Great games: from independent or large studios?

Game Play & Game Design
#1

Maybe we could list a few impressive (and/or successfully) computer games of the last decades (or so) here, and try to figure out who actually “invented” them: small(er) independant game developer studios, or the big ones? Or both of them?
What could we Java game developers learn of it?

Ok, this may be difficult because one could differ on what’s “impressive”.

The thread’s been inspired by the one named “Understanding SUN”, see http://www.java-gaming.org/cgi-bin/JGNetForums/YaBB.cgi?board=announcements;action=display;num=1059769246

Postscript: The purpose of this thread is to figure out which theory is more true. In short:

  1. Are the small independent game studios the ones who bring creative, new and fresh computer and video games to us?
  2. Are the big studios the ones who do this?
  3. Both?

In the above mentioned SUN-Thread Jeff takes the first theory IMHO. I quote one of his main points:[quote]Where we still see such creativity is mostly in relatively small independent efforts that do one thing and do it different and new. (Take a look at Doom again
[…]
I fully expect the really new design ideas to come from the same place new film ideas do-- low budget productions. Every so often one of those will “hit” a new concept so squarely that it will make a ton of money (like Doom did.) The creators will get treated like rock-stars, offered big budgets, and disappear into the mill of studio productions where they will be expected to do the same thing over and over again… until the NEXT great garage guys come along.
[/quote]
Blahblahblahh did tend to take the second theory IMHO. I try to quote his main point:[quote]Beg to differ. There’s some pretty amazing stuff coming out of large and/or in-house groups these days. They tend to be better funded, better supported (they are understood and looked-after by their publisher, because of their size and/or track-record), have the best people (indies can rarely attract top talent for anything but a few key positions).
Sure, there are plenty like I’ve just described that are too cozy, and have no “hunger” left to be really creative or exciting. But AFAICS most people in this industry are always “hungry” because of their own obsessions with building games.
[/quote]
If we take a closer look at the really impressive games in the past, we could figure out which theory does fit - or if both theories are true.

#2

Not sure if I’m understanding the topic correctly, but here’s my input…

First game I remember really being in to and loving was Bard’s Tale on the Comodore 64. I think Interplay put it out.

I also loved Zork by Infocom, the original Quest series (King’s, Space, etc) from Sierra.

Right now, I’m completely hooked and addicted to Knights Of the Old Republic. God, I love that game.

#3

Great ones:

Doom
Dune 2
UFO: Enemy Unkown

Bad ones:

Die Hard - Nakatomi Plaza
Splinter Cell (I know people loved it, but I absolutely hated it. WAAAY too linear.)

#4

I liked the Lamasoft games on the C64. And the original Ultima games of back then.

Off topic, for those who loved Infocom games:
telnet eldorado.elsewhere.org
login as zork no password

#5

I’m not entirely sure I follow the subject either, but I’ll try.

What about Ikaruga? Great example of a small developer, on a tight budget with a small team pretty much breaking all barriers. It’s a truly fantastic game, has sold far more than anyone expected (it’s NCS’s best selling game of all time), and was deemed successful enough to both receive a gamecube port and a US release. This game received no real ad campaign or really any marketing budget to speak of, just all word of mouth. I think it’s a great model for what smaller games can strive for.

If I understand correctly, Rollercoaster Tycoon has a similiar (and even more successful) story.

#6

I rather enjoyed Splinter Cell. Damn. :-[

If the linearity bothered you, have you tried Hitman 2? Pretty impressive in the number of solutions to any given mission.

#7

I have, and it’s excellent. The later levels are kind of insanely hard though, so I haven’t finished it yet. =)

#8

The purpose of this thread? :slight_smile: I tried to make it more clear by editing my first posting. Please see the “postscript” section in the above article.

#9

So, basically: What makes a good game?

I doubt you can distill that into a nice function.

For instance, there are great games that innovated:

Doom (FPS), Dune 2(RTS), Wizardry(RPG), etc. All great.

Then there are great games that refined a genre:

Halflife(FPS), Warcraft 2(RTS), Baldur’s Gate(RPG), etc.

Then there are great games that gave more of the same but changed up the formula:

Unreal Tournament(FPS), Red Alert(RTS), Icewind Dale(RPG), etc.

Then there are those that came out of left field with no distinct genre but produced something great and was a successful but usually is just a fad:

Dance Dance Revolution, Pokemon (although not looking like a fad).

Now, many will argue some of the games I mentioned sucked for them, but I’d say you can’t argue they weren’t successful or defined a change in the industry.

My main point, is the game industry is a ever changing entity and I’d say it’d be very difficult if not impossible to figure out what makes a successful game.

However! If I were to say what makes a great game… I could give you one answer… TIMING.

Edit: regarding big companys vs. small companies… I’d say all the above games were put together by smaller groups and produced by large companies.

#10

I very much disagree about timing making a good game. That’s a very strange thing to say.

No matter when they released Daikaitana, it still would’ve sucked. If they released Doom now, it would still kick ass.

#11

It’s not that easy. I could name off a couple dozen excellent and innovative games from smaller companies, and just as many from the big guns. Whether a company takes risks or not rarely has much to do with their size.

6 years. Awfully long “fad” :slight_smile:
(er, excuse me, one year too many there.)

#12

[quote]I very much disagree about timing making a good game. That’s a very strange thing to say.
[/quote]
What I meant, which you may still disagree, is the public has to be ready for a new genre if you are going to create a new genre. If Diakatana was released in 96 I DO believe it would have been a commercial success. If Doom was released today it wouldn’t.

[quote]6 years. Awfully long “fad” :slight_smile:
[/quote]
that’s why I said “(although not looking like a fad).” it was meant for both games. The fad comment was meant to mean there are few copy cat games. As in doesn’t create a whole new genre of games.

#13

Risk stiffles creativity - that much is a given, but a lot of it has more to do with gme designers themselves. There are plenty of indies with little/no risk who put out cookie cutter games or games that suck. Being on a budget will irritate that situation, but if you start with crap - all the money in the world won’t help you end up with something that isn’t crap. It all goes back to the design.

#14

I’ll disagree with that. Diakatana was just a crappy game plain and simple. People might have been more accepting of a crappy game earlier on when there was less competition, but Diakatana was terrible altogether.

#15

but then there’s games like Super Mario 64 and Final Fantasy 7 which are definitely not bad, but probably were more successful than they would have been normally due to good timing.

#16

[quote] I’ll disagree with that. Diakatana was just a crappy game plain and simple. People might have been more accepting of a crappy game earlier on when there was less competition, but Diakatana was terrible altogether.
[/quote]
Are we discussing good/bad games or commercially successful games?

#17

[quote]If Diakatana was released in 96 I DO believe it would have been a commercial success. If Doom was released today it wouldn’t.
[/quote]
Don’t confuse technology advancement with timing. Games released today won’t look like doom, and games released 12 years ago won’t look like halflife 2. That has nothing to do with good timing… it’s just natural evolution.

#18

Very interesting answers.

[quote]However! If I were to say what makes a great game… I could give you one answer… TIMING.
[/quote]
I think that’s a good point. The timing is a very important factor. I would not say it’s the most important, but one of the very important ones.

Reminds me to the motto: you’ve to be at the right place to the right time… :slight_smile:

#19

I would suggest to concentrate on the good/bad games.

#20

My list of a few impressive games, in chronological order:

  • Elite by two men (David Braben and Ian Bell).
  • Tau Ceti by one man (Pete Cook).
  • Tetris by two men “with love from Russia”.
  • Tower of Babel by one man (Pete Cook).
  • Magnetic Scrolls Adventures, like Pawn, Guild, etc by a small crew, also some Infocom adventures by a small crew.
  • Gods by a small crew (Bitmap Brothers).
  • Alien Breed by a - formerly - small team (Team17).
  • Another World & Flashback by a small crew.
  • Lemmings I & II by a small dev team but larger publisher.
  • Super Mario World (Snes) by Nintendo.
  • Super Metroids III (Snes) by Nintendo.
  • Spacequest click’n walk adventure series by a larger dev team (Sierra).
  • Rollercoaster Tycoon by a few men but published by a large publisher.
  • Ground Control by a small Swedish crew.
  • Jedi Outcast by a large crew (Ravensoft for Lucasarts, with ID’s Quake3-engine).
  • And some more…

Two observations:
a) Formerly the dev teams have been much smaller, because I think the games have been smaller. Interestingly this didn’t put down the game’s fun. I don’t say however that today we should just have smaller games.
b) the newer games usually have been published by large publishers. Probably this is due to the expensive advertisement and more (like Jeff said in the other thread: “film analogy”). Maybe with independent publishers it is different?