Graphics vs ideas; the tide has turned

[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.

[capnq]

I would have included music in the analogy if I had thought of it when I wrote the post.

Saxon said: 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 think Shrapnel is going anywhere different than they always have been. IMO, "the big boys" don't produce all that much "world class" material, either.

The October 2007 issue of Maximum PC had a cover story titled "11 games that will bring your system to its knees". The screenshots are gorgeous, but there are only 2 of the 11 that I'd even be mildly interesting in playing, if I had a computer that could handle them. (There are three current Shrapnel titles that I'm interested in that I didn't have the minimum system specs to run until recently.) The stuff in the new wing of the museum is pretty, but it's mostly just portraits of the same three models. Hardly anybody is using the new techniques to produce things that I want to spend much time looking at.

[S.R. Krol]

Saxon said:
You are right, I am looking at this and wondering if indie games can be a successful business.

There’s no question that indie games can be a successful business. When Shrapnel was formed in 1999 you could count the number of indie publishers/developers on one hand. Fast forward to 2007. To see the state of indie games all you have to do is look at the number of entries this year in the IGF competition, and of course that’s just a fraction of what’s out there.

Now, how does one define success beyond the obvious? That’s going to vary from person to person, but as in my earlier post success in the indie world should never be compared exactly with what defines success in the mainstream world. It’s two different business models, and one in the mainstream world that keeps changing. It used to be if you sold 100K units that was doing good. Now the goal posts have been moved to pushing 1 million units. Meanwhile in the indie world the goal is where ever you set them.

Saxon said:
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 apologies if that’s how it came off, although we may be simply discussing semantics. People who do anything as a hobby are doing it out of personal satisfaction, and not because they’re expecting a return on their investment. In the world of gaming the open source crowd is the perfect example of hobbyist gamers. Shrapnel and its developers are ultimately doing this for a profit, although the reasoning behind achieving that profit is different from the mainstream developer.

So let me rephrase me earlier comments about the drive that indie developers have. They’re the folks who create games out of passion, not because they’re simply products. To use your art museum analogy, indie games are the pieces you see exhibited in the museum. You may not always think they’re pretty, but all of them were crafted out of a true desire to see them come to life and be shared with others. Mainstream titles are the mass printed, Thomas Kinkade lithographs that can be found for $10 a pop at the local department store. Sometimes they look nice hanging on the wall, but ultimately for most there is nothing special about them.

It is also important to point out that Shrapnel, like 99% of all folks doing indie games, do niche titles. Even something as popular as Dominions is ultimately a niche title in the today’s overall world of gaming. Our games are created by developers who have a specific enthusiasm, for audiences who share a similar taste.

A perfect example of this is the upcoming Galley Battles, a turn-based historical ancient naval wargame. A title like this is a niche within a niche. How many folks out there are into naval wargaming? Then ask those same folks to raise their hand if they’re into ancient naval wargaming and see how the pool shrinks. Now, if a mainstream publisher was approached with the game they would sink the idea in a heartbeat. Not enough of an audience. But why should the folks who do enjoy ancient naval wargaming be denied that? So, tying in with the first part of the post, here’s a case where success will be measured on completely different terms than how many units Halo is able to sell.

Saxon said:
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.

Regarding pride, see comments above about clarification of indie development philosophy. Regarding market prices, it’s not ballsy, it’s fair. Why should an indie developer undervalue his game? Ultimately it *is* up to you as a game player/buyer. If you think a game is too much money, it’s your prerogative to not buy it. One thing that peeves me (and I know you’re not saying it, but this is something I see often) is that all indie games should cost $19.95 for no other reason than they’re indie games. What rubbish, especially in light of the number of games that sell for triple that which are absolute crap.

Saxon said:
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.

No one is saying that all mainstream titles are shallow and devoid of real gameplay, so yes, I agree there are real winners out there. For most people there is room for both indie gaming and mainstream gaming, although it sounds like you’re approaching it as an either/or proposition.

And that’s the interesting thing about this discussion. You’re the first person I’ve encountered who decided to swear off indie gaming because they got tired of the visuals and push headlong into mainstream gaming. For most people it’s the exact opposite. The indie ranks are swelling every day due to the folks who are tired of weak gameplay masked by million dollar graphics.

Saxon said:
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.

Is Diplomacy really a good example? Every single version of its computer incarnation has been panned. From Eurogamer:

“If you are looking for a multiplayer version of the classic board-game you're almost certainly better-off going to community sites like www.diplom.org and exploring some of the free Play-By-EMail options (bewilderingly Paradox have chosen not to include a PBEM or a hot-seat mode).”

So yeah, someone sank big money into it and ended up with folks recommending a hobbyist PBEM site like www.diplom.org. But I agree with you, graphics made it possible because if they spent money on developing an AI instead of shiny graphics it might have been worth the money. Instead it probably ended up in the bargain bin within a couple of weeks from release.

Obviously when all is said and done every gamer makes his or her own choices on what to spend money on, and everyone can respect that. It’s a shame that you’re casting off indie games, but I understand where you’re coming from. The indie world will still be here when you start getting frustrated with the blandness of the mainstream world.

[Captain Kwok]

You have to somewhat expect to pay more for a niche title, since it's really a specialized product with a limited audience. However, consider the cost per amount of time that you're playing the game, and you'll likely find that it's value works on to be much better than other titles you might have purchased. At least it's been that way in my experience.

[S.R. Krol]

But you're not having to pay more for a niche title. Our most expensive game is Dominions 3 at $54.95. That's still $5 cheaper than your average console game. Heck, I saw tonight that the "collector's edition" of the new Clive Barker game is $70!! From the average reviews it's getting, and the typical longevity of a shooter game, I would bet that's not $70 worth spending.

To give you another comparison Wizardy cost $49.95 when it was released in 1982.

Now, are there niche games that you *do* pay more for? Sure. Norm Koger's game on the Russo-Japanese war is $64.95 and if you want the campaign add-on that's another $24.95 for a grand total of $89.90!

But everything we offer here at Shrapnel is priced at fair market value that's beneficial to both our customers and to the developers. And yes, definitely when you break down the dollar cost to entertainment value you'll find that they're a great deal.