Games involving non-animated characters

[Mephs]

I'm trying to develop a game that could be taken and used as a portfolio piece, but with possible potential for commercial release should I decide to go Indie (which would be a bonus, but doesn't have to be the aim).

Now I'm aware that most big companies tend to prefer games that demonstrate knowledge of 3D programming (I've seen a couple of the agencies wish lists). This is fine as I am reasonably competent with 3D programming.

My main problem is that as I am only familiar with the fundamentals of 3d modelling, skeletal animation is a little above me in terms of the time I need to invest (though not in terms of coding competency), and would also take a fair while to implement in my code as I would have to code a viewer and an exporter (as I would be using Blender and cannot for the life of me get Cal3D to export properly from Blender!). I would then lose a lot of time modelling, animating and skinning and learning said skills up to a decent standard. I also am not in a position where I am able to afford a dedicated artist.

So my question is what kind of avatars can be used in a game that wouldn't require animation? I keep coming back to a core few ideas:

A game involving blocks of some description,
A game involving a moving ball (a la Super Monkeyball or Marble Madness),
A game involving vehicles, be it spaceships, cars, ships or planes.

None of these game tokens would need any animation, but I can't help but feel that they are probably all way overdone as portfolio pieces and they would make finding a commercial audience pretty difficult as I'm sure the ideas are all overused by Indies in a similar position to myself.

Should I bite the bullet and code a viewer/exporter for skeletally animated ,odels and put in the time to create some resources for myself, or would my time be better spent thinking of an original avatar/game mechanic that would fit the bill?

Does anyone else feel they are in a similar position, and what have you considered to make life easier?

Cheers,

Steve

[cliffski]

Yes I'm in that position. Take a look at my game Kudos. I can't do animation either, or even 3D!* I decided to just say "sod it" and stick with 2D. I got some flak for it, and it does restrict my sales, but I think clunky, badly done 3D looks appalling, whereas nicely done 2D you can get away with.
I'm struggling with my next game too, currently I have non-animated images there too, and I think I will stick with that, but it *is* a tad frustrating.

*well I can a bit, but not well.

[Mephs]

I think part of the problem is that 3D generally suits more hardcore complex styles of game. As a programmer trying to break into the industry, you want a simple project that is nicely polished. 2D is ideal for that and I wish it was an option in my case.

I can model well enough that I can create passable models for a portfolio piece (albeit not animated), and I'm actually pretty good in Photoshop, so skinning should be no problem.

Basically, what I've been advised by agencies and talks with games industry professionals is to create a simple 3D game like some of the examples which follow. Datascope has the following sample demos:

A car game where you race around a city to reach checkpoints with different vehicles, avoiding traffic attempting to beat your best time.

A set of 3 demos including 1) a simple monkeyball style clone, collecting rings and trying to reachthe exit via a series of platforms, some moving, others shaped so as to present a challenge. 2) A 3D version of pacman and 3) a simple small 3D platformer game with graphics taken from Crash Bandicoot.

Some kind of lava lamp demo which to be honest I haven't felt compelled to look at.

I've also read advice that what companies want to see is something different that is not a demo of a player wandering around a landscape FPS style and is not a match 3 game, as apparently games companies get inundated with these kinds of demos as portfolio pieces. I have read a suggestion that a good simple idea would be a top down racer where you race around a track and can bump into CPU opponents.


Now I've almost completed a 3D airhockey clone, which may be enough by itself, but I'm assuming that I'll need to create at least 1 or 2 more small games before I can go job hunting properly (as well as completely finishing my airhockey clone).

What I think though is that creating a Marble Madness style game, or a racing game, or asteroids or match 3 or any of the other cliche simple projects wont help me to stand out. I'd like to do something a little bit different and that has been the major thorn in my side, I'm struggling to come up with an innovative design that is simple enough to complete, but complex enough to demonstrate what I'm capable of, especially if I ever look to adapt the game to make a commercial project in future, although this is a secondary goal.

What would you make for a portfolio project? Is it worth just saying "sod it" and making a clone (possibly with slight twists) for the sake of having something to show? Perhaps my problem is that I shouldn't mix the commercial objective with the portfolio objective. Concentrating on it as a portfolio piece makes me feel that I may be dumbing the idea down too much and stripping it of any comercial potential, concentrating on it as a commercial piece leaves me worried that I wont be building a design that is tailored to what the games companies want to see. So basically, I think I'm afraid to commit to my demo being either one or the other for fear of making the wrong choice.

Any further thoughts are welcome!

Thanks,

Steve

[Pyabo]

Hey Mephs...

Less talk, more game dev, OK? :)

[luggage]

Depends what job position you're looking for. If you want to be an engine coder then obviously a few good tech demos showing advanced rendering would be the order the day. On the other hand if you're applying for an AI position you'd want to move your demos towards that. Remember most of the larger game dev companies now have specialised coders for different tasks (for the majority of the time).

[Mephs]

The "less talk more gamedev" is true, I do tend to overanalyze everything, but I feel somewhat directionless at the moment. Programming skill has never been the problem, but being happy with a given design is. I've become so used to analyzing gameplay being as it was one of the reasons I wanted to make games in the first place, that I shoot all my own ideas to pieces before I get anywhere close to finishing them.

At present, I have had a thought to adjust my match-3 spinoff mechanic to create a new type of casual game... I'm now thinking that it could be a good idea to follow through on this idea but make two games out of it. One with the casual theme and one with the more hardcore theme. By doing 2 games with a very similar core mechanic but radically different themes, it might solve my problem of committing to one or the other.

As for the type of job. I'm in two minds. I would love to be an indie developer and do what I love for myself, but I think such a business would need building up over time, so I figure any industry experience I could get would go down well. To that end, I'd probably look at general gameplay programmer positions, or something such as a tools programmer, as I'm used to general programming, rather than specializing purely in one area.

Anyhoo, I guess I'd better shut up and get cracking on it :P

Cheers,

Steve

[Applewood]

Some kind of lava lamp demo
They having a laugh ? Someone with a working lavalamp demo should be instantly given the job of chief engineer and paid double what the current one is!

I've been doing exactly this using SPH and metaballs/marching cubes as a hobby project for over a year, off and on. It's almost working but still has a long way to go and needs massive optimisation.

It's gonna be a kick-ass screensaver one day though :)

[Applewood]

If you're considering a "general" gameplay programmer (presumably at entry level), all they're gonna want to see is examples of gameplay programming. Wowing them with fancy visuals will not impress - they won't be as good as the tech team can manage and they have a tech team already. Sure, crap graphics will make you look lazy (even though it shouldnt), but they're not expecting you to come up with Gears of War by yourself either.

What they will want to see is if you know your way around standard 3D gaming problems. Collision resolution (your own, not some Bullet wrapper), raycasting, camera movement, navigation in 3D (to prove you know the math). If all this is tied into an actual playable game then so much the better.

I think if I was in your position I'd go for some sort of wipeout game using a procedurally generated track and a decent movement model with decent camera. Add some coins up the banking to collect and other basic gameplay elements to give it a point, then polish it to a shine. That doesn't necessarily mean mega graphics, just smoothing out of all the wrinkles. Add a GUI too - a proper one.

If you sent me that (and it was good), I'd offer you a job on the spot.

I've seen way too many grads turn up showing their 2.2 shoddy final year project that 19 other people helped with and expecting me to be impressed. Turn up with something half decent that you did by yourself and you're home and dry.

[Mephs]

That's useful to know and helps by providing a different opinion.

The point about collision detection bothers me a little though, as with my current engine, I've made my own wrapper for using Newton Physics SDK. I was assuming it might go down well to show that I could integrate others work into my own project. I originally used my own collision detection, and got it pretty much working solidly, but it was a hell of a lot of work as it really suffered for a long time from precision problems, probably due to Airhockey being a very fast paced game. As an example, I had to try various methods of collision response as if the game were not precise enough you could end up in situation where the shuffler could push the puck through a boundary if you trapped it in a corner and hit it hard enough.

A game like Wipeout is an interesting idea, but not quite my cup of tea. I can see though how it effectively demonstrates things that employers would like to see.

Assuming for a moment that I went with my match-3 type spinoff game, do you think it would be sufficient to work those elements into it? Give the game some nice camera motion effects, put some self-rolled physics into the mix, add collectibles, perhaps a procedural element and possibly as my earlier post suggests, layer an RPG combat system over the gameplay along with enemy AI. I could even look at giving the puzzle gameplay a top down 3D world map to facilitate inclusion of 3D navigation/physics/etc.

Would this still fulfill the requirements in your opinion, or would the match blocks style gameplay just have it committed straight to the bin, despite including the desired elements?

Another idea I had considered was a crazy golf style game, your usual crazy golf style gameplay with all kinds of crazy obstacles, but where shots consume a players reserves of energy, but energy can be collected en route to the hole with careful planning of shots. The objective being to reach the hole with the most possible remaining energy. Again, I think this would fulfill the expectations games companies would have. It could include physics, procedural or tool generated levels, collectible items and powerups, a 2D GUI and camera effects among other elements. Again, though this idea interests me, I wonder if the casual nature of gameplay would be a turnoff.

Anyhoo, sorry to get so far off topic, but developing my portfolio is really the reason for many of my posts, the ulterior motive, so it is good to hit at the core of the problem!!

Thanks,

Steve

[Applewood]

Lets just assume you're coming to me for a job as I can only speak for myself, though I'm fairly sure this would be representative of other small-middlesized employers. (Larger firms tend to sit you in front of a load of cryptic "this won't compile" bollocks and ask you why like it proves anything. I doubt I'd get 25% tbh)

Anyways:

Linking to a physics lib wouldn't be a turn off. If your game actually needed real physics then the fact that you realised this and made a sane choice of how to fix it would be a plus. I'd still want an answer to the question of how aware you are of interacting with geometry and moving objects etc though.

Anyone turning up with a match-3 game would go straight in the bin. No offence to those around who've done one purely for financial gain, but that style of game is a piece of piss to write and proves nothing - anyone with a copy of dev should be able to manage it if they're of employment standard.

Someone will say that a completed match-3 would at least prove you can finish something (which is a big question as most can't), but proving you can finish a match-3 is not going to convince anyone you can finish gears of war 2, believe me. It would have some merit certainly, but my advice is to ignore it and spend that saved time on something else that will do you more good.

I love the idea of mini golf. It will show off a lot of different abilities whilst being something reachable and undaunting to do. Concentrate on just one or two holes and put lots of stuff in them like you mentioned - you can finish it later if that's your wish. There's nothing casual about mini golf done properly in 3D - it's very mass market and, more importantly, the guy you're trying to impress will "get it" straight away.

I only suggested wipeout as it would also show most things without taking years to do. I hate the game also :)

Hope that helps. And I hope you get into the industry. A lot of people round these parts have been badly burned and bemoan it a lot, but it's a misrepresentation given the focus of this board. Most people in the trade love it and couldn't imagine doing anything else. Indie has a lot of advantages, but so does working with a team of quality people operating on a large budget big title.

[Mephs]

Excellent, that is very useful feedback. I'm actually surprised by how little there is in the way of guidance as to what is expected in a portfolio. Now by no means do I accept what has been said as gospel, but it strikes me as being sensible, correct advice.

I guess the crazy golf idea is the one to follow then, I just need to flesh the out a bit more.

I am however, very intrigued by the idea of a RPG game layered over a match-3 style mechanic. It strikes me as an idea that could work wonders if it provided pick up and put down any time gameplay, possibly with an episodic style of content.

Maybe I'll have to try and develop both, follow both the Indie and the professional route and go with whichever is most successful. The match-3 style game (which given my ideas would hopefully not be a complete clone of an existing game), if not a commercial success could at least perhaps pose a use as a supporting project and vice versa.

Confirmation of the Crazy Golf idea as being worth following up on though is the real helpful information, as a current outsider to the industry, it can be easy to take a perspective which doesn't match that of the industry and follow the wrong route, and I really don't need to waste any more time developing something that has no worth in my portfolio.

Anyhoo, thanks for your help, it is much appreciated :)

[Applewood]

You're welcome - just don't burn yourself out! :eek:

[Mephs]

Actually, I think working on two games at once may have the opposite effect. If I get stuck or bored with one, I could switch to the other to help reduce burnout. Also, working on two ideas would help ease the feeling of possibly making the wrong decision, it would feel safer and would also provide me with more content for the portfolio in the long term. I also don't have much experience with maintaining a central engine used for multiple projects, so this could provide me with a new experience, as I have usually tended to implement all my work into a single project... then when I needed to refactor the code (due to making mistakes in engine design when i started out), or if I scrapped the design (due to being far too fickle with my designs) , I lost the original work as I kept working in the same project.

Anyhoo, I think I'll start work tonight, I'll try and finish off my Airhockey game as soon as possible and get it polished up, but keep it simple. Then I can adapt the engine for use in my two new project ideas and take it from there.

Sounds like a plan!

Thanks,

Steve