Bigger frameworks kits for making games much easier in the future?

Can I make a game that has a lot other stuff too like the best game ever? :roll:

 

That's largely already the case from what I've seen in the app stores.

Unity, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and the others already know this and raking in the cash. John Sutter knew this and raked in the cash.

The Unity game that keeps being brought up is that Zombie game at a couple mil (I wouldn't turn it down) and that's very nice for the one or two devs that hit it but this kind of game dev isn't long term sustainable for the number of participants in it.

In ten years time IT will have largely peaked and be in maintenence mode.

 

Well, obviously I'm a bit biased, but I think my works are pretty "big" and pretty "complete." I know there are a couple of other complete projects that really are complete such as the FPS Constructor.

 

My bad, your tutorials and several by Unity are quite comprehensive to say nothing of some frameworks you can buy in the app store.

 

If you think reskinning the same game over and over is going to make a bunch of artists millionaires...well, I'll let you figure out how that ends on your own.

 

Maybe changing more than the colors then?

 

LOL, yeah, that's what frameworks do. Clearly, you can't program anything if you think it's just mashing code together and praying it works. Somehow you think that artists would suddenly be tops when art is commonly outsourced. Look what Mixamo has done for animation, they have great products which allow many games to completely forgo animators.

Yeah, one day there will be a menu from Unity, you just set the sliders for MMO and FPS to 100, then maybe put the RTS at 75, but you want a little RPG also so set that to 25. Then it'll ask you for your art and it'll figure things out from there.

You edit your post to include "puzzle and unique types", but many puzzle games are the same and if a game isn't unique, why would a consumer buy it?

Besides the technical absurdity of your ideas, the economics aren't what you hope they'd be. If making complicated games becomes even easier, then the barrier to entry and costs would be lowered, making the market more competitive and wiping out most of the profitability. Of course you completely overlook the concept of procedural art and art packs, which might just make the artists the heavily redundant ones. Art is commonly outsourced for studios as it is now and the artists working in some of those art "studios", particular in developing countries don't drive a Maserati.

All this really has me wondering why I'm arguing on the Internet at 0530 with somebody who seems be 14 years old by their understanding of technical and economic topics.

 

I can program alot of stuff if I pay enough people it will be hard maybe this is too much you are right...

 

Maybe I should stick to a smaller idea then

 

Animation wizard, you might want to learn a bit about programming, then you will understand the level of absurdity you've expressed here. There is a problem using "uber kit" to have "everything". Its called bloat. When I want to sell my project, and have it run on all sorts of absurd hardware, I don't or need bloat. And, likely it would cost me more to have someone strip away all the crap I am not needing/using than it would be to program/combine solutions properly. Your paying a lot for programmers to connect the dots, if they are not able to do so, you might want to re-evaluate how your going about spending that money.

 

Sorry I didnt know that much programming or features took too much resources!

 

There are dozens of gaming frameworks already available.

Given the description, I'd also include moddable games, in which case you're talking hundreds if not thousands.

However, I believe the extrapolations in the OP are poorly thought through and based on bad assumptions.

There's a reason all the big games, and many smaller Indy games in effect write their own game engines. Because while certain elements can be abstracted out to this framework that library etc... programming is an art. Removing programming is the same as removing art - leaves dull, bland and boring games that no-one wants to play.

 

Yeah, I'm trolling, because that's my style. =/

My guess on the age was from the sheer absurdity of the ideas and its complete disconnect from reality. It doesn't matter how powerful computing devices are in three years, expectations will rise to just as (or more) quickly. Your whole idea hinges on art being the main thing in a game, which discounts others, but especially programmers and designers. If you'd like to refute my point about lower barriers to entry creating a hyper competitive marketplace, feel free to touch on that, but I don't see anybody getting rich if many games are using the same frameworks and just reskinning them.

The Uber Framework could certainly do puzzles as well, why couldn't it? It'd have the Uber GUI component. Puzzles are not different than most action games in that you are manipulating objects to achieve a particular goal.

Anyway, it's pretty awesome that you'd come into a game development forum, brag about how artists are the key components and programmers are heading for the dustbin and based it entirely on things written by programmers that have to be implemented by programmers. Then to finish it off, when somebody calls you out on the absurdity, you accuse *them* of trolling.

 

So wait, you want a full game with all the features made for you so that you can just replace the models and release it? I am wondering if you're aware of what you're asking.
Some AAA games are already doing by copying modern warfare. The result is something that is similar to modern warfare but not fun at all.
You as a developer might like the idea because it supposedly decreases development time but the customers will leave you in the dirt. People are already getting tired of games that are similar but not the same. And now you want to make games that are almost 1:1 and expect to sell?
A framework is something that you use as a base and extend upon it, just a skeleton, not the whole body where you just repaint the skin.
The framework already exists, it's called unity. It's very modular in a way that you can install many modules that work with unity. They might not work with each other but they do work with the BASE.

 

Hmm I guess its best to make new groundbreaking ideas and not reuse them then true

 

But who's to guarantee all these modules will work together? You'd need a lot of money to hire a team of developers to make and support such framework. And if you want users to extend it then it most likely won't end well since you will get the same thing as now, everyone will release packages that support this but maybe not that.
Do you have a plan to explain how to pull this off? Because I can't imagine how that would be done.

 

Been done before. CryEngine, UDK etc.

Either you play in a very limited genre... or you're simply missing the detail.

So the system revolves around using cloned features that have already been successful? Take a look at ebay. Take a look at the thousands of ebay clones. Guess which one made any money.

Because if you all want to make WoW... go and play WoW - it's been done. If you want to create something new or different, then a framework is only of limited use.

Go ahead and do it then. Just don't try and pretend what you are doing is going to be new [it isn't] or is somehow going to revolutionize the game world.

 

Nah I thought I could make a big project but I got to start small u guys are right

 

There's a reason games have huge budgets, I should learn more programming before I run my imagination

 

Ok I have been reading this thread and I think what you are asking for is not unity combining all these things but them setting a standard of how kits handle similar things. At the moment the kits are developed in many different ways. Its largely up to the preference of the coder on how he likes to handle data base structure ect...

The only way you can get what you are looking for is for there to be a uniform set of integration methods.
But if they did make this, then new developers would not have the chance to say make their own rpg kit. In other words it might limit opportunities.

Simply put we all have to work hard to make our games. Artists want a plug my art in and push button to make my game engine. And coders want a development engine with all art included. Some even are still looking for the make game easy button.
It just does’t work that way.

A uniform set of development standard methods, maybe. But a All in one tool would kill the community.

 

Nope, but you simply don't get it.

Piece of cake.

Let's take FPS:

• One game allows you to cloak. Boom, your AI, rendering, character/animation controller needs to be rewritten.
• Same again, but now your character can run really fast, jump really high or through things really fast? Your AI, Pathfinding, Animation, Physics etc all need to be reworked.
• It's based in a City or Jungle... Rendering, Map data, Physics, AI etc. all need to take that into account.
• That's just Crysis.
• You want a game where one can go through portals? Time to rework Physics, Map Data, AI, Rendering etc.
• You want a game where you can shoot bullets through walls? Same again.
• Game where you can take cover behind objects and shoot over the top?
• Destructible Terrains?
• Large battlefields with tanks and aircraft? Huge problems.
• Etc.

Not only do these games [generally] have new features that need work, but more often than not adding a new feature has serious impacts on the rest of the game engine. It's not as simple as adding X and hoping A, B, C, D, E, F, G... will just work.

This isn't new. The less time you spend coding, the more limited your game will be. The more time you spend coding, the less limited it will be. This applies to Frameworks/Game Engines as well - the more it does for you the less work you do... the more limited the game. That's why some games are made with Gamemaker and RPGmaker, others with CryEngine or UDK, yet others with Unity3D and some are even created using completely custom game engines.

 

Yeah thats a lot to change up, I should use a more strict goal

 

Skinning a game to look good IS the major part of a popular game given all the frameworks available and the more difficult part of game creation by far.

Everything else is chase, capture, shoot, find, and hide.

 

True this^

 

I look forward to being dazzled with a framework which lets me move a few sliders, slap some code together, and drop in some art from a China-based art studio.

 

They're here.

 

Who's here?

 

*sigh*

It's late. As it is now now, I ain't much to look at and I don't have a whole lot going on upstairs, but after participating in this thread, I feel like the noggin' is a little less useful now.

 

Yeah Im sorry Im just learning

 

Because before they were implemented... they were new. The very first FPS didn't have clocking, portals, destructible terrain etc did it?

Look, you obviously don't get it, and ignore what I'm saying. You simply see the very basic function, figure out how to implement it simplistically and ignore all the implications from such an action.

Take portals for example - all you need to do is stick a render texture on a wall + a 'transport' script and you've got a portal. Well this would be good except:

• Your old pathfinding algorithm is rendered useless, it now has to take into account 'shortcuts', the size of the portals, potential for circular loops etc.
• Aiming and 'Is Near Me?' math fails because something far away can also be very close.
• Entry/exit requires you to implement some form of custom physics.
• Rendering is not trivial - particularly with infinite mirror scenarios.
• You can now aim at yourself - even repeatedly potentially causing bugs.
• Object A can see Object B repeatedly, which one do you aim at/follow etc?
• Going through a portal can easily stuff up Network Lerping.
• Culling of all sorts suddenly needs to be verified that it works.
• New interactions that are impossible otherwise now exist [e.g. dropping Ai into infinite drops, on top of each other]
• Objects can now go to previously impossible places causing various issues.
• etc.

Hopefully you've gotten a slightly better idea of the consequences of wanting to implement even a relatively simple idea. Now take the half dozen or so features I raised and try to see all the potential problems. Now try to imagine how many problems there could be once you try to combine these features together!

Ultimately you end up with a compromise.

 

When you put it like that it looks like I'm just gonna make a super mario clone instead...

 

Brilliant!

Use our framework because, let's face it, you ain't got no original idea's!

/Fail.

LOL.

One second you're all about how everything can be done in a framework and all other coding will become largely irrelevant... and now you're suddenly saying it's too complicated for you to do. Make up your mind.

Because once again, you haven't thought it through. Demonstrable terrain can lead to all sorts of interesting game-play like portals. However, they also require a huge amount of thought and work to be done - again like portals.

You've already gotten a list, how about you sit down [hell you claim to have coders - do it with them] and think it through.

I've got to go and make some games, have fun.

 

Yeah I have to re work my goals im too ambitious this is like 200 yrs in the future

 

@AnimationWizard,
What you are asking for is a complete modifiable game source. Isn't possible for someone to create a framework and hope that it will work out of the box with other kits and the reason is simple. How will that data communicate with others kits data when they don't know about each others?
Take for example CE game data. You have entities (which is the equivalent of Actor in UE and Monobehavior in Unity), that have some transformations and basic serialization data. Then other types of entities, such characters, players/enemies, vehicles. The data is constructed hierarchically so entities of interests can communicate. Each new child gets his parents behaviors and implements new behaviors. That's the way to make complex interactions (the way Crysis and other AAA games does) where every entity interacts with each other. It is safe to say that their data is constructed following an object oriented design. However, much of the kits we see in the asset store doesn't follow any specific design/hierarchy. They just uses a bunch of Monobehaviors as base with some specific behaviors on the top and the reason is because no one knows about others guys kit (or what they are working on, they way they do etc).
I'm not saying is impossible to create an Uber kit, CE/UE have already done that. It's just that it won't happen with a bunch of different Asset Store kits. You will probably spend more time making them work together instead of creating yours from scratch. Nothing stop you from creating your game data the way CE does with Unity mind you.
Cheers,

 

There's no need to be rude. You've posted an absurd assumption for discussion and when people disagree you start flying off the handle. I'm not one to get aggressive, but this thread is taking up a lot of space for nothing. A "perfect" code base is something we'll not have in any sort of near-future. This is akin to saying in the next 5 years artists will have created every potential variant of 2d and 3d assets (and sound producers will have as well) so you can simply visit this "Asset Store" and badda bing badda boom, instant classic.

You have a point that the technical aspects of game development are becoming easier... there are many great tools (like Unity) that are allowing an unprecedented amount of people to bring their ideas to life -- this is a good thing, but I cannot see it ever coming down to simply checking a few boxes and throwing in your own art assets. Code can be forced to work with other code, but rarely is this process nice... this seems to be the boat you are in and have thrown some money at currently. There's definitely more that could be done from a kit perspective, but game design should not simply come down to a piecemeal assembly of prepackaged things (no matter how complex/complete they are). Game Design is far beyond programming, making art, making music and putting it together... it's about getting into the gamer's head with a brand new experience, one that they find fun, satisfying and interesting. So even -if- the kingdom of heaven comes to earth and all men are equal (the equivalent of your future-proof-kits), there's still going to be a really deep field of what it means to make a great game.

Please stop getting so aggressive, if you cannot see the implausibility of what you are saying, then you've thrown your money away and wasted your time. The idea of frameworks being put up to make game development easier is not a new idea, Unity/UDK for instance had this long ago and have already made a huge mark in this field. If you want to discuss the merits of kit based game design, by all means raise those issues.... it would lead to an interesting conversation. But aggressively spewing out some black/white utopia future of game development and then calling everyone who disagrees a troll is not only useless, but it's also insulting to everything that this community stands for.

 

Oh, it's you again: the guy who thinks $100 / day is a fair day's pay for a professional freelancer with 10+ years' experience.

This should be good...

Ah, the good old "Make my game for me" button approach to game development.

I have news for you: the programming of the game engine and logic is a relatively small part of creating a successful game. You'll spend far more time on the game design, level design, play testing, polishing and iterations over those last three than you'll ever spend on actual programming. Especially as you've basically just described Unity: it's a general-purpose game development system. Just add assets. (Note: scripts are also assets.)

Define a "complete framework". How would this differ from an actual, finished, game?

Also: are you seriously suggesting that every game mechanic that will ever be invented has already been invented? Not big on originality and innovation, are you?

Yeah, right. Because, of course, nobody has ever tried to create something like this in the past. Oh wait... they have. As you can see from the two names in the credits, one of which is mine, I have personal experience of this. That project was a game maker app targeting a very specific genre popularised by games like "Spellbound". In that sense, the project was successful. In hindsight, the marketing could have been better: calling it "2D Game Maker" probably wasn't the greatest idea ever.

The problem with such products is that you end up with a cookie-cutter effect: every game created with the same framework looks and feels very similar. Like CSI: Miami, the audience starts to pick up on the common elements of the formula; the gaming equivalent of David Caruso making a quip before he puts on his sunglasses, The Who scream, and the titles roll.

You've already been asked how your framework would cope with unexpected design challenges like those presented by Crysis. The exercise was to ask yourself: "If I'd come up with this brilliant scheme in 1999, how would my magic framework(s) cope with a game like Crysis?" The answer, obviously, is that they wouldn't. Not without major surgery.

Consider a game set on a Möbius Strip: how will a standard FPS terrain engine handle that? Most such engines will naturally assume you're trying to simulate a conventional world. Similarly, what if you're inside a Dyson Sphere? Suddenly, you have to render the entire inside of a gigantic sphere at all times whenever the player is outside. This is way beyond conventional terrain engines; they simply wouldn't know how to do this without major changes.

Consider an FPS set in an underwater environment. You have the expected domed cities, but you can also head through an airlock while wearing SCUBA gear and swim to a number of locations. You can shoot spears under water. You can have explosions, but these look and behave very differently in water compared to in the domed cities. You have to render vast shoals of fish. You need AI for crustaceans. You need to be able to see the larger plankton and other debris in the ocean water itself. We need to see bubbles and volcanic vents. We need to handle the physics of submarines and other undersea vehicles. We need AI capable of coping with the transitions between water—where gravity is effectively an irrelevance—and air, where it isn't.

You might have friendly dolphins that will pull you through the sea. And, of course, those domes covering those cities are destructible too, so you need to be able to render floods, water spouts, eddies, currents and vortices too.

And these are just off the top of my head.

No framework or game engine currently in existence can handle every combination and permutation humans can dream up. Computers are finite. Humans are not.

Nope. I'd much rather make my own entertainment than play in somebody else's sandbox.

... says the guy who's just spent another thread arguing that the industry lacks innovation. Quite how this brilliant plan will help fix that, I've no idea. There's a lot more to game design than just art and audio.

What happens when DX12 comes along and requires major changes to the Unity engine? Unity Technologies have no qualms about breaking their API when they release a major new version. Other game engines are similarly quite happy to toss backwards compatibility under the nearest bus when changes to the hardware platforms require it.

Who's going to rewrite all those frameworks and keep them up to date? What's in it for them? Some piddling royalties? Bugger that! They might as well just keep their work to themselves and make their own damned games!

Everyone has ideas. You are not special in that respect.

Or do you think it's only artists who can be creative? If you do, you might want to Google "demo scene" sometime and realise exactly how spectacularly wrong—and incredibly insulting—you are.

Because I am (or have been) an artist, an animator, a writer, a musician, and a programmer. Professionally.

A little less hubris and a bit more humility will go a long way. You say you're 27 years old. Try acting like it.

 

Thanks for that defense. Same to the fabulous post by stimarco. It's good to know my arguments are understandable to others, and I'm not a nutcase!

All I want to say to the readers out there is that given that the OP is being a bit overzealous with his defense - don't fight it. There's nothing here worth wasting time and effort on, and plenty of people out there who would gladly accept your criticism

Hell, go play a flash game and make the author 0.1c

 

I think the best way to demonstrate the obsurdity of this is to flip it around. How about we create a giant repository of art assets, at some point it we can declare the repository 'complete' and from that point on all artists are redundant.

 

I think that would be great too but prob too crazy, I sorry

 

You seem to still be struggling to see the parallel. I'm not talking about enough assets for a single game, I'm talking about a repository for all games. The same as your proposed framework, with all game play elements for all games. At that extreme, both are equally absurd.

The argument that you would need custom assets for any game, seems to have some parallels with NPSF3000's comment that you need custom code for a game.

The point I'm making is that reusable art packages are just as useful as code plugins and middleware, however neither is sufficient to meet all the needs of developers.

 

My imagination caused ppl to scream n yell over the internet sorry I'll get back to making something small

 

So it's not that you don't see the parallels you just deny their relevancy.

Yes, if you use the same models for a bunch of different games you'll get the similar aesthetics. If you use the same framework for a bunch of different games... you'll still get similar 'aesthetics'. [Note, it's easy to tell if a game is made in U3D, CryEngine or UDK if you look pay attention.]

Furthermore if you use an art piece for a task it wasn't intended for - e.g. a FPS quality gun in a RTS... or a RTS quality gun in a FPS it will slow down the game/look wrong - because the requirements are different. Same deal with code.

Now refute what I said with completely unfounded claims such as 'most people would agree' or possible by calling me a troll.

 

You don't seem to grasp the scale of this repository. It has everything for every game, just like your framework has all the code. It is totally absurd, exactly like your proposed framework.

I understand the premise, that there is a lot of redundant code in every game. Most of the code that is written for games is not some bespoke system which is critical to make the game unique. Similarly there is a significant amount of redundant art assets. Frameworks are helpful, but only to a certain limit.

Making the code tweakable is the same as making the assets tweakable. Why not make a tree generator, or a character generator. One that can do everything. The reality is that any tool like this that I have seen i generally quite limited, much like the ready to go game maker frameworks. The less work there is to do, the less control the developer has. You can't have it both ways.

There are bigger issues that arise when you combine many complex elements. What does the UI look like? How can you include all the features while still maintaining a clean usable interface. Not only that but the number of combinations increase exponentially, how can you thoroughly test all possible combinations of features. It is a task which the complexity increases extremely quickly to the point where amount of work for development and maintenance exceeds the amount of work for the developers to roll their own.

 

Not true models are more unique than reusable code but okay i'll go to sleep now I learned my lesson I should start small

 

Nice to talk to you too.

Finally some tiny understanding!

I take that back.


Look, nothing we' say sinks in. So go and do it and prove us wrong - cause it's no skin off our nose either way.

 

Sorry im tired u guys are bringing reality to my head and it hurts

 

@AnimationWizard

By the time you'll read this, I'll have put you on ignore, but I did want to make sure someone said this at least once. Please stop spending your money (or other's) on game development projects until you understand more of what it means to make games. I don't like your attitude, and I don't think you are good for this community, but that aside I don't want you to hit financial difficulties without having heard this at least once. From your posts it is painfully obvious that you do not understand what game design is. You see games as a collection of premade kits with some new art in them. This is what the industry at large seems to be doing now, and games have never been more boring (save a few unique titles). You seem to be sincere about your points, but you are also sincerely wrong in your ideas. Please take some time to work on a few lower key games to learn what the process is really about. After that if you want to put money into your work, by all means do, you'll be wiser for the experience. If you continue doing what you are doing and believing as you believe... you will not only fail at game development, you will also likely go bankrupt.

Good luck in your efforts.

 

good luck to that guy^ wow hope u do well

 

Here's someone else who agrees with you

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-10-17/

 

made my day