[Saxon]

Interesting food for thought. Scott, I think we both might be missing the point! Seriously.

You are right, I am looking at this and wondering if indie games can be a successful business. Based on my epiphany that the state of the art has now drastically outstripped most Shrapnel games, I fear Shrapnel will go broke. You have pointed out that the economic dynamics of the company are different and the much lower costs of making the low graphics games makes it profitable. Good.

However, I did write that I think Shrapnel is going down the hobby route, like people who build their own planes. You have essentially confirmed that. My point is that people in such a world produce things that please themselves and occasionally others, but they very rarely produce world class items. I don’t claim it is easy or simple to compete with the big boys, but if one wants to reach greatness that everyone agrees is truly great, you have to try. Burt Rutan didn’t have an easy time getting Space Ship One up against the massive government funding of NASA and the like, but he did in the end. In the world of computer games, I must point out Paradox as a company that produces very abstract games, with great depth, yet keeps up on the graphics front. No one has ever accused them of being all shiny graphics and no game play and they do take criticism for the graphics, but they do ok.

Writing a game for pride is admirable. Asking me to pay for it, at market prices, is ballsy. If you can get away with it, more power to you! More seriously, why someone chooses to write a game is important to them, but not to me as a game player/buyer. I argue from my point of view.

Yes, I list a number of games which I have previously played and enjoyed that had low graphics. They were played when the state of the art was behind where it is today. I also loved Gorf on the Vic20, but would not play it today. You have suggested my tastes have changed, but I would argue differently. I still love the same kinds of games, but I am no longer willing to accept (and pay for) less than reasonable quality graphics. What has changed is range of graphics available. Essentially, what was a C+ five years ago is now a D-. Previously, Shrapnel games were passing with a C+, but now they are failing with a D-.

To answer you question, “why I don’t enjoy them any more”, I tolerated the graphics because the game was good otherwise. It was an A game in a C+ swimsuit. Now they are A games in D- burkas. I am like the small town boy who was the best ball player in the county. I moved to the big city and discovered that there is a lot more and a lot better out there. (Note, the example I wanted to use would have got me kicked off the boards, but it involved condoms. Use your imagination)

I believe it is acceptable to hope for excellence in all areas. I also believe it is good for me to play beer league sport, even when there is a World Cup professional league. There is room for the hobby and the profession. However, I will pay to watch the big boys.

To answer some others, I know and appreciate that developers do not want bad graphics; I am not accusing them of that. They want the best for their games, even more than the consumers do. The example of the Valve/Digital Eel shows that they also want to play with neat ideas. And incidentally, Weird Worlds is also the slickest and most graphically together product in the stable.

My argument is different than that. If a game is going to be truly great, it must excel in all areas. Shrapnel games (the good ones) excel in gameplay, but fall short in graphics. Previously, they came second or third in graphics, but now they are barely also rans. For commercial products, that is tough to swallow, especially at full price. As art, they need more effort to make the weak graphics work as a unit. Look at Weird Worlds or Oasis. Low graphics, but very well packaged, so you don’t feel it.

In any case, I will keep an eye out here for the rare gems. But I will also be more actively trolling the internet for other rare gems and I will be looking back at the mainstream. With the general growth of gaming, the large number of titles on the market and the range of ideas, there are winners out there. As the gaming population ages, we are seeing a maturing of the market and more serious games are being made. Before we had to go to the ghetto to get good and serious games, but no longer. A big budget version of the game Diplomacy? With faces that show the reactions of the AI? Impossible a few years ago and, per received wisdom, something that the big companies would never do. Graphics made that possible, and the big companies tried out the serious game and put the money into it. In the end, I did not like the game, but as an example, it shows what is already happening and what is coming.