resource use is extremely important, but who cares how effective your resource use is when you are building on top of a foundation of boring?
How about Rift? Trion has to be one of the fastest content developers out there, they really are fantastic. And Rift was almost great. They had a hint of a single great idea (variety of souls) but no one really developed that idea into something more and it devolved into cookie cutter poopsocks when they failed to realize their greatest asset. So people came and left. So close yet so far.
Here is an idea that will solve your problem:
Make a lot of money.
By implementing this simple idea you will be able to afford your schooling and will be able to become a game designer. If you do not take the idea and use it, you are only hurting yourself.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Well, dipping back into the past...
A player proposed a certain change to the way crittur loot ("drops") was handled, which was actually quite a nice little idea that Marty (lead dev) really wanted to do.
Unfortunately, implementing this (fairly trivial, on paper) idea involved the full development team revising, individually, several thousand existing subroutines, and a few hundred thousand lines of code to correct a problem that affected virtually everything. Given that this player's idea was essentially cosmetic...too many man-hours, too little benefit.
Plausible idea (it could be done), but not terribly feasible (not quickly and not cheaply).
Those bug-fixes that hang around unfixed for years? Generally involve overhauls that are just too large in scale, in relation to a bug that's basically cosmetic-level...not a game-breaker, just irritating little screen display bug or somesuch.
Remember the Blizzard classic "Why can't we have armor dyes"? Hard-coded colors in the models. Cosmetic change, but one involving oodles of updates and a zillion man-hours. Cost/Benefit involves a lot of decisions for sensible-sounding ideas that could be done if we really wanted it badly enough, but don't expect it by next week.
How do you tell a player that his Pet Idea is cool, and we'd like to do it, but don't expect it for at least a couple of years? The usual answer is to say nothing. Saying anything yields message board firestorm. And the never ending litany of "you promised!', if (for wharever reason) you later decide not to do it after all.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I think he was asking more for examples for starting in a new game. Trying to implement something such as dyes for armor could be extremely simple in one game, or near impossible in another. That has more to do with coding. Daoc had no problem with dyes, but WoW, which came out later, nope, can't be done.
I think devs take short cuts when making the game, so there is not much flexability later on when they think of something good to add, but are unable to because they wanted to save a little time doing something in the beginning.
There are a lot of good ideas that can be done, and be done easily, for new games, but trying to add to existing games, probably not feasible. Of course there are a lot of bad ideas too that can be added, that 1 person thinks would be cool, but if you think of it in the overall scheme, it just sounds stupid, lol.
I think the sarcasm translator is broken. I wasn't suggesting a solution. I was merely providing you with a valid 'idea' that would have solved your problem once you found a way to implement it. Of course without that way to implement it, the 'idea' is fairly useless even though it is obvious. I am fairly sure that you would love to implement this 'idea' but are nto doign so because your current situation and resources do not allow it.
Well played.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
"Taking shortcuts" is a key part of the development process. Trying to acccount for every possibility is way to resource intenisive so you figure the best use of those resources. Blizzard took many shortcuts with WoW in order to have it run on lower end systems. As someone who had a lower end computer when WoW came out, I really appreciated that.
As a software devloper I hate it when I have finished developing an application according to a spec and then the client decides that they have a great 'idea' how to improve it and to them it sounds like an easy fix. However, since this was not in the original spec, the design simply cannot fit it in easily.