Quote: "What's the defenition of an indie game?"
We've delved into this topic once before, about a year or two ago. The general consensus was that an indie game is made on a minimal budget ($250k or less), by a relatively small team (20 people or less), and is more than likely released on the PC and sold online (not available in stores), although there were countless examples of each of these rules being broken.
Quote: "Good games lack the AI, but overall gameplay makes the game better. Take Rainbow Six 3, for example. Sure, lackluster AI, half-asleep squad mates, but it still sold a decent amount, right? Gameplay makes up for AI in every aspect. A game can look so pretty, but it's gameplay is bleh!"
I know what you mean... I've been a huge fan of the R6 series since it came around in the mid-to-late 1990's, and R6-3 was a serious let-down in a number of ways. But that game, as bugged and glitchy as it was, still sold tons of copies and turned a massive profit, partially because it belonged to that franchise, but also because people thought it was fun, and had great multiplayer.
Quote: "I'm sorry Matt, but 18 months isn't excactly a sort period of time anymore."
18 months is definitely a short period of time. Keep in mind how many people are working on FPSC (not that many). Now take into consideration the amount of products they need to keep up with. DarkBASIC Professional has been out much, much longer than FPSC, and yes, there are still bugs in DBP even years after it was created, but they keep fixing those bugs. Now let's examine user-bases, which inevitably decides which products TGC are going to end up spending the most time on. DBP has some ungodly number of users, and when you compare that to the number of FPSC users, the FPSC user-base almost seems trivial. But they keep working on it, and they keep trying to fix its bugs and make it run better.
On that note, if you just consider FPSC and DBP, if you had a team of equal size, do you think you'd be able to get an engine of equal quality bug-free in two years, all the while keeping up with bugs and other issues in a monsterous programming language that has tens of thousands of users anxiously waiting for updates? That's why I get upset when people diss TGC... they definitely have their hands full, and Lee does a lot more work in any given day than I would be capable of doing.
Quote: "But compared to other fps games all of the FPSC created levels and games I've seen so far lack big time. FPSC itself limits creativity. FPSC has features the original doom & quake had, that's not bad, but it's a bit outdated."
But again, that's why it's so useful to have the engine's source available to us. Take a look at Quake III's engine. It's been around since 1999, and even today, games are
still being made using it (the "Call of Duty" series (up to COD 2 I think) and John Romero's upcoming "Severity" come to mind). Unreal has existed even longer (1997 or 1998 I think), and it is also still being used today. But they can't get away with using the stock engine, so they do what most developers do... they take the engine apart, repairing bugs and changing elements/ features until they end up with a product that applies to the game they're using. That's why TGC released the source to the community... no one knows what your game needs more than you do.
In terms of limiting creativity, I also need to disagree. The engine is extremely open-ended. You can import original assets and scripts, you can alter the engine's source... these are the exact same features you'd find in any other commercial engine. The only limitations that FPSC puts on your creations are the ones presented by DX9 (and the bugs which we've already talked about), and while those limitations might keep you from making some stunningly beautiful game like Resistance: Fall of Man, they definitely keep the door open for you to improve the games you create. There's no engine in the world that doesn't require this same amount of developer-input to create a stellar commercial title, but unlike other engines, FPSC is based on the easier-to-use (and still extremely powerful) DBP language. And unlike most other engines, FPSC comes with stock media so you can learn how to use it without supplying tons of new assets to test concepts and whatnot.
Okay, I promise, I'll do my very best to not sound like a TGC commercial from this point forward
Let's get back to the brass tacs: Pricing an FPSC game. Let's try to put the idea of an FPSC game not being commercially viable behind us, because I honestly believe that eventually, that opinion will be proven fruitless, and this thread isn't about commercial viability, it's about pricing titles. Let's just assume the following:
(a) FPSC's engine is bug-free, either by TGC fixing it or by a user or team of users fixing it
(b) The game is going to sell well, or at least moderately well, if the price range we define in this thread doesn't contradict that from happening. Let's say for the sake of arguement that the designers achieved an optimal level of ingenuity with their title.
(c) The game is going to reach its target audience, regardless of the price range; More than enough people will know the game exists and will be interested in learning more about it.
These are the most basic parameters I could think up, but from this I think we should be able to come up with an actual price range. If there's other factors, what are they? Again, some of you will think these assumptions are pointless to make... that's been illustrated more than enough so far in this thread. At this point, I ask that anyone who participates tries to stay on subject (and thank you Benjamin for coming back onto the topic more). At the end of this thread, I seriously hope to have price ranges listed for each of these five games, and I know for a fact that at some point in the near future, these price points will definitely help someone
"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"