After working for so many years at Bungie, O'Donnell said he wants the new company to "stay small."

"There's a thing that happens when the stakes get higher and higher," he said. "Budgets go through the roof and the teams go from small, intimate teams to multiple hundreds of people. We've been there and done that. We don't have any desire to do that again."

I have figured as much. This only adds to what I have already written. If anything the content in the article gives an idea of what has occurred with in Bungie.

After working for so many years at Bungie, O'Donnell said he wants the new company to "stay small."

"There's a thing that happens when the stakes get higher and higher," he said. "Budgets go through the roof and the teams go from small, intimate teams to multiple hundreds of people. We've been there and done that. We don't have any desire to do that again."

I hate to be negative, but this means that their games aren't going to be cutting edge, won't push the medium forward, and will probably just be forgotten. I'm sorry, but all the coolest things about video games take more money and more people to make better.

I'm kind of disappointed that this is the company attitude :-(

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

For every small dev like The Behemoth who does fantastic games with a small team, there are dozens who create crap games or mediocre games that are basically forgotten. Dozens is actually underestimating it probably.

With the right people, and I think they can get the right people, they may be a Twisted Pixel or something, but the odds are against them.

I think they have a much better chance considering who they are, and what kind of stuff they have made with small teams in the past, and I sincerely hope they make it and become a well regarded indie studio, but, again, just due to odds they will probably put out small, forgettable titles.

Then again, they may make the next Fez. Who knows?

And intellectual property ownership, maybe.

Like, there are crap games out there. Your ratio of dozens of bad ones to every good one is probably off by a magnitude of a thousand or so.

But unless I'm indiscriminately buying stuff, why do I care? It sucks for discovery, but discovery can be fixed.

Cutting Edge game design rarely requires cutting edge tech tech.

Cutting Edge game design rarely requires cutting edge tech tech.

Are you kidding? It almost always does.

Procedurally generated games like Minecraft, or games with a new, weird mechanic, like Fez, didn't need cutting edge tech. Prey did it with a big budget and it blew.

In general, you're right though.

Cody I'm surprised to see you take this attitude of bigger is always better given your stance about Destiny and how it needs to be fixed. It was made by a pretty large group.

While it can be good, bigger is not always better. There often comes a point of diminishing returns to such things. While all organizations develop group think, an attitude of our-shit-don't-stink-ignore-that-pile-in-the-corner, large groups are especially vulnerable to such thinking in whole or in part and the larger an organization the easier it is to ignore small voices of reason or dissent. (or strangely, having so many voices of dissent that the group winds up not making a good decision at all.) There are ways to prevent such things but it usually involves dividing the larger whole into smaller parts--sort of like starting a small company or something.

Are you just talking about graphics? Then sure, pushing more graphics generally requires more programmers and artists. But what about gameplay? Or Story? I think a small studio can easily compete with a AAA budget game in those areas. Heck, just look at Destiny, with its huge team and budget and development time vs even Halo which had better missions and a better narrative!

Cody I'm surprised to see you take this attitude of bigger is always better given your stance about Destiny and how it needs to be fixed. It was made by a pretty large group.

While it can be good, bigger is not always better. There often comes a point of diminishing returns to such things. While all organizations develop group think, an attitude of our-shit-don't-stink-ignore-that-pile-in-the-corner, large groups are especially vulnerable to such thinking in whole or in part and the larger an organization the easier it is to ignore small voices of reason or dissent. (or strangely, having so many voices of dissent that the group winds up not making a good decision at all.) There are ways to prevent such things but it usually involves dividing the larger whole into smaller parts--sort of like starting a small company or something.

All of that does not counter the point I make. You just need a good person with a creative drive, as well as the ability to manage a large group of people. Your inability to do that doesn't make it any less of a truth that making cutting edge games simply requires more and more resources and people as time goes on.

Procedurally generated games like Minecraft, or games with a new, weird mechanic, like Fez, didn't need cutting edge tech. Prey did it with a big budget and it blew.

So what? By the way, Fez was horrid. Big budget does not automatically mean good, but small budget necessarily limits you pretty significantly.

In general, you're right though.

Thanks.

Are you just talking about graphics? Then sure, pushing more graphics generally requires more programmers and artists. But what about gameplay? Or Story? I think a small studio can easily compete with a AAA budget game in those areas. Heck, just look at Destiny, with its huge team and budget and development time vs even Halo which had better missions and a better narrative!

It's the whole package. Take story. You need to write it, cast it, record it, mocap it, etc. As far as 'gameplay' goes, that covers so much such as level design, animations for bad guys etc. All of this is complex and expensive.

I think you're jumping in to defend something that doesn't need defending while largely ignoring what Cody actually said.

Are the odds against a new, unproven game studio? Of course! And that's true regardless of their budget or team size! But Cody more or less wrote off a new, unproven studio that's less than a week old and has yet to announce any titles simply because they believe in being small! And he's doing so based on a quote from someone who has a ton of experience in the gaming industry. That's something quite different than talking about the ratio of good / memorable small games vs good / memorable big games made each year. And I think Cody absolutely deserves push back on what he actually said.

Consider these two questions:
1. Can a "cutting edge" game be made by a small team with a small budget?
2. Can a memorable game be made by a small team with a small budget?

If yes, then it seems way too early for anyone to be disappointed in Highwire Studios.

Procedurally generated games like Minecraft, or games with a new, weird mechanic, like Fez, didn't need cutting edge tech. Prey did it with a big budget and it blew.

So what? By the way, Fez was horrid. Big budget does not automatically mean good, but small budget necessarily limits you pretty significantly.

Once again, opinion, not fact.

Procedurally generated games like Minecraft, or games with a new, weird mechanic, like Fez, didn't need cutting edge tech. Prey did it with a big budget and it blew.

So what? By the way, Fez was horrid.

No. Fez kicked ass. It was like a new take on Super Mario 64!

Consider these two questions:
1. Can a "cutting edge" game be made by a small team with a small budget?
2. Can a memorable game be made by a small team with a small budget?

If yes, then it seems way too early for anyone to be disappointed in Highwire Studios.

Bookmark this thread. Return in 3 years. I will be 100% correct. I will wager significant sums of money on this.

Cutting edge stuff is generally only done by a small group working on that particular part. In my company, 3-4 people design something, and 4-5 people work on it. We make cutting edge stuff, for our industry. I don't believe large groups are a requirement at all.

Example: Minerva, the mod for Half-Life 2. Cool story, very influenced by Marathon and Halo in its presentation. A snarky AI talks to you only in text and it was great. I think a text overlay of Durandal giving you new story things when you hit a checkpoint would be swell. Voice acting? No problem. Bad guys are aliens. You're Gordon Freeman style dumb, and the AI is text.

A game like that would be great at a $30 price point.

Procedurally generated games like Minecraft, or games with a new, weird mechanic, like Fez, didn't need cutting edge tech. Prey did it with a big budget and it blew.

So what? By the way, Fez was horrid. Big budget does not automatically mean good, but small budget necessarily limits you pretty significantly.

Fez was an amazingly fun and fresh take on a platformer. I thought it was an exceptional game.

I think two of the hardest things to get right about a game is a) the game's tone, and b) the game mechanics.

O'Donnell and Griesemer have to talent between them to nail those two things, and I wish them the best.

The result is that Cody's probably right. I wasn't really defending him or his disappointment at this point, just that his prognosis seems accurate.

Cutting edge stuff is generally only done by a small group working on that particular part. In my company, 3-4 people design something, and 4-5 people work on it. We make cutting edge stuff, for our industry. I don't believe large groups are a requirement at all.

Right. Old games used to have but ONE programmer. Now, you have small teams devoted to each individual aspect of programming. You have AI programmers, graphics programmer, network programmers, etc. More and more people. Games are hugely complex and require lots of different areas of expertise.

So, you now need multiple teams of multiple people where you used to need one.

Your inability to do that doesn't make it any less of a truth that making cutting edge games simply requires more and more resources and people as time goes on.

NO!

This is NOT a truth, for the reasons the article outlines: as tech and tools get better, fewer people can create more and more in less and less time.

What part of this don't you understand?

- No text -

I think you're jumping in to defend something that doesn't need defending while largely ignoring what Cody actually said.

Are the odds against a new, unproven game studio? Of course! And that's true regardless of their budget or team size! But Cody more or less wrote off a new, unproven studio that's less than a week old and has yet to announce any titles simply because they believe in being small! And he's doing so based on a quote from someone who has a ton of experience in the gaming industry. That's something quite different than talking about the ratio of good / memorable small games vs good / memorable big games made each year. And I think Cody absolutely deserves push back on what he actually said.

Consider these two questions:
1. Can a "cutting edge" game be made by a small team with a small budget?
2. Can a memorable game be made by a small team with a small budget?

If yes, then it seems way too early for anyone to be disappointed in Highwire Studios.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but I think it's also understandable to carry over past experiences and preferences.

I was also disappointed to hear that Highwire Games would be staying small... not because I don't believe they're capable of doing amazing things, but because smaller games from smaller studios almost never appeal to me personally.

I find that with smaller teams, the most I can usually hope for is a small set of simple mechanics that are refined and well implemented, that are fun for a few minutes. The kind of games that make me go "oh, that's cool" and then I put it down and never think about it again. Even more often than that, I find smaller games tend to incorporate fun and exciting ideas, but lack the kind of finesse and polish that I personally need from a game in order to find it enjoyable.

For all the faults of big-budget AAA games, I find games like Destiny, AC 4, Titanfall, or Halo to be far more "revolutionary" in terms of the kinds of experiences they allow, and the mechanical intricacy that they can deliver. For every Journey out there, I've played a dozen AAA games that delivered experiences I wouldn't trade for anything.

But of course, this is 99% just personal preferences. I'm just talking about what clicks with me. Either way, I can't wait to see what Marty and co. have up their sleeves :)

You said CUTTING EDGE, not a full game. I stated how CUTTING EDGE features can be made by a few people.

Note that Indie games come out that are made by a few people and they have some cool features.

...that attitude can result in what you are saying, but it doesn't have to. In order to have hundreds of guys working on the game you have to have it close to "solved problem" status, and it's all about execution. The smaller teams also have to worry about execution, but they are required to be more creative because of their limitations.

A recent reference that comes to mind is crash bandicoot on PS1. It wasn't a large team that figured out some serious problems: http://www.quora.com/How-did-game-developers-pack-entire-games-into-so-little-memory-twenty-five-years-ago/answer/Dav...

And a further back reference, I now feel old for thinking it was "a few years ago"... the first blurb and section on restrictions with the magic the gathering color pie. http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr85

...and apparently missed the discussion between actually working and finding the 2003 article. heh.

Your inability to do that doesn't make it any less of a truth that making cutting edge games simply requires more and more resources and people as time goes on.

NO!

This is NOT a truth, for the reasons the article outlines: as tech and tools get better, fewer people can create more and more in less and less time.

What part of this don't you understand?

It's RELATIVE. Anybody can shit out a Mario clone nowadays, but back then it was cutting edge. So yes, the tools are better, but a bigger budget studio with more money and people with those same tools is going to blow the pants off 3 guys making an indie game.

Show me where a Destiny or a Fallout 4 or a Farcry type game is coming from a small studio.

Considered cutting edge game in development right now, studio size: 10 people.

No Man's Sky

I give Fez all the credit in the world... I think it is a brilliantly well designed game. But to Cody's point about budget effecting what is possible, I couldn't stand playing Fez because of the visuals. This is in no way a "fault" of the game, just a personal preference. But a think it is fair to say that smaller games often feature a "retro" art style, because it is manageable for a smaller team. If you only have 1 or 2 artists on the team, pixel art is one of the few visual styles that is realistically achievable. On top of that, pixel art is particularly trendy right now. So right off the bat, I have a tough time enjoying the majority of smaller games because so many of them (Fez included) are portrayed in a way that I don't enjoy.

Considered cutting edge game in development right now, studio size: 10 people.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man's_Sky]No Man's Sky[/link]

It's procedurally generated. Automatically shit. I promise you with all my heart it won't stand up to a Farcry game in terms of meaningful exploration.

- No text -

Kerbal Space Program is a better game than Destiny.

Considered cutting edge game in development right now, studio size: 10 people.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man's_Sky]No Man's Sky[/link]

It's procedurally generated. Automatically shit.

Minecraft is procedurally generated, and it's the most successful PC game OF ALL TIME.

Kerbal Space Program is a better game than Destiny.

How is that comparable? They are doing two completely different things. And if you had 200 million dollars to make a AAA version Kerbal space program, it would blow the pants off it!

Considered cutting edge game in development right now, studio size: 10 people.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man's_Sky]No Man's Sky[/link]

It's procedurally generated. Automatically shit.

Minecraft is procedurally generated, and it's the most successful PC game OF ALL TIME.

And Avatar is the most successful film of all time. But is the the best?

Kerbal Space Program is a better game than Destiny.

FTL was a better game than Destiny too.

Considered cutting edge game in development right now, studio size: 10 people.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man's_Sky]No Man's Sky[/link]

It's procedurally generated. Automatically shit.

Minecraft is procedurally generated, and it's the most successful PC game OF ALL TIME.

And Avatar is the most successful film of all time. But is the the best?

Avatar also had one of the biggest budgets of all time. Is it the best?

Considered cutting edge game in development right now, studio size: 10 people.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man's_Sky]No Man's Sky[/link]

It's procedurally generated. Automatically shit.

Minecraft is procedurally generated, and it's the most successful PC game OF ALL TIME.

And Avatar is the most successful film of all time. But is the the best?

Avatar also had one of the biggest budgets of all time. Is it the best?

Cutting Edge game design rarely requires cutting edge tech tech.

Are you kidding? It almost always does.

It's pretty hard for me to think of a majorly influential game PC/Console game in the last 10 years that has had new game design really pushed forward by new tech.

Maybe EVE online and it's crazy server infrastructure, or Dark/Demons mingle player systems? Maybe the open world games, but that's a stretch, as we've seen open world games for years. Other than that, the most influential games have relied on fairly plebian, well known technology; Minecraft, Dota, Braid, World of Warcraft. The dominant themes of the last 5 years really has been procedural content, and user creativity. The kind of things you don't need a huge technical team to support.

Technology does influence design when we hit a paradigm shift. Like in the move from 2D to 3D.

There is one piece of technology that has most influenced game design in 10 years? It's not a super fast processor, or better internet, or amazing GPUs.

it's a touch screen.

You know who's led that revolution? Small teams, small budgets, etc.

Maybe VR will change that, it's certainly a paradigm shift on a high level, but we'll have to see. VR is expensive, and puts a high burden on players.

Kerbal Space Program is a better game than Destiny.

FTL was a better game than Destiny too.

and it cost half of one of Destiny's "expansions".

I largely agree. I generally dislike the pixel art trend no matter the reasons it is trending. To often I think it is done because more advanced graphics are not doable or to be trendy. Like, I'd love to see FTL: Faster Than Light done with detailed ship renderings instead of it's Sega genesis look. But sometimes pixel art can be amazing. Take Superbrothers Sword & Sworcery or Alto's Adventure, for example.

You said CUTTING EDGE, not a full game. I stated how CUTTING EDGE features can be made by a few people.

Note that Indie games come out that are made by a few people and they have some cool features.

I totally agree with this, but I would add that most of the smaller games that ship with 1 or 2 cool (even groundbreaking) features are usually rough, generally lacking in polish, and often filled with poor design choices.

My favorite recent example is Super Time Force. A game that got nothing but love from the press because of its novel "rewind" mechanic and retro "charm" (don't get me started on that point lol). Yet when you look past those points, it is what I consider to be a fairly poor side-scrolling shooter. The shooter mechanics and movement lack the precision that make those kinds of games enjoyable for me. Not only that, but the primary "rewind" mechanic actually removes all sense of personal progression or improvement. You don't need to get better to clear a level, you just need to fail over and over and over until their are enough "copies" of your character running around to clear the level or beat the boss.

This is just 1 example, but I feel it is fairly representative of the state of smaller games these days.

Kerbal Space Program is a better game than Destiny.

How is that comparable? They are doing two completely different things. And if you had 200 million dollars to make a AAA version Kerbal space program, it would blow the pants off it!

Now you're changing your argument. You're original argument was that small game companies couldn't make cutting edge games, not that the same game by a big company would be better.

Considered cutting edge game in development right now, studio size: 10 people.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man's_Sky]No Man's Sky[/link]

It's procedurally generated. Automatically shit.

Minecraft is procedurally generated, and it's the most successful PC game OF ALL TIME.

And Avatar is the most successful film of all time. But is the the best?

Avatar also had one of the biggest budgets of all time. Is it the best?

Films and Video games work differently. Increasing the complexity of a video game requires more money. You need bigger and more detailed environments. You need better AI, etc. You don't need to up the complexity to make a good film. You just need a great idea.

Considered cutting edge game in development right now, studio size: 10 people.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man's_Sky]No Man's Sky[/link]

It's procedurally generated. Automatically shit.

Minecraft is procedurally generated, and it's the most successful PC game OF ALL TIME.

And Avatar is the most successful film of all time. But is the the best?

Avatar also had one of the biggest budgets of all time. Is it the best?

Films and Video games work differently. Increasing the complexity of a video game requires more money. You need bigger and more detailed environments. You need better AI, etc. You don't need to up the complexity to make a good film.

Then why did you bring Film up?

Kerbal Space Program is a better game than Destiny.

How is that comparable? They are doing two completely different things. And if you had 200 million dollars to make a AAA version Kerbal space program, it would blow the pants off it!

Now you're changing your argument. You're original argument was that small game companies couldn't make cutting edge games, not that the same game by a big company would be better.

I am willing to be wrong if an example can be shown.

Someone please point me to a game made by a small team (in the last 10 years, since all games back in the day were small teams) that broke new ground and was hugely influential for games moving forward (in a positive way of course).

Considered cutting edge game in development right now, studio size: 10 people.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man's_Sky]No Man's Sky[/link]

It's procedurally generated. Automatically shit.

Minecraft is procedurally generated, and it's the most successful PC game OF ALL TIME.

And Avatar is the most successful film of all time. But is the the best?

Avatar also had one of the biggest budgets of all time. Is it the best?

Films and Video games work differently. Increasing the complexity of a video game requires more money. You need bigger and more detailed environments. You need better AI, etc. You don't need to up the complexity to make a good film.

Then why did you bring Film up?

Because success does not always equal quality.

Kerbal Space Program is a better game than Destiny.

FTL was a better game than Destiny too.

FTL is first and foremost a different genre, so you can't compare. Second, FTL is extremely crude, whereas Destiny is hugely detailed and super immersive when you are in the world. Nobody marveled at the skyboxes in FTL.

Kerbal Space Program is a better game than Destiny.

How is that comparable? They are doing two completely different things. And if you had 200 million dollars to make a AAA version Kerbal space program, it would blow the pants off it!

I don't think you could make Kerbal Space Program with 200 million dollars. You couldn't take basic risks required to make KSP if you had that much investment.

I agree that they're (mostly) doing different things, but in a way that's important. KSP engages you because you feel like you're learning new skills and coming to understand the way the universe works. Destiny engages you with a tight psychological loop based on the possibility of rewards. When you're done with a session of KSP, you have new skills and stories to tell your friends. When you're done with Destiny (raids and crucible, which do involve overcoming challenge, excepted) you mostly have new loot — although of course I think you're on the same page as me on this.

KSP does share one thing with Destiny: it wants to create a sense of wonder, exploration, hope, and awe. KSP is certainly way more successful at that! And what you do in KSP, on a moment-by-moment basis, feels like it's part of that story of exploration in a way Destiny usually doesn't.

Destiny has better marketing and a better psychological design for keeping players playing. But Destiny wants to have something KSP already has: the ability for a player to say 'look at that amazing place, how can I get there?', set a goal, work at it, and walk away not just with a great story but with the sense that they've contributed something to an ongoing work.

Part of that is the basic fact that creating new content for Destiny is way, way more expensive than for KSP.

Considered cutting edge game in development right now, studio size: 10 people.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man's_Sky]No Man's Sky[/link]

It's procedurally generated. Automatically shit.

Minecraft is procedurally generated, and it's the most successful PC game OF ALL TIME.

And Avatar is the most successful film of all time. But is the the best?

Avatar also had one of the biggest budgets of all time. Is it the best?

Films and Video games work differently. Increasing the complexity of a video game requires more money. You need bigger and more detailed environments. You need better AI, etc. You don't need to up the complexity to make a good film. You just need a great idea.

Since when does more complexity and bigger environments equal a better game? You've told me yourself that you think Skyrim is terrible.

Someone please point me to a game made by a small team (in the last 10 years, since all games back in the day were small teams) that broke new ground and was hugely influential for games moving forward (in a positive way of course).

Ah but see, you have given yourself all the power and all of us who disagree none. Several people have named games that were revolutionary, and good games to them (along with millions of others that agree). The fact that you dismissed Minecraft alone proves your bias.

Kerbal Space Program is a better game than Destiny.

FTL was a better game than Destiny too.

FTL is first and foremost a different genre, so you can't compare. Second, FTL is extremely crude, whereas Destiny is hugely detailed and super immersive when you are in the world. Nobody marveled at the skyboxes in FTL.

I thought FTL was more fun.

There is one piece of technology that has most influenced game design in 10 years? It's not a super fast processor, or better internet, or amazing GPUs.

it's a touch screen.

You know who's led that revolution? Small teams, small budgets, etc.

Not for the better. The touch screen sucks for serious gaming. All it's done is flood the market with casual games that are lacking.

Polish is the whole thing and generally has to do with more than the lack of people. But lack of testing, lack of other opinions, etc. Those are normally more often in bigger groups because business wants resources moving to the NEXT thing.

I largely agree. I generally dislike the pixel art trend no matter the reasons it is trending. To often I think it is done because more advanced graphics are not doable or to be trendy. Like, I'd love to see FTL: Faster Than Light done with detailed ship renderings instead of it's Sega genesis look. But sometimes pixel art can be amazing. Take Superbrothers Sword & Sworcery or Alto's Adventure, for example.

I totally believe some Pixel art is wonderfully well done, but I just can't stand the sight of it. It's strange; I grew up playing those games, but they have no nostalgic pull for me. I was always a fan of watching games grow and get better. I've always felt that games have gotten measurably better over time. I think there is a reason most of us don't go back and play "classic" games very often; they aren't as good in hindsight as they were at the time. Newer games have come along and blown them out of the water.

Games in the 80s didn't look like that by choice, it was the only way games could look. For me, there is just no appeal in going back to such a limiting art style. I guess the best comparison I can make is this: I tried to get my mom to watch Mad Men, because I think it is a generally well written show and I thought she's enjoy it. After she watched a couple episodes, she said to me "you know, I can tell its a great show, but I don't want to watch it". When I asked her why, she said "well, I grew up around people like that in the 50s and 60s. Revisiting those people and that time is not something I want to do... I'm glad I'm not around people like that anymore".

Does that make sense?

Kerbal Space Program is a better game than Destiny.

How is that comparable? They are doing two completely different things. And if you had 200 million dollars to make a AAA version Kerbal space program, it would blow the pants off it!

Yes! That is assuming they could wrangle the team & project. An advantage of a smaller teams & projects is that it is easier to gauge how much work needs to be done and how long it will take to do it. It would be sad to see them develop an amazing AAA version and then have to cut huge swaths of it in order to ship & end up with a smaller less vast game that looks way way way better, but is missing elements.

Ohh man, this year was amazing for mobile.

Hoplite
868-Hack
Helix
80 Days
Dream Quest
HearthStone
Crossy Road
Sunburn
Stellar Smooch
Threes

So many beautiful mobile games this year I can't even take it.

Edit: FWIW you not liking mobile games doesn't actually detract from my core argument, that we've seen the most important changes in game design come not through bleeding edge tech.

I've been playing it on the bus, and it's pretty great.

Polish is the whole thing and generally has to do with more than the lack of people. But lack of testing, lack of other opinions, etc. Those are normally more often in bigger groups because business wants resources moving to the NEXT thing.

Well there is definitely a problematic trend with AAA games being shoved out the door before they're ready. No doubt about that. But even in some of the worst case AAA scenarios. let's take AC Unity as an example, there is still a level of general polish to most of the game that very few smaller games ever match. Nightmarish faceless characters and frame rate issues aside, the simple act of moving your character around in a game like Unity just feels great. The complexity of the animations, the range of abilities and movement... it's a joy to experience.

Games are a very symbiotic medium. They need that creative and ingenious spark at their core, and they also need to be well oiled, incredibly complex machines. 1 side of that equation requires creative talent and vision, the other side requires lots of money to throw at every problem that comes up. At their best, AAA games deliver on both fronts. Once every few years, we get a smaller game that transcends its own limitations and becomes something truly special. But I think those are exceptionally rare cases.

I've been playing it on the bus, and it's pretty great.

It's on my list! I've been addicted to Eliss recently, it's not new, but it's great.

Money = Resources. So when you say money to throw at the problem, that means more people. And it's a Problem, not a NEW CUTTING EDGE feature (yes they can be the same).

Agreed though AAA has 3 people working on a damn finger. But we are not talking about Polish, we are talking about cool new features.

A big budget only means you get better graphics and movie-tie-in-themed games. It does not equate to stronger narrative or gameplay.

Check out Save the Date, Papers, Please!, and The Swapper for some awesome indy games from the past year.

- No text -

- No text -

A big budget only means you get better graphics and movie-tie-in-themed games. It does not equate to stronger narrative or gameplay.

Check out Save the Date, Papers, Please!, and The Swapper for some awesome indy games from the past year.

Can't speak for the other 2, but Papers please was also pretty dismal. I think I went over why a while ago here. How much cooler would it have been, if it had an LA Noire style questioning of the travelers, where you could actually see their emotions?

Money = Resources. So when you say money to throw at the problem, that means more people. And it's a Problem, not a NEW CUTTING EDGE feature (yes they can be the same).

Agreed though AAA has 3 people working on a damn finger. But we are not talking about Polish, we are talking about cool new features.

Sure, point taken. I think to me, I keep coming back to polish because a cool new feature is not enough on its own to make a game enjoyable for me personally. If a game has an ingenious new mechanic, but controls poorly, I won't have fun with it. So while smaller games are often filled with creative and novel ideas, I find they usually lack the polish they need for me to enjoy them.

That looks cool!

Films and Video games work differently. Increasing the complexity of a video game requires more money. You need bigger and more detailed environments. You need better AI, etc. You don't need to up the complexity to make a good film. You just need a great idea.

Since when does more complexity and bigger environments equal a better game? You've told me yourself that you think Skyrim is terrible.

Again, you have to do it right. You're creating an immersive experience that you want players to feel at home in. That means more complexity to the simulation. More detail. Etc.

I think maybe the comparison to films is not as bad as I first thought. If you look at old science fiction films, they tend to be laughable with terrible costumes and sets. Modern sci fi films have the budgets to make the world feel real. That's not to say they are automatically better, but they are a hell of a lot more immersive when you believe what you are seeing is actually real and not just a guy in a costume or a matte painting.

Can you imagine if Game of Thrones skimped on the budget? The locations, costumes, stunts, and all of that are not cheap, but it makes the world they are creating feel completely real.

You can work around this by setting your film in modern day anytown, because not all stories need a foreign world that needs to come to life. Not all video games really do either, but if your game is 3D or has a narrative, then that will all significantly enhance it.

Ohh man, this year was amazing for mobile.

Hoplite
868-Hack
Helix
80 Days
Dream Quest
HearthStone
Crossy Road
Sunburn
Stellar Smooch
Threes

So many beautiful mobile games this year I can't even take it.

This is sort of a tangent, but having just gotten an iPhone I was looking for good mobile games. I found exactly one worth buying: Device 6. Literally everything else I saw was either dumb, or better played on a non mobile device. Some of what you listed I'm not familiar with, so thanks for the list.

But again, why play a game on a tiny screen when I can play it on a 50 inch TV in surround sound?

Ohh man, this year was amazing for mobile.

Hoplite
868-Hack
Helix
80 Days
Dream Quest
HearthStone
Crossy Road
Sunburn
Stellar Smooch
Threes

So many beautiful mobile games this year I can't even take it.

This is sort of a tangent, but having just gotten an iPhone I was looking for good mobile games. I found exactly one worth buying: Device 6. Literally everything else I saw was either dumb, or better played on a non mobile device. Some of what you listed I'm not familiar with, so thanks for the list.

But again, why play a game on a tiny screen when I can play it on a 50 inch TV in surround sound?

Because you're on a bus/plane/train, or the power went out.

Certainly understandable. But you are also somewhat equating polish to controls. The feature itself could not be polished and still be good.

But again, being small doesn't mean this will happen. Talent has a lot to do with it.

Big budget means a greater chance to be innovative etc. I think that is being used here. Of course the chance is better when you have more money, I have a better chance to get laid too if I had more money. Doesn't mean I will. I also get laid without money enough (not really). Chance does not mean it happens (just take Destiny for example)

Big budget means a greater chance to be innovative etc.

It's the opposite, actually. The bigger the investment, the more safe/familiar big publishers want projects to be.

What types of games are funded through kickstarter? RETRO GAMES. The ones that take zero risks. Here is an avenue that completely removes publishers and expectations of profit, yet zero 'innovative' games came from this. There's a lot of retro games though, that would be in place 10 to 15 years ago however.

The big budget stuff is generally what drives innovation. It may not seem that way, since for every innovative game there are 100 play it safe copycats.

Less CHANCES/RISKS. yes innovation can be a risk, but they still need to innovate. Just look at the latest COD's (not innovative but innovate for COD).

Also you are talking about Publishers want to reduce the risk. The developers are generally ok (naturally everyone wants to still have a job after)

Ohh man, this year was amazing for mobile.

Hoplite
868-Hack
Helix
80 Days
Dream Quest
HearthStone
Crossy Road
Sunburn
Stellar Smooch
Threes

So many beautiful mobile games this year I can't even take it.

This is sort of a tangent, but having just gotten an iPhone I was looking for good mobile games. I found exactly one worth buying: Device 6. Literally everything else I saw was either dumb, or better played on a non mobile device. Some of what you listed I'm not familiar with, so thanks for the list.

But again, why play a game on a tiny screen when I can play it on a 50 inch TV in surround sound?

Some of this is tablet focused too. But yea, stuff like Helix wouldn't work without it. A lot of it is small bite stuff, where I want to click a button and play for a while, I don't want to sit and wait for hours. Some of it is nicer to use touch than a mouse (Hearthstone, and some other ports like FTL). It's great for multiplayer to just whip out my ipad and grab a friend to play some Glitch Tank or Soccer Physics, and if they have a smartphone something like the oh so amazing SpaceTeam.

Also, there's this design thing where limits lead to innovation. Soccer Physics is a game that needs two buttons. It's perfect for mobile, and it's the kind of design you make when you say "What is the best thing I can do with the limits of what I have." In my experience, if you put 100 game designers in a room, 50 with no limits and 50 with limits, you'll get much more interesting design out of the limited team.

Big budget means a greater chance to be innovative etc. I think that is being used here. Of course the chance is better when you have more money, I have a better chance to get laid too if I had more money. Doesn't mean I will. I also get laid without money enough (not really). Chance does not mean it happens (just take Destiny for example)

I would argue that Destiny is extremely innovative. It has plenty of faults, sure, but I don't think there is another game out there that delivers this kind of experience.

What types of games are funded through kickstarter? RETRO GAMES. The ones that take zero risks. Here is an avenue that completely removes publishers and expectations of profit, yet zero 'innovative' games came from this. There's a lot of retro games though, that would be in place 10 to 15 years ago however.

The big budget stuff is generally what drives innovation. It may not seem that way, since for every innovative game there are 100 play it safe copycats.

If you think making "Retro" games doesn't carry big risks, you're sorely mistaken. The main reason kickstarter games exist is because publishers reject funding them. I guarantee you Tim Schafer shopped Broken Age around everywhere else before going to kickstarter, and it was rejected because it was too risky from a financial standpoint.

Big budget means a greater chance to be innovative etc.

It's the opposite, actually. The bigger the investment, the more safe/familiar big publishers want projects to be.

I think there are different levels to talk about "innovation" when it comes to games. With AAA titles, we see lots of "safe bets" when you look at the high-level pitch. Lots of "white male action here who saves the world from aliens", for example. Smaller titles are way more likely to dive into new ground when it comes to narrative or thematic content. No doubt about it.

But when it comes to gameplay mechanics and stuff along those lines, I rarely see smaller games break new ground. AAA games seem to make more advancements in those departments on a regular basis.

Big budget means a greater chance to be innovative etc.

It's the opposite, actually. The bigger the investment, the more safe/familiar big publishers want projects to be.

I think there are different levels to talk about "innovation" when it comes to games. With AAA titles, we see lots of "safe bets" when you look at the high-level pitch. Lots of "white male action here who saves the world from aliens", for example. Smaller titles are way more likely to dive into new ground when it comes to narrative or thematic content. No doubt about it.

But when it comes to gameplay mechanics and stuff along those lines, I rarely see smaller games break new ground. AAA games seem to make more advancements in those departments on a regular basis.

Fair point. That's why Shadow of Mordor is so incredibly amazing, after all :P

What types of games are funded through kickstarter? RETRO GAMES. The ones that take zero risks. Here is an avenue that completely removes publishers and expectations of profit, yet zero 'innovative' games came from this. There's a lot of retro games though, that would be in place 10 to 15 years ago however.

The big budget stuff is generally what drives innovation. It may not seem that way, since for every innovative game there are 100 play it safe copycats.

If you think making "Retro" games doesn't carry big risks, you're sorely mistaken. The main reason kickstarter games exist is because publishers reject funding them. I guarantee you Tim Schafer shopped Broken Age around everywhere else before going to kickstarter, and it was rejected because it was too risky from a financial standpoint.

That's probably true, because adventure games don't sell like they used to. But my point, is that these kickstarter games are not innovative. They all are retreading old ground. Your argument that small studios innovate more because the publishers aren't in control is wrong, as demonstrated by kickstarter's complete lack of industry driving innovation.

Are you just talking about graphics? Then sure, pushing more graphics generally requires more programmers and artists. But what about gameplay? Or Story? I think a small studio can easily compete with a AAA budget game in those areas. Heck, just look at Destiny, with its huge team and budget and development time vs even Halo which had better missions and a better narrative!

It's the whole package. Take story. You need to write it, cast it, record it, mocap it, etc. As far as 'gameplay' goes, that covers so much such as level design, animations for bad guys etc. All of this is complex and expensive.

Story has nothing, whatsoever, to do with motion capture. Literally nothing. Budgets also do not equal good writing. Ever see Avatar? Biggest budget in history, totally cutting-edge effects, shit story. It's a 3rd grader's interpretation of Pocahontas at best.

Ever see Reservoir Dogs? Miniscule budget, very few locations, purely practical effects, incredible writing. Top-notch storytelling without fancy sets, crazy computer effects, or an absurd budget.

--

Let's back up: Ever read a book? There's zero motion capture there, and pretty small budgets, but they can tell fantastic stories. Sure there are some bad books, but by and large books don't get published without having a compelling story first.

Video games, of all forms of entertainment, are anachronistic in this regard. They sometimes focus on story, sometimes on gameplay, sometimes on presentation, and only a fraction of the time do they manage to excel at all three. A game that chooses to include a story should, in my eyes, make every effort to make that story important and meaningful to the player. Every game should have good gameplay. Presentation is nice, but it's all window dressing. Putting lipstick on a pig does not a supermodel make.

Putting lipstick on a pig does not a supermodel make.

(in a positive way of course)

Yea totally used Destiny wrong in that example (think I just wanted to use the Random chance factor). That's what I get for doing this at work.

That's probably true, because adventure games don't sell like they used to. But my point, is that these kickstarter games are not innovative. They all are retreading old ground. Your argument that small studios innovate more because the publishers aren't in control is wrong, as demonstrated by kickstarter's complete lack of industry driving innovation.

Okay. So to get an idea of what you're actually trying to argue, can you list recent games that you have found to meet the description of "innovative"?

And if you had 200 million dollars to make a AAA version Kerbal space program, it would blow the pants off it!

Would it? Seems like it could just as easily wind up with annoyingly messy visuals and overburdened mechanics that get in the way of what KSP excels at.

- No text -

- No text -

http://necropolisgame.com/presskit/

Might I interest you in a copy of this weathered book?

m

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

Cody I'm surprised to see you take this attitude of bigger is always better given your stance about Destiny and how it needs to be fixed. It was made by a pretty large group.

While it can be good, bigger is not always better. There often comes a point of diminishing returns to such things. While all organizations develop group think, an attitude of our-shit-don't-stink-ignore-that-pile-in-the-corner, large groups are especially vulnerable to such thinking in whole or in part and the larger an organization the easier it is to ignore small voices of reason or dissent. (or strangely, having so many voices of dissent that the group winds up not making a good decision at all.) There are ways to prevent such things but it usually involves dividing the larger whole into smaller parts--sort of like starting a small company or something.

All of that does not counter the point I make. You just need a good person with a creative drive, as well as the ability to manage a large group of people. Your inability to do that doesn't make it any less of a truth that making cutting edge games simply requires more and more resources and people as time goes on.

But this is false. When I tested games, I managed a team of THREE HUNDRED testers. And you know what? I had weekly meetings where I told my supervisor that we could do a better job with 10 good people. Seriously. Those extra 290 guys were generating so much nonsense data that the 10 good people on the team spent their entire days sorting out new bugs from duplicate ones. Should the 290 people have been better at their jobs? Sure, but you get what you pay for and Activision insisted on paying nearly minimum wage. In-N-Out burger paid better. I'm just sayin'. Could I have been a better manager and trainer? Absolutely. I was a horrible manager, but when you pay a guy $9.75 an hour to manage a team of 300, what the hell do you expect?

Bigger is not better in video games. Not by a long shot. Better is better, but companies that focus on stock value over quality will always aim for the more impressive numbers instead of the more impressive products.

Want to know what really sells games? It's not graphics or gameplay or story, sadly. It's goddamn advertising. That's because too many people pre-order games. You're buying them entirely on hype. Advertising is the thing that big studios have which small studios don't. Certainly not better games.

A big budget only means you get better graphics and movie-tie-in-themed games. It does not equate to stronger narrative or gameplay.

Check out Save the Date, Papers, Please!, and The Swapper for some awesome indy games from the past year.

Can't speak for the other 2, but Papers please was also pretty dismal. I think I went over why a while ago here. How much cooler would it have been, if it had an LA Noire style questioning of the travelers, where you could actually see their emotions?

I mean, it would have been a different game. I'm sorry you didn't like it, but I did. Save the Date was my personal favorite game of last year. It's just so META, you know? Like, way more meta than you think, even after you think it's super meta. You absolutely must play it several times, and I can't tell you why without spoiling why.

Big budget means a greater chance to be innovative etc. I think that is being used here. Of course the chance is better when you have more money, I have a better chance to get laid too if I had more money. Doesn't mean I will. I also get laid without money enough (not really). Chance does not mean it happens (just take Destiny for example)

I would argue that Destiny is extremely innovative. It has plenty of faults, sure, but I don't think there is another game out there that delivers this kind of experience.

I'd agree, to a point. Destiny has innovated a server-matching service unlike any we've seen before, and fantastic art and sound, but they're not the first FPS MMO (Tabula Rasa), they're not the first Halo-style PvP (Halo, duh, or Tribes if you really want to go back), they're not the first RNG based loot system (every slot machine ever, and - sadly - that's not a joke), they're not the first raid/strike concept game (WoW), they're not the first FPS (Wolfenstein 3D), etc etc. There's zero innovative gameplay here. They just borrowed from lots of other successful games with a modicum of success. I'm not saying it's derivative, but it's also not new.

I'll grant, though, that "new" is extremely hard to come by in the video game market these days. It takes a huge amount of vision to design something that is truly new. An inordinate amount. Almost otherworldly. Someone needs to step up and say "we're going to do this crazy thing and I have no idea if it's even possible, but screw it, we're going for broke." And then they follow through. This is not typically a thing that major corporations would fund because it's hugely expensive if it doesn't work out. And you know what? Destiny's server architecture totally worked out. They really nailed it. Could it be improved so you don't have to go to orbit between every single activity? Hell yes. But still, it's an incredible feat that the server structure feels relatively seamless and all that matchmaking happens in the background throughout patrol modes. Simply walking from a private strike into a public space and then back again during the Omnigul strike is a major feat of engineering, and it's one that people will often overlook.

Sadly, however, the game totally fails to capitalize on this engineering marvel and seems more likely to be designed around encouraging server convergence than it is designed to take advantage of it. Probably because they knew it was so bold that it just might fail. Destiny 2, hopefully, takes the engineering here and uses it to further the gameplay.

A big budget only means you get better graphics and movie-tie-in-themed games. It does not equate to stronger narrative or gameplay.

Check out Save the Date, Papers, Please!, and The Swapper for some awesome indy games from the past year.

Can't speak for the other 2, but Papers please was also pretty dismal. I think I went over why a while ago here. How much cooler would it have been, if it had an LA Noire style questioning of the travelers, where you could actually see their emotions?

I mean, it would have been a different game. I'm sorry you didn't like it, but I did. Save the Date was my personal favorite game of last year. It's just so META, you know? Like, way more meta than you think, even after you think it's super meta. You absolutely must play it several times, and I can't tell you why without spoiling why.

Okay, I played it. Several times. I feel like I wasted my time. Feel free to email me and tell me what I missed. ;)

(I read this, so I know the stuff that annoyed me was intentional. I guess I'm looking for a reason why it shouldn't annoy me. :) )

Does that make sense?

Yep! I feel the same way. :)

- No text -

- No text -

If you think money= better game you're a crazy person.

It can definitely help, but it's not compulsory.

Aaaaaahahaha. Oh Cody, you crazy.

Im not a big fan of Phil Fish, but Fez was kind of wonderful. The moment-to-moment gameplay/platforming was solid, the general mechanics and 3d "gimick" were well executed and interesting, the narrative was subtle but intrigueing, and the art was (arguably) gorgeous.

Bonus points for a wonderful soundtrack and you get a game that I play through quite regularly.

I read a book once, and the voice work and mocap were terrible. Really ruined the experience.

I reallt abhor the notion that a good game requires a large budget. Some games do, while others dont, but neither is inherently superior.

- No text -

Since you said sorry, apology accepted!

Well whatever highwire ends up doing it will probably have a pretty rad soundtrack :p.

Use some imagination.

Altos has a simplified color palate (so arguably low bit depth) but it is in no way low res.

I keep looking, like 10 times a day but I can't find the game here…

Edit: okay, I unlocked the thread. Marty's mic drop seemed like a good place to close it, but the conversation must go on. ;-)

Minecraft is the perfect example. Low-tech, has spawned an entire genre of imitators.

Cody I'm surprised to see you take this attitude of bigger is always better given your stance about Destiny and how it needs to be fixed. It was made by a pretty large group.

I think what he means to say is that to make innovative gameplay a likely result, a certain level of resources are required, *but not sufficient*.

I'm not sure I agree, but I do think that criticizing Destiny and other "AAA" games with faults is not automatically contradicted by a stance that smaller teams have a smaller chance of producing games that are both high quality AND innovative. Assuming that word has an actual meaning anymore.

Use some imagination.

The biggest dreams require the most work to make reality…

Someone please point me to a game made by a small team (in the last 10 years, since all games back in the day were small teams) that broke new ground and was hugely influential for games moving forward (in a positive way of course).

Ah but see, you have given yourself all the power and all of us who disagree none. Several people have named games that were revolutionary, and good games to them (along with millions of others that agree). The fact that you dismissed Minecraft alone proves your bias.

Let's look at minecraft:

Graphics are terrible.
The building part is better done in 3D software or CAD.

So what does it have going for it again?

Someone please point me to a game made by a small team (in the last 10 years, since all games back in the day were small teams) that broke new ground and was hugely influential for games moving forward (in a positive way of course).

Ah but see, you have given yourself all the power and all of us who disagree none. Several people have named games that were revolutionary, and good games to them (along with millions of others that agree). The fact that you dismissed Minecraft alone proves your bias.

Let's look at minecraft:

Graphics are terrible.
The building part is better done in 3D software or CAD.

So what does it have going for it again?

Because it took what would've previously required 3D software or CAD to do and made it into a game, an enjoyable game at that. Using CAD and 3D software is not fun without hours of learning to use it (and not everyone will enjoy it even after that), but building a crappy wood house in Minecraft is immediately fun because of a well designed world and crafting system.

You can argue all you want, but me and more than 54 million people disagree with you. It may not be some kind of 'high art' but it's a game that has already and will continue to inspire people when they make games.