8 replies to this topic

[IMG News]

In a new post on his Bottom Feeder blog Spiderweb Software's Jeff Vogel recently responded to an RPG Codex article criticizing the game designer's reuse of assets from game to game. Vogel explained his reasons for not reinventing the wheel with each new title and suggested larger developers could benefit from his strategies.

But it's gotten to the point where a company is expected to be ashamed for using the same engine for more than one title and a few DLC packs. The Gold Box games and the Infinity Engine are rare exceptions.

This is such an astonishing waste of resources. When I start a new game, I spend 3-4 months rewriting the worst or most dated part of my engine, and then I take that old (but solid) engine and make the coolest story I can with it. It's a small company. Our resources are desperately limited. Thus, I don't spend time remaking things that already work. If my wolf icon looks good, why make a new wolf icon just for the sake of making a new one? Instead, I focus on the story, the one thing that truly needs to be all new and excellent.

And the big companies, who make AAA games with these amazing awesome big-budget engines? They should re-use more of them! The Dragon Age engine is very cool. Make ten games with it! And not just piddly Dragon Age DLC either. Make games that are cyberpunk, horror, science fiction, fantasy in a new setting. The budgets will be much lower, and that makes it easier to take risks. And use the same dragon model. It looks really sweet. And, once the engine is a drained husk (in, say, five years), then spend a lot of money making a new one.

Check out the full blog post at the page listed below.

Return to Full Article - InsideMacGames News

[Eric5h5]

I'm not sure with big-budget games that have 200+ people working on them that the engine itself is actually a significant expense.  Although I do agree that remaking every single thing for the sake of remaking every single thing is not the best use of resources.  On the other hand, people have been conditioned to expect that, so any hint of recycling gets you nailed pretty hard.

[Frigidman]

One of the problems with starting from scratch for each new AAA title, is that it means a pile more bugs just like the last AAA title had... oh, but they are NEW bugs. I don't see anything wrong with using a solid ground work (engine) fixing some of its flaws, and adding all new content on top of it.

I do agree, seeing the same "Devlin" in the next game, as a prior game, just cause it was a cool model, does make a AAA title not seem so AAA anymore. But when we talk about the underlying tech that makes it all work (and break, in the case of bugs)... it would be nice to see more life out of the good engines. Least this sort of holds true with how companies used the q3 engine a lot, and how valve likes to use its half life engine for more than one game.

I guess the article is more about reusing assets, and not engines though. "Lets use this same barrel, instead of making a new barrel that ends up looking pretty much the same, except the new barrel has a little more more lifelike rust on its edges". Mmm. yeah.

With sequels its different though. You expect some things to look the same. Otherwise it doesn't feel like a sequel. DLC as a sequel though is a cheap way of making money off people for little return. TRUE sequels are welcomed though (full sized ones that could very well stand on their own).

[NAG]

My concern is more regarding a glut of fast, cheap games. Isn't that what caused video games to crash the first time around? It may have been other factors, though, since I don't remember the crash.

[Frigidman]

NAG, on 23 April 2010 - 09:58 AM, said:

My concern is more regarding a glut of fast, cheap games. Isn't that what caused video games to crash the first time around? It may have been other factors, though, since I don't remember the crash.

Actually I thought that was the "cheap knock-off era", where everyone was trying to make another DOOM. They would slap crap together and throw it out the door for a fast buck for a starved raging gaming community. Then there was so many of them people got ill and stop bothering buying them, cause it was 'just another knock-off'.

Then the dawn of DEMOs came out, and all the crap knock-offs vanished because they couldn't compete with people being able to tell their junk was crap to start with before buying it. This loss of junk flood made the market look bleak and dead. When it was actually just less stuff, but better made stuff (quality vs quantity).

Right now, its picking up again with the slew of knock-offs, but on the side of casual games, not AAA titles. We are still low on the AAA side due to cost, and demos.

[Eric5h5]

Frigidman, on 23 April 2010 - 10:12 AM, said:

Actually I thought that was the "cheap knock-off era", where everyone was trying to make another DOOM.

The video game crash was in the early '80s, mostly as the result of a huge wave of cheap and crap games produced for consoles like the Atari 2600 because anyone could make games for it.  (Which is why Nintendo kept strict control over their systems, so as not to repeat that event, and that's been the policy of console makers ever since.)  There was no crash in the '90s or later that I'm aware of.

--Eric

[alldaveallen]

I think Vogel is spot on about engine re-use, and about some assets. I think the problem that website has with HIS games is the same problem I have, which is that the art sucks and has always sucked, and we wish he'd maybe spend a little time on the character models and so on and get out of that pseudo-manga-meets-Phil-Foglio stylistic rut. I think he's a great game developer and a real light unto the world of not just independent game developers but of independent creative people in general. But for him, gaming is what, 80% story and 20% gameplay mechanics? Not much room in there for art upgrades.

[NAG]

Frigidman, on 23 April 2010 - 10:12 AM, said:

Right now, its picking up again with the slew of knock-offs, but on the side of casual games, not AAA titles. We are still low on the AAA side due to cost, and demos.

I don't know. There have been some pretty lame "flagship" games recently. The Wii hasn't had any good games in around a year. The iPhone games are mostly tech demos.

I'm not saying I expect another crash, I'm just not a huge fan of the pump out games fast mentality. It feels like reality tv hit the game industry.

[Frigidman]

NAG, on 23 April 2010 - 10:37 PM, said:

I don't know. There have been some pretty lame "flagship" games recently. The Wii hasn't had any good games in around a year. The iPhone games are mostly tech demos.

I'm not saying I expect another crash, I'm just not a huge fan of the pump out games fast mentality. It feels like reality tv hit the game industry.

Hehe yeah. I've always been of the "Quality over Quantity" school. I'd rather spend a hundred hours in a really awesome game, then 1 hour in a hundred junk games.