What could have been?

darkmistx said:
Stuff like that takes years if I'm right, even with a full team dedicated to it.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. 4 years ago, I know for a fact that it took about 6 months for the core team (6 people more or less) to make a tech demo. (usually a very little map, showing what kind of actions where possible : i.e jumping, running, entering in a building etc.). Nowadays though, since 3D evolved quite a bit, it may take more time of course, but you still have to be able to make a tech demo quite fast : an independant game developer can't last long without external fundings, and a publisher will never support you if design docs are the only things you can show off.

If I'm mistaken, feel free to point it out, but I believe that when you make a tech demo, you're still far from point where you can licence an engine.

A tech demo is just that : a tech demo. It is here to show the potential of the engine. This potential though, is not yet fully realised. Like : "hey, see what we will be able to do if you give us time and money". This is the kind of thing you can show even in the early stage of developement. For example, I believe there was a Doom3 tech demo back in 2001 shown to journalists.

It takes a lot of time and a lot more people to make the actual engine.

On topic : the tech demo looks quite impressive, I really hope Troika will be able to work something out.
 
Ekodas is right... And wow... After watching that I realise what will be lost here if they do go under. Then the mood music... almost puts the whole deal in a frame of thought that suggests absence. A sort of now you see it now you dont feel to it.
 
With any tech demo the only point is to show off the tech, of course. This means that art, music, etc. should be ignored where possible, it is the raw tech that should be scrutinised. Too many people see this and then start analysing the models or the textures or the sounds when it doesn't matter.
 
1ed said:
whatever...
it would be an another unplayable buggy game...
Click to expand...

That could have been. Then again, I'd rather put up with a well-designed yet buggy game, than a purely sucky one ;)

Oh, and design does matter even more than the engine.
 
Silencer said:
Oh, and design does matter even more than the engine.
Click to expand...

If you're a gamer, that's right, design should matter even more than the graphical engine (not the game engine, mind, 'cause without a good engine, we could not implement these great ideas :p).

For the publisher, the engine matters (it shows that you can actually implement the concepts outlined in your design docs) ; the graphical engine matters (because publishers love eyes candy). Of course basic design matters also and you need some solid design docs if you want to get a publisher's attention ; but it's not more important than the engine from a publisher standpoint : the publisher want to know first and foremost if you'll be able to do the job.

Most of the time, publisher will modify your design anyway : it goes from little design 'tweaks' (read : dumb down the original design) to more drastic changes. Depends of the publisher (and the producer chosen by the publisher to overlook your work), the developer (a new developer will have a hard time saying 'no' to changes strongly hinted by the publisher, while a veteran dev' team whose previous games sold millions of copy will have more weight) etc...

But this is off-topic and I'm getting carried away, sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top