FA+
Shop
347
Views
Views
5
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Scenery
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 1024
File Size 141.1 kB
Report this content
More from Freelancer89
This is what you get when you are forced to work within a very limited scope of creativity. Bascially I had to stick to one style (which I am not very familiar with in the first place) and pump something out. Well... the good news is. they liked the bottom left design the most.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Scenery
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 1024px
File Size 141.1 kB
Are you related to Frank Lloyd Wright? http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2.....8i-d5j8ils.jpg
Having done game design studies myself... ^This, so much this!
The schools I went to were basically all like this. According to most of them it was better to follow an existing proven formula (or play within the lines of a certain formula) in order to be guaranteed a success.
Whenever other Teams (including that of our own) came up with an innovative idea, the teachers were mostly concerned about the fact that: "Subject 'X' doesn't work in that setting/execution." Because it was something that was not relatable to anything already out there, thus greatly reducing the power of freedom and innovativity (remind me why the studie is called 'indie-game design'?), which led to (as you already said) watering the game down so much that most of the projects shown at the end of each semester were a 'shadow' of their former 'what could have been' selves, with the lot of them being 'flunked' because they weren't 'fun to play' *insert facepalm here*. Oooh and don't even try to point out certain games on Steam made by an individual (for example: Dust: An Elysian Tail) and ask them "WHY that game 'did' work", because you'll get a long lecture about how it essentially should've failed because it makes them look bad as developers/teachers. (most of them were EX-industry employees, but even then it started to raise questions as to 'WHY' they've stopped working in the industry in the first place... hmmm) Also, I've got nothing against teachers giving future game-developers some development philosophies, but you shouldn't advertise it as the 'one-and-only-truth' while the 'many-other-truths' are out there, made even more clear by the fact that none of the other teachers shared each other's philosophy, leading to a lot of confusion.
They weren't all bad and they did give a lot of helpful as well as insightful tips, but they were basically readying people to become the next 'coffee clerk' at some big game company, rather than actually teach you how to start developing games independently.
Also, once you work in the game industry it becomes the same story as working in the architectual industry: you get an assignment, you're the creative geniuss so you should only do what you are told and you shouldn't be going around asking any 'obvious questions' like: "How is this supposed to work"/"What did you exactly have in mind"/"Wouldn't it be a good idea to make this look/work better?" as it's mostly just "shut up and do your job"... at least, that was my general experience. "Expectations VS. Reality" indeed.
If you really want to be developing games then the best way to do it is by starting your own company and begin to teach yourself all there is you need to know (or hire the right people). Kind of like the 'other' success stories out there.
The schools I went to were basically all like this. According to most of them it was better to follow an existing proven formula (or play within the lines of a certain formula) in order to be guaranteed a success.
Whenever other Teams (including that of our own) came up with an innovative idea, the teachers were mostly concerned about the fact that: "Subject 'X' doesn't work in that setting/execution." Because it was something that was not relatable to anything already out there, thus greatly reducing the power of freedom and innovativity (remind me why the studie is called 'indie-game design'?), which led to (as you already said) watering the game down so much that most of the projects shown at the end of each semester were a 'shadow' of their former 'what could have been' selves, with the lot of them being 'flunked' because they weren't 'fun to play' *insert facepalm here*. Oooh and don't even try to point out certain games on Steam made by an individual (for example: Dust: An Elysian Tail) and ask them "WHY that game 'did' work", because you'll get a long lecture about how it essentially should've failed because it makes them look bad as developers/teachers. (most of them were EX-industry employees, but even then it started to raise questions as to 'WHY' they've stopped working in the industry in the first place... hmmm) Also, I've got nothing against teachers giving future game-developers some development philosophies, but you shouldn't advertise it as the 'one-and-only-truth' while the 'many-other-truths' are out there, made even more clear by the fact that none of the other teachers shared each other's philosophy, leading to a lot of confusion.
They weren't all bad and they did give a lot of helpful as well as insightful tips, but they were basically readying people to become the next 'coffee clerk' at some big game company, rather than actually teach you how to start developing games independently.
Also, once you work in the game industry it becomes the same story as working in the architectual industry: you get an assignment, you're the creative geniuss so you should only do what you are told and you shouldn't be going around asking any 'obvious questions' like: "How is this supposed to work"/"What did you exactly have in mind"/"Wouldn't it be a good idea to make this look/work better?" as it's mostly just "shut up and do your job"... at least, that was my general experience. "Expectations VS. Reality" indeed.
If you really want to be developing games then the best way to do it is by starting your own company and begin to teach yourself all there is you need to know (or hire the right people). Kind of like the 'other' success stories out there.
So i wasn´t wrong with my thoughts even when my insight is limited by beeing only an customer .But sad to be honest .
Its called game "industry" for a reasom . When a group pumps millions in a game then it has to make money and that is the bad thing nobody wants to risk anything on ideas at that point ( ideas to enlage the target group seem to work diffrent but as mentioned it often ends up with something overrated ) .
"Your not paid to think , a mindless worker is a happy worker , shut up and do you job" there was a futurama wallpaper with that written on it for years in my room , its so fitting .
But there are groups that a willing to risk something for our all luck . I mean there are games for example Stalker ( was good enough for two more games while clear sky was watered down in cod direction ) Supreme commander ( part 2 was watered down to normal rts level ) and Ruse (Wargame EE/ALB) . A few games i can spot in my shelf that doesn´t fit to back in the days themes and still doesn´t want to fit today . Want more of then and less cod and starcraft wannabes .
Its called game "industry" for a reasom . When a group pumps millions in a game then it has to make money and that is the bad thing nobody wants to risk anything on ideas at that point ( ideas to enlage the target group seem to work diffrent but as mentioned it often ends up with something overrated ) .
"Your not paid to think , a mindless worker is a happy worker , shut up and do you job" there was a futurama wallpaper with that written on it for years in my room , its so fitting .
But there are groups that a willing to risk something for our all luck . I mean there are games for example Stalker ( was good enough for two more games while clear sky was watered down in cod direction ) Supreme commander ( part 2 was watered down to normal rts level ) and Ruse (Wargame EE/ALB) . A few games i can spot in my shelf that doesn´t fit to back in the days themes and still doesn´t want to fit today . Want more of then and less cod and starcraft wannabes .
as far as games are concerned I'm forseeing a critical tipping point in the next decade. Just like summer blockbuster movies. The price of producing one is growing to such exorbent amounts that sooner or later a big one like COD will totally flop and cause a major developer to close down. The the system of cash cowing high end franchises will come to a grinding halt as all game publishers are too scared to invest in AAA games. We will likely move twards crowd funding and games with low budgets and user-produced content.
Comments