Content - is King

(Picking up from the Leadwerks 'Lighting Engine' thread)...

When I say content I mean everything which goes in to creating the finished product - and (@Red) I guess that should include code (and by default that means an 'engine'). But the best engine in the world with no media is just "code", and is no where on its own. Its a combination of all content which is king. Someone recently (I think JP) argued that unique content is King, and I have to say that if there were tiers in such a 'content paradise' then I would have to fully agree.

It is no good having the same content if you are competing - think about the news channels Sky News, BBC 24, ITV, whatever, you can flick between any of them and its all the same.

With commercial entertainment and games, we as players want new content to behold, and listen to, and play with, and that means new stories, plots, twists etc as well as graphics, audio content.

What we 'indie' games developers suffer from as mainly coders is the lack of a bountiful source of good content (unique or otherwise). I have been struggling to build a decent looking character recently. I looked around the net and found nothing which would do for my design. Individually well designed characters and scenery, game elements, music and sound fx all make for a richer experience. The engine featureset also enhances this experience, but the 'tangible' content has most impact for players. I think the engine itself is more important to the developer, easing the creation cycle of his masterpeice.

IPete2.

ahhhhh... not true IP... you can code a game with no external content, to procedurally produce all the geometry, colors, sounds, particle effects, and even images...

you can't do that with media... there is no way you're gonna get a picture to play without code... and all you can do is listen to a song...


:) now it's obvious that i'm sorta bending over backwards to make a point here, as i realize that the results of a medialess game surely won't be as compelling as one with some decent media...

but the point is valid... code can make a videogame all by itself where as media cannot...



of course... i fully agree...

the point i was making back on the other thread wasn't about not having media... of course you are going to need media... it was about the advantages of using an integrated editor to produce the geometry that will appear in the game...

i'm learning now, just how advantageous a good integrated editor can be to the development process... you still have to add your own textures, sounds, and can still insert prefabricated elements into the scene via the editor... but the majority of the level will be designed in the editor, constructed in a manner optimized to run in the engine... and taking advantage of the engine features automatically...

content may be crowned a Prince, or a Queen... but i must reitterate what i said before...

... A GOOD GAME ENGINE IS THE KING!!!

and i think that Josh is on the right track... integrating a good level editor to the game engine... the advantages of this will become so much more apparent as more of it is revealed...

ok... ookKKAAAYYY... you're askin for it...

you're forcin' me to put up a new Guess The Engine thread to illustrate my point...

:)


--Mike

I have to give you tat one Red, but I could start being pedantic and saying that anything you see is a graphic and therefore I rest my case.

;)

I'm not gonna keep this one going, I don't have time...which as I remember is another concept you are not to 'hot' on!

LOL!!!! ;)


IPete2.

well... in all honesty, i was the one being pedantic...

your points are well taken... and in all practical sense, you are right...

of course you're gonna need some good content for a good 3d game... some of your work are prime examples of what superior media can produce...

--Mike

Democracy is the key.
Kill the king.

That's not being pedantic, that's being accurate. A games player doesn't care less what engine you've developed the game in as long as:

[A] It looks good.
[B] It plays well.

It could have been coded from scratch, or use the Doom 3 engine, or the Half Life 2 engine - whatever, just so long as it looks pretty enough for the potential player to be interested, and then when they actually play it, it also plays well.

True, sometimes players will enjoy a game because it is fun even if it looks bad, but that's down to how well the gameplay is implemented, not what it was coded with!

LOL @ Harami...

@ Avon...


we were talking about game developers... discussing the differencess from a game developers perspective...

what would a game player need with an integrated level editor... the whole discussion would be a moot point from a player perspective...

you're right...

:)

--Mike

.

I feel that content is the responsibility of the engine developer to provide.

-Individual developers do not have the money or time to make good-looking content, when they are still just trying things out in a new engine.

-Screenshots sell a product more than anything else.

-Although some people may complain about "everything looking the same", I always counter with "It looks the same otherwise; It looks like crap". Users can always use the engine content as a placeholder, then replace it when they have the resources to do so.

-Good content gives you a better estimate of what you can realistically run in real-time.

I am working to provide a large resource of free content for users of my engine, when it becomes available. When you get an engine license, you get a ton of media resources to start with.

[edit] - just noticed this was linked from a lighting engine thread....

Oops... oh well, my points were valid anyway. ;p


True. Having good looking, albeit not unique, content is better than having unique but awful looking content. As you say, it can be replaced with modified or new content as and when. Give 5 people the same content, and they'll use it in 5 different ways anyway.

i've gotta half way disagree on this point...

some content, yes... modifiable content, yes... but i really wouldn't agree that all content should be provided by the engine developer...

every game would wind up looking like the last one made with that engine... sorta like what the majority of FPSC games look like... as a matter of fact, FPSC is a perfect microcosmic example of what happens when the engine comes with large content packs... the only decent looking things coming outta there are the games cobbled together with user made content... all the rest look like, sound like, and play like the cookie cutter stamped out repetitions that they are...

that's my main objection...

--Mike

What's stopping those users from replacing the content with their own? Nothing more than if the content wasn't there in the first place. If it weren't for the default content it comes with, all projects would still look the same...they'd all use the same low-resolution free textures I see in ever screenshot in the Blitz3D forum.

I don't really see how it is a matter of uniqueness versus "all looking the same". Most of the projects out there will use whatever content they can get their hands on, so it's better that the users have some good-quality stuff they can use, rather than just scavenging whatever they can for free off the internet. Those that have the time and resources to produce their own content won't be hampered by the existence of some default material to work with.

Imagine what a Half-Life 2 mod would look like if the authors had to make a total conversion, using none of the original textures, models, or sound. It would probably be unrecognizable. I think basic content should be considered a part of the engine. While users might make their own specific objects, there's no need for a community to make 50 different grass textures, when one original one will suffice.

No one else has really approached content production the way I am. I thought about selling content packs, but decided against it, for the following reasons:
-Too hard to update.
-Too hard to keep track of when releasing demos that uses said content.
-They tend to sell poorly.

On the other hand, if I just have content that is free for mny engine users to utilize, everyone can pull from the same bank of media, and I don't have to regulate who has a license for what. As long as it only gets used with my engine, it's okay.

uuhhh... lemme see if i can imagine...











if i really wanted to see the HalfLife2 media again, then i'd play HL2, again... and not another game... these guys put a totally diferent world at your fingertips with their unique media and content... even though they're still using the HL2 engine...

that's the point i'm trying to get across...

--Mike

Sure, but how many people do they have working on that?

As many as they could round up, being limited in the same way as any other budgetless developers developing a game for fun.
(Or is the engine supposed to come with a team of servants, as well?)


Edit:
Just so everyone knows, those cool screenshots with the water, the cave, and the FutureGMT building thing is from Dystopia, at http://dystopia-game.com
There is a beta available for download, and it is very well recieved :)

Also a web site for that screenie at the bottom.
Is it Iron Grip: The Oppression, or something else?
http://www.isotx.com
http://www.isotx.com/irongripnet/