To all you modders out there!

[Traggey]

As an indie developer you most certainly are not free to do whatever the balls you feel like. You are only free to do whatever brings food on your employees' table and keeps you in business. Most indie developers aren't as lucky as Frictional Games and judging by the hard road it was to get Amnesia made it took a LOT of luck for that happen. You hear a lot of success stories but the reality is that most indie developers are stuck making shitty licensed games on impossible deadlines just to keep running.

Surely that is the case if you want to make a success out of things, however there are no rules saying what you can and can't do, whilst working under a publisher there are tons of rules you'll have to abide to.

[Kreekakon]

As an indie developer you most certainly are not free to do whatever the balls you feel like. You are only free to do whatever brings food on your employees' table and keeps you in business.

I believe what Traggey meant was that you are free to do whatever you like in the process of making a game, and follow your own path to making that something which will become successful as you see fit when in contrast working for a publisher will have its restrictions on how, and what you work with, and on, regardless if that may be your company's wishes, or not.

EDIT: Bleh ninja'd

[rtjhbfvsrry]

That's my point, you have that freedom in theory but in practice it hardly ever turns out that way. You need to have the resources before you can make whatever you want. Not everyone can be Notch.

[Kreekakon]

That's my point, you have that freedom in theory but in practice it hardly ever turns out that way. You need to have the resources before you can make whatever you want. Not everyone can be Notch.

Well, look at it this way then. Game companies, indie, or not need to start with a project which means they're probably going to have some sort of starting resources to work with, or they wouldn't be here at all.

After that, then they can decide how those resources are put to use of their own accord (If they're indie, and therefore free to), and make something that they think will be good.

Of course what really might be "good" might not always be economically viable with the resources they currently have at hand, so obviously adjustments will sometimes have to be made. But given the creativity of devs (Optimistically speaking), they'll still be able to twist it around into a creation that is still theirs, and they're happy with.

This is what I think is a final conclusion from me: You have half-freedom in this regard. You are free to work with whatever you want, but only under the constraints of your budget. However that does not mean you cannot work under that limited budget to still create something you enjoy very much.



BTW, I just want to say that you should take the above with a grain of salt, because I only realized halfway through typing it that there are still many variables which can alter the legitimacy of the statement I just said.

[rtjhbfvsrry]

Obviously it is the story, and I stand by what I said one hundred percent. A player cannot experience a story in a game without a way to experience it. Your gameplay comes first because you cannot implement the narrative part of a game (a part of what they experience) until the gameplay (how they experience it) is in place. Again, I must stress that gameplay and game mechanics are NOT the same thing. Starting from game mechanics is just as stupid as starting from the story, but it is literally impossible to not start with the gameplay.

As for the book example, you are simply wrong. You cannot translate a book into a game. You can create a game that allows a player to experience this story or as close as you can get to it within the confines of the game's rules and gameplay. You will have the gameplay first before you can implement the story, even if it is the product's core aesthetic and even then it will have huge difference simply by nature of it being a game that a player has to be able to play before it is a story that a player can experience.

I misunderstood you about CoD, however, as I read into your post a kind of "they rush it out the door" point. Believe me, however, they spend agonizing amounts of time designing, testing and redesigning their designs on a fundamental level. How quickly does the character move, how much damage does this gun do, etc., and they are right to do this because they have the time - do you think their designers are just sitting there, waiting for the art team to pump out the assets?

EDIT: Argh, it's so frustrating. That was meant for Robosprog, obviously. I agree with your point though, you have in certain ways a lot more freedom as an indie developer, but you also have different limitations. A dev working for a publisher will likely have the top people breathing down their necks but they will also have more security, and freedom can be crippling while limitations can create creativity. Obviously, my point isn't that working with publishers gives you more freedom, I'm just saying you are not "free to do whatever the balls you want" either.

[Kreekakon]

and freedom can be crippling while limitations can create creativity.

Hmmm? I can't fully understand your point here. Can you elaborate more in detail what you mean by this?

Obviously, my point isn't that working with publishers gives you more freedom, I'm just saying you are not "free to do whatever the balls you want" either.

No, no of course not! I agree completely that you are never 100% free to do what you want.

Well, maybe not always. There are exceptions to this rule which lie in people who have enough power, and resources to make it so, and really can almost make 100% what they want (Provided it isn't stupid), but these are really few, and far between, so not really wise taking them into consideration here ^^

[Tiger]

To be honest, I think Call of duty's stories are pretty ok...

[rtjhbfvsrry]

and freedom can be crippling while limitations can create creativity.

Hmmm? I can't fully understand your point here. Can you elaborate more in detail what you mean by this?

Some of the most creative game designs come from the developers trying to cirvumvent or work within limitations and a lot of people I know, if you tell them "make whatever you want" they kindof just shoot off into space and never land anywhere, you know? It's not something that always happens, but the possibilities are there.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify about my previous posts because I come across as a bit negative about story driven games, but I am not. In fact most games I play are story driven and I think more games should be story driven or at least have good stories. But this does not take away that a story driven game is exactly what is says on the tin. You cannot have a game driven by a story without having the game first.

[Bridge]

I think we can all do without the condescension, Robo. Funderbunk clearly has experience in this field.

[rtjhbfvsrry]

Hilarious that you resort to belittling me while not actually responding to anything I said but to some strawman you created instead. Extra Credits supports what I'm saying, in fact the MDA paper I linked earlier I got from them.

This will be the last time I acknowledge you in this context since I tire of being insulted by someone who cannot have a civil discussion, but first off:

Translation =/= adaptation. The books that have been adapted into games are vastly different on account to being in a completely different medium and having to confirm to the rules and available actions that the gameplay allows for. I challenge you to translate Mark Z. Danielwski's House of Leaves - a straight translation of the story, not an adaptation mind you. Every single aspect and detail and nuance of that story in game form.

I have also not said you cannot create a game with story in mind, but this story has to confirm to your existing gameplay. Your examples have this, both Half Life and Bioshock. Much of those stories are told by the player doing something, hence the only way to tell those stories is BY GAMEPLAY. If these stories were books, they would not be interesting. If Amnesia was a book, it would not be interesting. They rely on there being a person to play through them - if you're just reading about Daniel, you wouldn't be scared. The twist of Bioshock in fact relies on it being a subversion of gameplay in that your objectives in the game are you doing the villain's work - the only way for the most known twist in gaming to have worked is because it was based on gameplay. They rely on you experiencing these things through gameplay for them to work, not being a story that is told to you. Without gameplay, these stories are nothing.

You even say it yourself, by adapting a book, you would be creating a game around a story. You are literally saying here yourself that you will be creating gameplay (a game) to put the story inside of. No matter how good your story is, if you haven't created gameplay to put it in, you cannot make a game. AGAIN, Gameplay (what the player experiences) and Game Mechanics (how it works) are NOT the same thing. You can have a story before you have game mechanics (like I said before, starting with game mechanics is just as stupid as starting with the story) but it is impossible to put in a story if you do not have gameplay first. You can have a story idea in mind as you create the gameplay, but you cannot design the actual narrative until you've figured out what gameplay tools your player will have to experience that narrative, how it is delivered to them. In any and all cases, the gameplay will always come first because a game IS gameplay. If you do not have gameplay, you do not have a game, and you do not have anything to put a story in.