Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Because until you actually do create you just think you are good at design. That's the way it works with all other aspects in life. You just think you are good at something until you actually try it and then you understand all or a lot more of the intricacies and realities involved.
Until then it's just a belief.
pure bullsh*t.
its not true for anything else.
Architects don't build buildings
Physicists don't fly space spaceships
Car designers don't build cars
computer designers don't build computers
business consultants don't implemtent their suggestions.
it doesn't work that way in...well...any industry
... do you genuinely think you're qualified as an architect because you've been in some buildings?
Physicist because you've watched Star Trek?
Car designer because you're driven a car?
Computer designer because you own a computer?
Business consultant because you've bought something?
You're about as qualified at all of those, as you are as a game designer.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Because until you actually do create you just think you are good at design. That's the way it works with all other aspects in life. You just think you are good at something until you actually try it and then you understand all or a lot more of the intricacies and realities involved.
Until then it's just a belief.
pure bullsh*t.
its not true for anything else.
Architects don't build buildings
Physicists don't fly space spaceships
Car designers don't build cars
computer designers don't build computers
business consultants don't implemtent their suggestions.
it doesn't work that way in...well...any industry
... do you genuinely think you're qualified as an architect because you've been in some buildings?
Physicist because you've watched Star Trek?
Car designer because you're driven a car?
Computer designer because you own a computer?
Business consultant because you've bought something?
You're about as qualified at all of those, as you are as a game designer.
Architects don't build buildings, but they do have to be knowledgable enough about how buildings go together so that (a) they can be assembled in the first place and (b) things like bridges, stairs, etc., don't fall and kill people because of the design of the building or some component part.
Car designers don't build cars, but they have to know enough about how a car is built in order to make sure that their design can be assembled. They have to know enough to tell the engineers the order that the entire car is going to go together, otherwise they would get to certain points in putting the engine or chassis together and they'd have to start over from scratch.
Some of the physicists in the International Space Station might have something to say about physicists flying space ships.
Computer designers probably do build computers. Maybe it's just their personal computer, but they probably do put them together. At the same time, they have to know enough about how to put one of those rack mount machines together to make sure they can actually be assembled instead of 3D printed in place. Kind of like the Architect and Car Designer.
Even Business Consultants have to know enough about how their suggestions will work to offer suggestions that can be implemented and they might even have a project plan with those little Gannt charts for the implementation.
Just like all of those things, a Game Designer has to know enough about how a game is going to be put together (programmed) in order to know it can be put together, and not only that, how it's all going to fit together, in a great deal of detail. Lurking in forums and playing video games does not quality a person as a Game Designer.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Repopulation has the option to FPS but by what I understand it will just be minimal differences overall (perspective shift and control scheme shift but otherwise the FPS mode and the third person mode would be the same thing just different ways of controlling your character).
Yeah, but rumors are that at least some of the devs were moved back to Wow so don't expect it in the next few years. And knowing Blizzard it will take them a long time to get this one out unless Activision starts to use whips on their backs.
... do you genuinely think you're qualified as an architect because you've been in some buildings?
Physicist because you've watched Star Trek?
Car designer because you're driven a car?
Computer designer because you own a computer?
Business consultant because you've bought something?
You're about as qualified at all of those, as you are as a game designer.
Well, no but I can have some opinions about how a car is designed anyways, sometimes actual car designing engineers mess up:
Not the best idea by an actual car designer, and even I could tell that just by looking.
In all honestly is it not so much the expert that decides how a computer game should as the investors who pay for it. And they might have figured out that people don't want a new Wow with improved graphics finally but don't expect them to fund many ground breaking games.
The earliest MMOs were made by small teams (like Meridian 59) and didn't need much of an investor so they could try new fun ideas. I am pretty sure most game devs have plenty of good ideas that they aren't allowed to turn into games because of the risk with an expensive game like a MMO.
When computer games were made by people who played for people who played you actually got some very interesting ideas and extremely fun games, now I feel that most games are made with an investor pointing at a already existing game and telling the devs to make something similar.
There are exceptions, like Minecraft and some kickstarter games but the huge budgets that MMOs need is rather killing the genre right now.
Sims Online, Sim City Online, Spore (arguably), Second Life
As far as the flavor of kool aid goes, just because there isn't a diarrhea flavor of cool aid doesn't mean someone should make one. On top of that, if kool aid told you that to make this flavor it would cost you $30 million dollars, do you think you could sell enough to get your money back? You don't need to be a CEO to figure out those numbers.
You obviously think game developers are stupid. I've worked with a number of business development managers in the gaming industry in the past, but my introduction to them was that they really didn't care about my "ideas". They'd heard them all before. "A dime a dozen" is the term one used, actually. All your talk about the theoretical mountains of money that there is to be made with these games will fall on deaf ears, because they're stuffed full of REAL money they are making from REAL games that have proven track records.
Time is finite. It's the reason that we all don't simply work at McDonalds. I mean if you could make 6-figures making fries at McDonalds, who wouldn't? I mean all the fries you can eat?!?!? No, you need to maximize the return on investment of your own time. A game company is no different. They have finite resources and want to focus on maximizing their return on investment in those resources. Once and a whlie, you might get skunkworks projects (like H1Z1?), but in the gaming industry these are rare, rare, rare activities. How H1Z1 was done boggles my mind. Hopefully means Sony is going to be doing more innovative work in the future.
In summary, everything you think you know has been thrown around a boardroom a thousand times and shot down more than Bubba at the local strip joint on a Friday night.
Let me help you try and contextualize this.
Have I played the BEST SELLING PC GAME IN WORLD HISTORY...The Sims? YES and I like it.
Do I play a plenty of other games that have shoot em ups? YES HOWEVER...I wish I had an option to play a game of that high quality GRAPHICS and not have to go around blowing everything up.
I am unclear why this is hard to understand. I as a gamer play games where a lot of killing is involved and its boring me, but why do I play? BECUASE I DONT HAVE ENOUGH OTHER OPTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Try The Repopulation. Based on my understanding, it'll offer that option.
Other than that, you're right, there is a distinct lack of games that offer high quality graphics, but without killing. Well, I suppose Sim City Online is pretty close, but it's not really what you're looking for I don't think. The Sims might do something with updated graphics at some point? Maybe? However, I don't see games like "Shop Owner Online", "Fast Food Worker Online" or "A Day In The Life Of An Accountant: Online" coming any time soon with updated engines.
That's just reality. Instead of arguing about it, though, why don't you pitch a game and actually show measurable return on investment using factual data. That's what really creates change.
Sims 4, due to be released later this year is actually taking a step backwards in graphics and other areas of the game so it will be playable on older computers which translates to selling more copies=making more money. In true EA fashion they are going for quantity and not quality. This is true of most gaming companies. The bottom line is what matters to almost every business or industry.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
I don't think gaming companies are killing the industry. The customers are. They keep handing over tons of money willingly. The companies aren't forcing anyone to do it. As long as people keep pumping money into games the developers will keep making them the way they are.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Originally posted by Briansho I don't think gaming companies are killing the industry. The customers are. They keep handing over tons of money willingly. The companies aren't forcing anyone to do it. As long as people keep pumping money into games the developers will keep making them the way they are.
You are contradicting yourself. Customers who are handing over tons of money is NOT killing the industry. They are growing the industry.
And if people are paying for games they find fun (and don't tell me people will play games that are not fun to them, only not fun to you), what is the problem?
Sims Online, Sim City Online, Spore (arguably), Second Life
As far as the flavor of kool aid goes, just because there isn't a diarrhea flavor of cool aid doesn't mean someone should make one. On top of that, if kool aid told you that to make this flavor it would cost you $30 million dollars, do you think you could sell enough to get your money back? You don't need to be a CEO to figure out those numbers.
You obviously think game developers are stupid. I've worked with a number of business development managers in the gaming industry in the past, but my introduction to them was that they really didn't care about my "ideas". They'd heard them all before. "A dime a dozen" is the term one used, actually. All your talk about the theoretical mountains of money that there is to be made with these games will fall on deaf ears, because they're stuffed full of REAL money they are making from REAL games that have proven track records.
Time is finite. It's the reason that we all don't simply work at McDonalds. I mean if you could make 6-figures making fries at McDonalds, who wouldn't? I mean all the fries you can eat?!?!? No, you need to maximize the return on investment of your own time. A game company is no different. They have finite resources and want to focus on maximizing their return on investment in those resources. Once and a whlie, you might get skunkworks projects (like H1Z1?), but in the gaming industry these are rare, rare, rare activities. How H1Z1 was done boggles my mind. Hopefully means Sony is going to be doing more innovative work in the future.
In summary, everything you think you know has been thrown around a boardroom a thousand times and shot down more than Bubba at the local strip joint on a Friday night.
Let me help you try and contextualize this.
Have I played the BEST SELLING PC GAME IN WORLD HISTORY...The Sims? YES and I like it.
Do I play a plenty of other games that have shoot em ups? YES HOWEVER...I wish I had an option to play a game of that high quality GRAPHICS and not have to go around blowing everything up.
I am unclear why this is hard to understand. I as a gamer play games where a lot of killing is involved and its boring me, but why do I play? BECUASE I DONT HAVE ENOUGH OTHER OPTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Try The Repopulation. Based on my understanding, it'll offer that option.
Other than that, you're right, there is a distinct lack of games that offer high quality graphics, but without killing. Well, I suppose Sim City Online is pretty close, but it's not really what you're looking for I don't think. The Sims might do something with updated graphics at some point? Maybe? However, I don't see games like "Shop Owner Online", "Fast Food Worker Online" or "A Day In The Life Of An Accountant: Online" coming any time soon with updated engines.
That's just reality. Instead of arguing about it, though, why don't you pitch a game and actually show measurable return on investment using factual data. That's what really creates change.
Sims 4, due to be released later this year is actually taking a step backwards in graphics and other areas of the game so it will be playable on older computers which translates to selling more copies=making more money. In true EA fashion they are going for quantity and not quality. This is true of most gaming companies. The bottom line is what matters to almost every business or industry.
wow..I didn't know that about Sims. I actually stopped playing with Sims 2. I wasn't going to pay extra money for (sims 3) basically the same game I already had.
Sims hasn't had a visual update sense 2004
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
... do you genuinely think you're qualified as an architect because you've been in some buildings?
Physicist because you've watched Star Trek?
Car designer because you're driven a car?
Computer designer because you own a computer?
Business consultant because you've bought something?
You're about as qualified at all of those, as you are as a game designer.
Architects don't build buildings, but they do have to be knowledgable enough about how buildings go together so that (a) they can be assembled in the first place and (b) things like bridges, stairs, etc., don't fall and kill people because of the design of the building or some component part.
Car designers don't build cars, but they have to know enough about how a car is built in order to make sure that their design can be assembled. They have to know enough to tell the engineers the order that the entire car is going to go together, otherwise they would get to certain points in putting the engine or chassis together and they'd have to start over from scratch.
Some of the physicists in the International Space Station might have something to say about physicists flying space ships.
Computer designers probably do build computers. Maybe it's just their personal computer, but they probably do put them together. At the same time, they have to know enough about how to put one of those rack mount machines together to make sure they can actually be assembled instead of 3D printed in place. Kind of like the Architect and Car Designer.
Even Business Consultants have to know enough about how their suggestions will work to offer suggestions that can be implemented and they might even have a project plan with those little Gannt charts for the implementation.
Just like all of those things, a Game Designer has to know enough about how a game is going to be put together (programmed) in order to know it can be put together, and not only that, how it's all going to fit together, in a great deal of detail. Lurking in forums and playing video games does not quality a person as a Game Designer.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Yeah, but rumors are that at least some of the devs were moved back to Wow so don't expect it in the next few years. And knowing Blizzard it will take them a long time to get this one out unless Activision starts to use whips on their backs.
Well, no but I can have some opinions about how a car is designed anyways, sometimes actual car designing engineers mess up:
Not the best idea by an actual car designer, and even I could tell that just by looking.
In all honestly is it not so much the expert that decides how a computer game should as the investors who pay for it. And they might have figured out that people don't want a new Wow with improved graphics finally but don't expect them to fund many ground breaking games.
The earliest MMOs were made by small teams (like Meridian 59) and didn't need much of an investor so they could try new fun ideas. I am pretty sure most game devs have plenty of good ideas that they aren't allowed to turn into games because of the risk with an expensive game like a MMO.
When computer games were made by people who played for people who played you actually got some very interesting ideas and extremely fun games, now I feel that most games are made with an investor pointing at a already existing game and telling the devs to make something similar.
There are exceptions, like Minecraft and some kickstarter games but the huge budgets that MMOs need is rather killing the genre right now.
Sims 4, due to be released later this year is actually taking a step backwards in graphics and other areas of the game so it will be playable on older computers which translates to selling more copies=making more money. In true EA fashion they are going for quantity and not quality. This is true of most gaming companies. The bottom line is what matters to almost every business or industry.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
You are contradicting yourself. Customers who are handing over tons of money is NOT killing the industry. They are growing the industry.
And if people are paying for games they find fun (and don't tell me people will play games that are not fun to them, only not fun to you), what is the problem?
wow..I didn't know that about Sims. I actually stopped playing with Sims 2. I wasn't going to pay extra money for (sims 3) basically the same game I already had.
Sims hasn't had a visual update sense 2004
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me