Re: Anyone on this list?

[Gianfranco Berardi <linuxmail@gbgames.com>]

> 
> Yes - if you have something incredibly clever (like inventing Castle
> Wolfenstein's novel renderer) - or something strangely addictive
> (like Tetris) - then you'll get famous...and if you don't get screwed
> by the games companies (like the Tetris guy did) then you'll get rich.

I am going to post the requisite "This detail is wrong in your argument" 
post. To be different, I have to specify that I agree with what you're 
saying rather than imply that you're completely wrong because of this 
detail. B-)

The guy who made Tetris didn't get screwed over. He made a game, and 
found that everyone loved it and he was happy about that. Because he was 
a Soviet, and he worked I believe in a government organization, the 
organization got the rights to the game.
He was perfectly fine with that.
It was the people in the US and such that made the game and claimed it 
was theirs that got in trouble. The Tetris guy is still perfectly happy 
without making millions on a game that made Gameboy a successful game 
system.


> 
> Don't bank on it though.  New game genres appear maybe every 10 years,
> the odds of you being the person to start one is essentially zero.
> 
> There was no way to predict or plan for the success of Tetris - it
> was just one of those phenomena.  There are a hundred original
> 'puzzle/arcade' games out there - and for reasons that nobody
> understands, none of them have the widespread popularity of Tetris.
> 
> Clever rendering tricks are less and less relevent as hardware
> rendering becomes the norm and graphics are sufficiently close
> to reality that making them better does nothing for game play.
> I don't think there can ever be another great graphical breakthrough
> that actually spawns a new genre.

Agreed. I honestly don't know what the fuss about Doom 3 is about. It is 
just a Doom game with better graphics. I am quite sure it will be a good 
game, and it looks like fun (along the lines of how Alien vs Predator 
2's single player scares the hell out of me and I love it), but I still 
don't know why I should be so excited about it.

> 
> Maybe a new breakthrough in physics simulation or AI could
> have an effect.  These are heavy problems that require serious
> understanding of the field.  I'd be suprised if an amateur
> game writer makes the next breakthrough here - but we live
> in hope!
> 
> Clever game play is what it takes.  Coming up with something that's
> comes out of nowhere like "The Sims" is possible for a lone developer.
> It wasn't a new idea (anyone remember "Little Computer People" on
> the Apple][ and Atari ST?) - but it was nicely done - and that was
> enough to propel a simple idea into a best seller.
> 

Exactly. Two examples: Total Annihilation and Starcraft. TA was an 
amazing game, since it was all basically "DESTROY EVERYTHING IN SIGHT" 
but Starcraft became the "best" game (I still like TA better) since it 
was so much more polished. The story was involving (as in I actually 
felt like I had an effect on it, even though it was linear). It did 
nothing new in terms of gameplay (TA brought a third dimension with it 
and had more units at one time). Starcraft just did  what Warcraft 2 did 
really well.

> 
>>If you have some friends who like
>>similar genres you may get some help and encouragement from them, but
>>don't bank on it.
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
>>Remember, games are supposed to be fun. Developing them should be too
>>(unless you're getting paid for it of course, then its an added
>>bonus if its fun....)
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> ----
> Steve Baker                      (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
> L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax)
> Work: sjbaker@link.com           http://www.link.com
> Home: sjbaker1@airmail.net       http://www.sjbaker.org
> 
> 
>