The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As most of you know, I have recently started a degree in Computer Games Technology. As I've only been there a few weeks so far, we haven't learned all that much about making games, we are still doing the basics and learning the ropes. Although there is an interesting concept which I have developed when it comes to games and their graphics, and that's respect.
When you rate a game as being good, or bad, you don;t really see the effort on the part of a game's designer when it comes to making something look good, and I can guarantee you one thing, making 3D models of standard objects is hard, you just try making a proper games character. The level of detail and general quality of a game's 3D models is not down to a number in regards to the console, but it is the effort and hard work of a person, slogging over a keyboard for weeks on end to get it just right. The guys at Polyphony Digital claim it took them two weeks to make each car for GT3, it would take me several months to make something half of their quality, but I will learn.
The after making the asthetics of the game, there is the code. The speed of a game again relies heavily upon how good the code is, and again, it takes immense talent and effort to write even some of the most basic programmes, never mind code fit enough to be classed a "game". A quote from one of my lecturers just goes to show what happens in the computer programming industry, "Good programmers become gmaes programmers, bad programmers make spreadsheets." And how this rings home the minute you see some of the code on offer. I don't even have the expertise at the moment to make a mere Flash game, but I am in anticipation of the day we get let loose on console dev kits, then I will get tp see how good these guys really are.
The importance of sound to a game and life in general is also much more important to me now, than before I started my course. I know the basic physical principles of sound, and how to alter sounds using filters and changing the envelope etc. but again in terms of making a game, and writing my own reverberation settings for a car travellong through a tunnel, I've not got a clue. Sure the software used in the development stages is very powerful, but to harness the power available, you have to excell at what you do.
I guess the moral of this story is to not to take an average looking and sounding game for granted. Budget and team size are going to massively efect the final product and the obviously you would only expect the best from the big boys, but if you ever see a decent game, from a very small company, buy it. Give them your support, because the effort on the part of a small company, is probably much greater than that exerted by a large corporation.
When you rate a game as being good, or bad, you don;t really see the effort on the part of a game's designer when it comes to making something look good, and I can guarantee you one thing, making 3D models of standard objects is hard, you just try making a proper games character. The level of detail and general quality of a game's 3D models is not down to a number in regards to the console, but it is the effort and hard work of a person, slogging over a keyboard for weeks on end to get it just right. The guys at Polyphony Digital claim it took them two weeks to make each car for GT3, it would take me several months to make something half of their quality, but I will learn.
The after making the asthetics of the game, there is the code. The speed of a game again relies heavily upon how good the code is, and again, it takes immense talent and effort to write even some of the most basic programmes, never mind code fit enough to be classed a "game". A quote from one of my lecturers just goes to show what happens in the computer programming industry, "Good programmers become gmaes programmers, bad programmers make spreadsheets." And how this rings home the minute you see some of the code on offer. I don't even have the expertise at the moment to make a mere Flash game, but I am in anticipation of the day we get let loose on console dev kits, then I will get tp see how good these guys really are.
The importance of sound to a game and life in general is also much more important to me now, than before I started my course. I know the basic physical principles of sound, and how to alter sounds using filters and changing the envelope etc. but again in terms of making a game, and writing my own reverberation settings for a car travellong through a tunnel, I've not got a clue. Sure the software used in the development stages is very powerful, but to harness the power available, you have to excell at what you do.
I guess the moral of this story is to not to take an average looking and sounding game for granted. Budget and team size are going to massively efect the final product and the obviously you would only expect the best from the big boys, but if you ever see a decent game, from a very small company, buy it. Give them your support, because the effort on the part of a small company, is probably much greater than that exerted by a large corporation.
Page:
Yeah, it's a shame that nowadays the hardest way isn't necessarily the best way. How times change - before, you had to know oodles of HTML to make an average web page - now, DreamWeaver is all you need.
This is like an argument i have with a 'friend' of mine, he made his website totally from HTML, where as i just used a free web builder tool, he took ages to finish his, i took around a week. Mine looks better than his does, but because he put more effort into his site than i put in to mine he says mine is crap and his is better. But in reality he is wrong.
Grix Thraves wrote:
Well
> said. As the greatest philosopher of the 20th century once said:
"Try
> not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
Yup. The amount of effort means nothing to me, I just care about the finished product.
Try telling someone "I'm sorry your car doesn't have any brakes, but we spent ages working on it!"
Well
> said. As the greatest philosopher of the 20th century once said:
"Try
> not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
Yup. The amount of effort means nothing to me, I just care about the finished product.
Try telling someone "I'm sorry your car doesn't have any brakes, but we spent ages working on it!"
Goatboy wrote:
"Either do it well or go paint a bridge."
Well said. As the greatest philosopher of the 20th century once said:
"Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
"Either do it well or go paint a bridge."
Well said. As the greatest philosopher of the 20th century once said:
"Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
Strafex wrote:
Yet I spent over an hour debugging it trying to sort out all
> the flaws and glitches in the code.
Even after that, the code is probably still
> very inefficient.
You could probably get a job at Lionhead with the skills you currently have.
Yet I spent over an hour debugging it trying to sort out all
> the flaws and glitches in the code.
Even after that, the code is probably still
> very inefficient.
You could probably get a job at Lionhead with the skills you currently have.
Don't know if you read the article in the scotsman about this course at abertay, did you? It was saying how if they renamed it as to what it really is "systems development for realtime systems" then he wouldn't get nearly as many students taking it. It does look a good course, I considered it when I left school but opted for computer science at strathclyde.
To quote Professor Peter Martin, he says "Because these systems are so complex, you cannot get
bogged down in the detail of what is in each individual box. If
you spend all you time worrying about how a chip or a card
works, youíll never be able to put together the components
that go into creating the big system."
I can kind of see what he means but having spoken to people I know who have graduated and gone into game development they heavily disagree. Nowadays most game developers have to firstly want to do it (starting salary isn't that high) and also have a good knowledge of assembler language, good programming abilities, and also a knowledge of hardware and architecture used in processors and such like. This is one place that I felt abertay lacked, the hardware side of things. Now I could be wrong and I would like to here your views on abertay and your course if you have the time bonus. Cheers.
To quote Professor Peter Martin, he says "Because these systems are so complex, you cannot get
bogged down in the detail of what is in each individual box. If
you spend all you time worrying about how a chip or a card
works, youíll never be able to put together the components
that go into creating the big system."
I can kind of see what he means but having spoken to people I know who have graduated and gone into game development they heavily disagree. Nowadays most game developers have to firstly want to do it (starting salary isn't that high) and also have a good knowledge of assembler language, good programming abilities, and also a knowledge of hardware and architecture used in processors and such like. This is one place that I felt abertay lacked, the hardware side of things. Now I could be wrong and I would like to here your views on abertay and your course if you have the time bonus. Cheers.
I respect games devlopers, but no more than I do my friend who works 50 hours a week to feed his family... and no more than I do a Royal Marine who will give his life for his country!
But still... not a bad post for a Scotsman - Especially with a nickname like yours! :D
But still... not a bad post for a Scotsman - Especially with a nickname like yours! :D
Great Saiyaman wrote:
> Hey Bonus, what qualifications do you need to take a degree in Computer Games
> Technology? Just curious.
www.abertay.ac.uk, has full course entry details.
> Hey Bonus, what qualifications do you need to take a degree in Computer Games
> Technology? Just curious.
www.abertay.ac.uk, has full course entry details.
Strafex wrote:
> So Bonus, there'll be no more calling the PS2 devellopers lazy now... :-)
Yes there will be, because trying and failing isn't really an option. People such as 3DO who release endless Army Men games deserve to be ridiculed and laughed at by everyone. There is also a precedent on the Ps2 where rom small developers are getting it very much right. Just take a look at the example being set by DMA design, Free Radical Design, KOEI and Revolution to name just a few. All of those companies have had massive hits on the PS2. None of their games have been heralded as the best looking things ever, because their budget and publisher pressure hampers the amount of development time a company has on a game, making thier job even more difficult.
I may not have said it very clearly, as you can see from the replies, but what I meant by this topic was for people not to overlook good games by small developers in favour of the big corporations such as Sony, Nintendo, EA, Square etc, but to take notice of the little guy, if they have something to offer. The success of games such as Grand Theft Auto, from a relatively tiny developer, is proof that the little guys can cut it at the top.
> So Bonus, there'll be no more calling the PS2 devellopers lazy now... :-)
Yes there will be, because trying and failing isn't really an option. People such as 3DO who release endless Army Men games deserve to be ridiculed and laughed at by everyone. There is also a precedent on the Ps2 where rom small developers are getting it very much right. Just take a look at the example being set by DMA design, Free Radical Design, KOEI and Revolution to name just a few. All of those companies have had massive hits on the PS2. None of their games have been heralded as the best looking things ever, because their budget and publisher pressure hampers the amount of development time a company has on a game, making thier job even more difficult.
I may not have said it very clearly, as you can see from the replies, but what I meant by this topic was for people not to overlook good games by small developers in favour of the big corporations such as Sony, Nintendo, EA, Square etc, but to take notice of the little guy, if they have something to offer. The success of games such as Grand Theft Auto, from a relatively tiny developer, is proof that the little guys can cut it at the top.
So Bonus, there'll be no more calling the PS2 devellopers lazy now... :-)
I made a sort of card game on Visual Basic the other day.
The cards were rectangular blocks, there was a bit of text, the Exit button and score's.
It was complex and let me tell you about visual basic:
It has no faffing around with making graphics, you draw the the shapes, and position the text like you would on word.
Yet I spent over an hour debugging it trying to sort out all the flaws and glitches in the code.
Even after that, the code is probably still very inefficient.
And games don't get simpler than this one.
You simply pick one of three red cards by clicking on the appropiate rectangle after typing how much you want to bet.
Then if you pick the right one it turns blue and the bet is added to your score, if you get it wrong then the card goes yellow and you lose the amount you placed as a bet.
You can still crash it by typing words instead of numbers where the bet should go...
I also cheated slightly. Instead of randomly choosing which card is the winner, the program is designed to randomly decide whether you won or not.
Still, everyone has to start somewhere...
I made a sort of card game on Visual Basic the other day.
The cards were rectangular blocks, there was a bit of text, the Exit button and score's.
It was complex and let me tell you about visual basic:
It has no faffing around with making graphics, you draw the the shapes, and position the text like you would on word.
Yet I spent over an hour debugging it trying to sort out all the flaws and glitches in the code.
Even after that, the code is probably still very inefficient.
And games don't get simpler than this one.
You simply pick one of three red cards by clicking on the appropiate rectangle after typing how much you want to bet.
Then if you pick the right one it turns blue and the bet is added to your score, if you get it wrong then the card goes yellow and you lose the amount you placed as a bet.
You can still crash it by typing words instead of numbers where the bet should go...
I also cheated slightly. Instead of randomly choosing which card is the winner, the program is designed to randomly decide whether you won or not.
Still, everyone has to start somewhere...
Page: