Indie games - FPS:es

[Anlino]

Not sure if this has been discussed earlier, but i believe that it is a major and important debate.

No one can disapprove that FPS:es is a major genre in gaming. Games like Half-Life, Doom, Counter Strike and many others is played all around the earth. As mostly a project for fun, i started developing an FPS as a learning project. Lately, it has improved greatly, and i was recently thinking if i could sell it.

That ended in a major attack from my lower left side of my brain, telling the others that it can't be done. The lower left side is the smartest, by the way.

What do you think? Can a FPS, developed by an indie, actually make something from it?

Have any FPS:es from indies been released earlier(recently)? If yes, how did it go?

Why are there so few FPS:es developed by Indies?

[Fry Crayola]

The main reason is the incredibly large production that needs to go into such a game. Textures, lighting... it can add up in both time and cost, and is beyond the reach of most indies. While we can knock up strategy, puzzle, 2D and niche games to challenge anyone, FPS titles require a much greater investment.

However, I reckon there's definitely a possibility of a more stylised game working out, something that doesn't rely heavily on a realistic looking gameworld.

[Anlino]

Iäve had thoughts of going beyond the standard limits for FPS:es as well. That doesn't meen doing great physics, but instead doing a different gameplay.

[ggambett]

I feel dumb asking, but what's a FPS:es?

[Robert Cummings]

It's not going to happen unless you want to make a shit game that can't compete with any FPS in the local bargain bin for $5

[Greg Squire]

FPS = First Person Shooter (games like Doom, Quake, Half-Life, Halo, etc.) (I think FPS:es was an attempt to pluralize FPS).

[Savant]

It's not going to happen unless you want to make a shit game that can't compete with any FPS in the local bargain bin for $5
I disagree and think that Fry has hit it on the head. You can do it if you stylize the graphics. Make a cell shaded FPS. Make a black and white FPS. Set the game in a world that takes a lot of the art burden away. I think that could work with the right team.

And don't try to compete with HL2, CounterStrike, Unreal, etc. Target a different market.

In other words, be smart.

[ERoberts]

Try it! I'm sure it will make you tons of money.

[GameStudioD]

It's not going to happen unless you want to make a shit game that can't compete with any FPS in the local bargain bin for $5

I guess you should send these guys (http://www.deadhunt.com/) a memo because they obviously didn't get it. Further, you need to tell all the gamers who purchased Dead Hunt to demand their money back. Now, get to work!

[Savant]

Try it! I'm sure it will make you tons of money.
It's easy to be negative but if you think about it I think you'll come to realize that it IS possible. But, as I said, it needs to be the right team.

[Nexic]

Well I don't mean to be negative, but does anyone here know how much Deadhunt actually sold? Or does anyone know how much it cost them to make? I have a feeling they didn't make megabucks.

[vjvj]

The problem is that technology != the game. Technology is really only maybe 10% of the game (and these days, it's really easy to write a 3D engine). The other 90% is CONTENT. First person shooters are extremely content-heavy. Not just art, but also AI/scripts and the killer: Level layout.

So, to answer your question, the reason there aren't many indie FPSs is because they can't afford the content required to make a competitive product. I'm not going to doubt that you have good gameplay ideas, but you need to be realistic about how long it will take to build all the content.

Here's an interesting bit of trivia for you: At GDC 2004, in John Carmack's keynote he said that the engine for Doom 3 was completed almost 2 years before they shipped. What were they doing for the remaining two years? Art and level layout! :) And that was with a full team of very experienced guys.

[Savant]

Right, which is what Fry was saying and what I continued with ... so stylize it. No, you can't compete with id/Epic/Valve on content creation. So don't.

[soniCron]

Right, which is what Fry was saying and what I continued with ... so stylize it. Is it cheaper to stylize?

[Savant]

I would think that it would be if you stylized properly. I'm sure we can all think of at least 10 ways to cut down on the art load if we focus on it. A simple example that we can all relate to as nerds: Tron. Don't try to tell me that making assets for a Tron FPS would be anywhere near as difficult as trying to mimick Doom3.

A little imagination would be all it takes, IMO...

[ggambett]

FPS = First Person Shooter (games like Doom, Quake, Half-Life, Halo, etc.) (I think FPS:es was an attempt to pluralize FPS).
Thanks. I know what a FPS is, but this is the first time I've seen someone trying to pluralize something by using a colon! :(

[cliffski]

an indie FPS could do well IMHO. But you need to innovate in the one area an FPS ignores - gameplay. Heres some random ideas:

Let me get injured. why am I able to run, jump duck shoot, aim and see and hear fine on 1% health. I need to limp, lose half my sight, lose my aim, my hearing... as I get hit. if im hit in the right hand, i need to shoot with the left hand, and my aim should suck...

Let me take dead peoples guns. Some FPS's dont allow this. its insane, And while we are at it, I'll have their ammo too please

Thief 1 did a great job of innovating gameplay in the FPS. you need to do something similar. Dont worry so much about texture quality or amazing bump mapping. you need to make the gameplay original. I'd say ignore everything else but the gameplay until you are sure your FPS is 100% original.
Gameplay doesnt require big teams or money, all you need is good ideas.

[bluejay]

Let me get injured. why am I able to run, jump duck shoot, aim and see and hear fine on 1% health. I need to limp, lose half my sight, lose my aim, my hearing... as I get hit. if im hit in the right hand, i need to shoot with the left hand, and my aim should suck...


Because playing a game with those things added in would suck, I would just hit quick load everytime I started to limp or my aim started to suck.

[Savant]

Let me get injured. why am I able to run, jump duck shoot, aim and see and hear fine on 1% health. I need to limp, lose half my sight, lose my aim, my hearing... as I get hit. if im hit in the right hand, i need to shoot with the left hand, and my aim should suck...
That's the best idea I've ever heard for removing all fun from a game.

[soniCron]

I'd immediately agree that would be one of the least fun FPS:es (;)), but the ever popular ActionQuake mod for Quake2 blew the charts as one of the most popular mods for the game - and it's main feature was said consequences.

[Jim Buck]

A simple example that we can all relate to as nerds: Tron. Don't try to tell me that making assets for a Tron FPS would be anywhere near as difficult as trying to mimick Doom3.

But still expensive nonetheless. (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20030910/rooke_03.shtml) (Scroll to the very bottom.)

[Black Hydra]

Three Points:

1) Content != Art - FPS's rely on a lot of detailed content. Just because you use a simplified art style doesn't really reduce your content load unless you try something tricky with the gameplay like randomly generated levels.

2) Cliffski - sounds good in practice, but most likely it would suck. There are many things that would add immersion to a game but remove fun. This is why people keep suggesting permadeath or aging in MMORPG's but they never add it. Because they have tried it and people don't like it. Often to make a game fun you need to suspend reality as much as you reinforce it.

3) FPS's probably wouldn't do well from an indie standpoint simply because the genre FPS is owned by the AAA games. Puzzle games and other more "niche" markets can be captivated by indies do to their low development cost and lower competition. Most FPS's simply can't compete against Half-Life or every other excellent FPS. This is in addition to the fact that such genre's have become so evolved that even a slight change to the mechanics is seen as a grevious error by the hardcore fan. This is true with some casual games aswell, I suppose, but seeing as you don't have to innovate to compete in that market I don't think it matters as much.

My 2cents

[soniCron]

But still expensive nonetheless. (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20030910/rooke_03.shtml) (Scroll to the very bottom.) I think he was thinking of something similar to Darwinia. ;)

[Jim Buck]

I think he was thinking of something similar to Darwinia. ;)

I'd be curious what the man-months and budget was on that one too. From public announcment to Windows release was 9 months, but I suspect it was worked on a for a while before the public announcement.

But, still, it's not an FPS.. to do an FPS in that style would take a lot longer than to do the RTS that Darwinia is.

[Savant]

I'm coming from the point of view that the content is the stumbling block rather than the code. If that holds true, then it would make sense that stylizing and/or simplifying the graphics (i.e. Tron, black and white world, etc) would make that less painful and put it within the grasp of an indie team.

That's all I mean.

Not that it wouldn't be lots of work still. Of course it would. But if you can slash the problem area into a fraction of its former self ... well, now we're talking.

[Black Hydra]

Savant - I think that a lot of those kinds of styles could make an FPS work but often times hardcore gamers simply don't want to play those kinds of FPS's. Their needs are being satisfied quite nicely by all of the AAA games for their genre. In order to grab attention you would need another market. And if you are already going for another market why even use the label FPS in the first place?

The idea of FPS seems locked into a certain very specific game type. Thinking too far outside the scope may give something desirable but it may not even be considered an FPS by the common thoughts on the matter. Does anyone see Gish and think: "Oh, that's a platformer."

My point is, that if you start making an FPS game then you are probably already thinking within the narrow sights of the currently defined genre. Then you will end up with a probably very FPSish game.

I think the whole idea of an indie FPS is bunk because when to make it work you'd probably need to think so far outside the box that the term FPS is meaningless except for a few borrowed mechanics.

Don't think within genre's when making a game, think within people. Think within the scope of what people will want, not what happened to work another time. Not an easy feat but often the unexpected hits think in these terms.

But, what do I know :D?

[electronicStar]

FPSs need LOADS more content than any other type of game. You need to design the models, the maps, the map objects, all that is already thousands of 3D triangles and each map takes at least one month from start to finish (including testing and planning). But that's not finished, you must add textures (the texture work in a standard level of a modern FPS would be enough work to design 3 complete shootemups).Music and sounds (3d requires very detailed sounds) and the gameplay and game logic, the logic required is much more complex than a 2d game.
That's the big stumbling block for FPS games, a lot of retail companies can't actually assume all that work, that explains the continuous crunch times, and the lack of novelty recently.
The team at EPIC actually has a couple of guys to code the engine and dozens of art and script makers for their unreal tournament series.

[Anatoly]

I think that it's possible to make an indie FPS that would be equal in quality (in all aspects) to the original Half-Life, but I think that it will not pay for itself.
Judging by the amount of context, number of budget AAA titles and that your game will never be advertised in a big public place (Like next to DooM III stand in the store) it's a big risk to take...
I feel that if you take FPS in a diretion where big commercial games will not venture (Pencil Whipped, Foreverhood) you might get yourself a hit!
But it's just easier to do a good word/puzzle game and start selling NOW :cool: !

[impossible]

Unless you can make a casual FPS, which I'd really like to see :), you'd have to have some nice innovation or gimmick and release at a price point less than your average budget FPS ($10-$15). Ragdoll Kung Fu, which is being sold on Steam and is targetted at hardcore gamers, will be selling for $12.95 for example. Competing in terms of production values is difficult, but I think it's possible to make a game with very high quality graphics on a relatively low budget as long as you don't have too much content. Modern first person shooters are generally focused on some combination of realism and cinematics, so I think there is a lot of room to build more abstract games that focus entirely on gameplay. There are no FPS equivalents of Kenta Cho games, for example. It would be cool to see some small FPS games with procedural levels or limited content and interesting gameplay gimmicks.

[ninjasamurai]

FPS players don't stare a the walls, textures, lighting, etc. They just wanna shoot somebody, thats the whole point of the genre, so I think you could get away with simpler textures, one-coloured walls, floor and ceiling, as long as your game is fun to play, and I mean funnier that what's already out there. Indies are great at innovation so that shouldn't be a problem if you are a true IndieGamer. I would give you a lot of ideas on how to make FPS:es better but i'm saving them for my own game ;) . So don't let anybody tell you it can't be done, you are the only one who knows what you are capable of.

And there is no reason a good and innovative FPS has to be sold for less than puzzle games, i'd say $25 would be reasonable.

[soniCron]

And there is no reason a good and innovative FPS has to be sold for less than puzzle games, i'd say $25 would be reasonable. One color walls, floors, and ceilings would be a good reason.

[impossible]

FPS players don't stare a the walls, textures, lighting, etc. They just wanna shoot somebody, thats the whole point of the genre, so I think you could get away with simpler textures, one-coloured walls, floor and ceiling, as long as your game is fun to play, and I mean funnier that what's already out there.

Even if you're extremely lacking in artistic talent you can do better than one color walls :), unless you're intentionally going for minimalism (it might look cool.)

Indies are great at innovation so that shouldn't be a problem if you are a true IndieGamer. I would give you a lot of ideas on how to make FPS:es better but i'm saving them for my own game ;) . So don't let anybody tell you it can't be done, you are the only one who knows what you are capable of.

I'd like to hear some of your ideas :).

And there is no reason a good and innovative FPS has to be sold for less than puzzle games, i'd say $25 would be reasonable.
Eh, perhaps, it'd have to be a really great game though. If you have a very short game, or a game with minimalist graphics, or basically anything that's cool but doesn't match the production values and content of a AAA FPS you're gonna have a lot of players saying "it would be cool for $10, but $25 is too much"... This is a very common sentiment among hardcore gameplayers looking for smaller innovative games when it comes to indie games (casual and otherwise.)

[ninjasamurai]

Even if you're extremely lacking in artistic talent you can do better than one color walls :)

Of course, I was just going to the extremes.


I'd like to hear some of your ideas :).


My walls have more than one color if that's what you wanna know. But it did cross my mind at some point: a simple world, shooting little yellow ducks with a laser gun, maybe the housewifes would like it. (hmmm... come to think about it, maybe i'll pack it in... an easter egg.... :D )

[Anlino]

Well, the original idea with the game was actually to release it as freeware.

[Sharpfish]

This topic, which usually crops up in gamedev related places (where people announce they are making a First Person Shooter as their first game), is always an emotive one.

I say: "Anything is possible".

However, consider why you want to make one and if the time you WILL need to invest in it, and the realistically poor sales you may get because you will be out manouvered by the big guys at every turn, will be worth it.

As people have posted, you could go the "completely different stylistic route" and hope to catch the eye of some gamers somewhere. But the fact is people who WANT to play FPS also want top notch graphics and features. I don't think it is true to state that "people who play FPS just wanna shoot stuff so give them bland gfx", I know I wouldn't want to play in a badly textured, poorly lit sub-standard arena I would just pick up Quake3 or something cheap instead.

Having mapped for Unreal(98,T,2k3 and 2k4) since 1998 and getting steadily better at it (www.mapraider.com/sharpfish) I know it takes MONTHS to build decent levels for an FPS especially with high levels of custom content (meshes in this case). How will you cope having to build 20+ for example while keeping the quality level consistently high.This is without even thinking about the code! If you have a team of 5/10 people then you may pull through. If you are a lone developer then forget it - unless you really want to do it as a hobby project for the next few years and are prepared to virtually give it away.

The brighter side is I think there is room for the FPS concept in smaller/different games. Not linear story driven but action/arcade/replayable with far smaller asset requirements that would allow you to keep quality high while realistically being able to finish your game. However this would take some good thinking on HOW to fit this concept into a game that is fun and would appeal to either Casual users (that is going to be HARD to do) or FPS users (who may just see it as a passing novelty and not actually want to put money down for it).

Nothing is impossible and only you know if you can really pull it off but it is certainly not the easiest or wisest of choices to make if your time is valuable.

Good luck.

[Anlino]

I know that it is a big fish that i am trying to swallow. A new FPS that don't have outstanding graphics needs to provide something else to make it saleable, or even enjoyable. The game that was discussed earlier in this topic was a good example for that. How well the game sold is another topic.

To Quote a Swedish gamingmagazine writer;

Jay, Doom 3! Even more ways to shoot aliens!

[soniCron]

I think it would be a really good idea if you read this article (http://www.lostgarden.com/essay_genreaddict.htm) before you embark upon your journey.

[Anlino]

Thanks sonicron. I'll read it.

[vjvj]

The point I'm trying to make is that it's incredibly easy to write an engine with "outstanding graphics". There's no secret behind the graphics tech for Doom 3 or Half Life 2. If you're set up to handle multiple texture stages, dependent texture reads, and arbitrary shader input, you're done. Sort by material and enjoy the triangles.

The problem is that square rooms are not inherently entertaining. Even if you stylize the art to reduce art load (which is perfectly valid), the layout itself is still something that needs to be done.

My sincere advice is to download a level editor (UT2004 and FarCry ship with one... And the Quake 3 editors are free to download) and try to make a level. Try to get it to a point where the layout is perfect and releasable... That will be a good exercise that will bring you closer to understanding the task you are trying to take on.

[Savant]

My point about stylizing the graphics applies to the world as well. Tron is not a complicated world. Very blocky, not hard to build.

[vjvj]

I'm agreeing with you :) But there may be gameplay mandates that require more complicated level layout. That's why I'm suggesting he download a level editor and make a level for his game idea. Only he can say for sure...

[ManuelMarino]

If anyone of you would ever think about investing time and money on an FPS title, I could help with my studio resources.

So, let me know, if this will ever happen... I would like to be on the boat.

[Reactor]

Creating any type of game is a matter of balance. You can make an fps in a day if you know how to balance time, your skillset, and the final quality of your game. Of course, that would be a ninja-like challenge, but it could be done. If you can't make levels, design for nuts, or handle sound, you can still make an fps that people will want to play. How? I have no idea, but I bet there's a way. It's a matter of balancing everything so that the vision you have in mind can be achieved... or at least as close to as balancing will allow ;)

What I'm saying must sound like a load of wishy-washy rubbish, but as someone who has a number of fps games in mind to create (on my own- as personal projects) I've put a lot of thought into it. It's a big task, but a big task can be made a lot smaller with some smart thinking.

(now, if only I were smart...)

[vjvj]

Exactly. One example would be a Crimsonland ripoff done in first person perspective. Square/rectangle rooms are more than adequate for that style of gameplay, and if you stylize the art like Savant suggested you will have drastically reduced how much time and money it will cost to make the game.

[Travis Dorschel]

I just found this website the other day - Project Offset (http://www.projectoffset.com). Watch the video - it rocks. The team is 3 former game developers who put this together while working out of an apartment, now shopping for publishers. About as indie as you can get for a AAA FPS.

OK, continue...

[vjvj]

Yep, Project Offset is a perfect example of the point I'm trying to make ;)

Awesome tech can be done by a few talented guys, but content costs a lot of money and time :(

[NothingLikeit]

I'd be curious what the man-months and budget was on that one too. From public announcment to Windows release was 9 months, but I suspect it was worked on a for a while before the public announcement.

But, still, it's not an FPS.. to do an FPS in that style would take a lot longer than to do the RTS that Darwinia is.

I don't know if that's entirely true. There's usually a lot more content you have to create if you think about it. Ther'es athe GUI, all the little Icons RTS is probably one of the most content driven genres outside of RPG

I'm also making an FPS. I know its not on par with Doom or Quake. I also know that I need a lot more content than I have. That's not going to stop me from releasing it though. Why? I figure that I'll chalk this up as a learning experience since this is my first game. But a lot of FPSes started off indie. Doom and Half Life being one of them. I think whatever Genre you do as an Indie you're going to have to be different because how else will people pay attention to your product. Also a torque team put out a really fun game called Dark Horizons so it's possible to make a fun indie game that's kinda close to the major studio releases.

But having said that, It will take time if you don't have the experience that Industry Vets have. So it really boils down to the amount of effort you put into your game... but that's life really

[Batley]

It doesnt exactly match Project Offset but Control monger (http://www.controlmonger.com) is more like what the average indie could do i think. Its free but i think they're going to charge for a pro version. I've played it once but the problem is why would i play this when i could be playing Call of Duty? Thats the problem most indie fps will face.