Krai Mira: Work in Progress MMO

[terebikun]

Back to the subject. Sorry, but the game does look horribly low budget and amateurish by today's standards. Fallout, an 11-year-old game, looks like it can compete with graphics like these, and it's not a good sign at all.

I think the graphics look pretty good for an isometric indie game, although the very limited color palette and repetition of a lot of the same models like trees certainly detracts. That UI though, in particular the inventory screen, it's ugly as sin.

 

[Ranne]

Whoa, that's a lot of replies. Thanks for some interesting points and information. I just want to comment on a couple of posts.

First, popular mods like Counterstrike or Portal can hardly be called low-budget indie titles since they are based off very expensive game engines and reutilize most of the base games' artwork and other resources. Besides, those are really huge names. I doubt many could recall more than a handful of large-scale mods that were able to achieve similar popularity.

Second, back in the 80s, games didn't cost $20,000,000 to develop. Back then it was all indie by today's standards. The times and the games were so different, they have little relevance in today's discussions of the gaming industry. That is unless you're a real text-based game fan and play Zork on a semi-regular basis

Third, we seem to misunderstand each other on a big point: I don't discuss so-called "casual games" like Bejeweled or Solitaire. Those aren't supposed to have a big budget, and, while they all are technically called videogames, I doubt many of us can seriously compare them to, say, World of Warcraft. It's like comparing apples and... skyscrapers... I was initially talking and thinking about Krai Mira, a low-budget MMORPG that follows the path of high-budget titles by creating a half-baked virtual world, as opposed to a couple of well-made puzzle screens found in those low-profile casual games I mentioned. If it's a MMORPG, I will not compare it to another indie game as Bejeweled but to another MMORPG. In that comparison, this is easily one of the worst MMORPG I've seen, so this is where my "haltred of indie titles" comes from. I mentioned nowadays I develop indie games myself, but I never even considered making a full-blown MMORPG with my limited resources. I know it will not turn out well no matter how much of my time I will pour into it: it's just not one man's job, period.

Finally, and I want to stay friends and finish this on a good note, my view on low-budget games largely comes from my personal experience. I've certainly played very enjoyable freeware games in my life, but... If I look back and compile a list of ten most enjoyable or impressive games in my life, it will only contain high-profile names like Fallout, Deus Ex, Warcraft II or Final Fantasy VII. Not a single low-budget or casual title, not even in the top 20. Since somebody made a movie analogy, the same thing goes to my favorite movies. I never could pick an actual list of my most favorite movies (my tastes shift back and forth over the years), but first random names that come to mind are titles like Schindler's List, Scent of a Woman, The Shawshank Redemption, American History X. Thirteen Days or Forrest Gump. Even Back to the Future, Die Hard, Lord of the Rings and My cousin Vinny... Those are standard high-budget Hollywood flicks. But does it make them any less enjoyable? Not in my view. I do watch a lot of European and Asian cinema, but most of those as big-budget as their American counterparts. Again, I don't think I can name a single low-budget indie title I really love and consider it to be one of my top favorite movies. If your top ten movie and game lists include such titles, well I guess, "to each his own" will be an appropriate ending of this debate.

 

[Ausir]

First, popular mods like Counterstrike or Portal can hardly be called low-budget indie titles since they are based off very expensive game engines and reutilize most of the base games' artwork and other resources. Besides, those are really huge names. I doubt many could recall more than a handful of large-scale mods that were able to achieve similar popularity.

No one called Portal a low-budget indie game. It is, however, basically a remake of Narbacular Drop, which was a low-budget indie game, using the Source engine.

 

[Brother None]

First, popular mods like Counterstrike or Portal can hardly be called low-budget indie titles since they are based off very expensive game engines and reutilize most of the base games' artwork and other resources. Besides, those are really huge names. I doubt many could recall more than a handful of large-scale mods that were able to achieve similar popularity.

Ugh.

Portal is based on Narbacular Drop. Nobody called Portal an indie product.

Counter-Strike would indeed be more accurately be called a mod than a indie game.

Second, back in the 80s, games didn't cost $20,000,000 to develop.

They don't now, either. Only AAA titles do.

FThird, we seem to misunderstand each other on a big point: I don't discuss so-called "casual games" like Bejeweled or Solitaire.

Neither does anyone else.

FThose aren't supposed to have a big budget

Wait, are you actually contending games from Spiderweb are "supposed" to have a big budget?

Could you push this insanity any further?

FI was initially talking and thinking about Krai Mira, a low-budget MMORPG that follows the path of high-budget titles by creating a half-baked virtual world, as opposed to a couple of well-made puzzle screens found in those low-profile casual games I mentioned. If it's a MMORPG, I will not compare it to another indie game as Bejeweled but to another MMORPG. In that comparison, this is easily one of the worst MMORPG I've seen, so this is where my "haltred of indie titles" comes from. I mentioned nowadays I develop indie games myself, but I never even considered making a full-blown MMORPG with my limited resources.

This I agree on. In fact, I made exactly the same point a few posts up: competing with AAA titles on their ground on a shoestring budget is stupid.

However, that has absolutely nothing to do with some of the absolutist statements you made about indie gaming.

It's also funny how you write really intelligent-like, but somehow I get the impression your reading comprehension must be on the low end of the scale. I can't even begin to count how many arguments you either seem to completely read past. I've never seen anything quite like it before.

Those are standard high-budget Hollywood flicks.

American History X had a budget of 10 million USD. By Hollywood standards in 1998, that's a shoestring budget. It also grossed only 23 million. That's seriously low-budget, there.

I thought all lower-budget products are inferior to AAA products by definition? But here you are, admitting you like lower-budget product. Impossible!

 

[Ranne]

*Portal: Sorry, I got distracted by all those award talks and I misread. But didn't same people who made Narbacular Drop (aka "The Top 10 Games You've Never Heard Of" by GameInformer) do Portal as well?

*Spiderweb: I haven't actually played any of their games. From what I see, Avernum screenshoots look rather primitive. You're saying better artwork and more advanced code (again, haven't played it, extrapolating from the screenshot) would hurt the game?

*Budget: what I said is that budget generally affects quality. Low budget doesn't automatically make a product horrible, and high budget most certainly doesn't automatically make it great. However, low-budget games generally (key word here) tend to be inferior to their high-budget counterparts. High budget means more available resouces and more choices. I think this should be obvious. Also, American History X was backed up by New Line Cinema and had some major actor talent (I'm a big fan of Norton ) behind it. When I speak of low-budget indie movies, American History X is not exactly what I have in mind.

Also, what's with all that "insanity", "reading problems", "ignorant", "frustrating"? I don't discuss the private life of your grandmother. Should you really be that insulting in such a general discussion? If you want me to stop talking, just say so, don't insult me.

 

[Brother None]

You're saying better artwork and more advanced code (again, haven't played it, extrapolating from the screenshot) would hurt the game?

No, I'm saying that give or take, it doesn't actually matter, because Spiderweb games aren't about better artwork.

Would it hurt? No. Does it matter? Also no.

*Budget: what I said is that budget generally affects quality.

Actually, you said budget is tied to quality. Not the same thing. I can agree budget affects quality in one way or another, but when you say "it's tied to quality", you're saying the lower and upper ceiling of gaming quality is limited by budget. 's nonsense.

However, low-budget games generally (key word here) tend to be inferior to their high-budget counterparts.

Yeah, and here's the pee-jack. All of those games we have been listing here? The exact point - which I'm now repeating for the millionth time - is that they don't have high-budget counterparts.

When I speak of low-budget indie movies, American History X is not exactly what I have in mind.

I didn't say indie, I said low budget. And low budget is what it is, regardless of what you had in mind.

Also, Edward Norton wasn't a high-profile actor when American History X was made. He'd done only Primal Fear. 'k and all, but not exactly a star.

Also, what's with all that "insanity", "reading problems", "ignorant", "frustrating"?

It's the truth. It is really annoying how you keep reading over arguments. Do you think I enjoy repeating myself a million times?

I'm not saying this to insult you, I'm saying this because you're insistence on misreading almost every single thing said so far as astounding. It really is.

 

[Ranne]

Well, for somebody who seemingly managed to ignore many of my points as well and concentrated on semantics rather on the overall meaning of my posts, you're not that bad yourself. Do you read and write this from a busy work environment as well?

In my opinion, 10,000,000 is not exactly that low of a budget by the standards of the 90s. I'm not a huge movie buff, but I recall The Silence of the Lambs budget was somewhere around 16-20 millions. Is that a low budget movie as well? You want to see a definite example of low-budget, take a look at Blair Witch Project. $22,000 to make, most of it spent on beer and pizza. Anyway, this again has little to do with what I tried to say. American History X is probably the only lower-budget movie on my list, and Krai Mira and American History X have nothing similar in terms of relative budget and you probably know it.

Anyway, from my personal and professional experience, I do see budget as a limiting issue in game development. I also generally find more flaws with low-budget games than with high-budget ones. None of my favorite games is of low-budget indie production. For the third or forth time, if those are not views or preferences you and I share, I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat. I was forced to explain my position but now then it turned into time-wasting flaming, I'm sure we both have something better to do with our time. I call a truce and stop posting in this thread before it turns in more than reading comprehension criticisms.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

I also generally find more flaws with low-budget games than with high-budget ones.

Well, one thing to consider here is selection bias; there are many more low budget games being made than big budget ones, and by defintion they have fewer resources to attract established developers. So, for those reasons, low budget games are vastly more likely to be amateurish (being far more likely to be made by amateurs than high budget productions).

None of that is a reason to write-off low budget games production, any more than the fact that many more crappy, shoestring student films are made than low-budget cinematic gems should affect one's opinion of film.

There is very little absolute correlation between budget and quality, just a shifting of the odds. Although I'd say that in gaming, as in cinema, there seems to be some law of diminishing returns in operation in the mainstream.

 

[Eyenixon]

Second, back in the 80s, games didn't cost $20,000,000 to develop. Back then it was all indie by today's standards. The times and the games were so different, they have little relevance in today's discussions of the gaming industry. That is unless you're a real text-based game fan and play Zork on a semi-regular basis

That's entirely irrelevant, in scale, it's still similar, especially considering how much money Atari and Coleco spent on just pumping out hundreds of games, each one of them costing exponentially more than most of the games I've mentioned.

You seem to think the industry has changed more than it really has. It's grown in scale, but it's still the same basic thing, more idiot journalists, more idiot companies with idiots at the helm, and more idiots who buy into the mainstream junk that's put out, like the poor sods who bought Pac-Man for the Atari 2600 for $70.

There were ads for games and systems on TV, gaming was popular ever since the earliest system wars.
I can't count how many times I've heard people who think that back in the 80s gaming was just a whisper that a few people played around with.
Even back then there were the hardcore gamers - folks who fiddled with their Commodore 64 and system configurations to get M.U.L.E. running well - there were the console gamers, the kids who spent their money on Atari and Intellivison games and the folks who just used computers for work and the gaming systems for their kids.

Not all that different, the industry has just gotten bigger.

 

[Sander]

Well, for somebody who seemingly managed to ignore many of my points as well and concentrated on semantics rather on the overall meaning of my posts, you're not that bad yourself. Do you read and write this from a busy work environment as well?

In my opinion, 10,000,000 is not exactly that low of a budget by the standards of the 90s. I'm not a huge movie buff, but I recall The Silence of the Lambs budget was somewhere around 16-20 millions. Is that a low budget movie as well?

Yes, in fact, it is.
Contending that $10 million isn't a low budget for a 1998 film is beyond ridiculous.
Here's some other 1998 movies that are definitely AAA:
- Armageddon, $140 million
- Saving Private Ryan, $65 million
- Godzilla, $130 million
- A Bug's Life, $40 million
- Mulan, $100 million
- Dr. Dolittle, $70 million
- Lethal Weapon 4, $140 million

*Those* are the AAA titles with big budgets. $10 million is peanuts.

Anyway, from my personal and professional experience, I do see budget as a limiting issue in game development. I also generally find more flaws with low-budget games than with high-budget ones. None of my favorite games is of low-budget indie production. For the third or forth time, if those are not views or preferences you and I share, I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat. I was forced to explain my position but now then it turned into time-wasting flaming, I'm sure we both have something better to do with our time. I call a truce and stop posting in this thread before it turns in more than reading comprehension criticisms.

You are *still* comparing big budget games and low budget games directly - as if they are trying to reach the same market and are trying to do the same thing.
As BN has tried to explain to you about a dozen times now: low-budget games target another market than big-budget games. Comparing them directly is hence completely senseless.

 

[terebikun]

Portal's gameplay was a good enough hook but let's be honest here - it was the writing that won all those awards.

Whoa whoa. Let's be really honest here. It was Mr. Coulton's work that actually won all those awards. I still get that damn song stuck in my head.

 

[Ranne]

Yes, in fact, it is.
Contending that $10 million isn't a low budget for a 1998 film is beyond ridiculous.
Here's some other 1998 movies that are definitely AAA:
- Armageddon, $140 million
- Saving Private Ryan, $65 million
- Godzilla, $130 million
- A Bug's Life, $40 million
- Mulan, $100 million
- Dr. Dolittle, $70 million
- Lethal Weapon 4, $140 million

*Those* are the AAA titles with big budgets. $10 million is peanuts.

You seem to be misunderstanding differences between CGI-filled summer blockbusters and story-driven dramas or comedies that are much less reliant on excessive special effects that usually take up a substantial part of the movie's budget. Not only that, but many of the movies you mentioned are part of the Most Expensive Films Ever Made list, which doesn't exactly make them good representative examples.

If you take away CGI (I don't think American History X and The Silence of the Lambs have a single CGI rendering in them), the average numbers become much, much lower.

Schindler's List, $25 million
There's Something About Mary, $23 million
The Waterboy, $23 million
Good Will Hunting, $10 million
Fargo, $7 million
The Usual Suspects, $6 million

Those are high-grossing hits of the late 90s I picked randomly from the IMDB list, and when I think "limited budget" (which low-budget practically means), The Usual Suspects or Silence of the Lambs are not exactly the first titles that come to my mind. Moreover, there are literally hundreds of high-profile movies, including almost all late 80s and early 90s comedies and dramas, that cost as much or less to produce. Hey, pretty woman had $14,000,000 production and $5,000,000 marketing budget. Home Alone? $15,000,000. Now those are two movies that just scream "Shoestring Production!", right? Do I really have to point out the correlation between special effects and budget totals?

And again, are Krai Mira or even those Spiderweb games really the analogs of Good Will Hunting or The Usual Suspects in the gaming world? I asked you how many of your top 10 most enjoyable and memorable games of all time were low-budget, and you're trying to compare Krai Mira to American History X to somehow use that to show me how wrong I am in everything else I said earlier. Instead of attacking my words, can you give me an honest top 10 list so I can see where your values are? Is there a limited production RPG on your list that beats Fallout, Final Fantasy, or Deus EX? Is there a freeware strategy that makes World of Conflict, or Total War or Civilization series pale in comparison? You seem to concentrate your efforts on defending "the little guy", instead of looking at things objectively and admitting that it's very tough for people with little-to-no money to effectively compete against full-grown companies that have all the financial backing the need. And before you say

You are *still* comparing big budget games and low budget games directly - as if they are trying to reach the same market and are trying to do the same thing.
As BN has tried to explain to you about a dozen times now: low-budget games target another market than big-budget games. Comparing them directly is hence completely senseless.

Let me point you out that you also failed to read what I said. Here are my exact words and Brother None, who doesn't seem to like me much, have actually agreed to them in one of his earlier posts:

... we seem to misunderstand each other on a big point: I don't discuss so-called "casual games" like Bejeweled or Solitaire. Those aren't supposed to have a big budget, and, while they all are technically called videogames, I doubt many of us can seriously compare them to, say, World of Warcraft. It's like comparing apples and... skyscrapers... I was initially talking and thinking about Krai Mira, a low-budget MMORPG that follows the path of high-budget titles by creating a half-baked virtual world, as opposed to a couple of well-made puzzle screens found in those low-profile casual games I mentioned. If it's a MMORPG, I will not compare it to another indie game as Bejeweled but to another MMORPG. In that comparison, this is easily one of the worst MMORPG I've seen, so this is where my "haltred of indie titles" comes from. I mentioned nowadays I develop indie games myself, but I never even considered making a full-blown MMORPG with my limited resources. I know it will not turn out well no matter how much of my time I will pour into it: it's just not one man's job, period.

 

[Sander]

You seem to be misunderstanding differences between CGI-filled summer blockbusters and story-driven dramas or comedies that are much less reliant on excessive special effects that usually take up a substantial part of the movie's budget. Not only that, but many of the movies you mentioned are part of the Most Expensive Films Ever Made list, which doesn't exactly make them good representative examples.

Ehm, why not? These were the AAA titles of the day. The fact that other titles that also did well had a smaller budget has nothing to do with that.

Schindler's List, $25 million
There's Something About Mary, $23 million
The Waterboy, $23 million
Good Will Hunting, $10 million
Fargo, $7 million
The Usual Suspects, $6 million

Of these only Schindler's List can be considered a AAA title.

Those are high-grossing hits of the late 90s I picked randomly from the IMDB list

High-grossing is not the same as a AAA title.

And again, are Krai Mira or even those Spiderweb games really the analogs of Good Will Hunting or The Usual Suspects in the gaming world? I asked you how many of your top 10 most enjoyable and memorable games of all time were low-budget, and you're trying to compare Krai Mira to American History X to somehow use that to show me how wrong I am in everything else I said earlier. Instead of attacking my words, can you give me an honest top 10 list so I can see where your values are? Is there a limited production RPG on your list that beats Fallout, Final Fantasy, or Deus EX? Is there a freeware strategy that makes World of Conflict, or Total War or Civilization series pale in comparison? You seem to concentrate your efforts on defending "the little guy", instead of looking at things objectively and admitting that it's very tough for people with little-to-no money to effectively compete against full-grown companies that have all the financial backing the need. And before you say

I barely ever play low-budget games. Hell, I barely ever play games at all these days.

Let me point you out that you also failed to read what I said. Here are my exact words and Brother None, who doesn't seem to like me much, have actually agreed to them in one of his earlier posts:

Again: you are missing the point entirely. Are you doing this intentionally or what?
You are *still* comparing Krai Miria as a low-budget game to World of Warcraft while it *isn't competing with World of Warcraft*.
It may be the same genre but it aims at a totally different consumer.

 

[Ranne]

Again: you are missing the point entirely. Are you doing this intentionally or what?
You are *still* comparing Krai Miria as a low-budget game to World of Warcraft while it *isn't competing with World of Warcraft*.
It may be the same genre but it aims at a totally different consumer.

If it's a high-profile MMORPG genre (as opposed to puzzles and such) and if it tries to simulate the gameplay mechanics of AAA titles, how is it aiming on a different consumer? It will be bought by a different consumer since most who play top notch MMORPGs will not even consider buying it, but I don't think you can say it targets a different consumer in the way Bejewelled or mobile games do. Could you elaborate on that?

EDIT: I really don't want to continue arguing over movies. Firstly, to the best of my knowledge, the term "AAA title" is rarely applied to cinema as it is to videogames. Secondly, I think that a movie that is produced and backed by a major movie studio and that costs as much as most other movies of its genre cannot, in any way, be called a low-budget indie production. Since you seem to think otherwise and don't agree with my line of arguments (perhaps rightfully so, I don't know), I doubt that we'll manage to come to any kind of agreement on this subject that was not that relevant or important to begin with.

 

[Sander]

If it's a high-profile MMORPG genre (as opposed to puzzles and such) and if it tries to simulate the gameplay mechanics of AAA titles, how is it aiming on a different consumer? It will be bought by a different consumer since most who play top notch MMORPGs will not even consider buying it, but I don't think you can say it targets a different consumer in the way Bejewelled or mobile games do. Could you elaborate on that?

Why can't you say that?
It isn't trying to get consumers to play this game instead of World of Warcraft, that's completely unrealistic. Instead, it's trying to offer a different type of environment (different look, different controls, different features etc) aiming at people who want to spend less money on an MMORPG as well probably.

EDIT: I really don't want to continue arguing over movies. Firstly, to the best of my knowledge, the term "AAA title" is rarely applied to cinema as it is to videogames.

It's easy to see the analogy.

Secondly, I think that a movie that is produced and backed by a major movie studio and that costs as much as most other movies of its genre cannot, in any way, be called a low-budget indie production.

We are not talking about indie productions, for fuck's sake. Stop using that word, it is not relevant.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

If it's a high-profile MMORPG genre (as opposed to puzzles and such) and if it tries to simulate the gameplay mechanics of AAA titles, how is it aiming on a different consumer? It will be bought by a different consumer since most who play top notch MMORPGs will not even consider buying it, but I don't think you can say it targets a different consumer in the way Bejewelled or mobile games do. Could you elaborate on that?

Have you taken a good look around to see just how many MMORPGs there are around at the moment, quietly ticking over with a small, but relatively loyal following?

A low budget game doesn't need to attract huge numbers of subscribers to remain viable. WOW was aimed clearly at a very large core of online gamers migrating across from previous successful titles like Anarchy, but also a new audience familiar with previous Warcraft titles.

Low budget titles can aim to carve their own niche, which in this case appears to be what some might call old-school cRPG fans who are interested in an MMORPG with an independent flavour. It clearly isn't trying to compete directly with the likes of WOW, because that would be rotten insanity. This kind of project must be about building cult appeal within a small community of players, and requires a craftsmanship that isn't necessarily obvious in the highly polished, mass-consumer offerings. As I said, people will forgive more, and value more, a thing that seen to created only out of passion and by dint of hard work and long hours, rather than a piece of popularist entertainment that is built on a huge budget.

Perhaps there is even some element of appealing to the elitist or obscurist?

It is what it is, and nothing more, and I suspect that is where its aspirations lie.

 

[Ranne]

We are not talking about indie productions, for fuck's sake. Stop using that word, it is not relevant.

Low-budget production then. It is relevant to me, since you're seem to be putting Pretty Woman or The Usual Suspects in one category with a low-budget indie game title. If you're not, then what all this fuss is about?

As for Krai Mira, I'm sorry, when I took a look at this game, all I saw was not difference but lower production values. The features (I covered it earlier in detail) are basic and trite, the look is only different by its obvious lack of artistic talent, and the absence of the monthly pay and lower price tag is almost certainly nothing but a reflection of the game's overall value. And how can I not compare a MMORPG game to another MMORPG game with similar mechanics? You're not saying I can't compare apples and oranges. What you're saying is that I cannot compare rotten wild apples to fresh and juicy ones because rotten wild apples target a different kind of fruit eater. Sorry, that just makes little sense to me.

Now I completely agree with "low budget titles can aim to carve their own niche" (and many other things you say), but this is not the point of the discussion. Bernard, you said that "it clearly isn't trying to compete directly with the likes of WOW, because that would be rotten insanity", and Sander, you said "It isn't trying to get consumers to play this game instead of World of Warcraft, that's completely unrealistic." Can I ask, why? Because, in my opinion, the only answer to this is significantly lower production values. In direct point by point comparison, the game will lose in terms of visual art, gameplay variety, sound, music, the complexity of the game engine, technical excellence, or any other relevant aspect of a game. This is what I basically said and this is where this whole discussion started: low-budget titles, with their hardships and financial difficulties, almost always fail to be directly competitive with their expensive AAA counterparts that have it much easier. Now you're skewing my words like I'm denying you your right to enjoy indie games because of their general inferiority. I never said that. It's a totally different subject that refers to such intangible value as taste, and I know better than dictate you what your taste in gaming should be like or deny low-profile game developers (again, such as myself now) their right to develop their products.

I'm sorry, but many of your insensitivities just seem superficial to me. The fact I can never run as fast as an Olympic runner doesn't me any less of a man. I'm fit and physically active, and I have no problem with defining my athletic skills as inferior to ones of a professional sportsman. Now what you seem to be saying is that we're all S.P.E.C.I.A.L. and that in direct comparison I should be praised for my less-than-notable running speed as much as that Olympic runner should? Just as in this running speed example, I see game's quality is as a tangible and calculable value. Calculable to a degree - it can be difficult to evaluate its aesthetic aspects, - but calculable nonetheless. If one game has less content, worse graphics, more bugs, less variety, audibly inferior sound and music quality, plainly more simplistic script, and way more substandard mechanics than another game in its genre, I think I can say that this game is of lower quality than the other one. No need to get philosophical or all-embracing about it. I'm pretty sure the game's authors themselves do not consider their creation to be as groundbreaking, competitive, or high-grade as some of you try to picture it to be.

Again, nobody seems to have a bunch of indie titles in their top 10, but everyone seems to subscribe to the idea of such games being viable competitors to a class of games that dominates such lists. The view seems overly idealistic and impractical, and before you jump at it again, I am only speaking about those games that don't make their own approach and really target entirely separate audiences (mobile games, social games, etc), but about those games that undoubtedly fit into conventional mainstream genres and therefore are subject to comparison with the other games in those categories. I'm not exactly comparing Super Solitaire to Halo 3 here, am I?

Oh, lookie here, lunch time. I better get to work after that and read your possible responses later.

 

[Sander]

Again, nobody seems to have a bunch of indie titles in their top 10, but everyone seems to subscribe to the idea of such games being viable competitors to a class of games that dominates such lists.

And yet again you clearly show you are not getting the bloody point.
Low-budget game titles are not competing with AAA titles and high-budget titles.

 

[Brother None]

Ranne, you should really follow your own advise and stop posting when there's no point. This is still going nowhere, people are just talking past one another.

I would like to pick up two points, though:

Is there a limited production RPG on your list that beats Fallout, Final Fantasy, or Deus EX?

There's plenty that beat Final Fantasy, which is a jRPG, not a cRPG. Or even Deus Ex, which isn't much of an RPG either.

But consider this for a fact. Gaming happens in leaps and bounds and generations, and while it's hard to compare films across eras, it's even harder for games.

I could then count the number of AAA RPGs I've played with some pleasure in the naughties on one hand. There are more indie RPGs. There are definitely years where indie RPGs simply beat out the best AAA game. Last year wasn't one, as the consensus top games for us fringe people are the Witcher and MotB. But the year before? The consensus mainstream top pick is Oblivion.

Now here's what'll shock your hat off. If forced to a comparison, many of us would consider Avernum 4 - arguably one of the weaker Avernums - by far a superior RPG to Oblivion.

Are there indie RPGs that beat the best cRPGs of all time? Probably not in my top list, though I don't really have a top list lying about ready to go. There are some who have Prelude To Darkness in their top RPG list, but I never got into it.

But since we're not discussing indie RPG development in the 90's, but discussing the flourishing indie RPG development of the here and now, a more relevant question is: are indie RPGs currently offering something that AAA RPG production will not? Yes, yes they are. And if I were forced to declare where I think the best cRPGs are currently coming from, mainstream or indie, indie is definitely where it's at. Last year's releases were kind of 50%-50%, balancing Geneforge 4/Eschalon to MotB/TW, but if you look at what's ahead, indie is a lot more promising than AAA.

In direct point by point comparison, the game will lose in terms of visual art, gameplay variety, sound, music, the complexity of the game engine, technical excellence, or any other relevant aspect of a game.

Krai Mira is, as already admitted multiple times, not the best example of what indies should do. The debate long since turned to indies in general, not sure why you're twisting it back to Krai Mira.

But I will say this: MMOs are kind of in their own realms. There are people who won't play WoW not because of its production values but because they're tired of it or just don't like its community. Because MMOs are so heavily community-based, that becomes the key point in finding a niche to fit into.

Krai Mira aims for post-apocalyptic aficionados, that is something no other MMO has done so far - as far as I know - though not doubt they'll show up. And by being niche, they aim for niche communities, because not everyone likes the crowd that lives in the current bevy of AAA MMOs.

 

[Ashmo]

Egads.

Has it ever occured to you that you are talking about a DIFFERENT analysis than everybody else?

You're applying the SAME set of criteria and the same scales to the game as you apply to, say, WOW. You even said so yourself.

That's where most people here differ.

It's not comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing light-weight boxers with heavy-weight boxers (not that I know much about boxing myself). They'd never fight each other because they're in different weight classes, but they can still outperform each other.

i.e. the graphics don't NEED to be shiny, because the game isn't trying to go for the graphics addicts. It's kinda like saying that novels suck because they don't have enough pictures in them -- they're not going for comic book fans.

It's not about absolute quality -- there is no such thing in games -- it's about the KIND OF GAME they're trying to produce. They're successful in the same way WOW is successful if they manage to convince their audience. Their audience is much smaller and much more specific and will earn them much less money, but the game was developed with that in mind.

Note that I'm not saying this game will be fun. I can't possibly know that by just reading the feature list and looking at the screens, but for an indie project it looks rather promising -- especially so considering indie projects are even more likely to grow during the development process (and even post-release) than mainstream titles.

If everybody involved ends up happy (read: the developers are happy with their product and the game gets some fans), it worked out and that is all it ever had to. That it failed to beat WOW's market share is irrelevant.

This is not about GENRE, this is about STYLE and the target audience. If you only play AAA games, that's fine with me, just don't complain because they don't offer the same eye candy as what you can buy at the WalMart down the street -- they don't because they don't have to.

It's a matter of price-quality-relation, no different from the principles at work when you're short on cash and want to buy something tasty (maybe different in the way that the gameplay experience's quality isn't capped by the development budget, although the average may be considerably lower).