31–40 of 79 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, those are real demodevs. Games are not about technical superiority - they're about having fun and projecting stories and emotions, just like any other art form.
>just like any other art form That implies that making something technically impressive, like .kkrieger, isn't an art form.
Has anyone yet succeeded in running it on a modern computer? Last time I tried it I had no luck.
Edit: Just make sure it actually closes when you close it. I checked my task manager and it was still running!
Fabian Giesen aka ryg, one of the developers behind .kkrieger wrote up a post about how they crunched out the last bytes to get it down to 96k. https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/metaprogramming-for...
https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/
This is one of the very few blogs where I enjoyed reading every single article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, those are real demodevs. Games are not about technical superiority - they're about having fun and projecting stories and emotions, just like any other art form.
No, they're real gamedevs. Much like Richard Garriott, they built their own tools, unlike every AAA company out there using someone elses engine. These guys did the ALL of the work from the ground up. That's REAL development.
While writing your own engine from scratch can sound tempting, and absolutely is a rewarding excercise, if your goal is to publish a game, it's probably wise to not do this. Pick up gamemaker or godot or unity and start prototyping right away.
I might have a bit of a bias here, but I spend a not-insignificant amount of time on an online gamedev community, and the only people who ever finish anything are the guys using gamemaker and unity. Everyone else gets stuck at the "should I use regular inheritance or components/what's the best way to z-order sprites/Delta time coefficients cause random bugs in physics" stage and cannot proceed because their engine becomes unstable.
If you have the skills and time, and feel like it is necessary to write your own engine for your game, then by all means, but I think that for most people, these prerequisites don't exist.
"Real dev" or not, once you shipped your game, you've done more than most devs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, those are real demodevs. Games are not about technical superiority - they're about having fun and projecting stories and emotions, just like any other art form.
No, they're real gamedevs. Much like Richard Garriott, they built their own tools, unlike every AAA company out there using someone elses engine. These guys did the ALL of the work from the ground up. That's REAL development.
Sorry, but doing more work just for the sake of doing more work is not something that's impressive. It's merely a waste of time. For .kkrieger the technical achievement of fitting that much in so little space is definitely impressive, but dismissing developers that were using a licensed engine is pointless. Most games are built with finite time and money. If you can build a better game by allocating money somewhere you'd otherwise have spent time at the expense of part of the game, then that's a net win in my eyes, and doesn't diminish the result in the slightest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, those are real demodevs. Games are not about technical superiority - they're about having fun and projecting stories and emotions, just like any other art form.
No, they're real gamedevs. Much like Richard Garriott, they built their own tools, unlike every AAA company out there using someone elses engine. These guys did the ALL of the work from the ground up. That's REAL development.
Unless you believe that every single game should write its own engine from scratch, then I don't know what to say about that, it's just extremely obvious that it's not feasible for every project regardless of whether you have 100 or 10000 people working at your company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>just like any other art form That implies that making something technically impressive, like .kkrieger, isn't an art form.
Technical quality and artistic quality are orthogonal, though the former can have an influence on the latter.
I wonder how many young people were inspired to take up programming because of the work of Future Crew, Farbrausch and the like. I certainly was, after experiencing what FC did with Second Reality. Props to Farbrausch for publishing so much of their code. In some sense, getting 1k colors out of a CGA is the contra-movement to node.js :)
Farbrausch definitely inspired me to get into programming, just so I could program something 3D. Learning how to program was the easy part; figuring out how 3D graphics work was harder, because of all the complicated math/algebra involved. I eventually got some lit and textured polys going, and some shadow mapping (even wrote the Wikipedia article on it), then gave up and settled for web programming. (Hey look, WebGL…
those are real gamedevs
No, those are real demodevs. Games are not about technical superiority - they're about having fun and projecting stories and emotions, just like any other art form.
You say that as if it is a pejorative. In many ways, the demo scene is more demanding of excellence than game development.
Yes, there are differences in priorities between demos and games, but by creating a technically excellent demo that is also a game that "plays really well", they've shown that they are "demodevs" who are also "gamedevs".
And art comes in many forms. Besides the obvious visual/animation/audio artistic aspects of demos, the awe felt at the technical superiority of a great software demo is very similar to the inspirational effects of great physical architecture, but not everyone feels that emotion.
The Taj Mahal is a physical "demo" that demonstrates great "technical superiority", but even people who don't care for architecture tend to recognize it as art.
Fabian Giesen aka ryg, one of the developers behind .kkrieger wrote up a post about how they crunched out the last bytes to get it down to 96k. https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/metaprogramming-for...