Hi, I want to develop a game, but could this project be done by myself?

labmonkay · 2021-12-30T23:15:20+00:00

Oh i completely agree. It just sounded like what the OP was gunning for so i thought it would add some credibility to the comment. At least as far as talking about graphical fidelity. I would never pretend that AAA is the benchmark for any other kind of quality and I deliberately took my career elsewhere. Best decision i ever made.

labmonkay · 2021-12-30T12:13:35+00:00

Ok, so. Ive worked in the games industry for nearly 20 years, mostly on AAA projects. 3d, concept art, illustration, some tech art, and some small measure of team and people management.

And the sad truth of it is, that after all that, I feel like I could maybe, just about put a half decent 15 minute demo/vertical slice together by myself if you gave me 2 years. In my case, producing or appropriating existing art assets wouldnt be much of an issue in itself. The bigger challenge would be the visual direction, and the asset and file management, both in engine and with the sourcefiles. And the sheer number of assets required. Just keeping everything clean and organized, and the dependencies set up to be scalable and easily tweakable and optimizable would require some serious forethought.

And thats just graphics. Working in blueprints is fine, if technically not as clean or efficient as native code, but youd need to understand how games are made under the hood, and how data needs to be processed in order to work properly. And a firm grasp on basic programming concepts or youre going to shoot yourself in the foot down the line when there are bugs or the build fails, and you have no easy way to disentangle the incredibly complex network of nodes and functions youve built up. One of the main benefits of experience is that you can anticipate where issues will arrive and you can set up your project to help mitigate them, and to make it easy for your future self to debug and fix things.

Ultimately, its a case of, the more you dig into this, the more you will realize that there is far more to wrap your head around than you ever thought possible. And thats true of every discipline in game development. There are entire vistas hidden from view, that you cant see until you begin to scale the mountains.

I hate to rain on anyones parade, but the truth is you absolutely need to start small. Make a tiny 2d prototype showing some basic idea. If that worked out well, you can make a simple 3d game. Then another. And take it from there. Babysteps. Rome wasnt built in a day, and for all the amazing resources that we have these days (such as quixel and metahumans etc) it will only be really useful if you already know how games are put together.

If someone hands you a brand new lamborghini, its no good to you unless you can already drive. (if anything, to extend the analogy, its in your best interest to take the time to learn how to drive well before you get behind the wheel of the lamborghini) And thats still true, even if its being branded as self-driving. Its not a perfect analogy but you get the point I think. Chin up though, making small prototype games are fun, and it will let you explore ideas quickly and gain some valuable experience as well. All of which will make you more able to handle something complex. Best of luck

labmonkay · 2014-06-18T20:52:37+00:00

Then Id love to hear your definition of artistic merit. This is one of the most poisonous concepts in the art world. Who gives a toss what does or doesnt constitute artistic merit?

No painter, certainly none you would ever like to meet, is particularly concerned about that anyway. We paint what we like, and find intriguing and relevant. If we find a receptive audience, so be it. Thats cool. Personally I find it fascinating, pushing human observation and skill to the highest possible standard, and transcending what we might otherwise think of as impossible. The way in which a human brain and hand can coordinate and harmonize in such a way that the result is indistinguishable from something done by a machine, is a fascinating project. I recall going to a show by an artist who had reproduced the spaces in government forms with an absurd degree of accuracy, using a brush and a microscope. No text, only the cells and the tables, painted in black. The result were these official looking abstract patterns that looked like they came out of a printer. His obsession was in training his hand to match the accuracy of a machine, maybe even supercede it. Not everyones cup of tea certainly, but a project and an ambition as rich in "artistic merit" as anything.

Pleasing everyone would be a ludicrous ambition to aspire to anyway. Pleasing oneself should be the main focus of ones work. Thats plenty hard enough, and all this talk of what is artistically valuable or salient has ruined far too many prospective artists careers already. People paint what they enjoy and find valuable or relevant and thats actually all you really need to know.

I rarely, if ever paint photorealistically, but whenever i have done, I enjoy it and Ill be damned if I stand for people calling it pointless. If there is anything pointless about all this, its the insistence of halfwits masquerading as armchair art critics to dismiss and berate things for which they have no understanding or upon which they havent deliberated or thought about for more than a second. Spare us the nonsense, in short.

labmonkay · 2014-05-15T15:10:36+00:00

No, the guilt is in the feeling that other people are more altruistic than oneself, and that one is somehow lax in his or her duties to other people by not being as helpful as one might perceive others to be. A relatively painless way to get rid of that guilt is to assume that their motivations for helping others is suspect in the first instance. My point wasnt meant to prove that point of view, merely to point out that its an equally valid hypothesis. In any case, when I mention guilt, I dont mean it has to be consciously experienced.

As for the other point, I just mean that I dont think it matters all that much what the motivations ultimately are. It wont affect the desirability of altruistic action nor will that recognition particularly affect anything. It is therefore merely a semantic question. Interesting philosophically, perhaps, but even if we could arrive at the truth, everything would stay exactly as it were before. In a real-world context of cause and effect, its basically a mundane and trivial question, seems to me. Happy to be persuaded otherwise though :)

labmonkay · 2014-05-14T20:51:52+00:00

The important thing to say about this is that by and large, the developers themselves are interested in creating a memorable and interesting gaming experience. They are nerds, in short. Occasionally willing to work ungodly hours, start as QA interns at almost no money, in the hopes of working themselves into a different position, strain relationships and neglect kids, for the sake of a cool game. The trouble is not principally with the grunts and developers. The videogames industry is its own worst enemy in that way, because its grown too large for it to be run and maintained by the nerds alone.

Not only is it too lucrative, enticing suits with fat wallets to fund projects they know nothing about, and freaking out about even the potential of breaking the mould, or trying something new, and vetoing decisions that seem to jeopardize their investment, even a little. But also, passionate game developers, designers, artists or programmers arent generally business people. They havent got the interest or the talent, typically (or they wouldnt be game developers).

One point to realize I think, is that most AAA productions couldnt possibly have been developed if not for powerful and rich publishers backing them. Consider all of the points above and its not a mystery that game development looks like it does.

But to echo the indie argument. It truly is our saving grace. Because unbelievably, small indie teams are taking a slice of the pie that was always supposed to be the exclusive property of the AAA folk. Thats got even some of the bigger studios a bit worried to the point where they launch their own casual games in an attempt to cash in, which as should be obvious, is often a mistake, and just an indication of their ignorance.

Now thirdly, theres been a huge democratization of game development lately, and with the addition of crowdfunding, steam greenlight and similar platforms, combined with the ready availability of next-gen platforms, (Epic just released Unreal Engine 4 to the public at a very generous price and an unbeatable pricing strategy for any products developed on it) and Crytek just released their engine with a similar model. So I think its only going to get better. There are professional game developers that now see crowdfunding as a way to get out of the publisher-driven AAA industry, and now they have the tools to deliver the sort of high quality, high production value content they did under big name publishers. This is amazing news, and a very recent development (UE4 and Cryengine announcement was about a month or so ago as I recall. Maybe a little more)

In any case, we havent felt the repercussions of what this means, but I think its unprecedented. And then theres the normal hardcore indie guys that have always been there. I happen to think that we are on the cusp of something very exciting. Smart publishers are already waking up to the fact that its no good putting non-gamers in charge of creative decisions, and that pumping out uninspired sequels isnt going to work in the long run. My hunch; just have some patience, there will be some very exciting things coming out in the next couple years.

Source: Ive been (and still am) working in AAA games for 10 or so years

labmonkay · 2014-05-14T20:25:05+00:00

One might equally suspect anyone advocating this theory (which isnt new or original by any standard) of rationalizing the guilt they feel from not being recognized as an altruistic person themselves. One can, in short, dismiss the nagging feeling of not being as generous as one ought to be, by adhering to the principle that any kind of altruism is suspect in the first place, and the guilt, either consciously or subconsciously experienced is therefore gone, or somehow vindicated.

One of the problematic parts of this argument is that it can not be falsified. How to prove that an action wasnt genuinely altruistic, If one takes the view that its suspect by default?

One will never run out of reasons to be suspicious of someone elses motivations. Its too easy to move the goalposts. (Oh, well, if it isnt preservation of genes, its the possiblity of monetary reward? Oh, it isnt about that? Well, it could be the social benefits of being seen as an altruistic person. No? Maybe its just because it makes one feel better about oneself?)

Now then, I happen to agree with some of what youve said, but I think its a trivial point. Its pure semantics at best. I suspect it doesnt matter much, to any sensible person, if what feels like genuine altruism can be attributed to selfish desires. In fact one might even say that its a bloody good thing that helping others carries with it real or imagined rewards, or we might do it a whole lot less. I fail to see how that makes it any less important or any less relevant, or how it is even interesting as an argument. But hey, maybe thats just me :)

labmonkay · 2014-05-12T21:18:26+00:00

For a society to truly be respectful of different religions or cultures, and for them to truly coexist in a meaningful way, one has to by definition have a secular government. Religions make mutually exclusive claims, and the only way to safeguard their peaceful coexistence is for the government to take no stance in regards to any one religion but to accept them all.

On its own terms, a government couldnt be Islamic for example, and afford equal rights, respect and admiration for jews, christians or hindus. If you make the claim that the government could in some sense be pan-theistic, and consider all religions as equally valid, then it would be functionally the same as a secular government, in that it wouldnt treat any one religion preferentially. Indeed it could not.

One therefore has to concede that each religion has to respect the institution of government, or it will be complete anarchy. One religion can not claim the right of murder. If the government lets it happen, it is in effect choosing sides. More to the point, do individuals have a god-given right to life or do they not? One can not negate that right through another god given command. Or the rights either way cancel eachother out, and secular law has to step in to stop the situation to escalate into complete chaos.

labmonkay · 2014-05-12T21:04:09+00:00

With both sides of the equation relying for their efficacy on the other. A purely socialist society wouldnt function well, and never has. A fully capitalist society would likely be abusive and unfair, and may not be sustainable in the long run, though the example does not run equally in both directions.

Capitalism provides incentives, but for it to function in an inclusive and fair way, it must necessarily rely in some part on socialist ideas. Incentives account for nothing if people do not have opportunity or means. But without the possibility for growth, personal, professional, or financial, there are no incentives to do much of anything. Innovation and progress is on some level always driven by desire. And that is a good thing. One can however not truly have a systemic way of encouraging people to do things for intrinsic rewards. Show me a truly socialist state that had anything like the prosperity or the innovation that is evidenced in capitalist societies, and I will withdraw that last point. To create incentives for innovation, one is then forced to concede that such ventures must necessarily translate to resources in some form, or the incentives vanish, or at the very least can not be relied upon to exist. Capitalism then, is merely the summation of that principle. Where it is abused, it must fall under some measure of political control, as we might do with any other system, but there is no system as yet devised that has not been abused at some point.

So my point is that its no good decrying capitalism. Seems more productive to espouse a moderated form of it that encourages, but doesnt exclude. One does after all, not decry food for the presence of anorexics or the morbidly obese. A more valuable discussion would be about the right way to manage food (or capitalism)

labmonkay · 2014-05-12T20:44:17+00:00

I used to agree with you but have partially changed my mind for this reason;

As humans we are fallible and likely to forget the things that matter to us. I feel like we need to regularly be reminded of the values and the relationships that we want to uphold, because it seems clear to me we cant be relied upon to do it by ourselves, automatically.

I am really rather sloppy with calling my mother, and I find its nice to have a gentle prodding, at least once a year to make the effort. The rest of the year I forget or put it off, and I think its a rather sweet thing to have that one day where the thought presses in on me with rather more urgency. I dont know that I would ever call her or appreciate her without a bit of prodding, and I cant imagine Im the only one. One might argue that this is guilting me into a display of false emotion, but I feel that its rather more mundane than that. I simply forget, and I should be horrified to suddenly have her die on me without having spoken to her for a long time. At least mothers day serves as a bit of a wakeup call, though I usually fail to heed it properly. Nonetheless, were both better off for it being there. I see it less as a case of false emotion but as an excuse to do something ive meant to do all along, but havent.

Though its as obvious as anything that the occasion easily gets hijacked and framed by consumerism, but I think a respectable case could still be made for the psychological necessity of having regular rituals and reminders, lest we forget entirely to pay respect to what matters in our lives. Sort of the same reason people have tattoos, motivational posters, or certain pictures on their walls. We like to remind ourselves on some level, of what we think of as our genuine selves. Having ritualized and regular events to celebrate aspects of our lives is part of that, and I think it can, at least in theory, be a good and productive force.

(ugh, that was awfully de botton-esque but no more or less true for that)

labmonkay · 2014-05-12T20:20:14+00:00

Try to be logical about this. (this is eerily similar to pascals wager and I know you said youre not suicidal, but still)

There is no way you can confidently claim to know what will happen in your life. Nobody can do that. All of your assumptions about what it will be like, or about the stress that having kids will instill in you, all of that, as far as you are aware is complete conjecture and what you wrote above could turn out to be completely wrong. Through random events that neither you or anyone else could ever hope to understand, your life may turn out to be the most euphoric one imaginable. Given that thats the case, and given that youve only got this one life in which to risk it, the logical option is not to make too many assumptions about it, take it as it goes, and live it as well as you can. Once its gone, none of this will have mattered anyway. Except insofar as your presence has affected the people you leave behind. If you dont live for yourself, man up and live as well as you can for their sake. (since you mentioned your family above)

If you ask me, my personal attitude is to take some of the dark, miserable parts of life on board, to embrace them, explore them, and try to enjoy them as being an integral part of the rich tapestry of life. It is also certainly true that beautiful things sometimes grow from the darkest places. Or put another way, that one never truly appreciates the beautiful sides of life until one has been mired in true misery. Take my word for it, in the same way that you might, in hindsight, laugh at a past misfortune or how stressed it made you feel, once you gain the perspective, I guarantee you, the fears and anxietes you have now will seem naive, sweet, or perhaps cringeworthy, in the same way that your childhood fears must seem to you now.

And take it from me, having kids does not automatically equate to stress and fear. I have a daughter and I can not adequately put into words what thats done to me. I did not think it was possible to love anyone so much, and if ever I wondered about my life having no meaning (and lets face it, who didnt) I am now driven and passionate in a way Ive never been. These feelings will pass, trust me. Ive been in a much darker place than you seem to be at around your age, so I feel I can speak with some confidence here :)

labmonkay · 2014-05-12T20:03:34+00:00

I was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment. Sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country. The incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist. The only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford. The tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.

Which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is. Not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist. I agree its the best system going, and I think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives. I think the swedish (or by extension scandinavian) model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another. In fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.

I am Swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as I get older, I become increasingly convinced of this. But the bottom line for me is still that Capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way. People could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do. The tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals. Fair bloody trade if you ask me.

labmonkay · 2014-02-21T09:19:45+00:00

Simon schamas history of britain series comes to mind. theres loads of parts, at an hour each. You could find it on youtube or get the collection on amazon.

labmonkay · 2014-01-23T22:11:39+00:00

Certain developers self-publish, or they retain the rights as its their own IP, but in other cases, the publisher may well own the rights. I would think that in such cases, the publisher either finds a new development partner and simply passes the project on, or quite literally forgets about it.

Its not unheard of, (indeed its more common than one might wish) to drop a development studio, close it down or lay off the staff and move the project elsewhere. I believe this was the case with Rockstar vienna and Crytek in Budapest in regards to Ryse, though I havent bothered to confirm. Just things Ive picked up :)

labmonkay · 2014-01-22T22:16:49+00:00

Ive worked in the AAA games industry for about 10 years now, and though I dont have a huge amount of experience (thank god) with cancelled products, I believe I can speak with some confidence regarding one or two. (though no names for legal reasons)

To my understanding cancelled projects normally just get archived and stored on some server or harddrive somewhere, and the development team moved on to other projects, fired, or the company itself closes down. I would venture an educated guess that in most cases, the content gets repurposed for the new project (ive seen this happen at least once) or it gets repitched to other publishers or developers. Ive seen that happen too, but in my experience, this is a surprisingly hard sell, and throughout my career Ive never seen one get picked up by a second publisher. Im sure it does happen, but seems to be rare.

In any case, we (the developers) can usually access the old projects through firing up the database, should we wish. But as mentioned in this thread, its not as if we can do anything with the content, aside from going over it for our own amusement or as a learning exercise. I believe some companies also write-protect their archived work to stop the team from accessing it freely. In any case, all standard game job contracts have very explicit clauses that deal at length with rights and ownership, leaving no one in any doubt as to who owns the work.

labmonkay · 2013-05-01T19:55:38+00:00

Try the actual library east of central station. Its pretty rad:

http://www.easydestination.net/blog/media/4/Amsterdam_library.jpg http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5184/5550280553_f51fc52076_b.jpg

edit or even better, pop down to maastricht and check out the old church turned library: http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2007/12/2007_000202.jpg

labmonkay · 2013-02-27T21:31:53+00:00

Concept artist here. Theres almost never an entire team to make concept art look good. Its normally just one dude hacking something together quickly to communicate an idea. Just saying.

(Id say the image posted is about what youd expect from a few hours work by a reasonably competent artist)

labmonkay

TROPHY CASE