安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
They go with proven products because we continue to buy itno them. That was my point you dont need to rephase it and repeate.
Game development is Lazy as ♥♥♥♥. The indavidual developers themselves can be some of the hardest most meticulous workers out there but there publisher overlords and in some cases department heads are full of crap.
Along with your comment:
''Ironing all the bugs out is far easier said than done''
it all boils down to exactly what my comment was based around.
Its VERY hard to make a working product. I never said it was easy, in fact I all but directly said its easyer to look the other way.
What I said is that its unacceptible for large corp companies to release sub-par pruducts. Its hard, they dotn seem to respond to that.
Saying its hard is an excuse. Like I said, no matter how understandable it is(and it is) its not a lagit defence against releasing highly expencive prodects that in some cases arent playable for months.
---
In todays game creation industry the standards for content are much higher and along with that comes 'much harder' development. The amount of systems out there, different tech types, driver programs and software divercity it is extremely hard to do.
But we arnt talking about free games. Indie games or even Beta games. Full triple A titles released in absolutely alpha woring states with months of patching to go.
These are consumer products, hard to make as they may be thats what the industry calls for and the publishers are simple not responding to whats now needed to create a decent prduct.
Responcibility.
Modern games are the hardest they have ever been to create and with that there comes the responcibility to respond to the modern day challenge.
So the games you intend to make, what kind are they? Do you have 3D modeling experience? Do you have any idea of level design? Do you have any animation experience? Do you have a game engine in mind? Can you afford to buy or license all the software needed?
Just because you have a BAA in graphic design does not mean you will be able to make a game. As it is, a development studio would hire someone who has been modding games for some time over someone who just graduated from college with a degree. Trying to make you own game can be expensive. Do you have the ability to fund it without help from a publisher or relying on Early Access or Kickstarter?
I guess you also do not understand that no developer is asking you how to do their job, they are asking you as to what bugs you are finding on your system. Would you be willing to give away your hard work away?
...and Im sry but whats up with the barage of questions? This is no court room but the best term to describe your comment would be badgering a witness.
You asked a bunch of questions Its pretty clear you dont want answerd.
Plus the gaming market has actually created its own double standards.
Many people make a small living off prof testing games inhouse but some early access games come out and charge the players for there testing.
You can explain it anyway you want(which Im asuming you will) but that does not change the fact that it rases eyebrows.
I had this same conversation about a game thats EA cost 90$.
-From one angle thats BS. How can anyone justify a product worth maybe 50$ when complete at full launch for 90$ incomplete. Not to mention that the players are paying the devs to do what some companies pay gamers for. Its like paying to watch TV ads.
-Alternately it could be seen as a bonus. From the devs point of view the game is simple not released. The pre-launch offers are more like donations with benafits. The 90$ donation just happens to come with early access.
It all depends on perspective but comments like yours dont help. They just piss people off.
"indie" stands for "independent". What this generally means is that the developer is "independent" of a publisher, specifically in the sense that a game was made without the financial backing of a major publisher.
The opposite to this is technically "publisher-backed" -- just means that they have the funding before they start to make the game. Often this implies that the publisher has a hand in directing what the game will be about -- which is why people complain so often about publishers churning out the same old games sequel after sequel. Calling this "AAA" is actually a misnomer unless we're talking about the very highest-budget biggest-name games.
Re the role of AAA games in the industry:
Publishers will continue to be important. They are publicists, they have legal teams to work on intellectual property issues, and they can pool together large amounts of money to work on really big projects.
In fact, some indie games, even after their development finished, have been published with the help of larger-name publishers -- for example, Bastion, which was published by Warner Bros. Games. Another example, is that a few years ago, Steam didn't like bringing on Japanese indie games, so the localization company Nyu-Media had to get Capcom to give publisher backing to some of the early games that they translated (e.g. the eXceed series, Cherry Tree High Comedy Club, etc.). Thankfully, Steam is now more open to Japanese indie games.
Publishers, especially bigger ones, have a role to play in funding the development of games on a professional level. There are a lot of aspiring indie devs who struggle to make ends meet before they make it big, but the idea of having a publisher backing a development venture is that the devs don't have to worry so much about their next meal during the development process. (This doesn't prevent publishers from being horrible jerks afterwards -- and the industry is rife with such stories -- but I'm just stating some useful facts here.)
Sometimes you even get publishers with established brand reputations and working closely with first- and second-party developers (i.e. their in-house folks or a studio they own) and they can produce lots of great games. Example of this is NIntendo.
Now, in providing financial backing and other services to developers, publishers also mostly act as businesses. And like other businesses, they thrive on stability -- and what better way to make that happen than to use tried-and-true formulas for making games. So to some extent they often encourage their developers to make games that they know how to make.
And it's also easier for the developers to make a game that's similar to an older, existing game. You don't have to come up with as much new assets, new design concepts, new work needed for balancing and playtesting, and so on. Indie games also get sequels and imitators too, y'know.
So it's just easier for people in general to think about similar games than to think about interesting new ideas that could potentially be financially risky ventures.
Yes many of your points on the terms are correct however both terms are widely used among fans, game jourmalism, conventions and developers themselves and pretty much everyone who has played games for more than just a few weeks understands what they are saying when they have such conversations
so it would be nice if people would stop trying to be clever and just stick to the subject regardless of if they do not agree with the term used to describe the problem.
Because here is the thing, regardless of the term, the issue still remains.
Also, day one DLC, but that's something indie developers do too. What the hell happend to actually FINISHING your game instead of seperating all gameplay into different paid DLC's?
I think they do them because the have a defined amount of play time. I think they do not want to sell you a game that you play for 100 hours because then you would not buy more games.
The issue I have with that is that I personally would pay more for a 'gaming service' than a I would a series of games that only last 10 hours.
I dont think its because games with actual content are harder to make though...maybe they are
-Its 'looks' amazing.
-Its new IP.
-The story seems interesting.
Look, I dont have a PS4 and wont likely ever, nor will I likely ever play The Order. Aside from a passing interest I know very little about it but even I provide simple reasons for my judgement.
The only problem Iv got wind of is the games langth. Suposedly its short, and badly for its price.
I've worked on a handful of my own (unreleased and likely never will be) games, and let me tell you this:
They ARE harder to make. Trying to create a long-lasting game that never feels too repetitive is a difficult task, especially if you're creating a game that doesn't use any type of procedural generation based on a random number generator or a game where all the action is player-dirven (i.e. KSP or GMod). Not only is it a challenge of just making the content, but it's also a challenge of design. You must keep things varied, but not too varied so as to not confuse the player or make the game feel like it has no idea what it wants to do.
When you ask that developers make all their games 100+ hours long, you're asking of them an insanely difficult task that requires a lot of money. It's simply not feasible for most developers to do that.
I think you'll find this video interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bvX4hzqcqc
I agree with what you say here. ♥♥♥♥ off with your "cinematic" ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. I'm playing a game, not watching a movie. IMO cutscenes should be used as rarely as possible. Tell your story while I'm playing, or better yet, tell the story THROUGH the gameplay. Tell it through the environments and the enemies and the NPCs. Look at games like Papers, Please and Brothers. THEY get it.