GunFlame

I wouldn't say that we are in full production yet. We're moving there, but it's taking a little longer than expected to get the development flow in place due to some delivery issues for assets being worked out. They're teething problems only though, and understandable. It's okay, a good learning experience for everyone involved and it helps bond the team via troubleshooting. One bonus is that one of the main mechanics appears to be less troublesome than it was first believed to be, which is a huge headache cured. This was kind of a make or break for it to be something a little new. But the system that has been devised means that the feature actually becomes very easy to implement and manipulate. It's a big boost this early on. At the moment, the main concern is the asset creation. The original estimate needs to be adjusted because the work takes longer that originally guessed. It could be problematic, but I need to see how much can be done first, and then look to cut or adjust. We'll see what happens over the next week. It's very early, but I'm pretty pleased with the progress on the programming side. A lot of the core elements are falling in place well. Today I'll mostly work on compiling a lot of the reference material into a single project file, one which out lines the milestones and tracks the development progress. Due to the time-frame, I'll look to mark 2-3 milestones. Likely a Feature Complete and certain Component completion. The content allowed is flexible, so a projected content complete may be added. But again, I'll have to see how progress goes on the asset creation. The designer is currently brushing up on the gameflow and assets. Their work will be minimal, but it will be quite rapid towards the last month or so I expect when we hit the balancing phase due to the amount of components at work. But hopefully, my ground work for these design aspects should mean that only minor tweaks will be needed. I have recently thought of a new aspect of monetization that I think could work very well. So, I'll look into that a little more and see how it can be balanced with what is there, or even take over the current plan. We'll see.

So, today I've been in the process of finalizing my development team for the game. I have been approved the headcount, so now it's just getting everyone on the same page. At this point I have a small team of programmer and artist with a designer pending. The designer should be finalized later today or maybe tomorrow. At this point it isn't critical, I've already designed all of the base aspects, so the designer will be configuring numbers for balancing. It's a good role for a Junior Designer. I've pulled together most of the documentation now, so far, we have 7 separate project related documents that carry information of different aspects of the game that are tailored towards different people. For example, there is an asset list for the artist to work from, and then some early numbers for the programmer to start working with, as well as the overall design doc for reference. I may be delayed another day before I can start to work directly with the artist due to prior arrangements. Not a huge problem, but some early content would be nice to work with rather than just placeholders that we have right now. Let me know if you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer.

To resume where I left off... So work began on the prototype for a small presentation. We had about 5 days, not much time to get something. But all we needed was something, just to show what it could be. After some business discussions, we decided on using the engine that I had originally designed it to use. So we had a point to start from. Now we needed some assets to work with. But due to resource issues, all we had were the concepts. Time to get busy. After a certain amount of covering and ripping, separated some aspects of the concept art in anyway we could, and put them as placeholders into the game. I had to personally redraw about 8 or so characters just so that they had the right dimensions which would make it easy to programme. But it did work, although it looked like crap. But hey, what can be expected from a prototype that uses concept art? So we got something working and presented. After a little Q&A, we got a positive nod to move forward. Seeing it in very basic action (although running off a PC) helped clear up a few things and made it all easier to understand. But the Q&A did raise some issues, a few things that I had originally overlooked. But fortunately, it wouldn't be too much of an issues to quickly redesign those areas. And after a nights sleep, I was confident in the formula that I have now settled on. Move forward to today, and we have the official Kick-Off meeting. I have outlined the scope for the version that we will be putting together and compiled a list of assets for the artist. We also got one great mechanic working today, which is was pretty awesome to see in all its primitive glory. But the die is now cast, the next step is to solidify the development schedule over the next couple of days (it's been drafted, this just makes it official). The artist will begin work tomorrow, and the programmer has it prioritized on what he needs to get done for now. We have 3 months.

So it's a shitty story, but many still actually enjoy it. And it cannot be denied that Gears is a huge franchise, with a massive, dedicated fanbase. Just because you could not care less about a the story, does not mean that many, many others think the same way. No one should ever go out there way to spoil the end of something for others. There is no reason for it. It's just an act of spite.

I've been working making games for only around 6 years. Not too long really. So a few months ago when an opportunity was opened, I took a chance. The door was only slightly ajar, so I had to make sure that I pushed with enough force to open things up properly. At the moment, I'm working for a small company in Asia that specializes now in Mobile games, and also used to deal with MMO's and Social Network games. This was a new direction for the company itself, and may have only been doing what it is doing now, for around 18 months at the most. Anyway, we were open to new projects if the idea was right. And that was my opening, albeit small. Well, I needed to think of something. I already had a bunch of concepts from but not fleshed out. The one that I was the most comfortable with, wasn't something that was really suitable right now. The scope didn't match up with the scenario. So I had to look through what I had, and play some games. After a few days, I came up with something and made a very, very simple pitch. It just outlined the core concept with some basic features. It got the go ahead. Now the go ahead here is that I was approved to flesh out the game design. The first full draft took me two weeks to put together. It was an 80+ page doc with plenty of detail, but I was also kinda concerned that it was too big. The idea for the game is simple, and anyone that plays it would agree, but the amount of components just started to grow and grow. Not every creates documents this detailed, but I wanted to make sure I knew the full extent of it, and that anyone who would glance over it would too (and I do mean glance, no one reads properly). So, after a bunch of 12-15 hours days putting it all together, I submitted it. After about 5 days (which is pretty damn quick), I got some feedback. Generally it was looking positive, but some aspects needed to be fleshed out a little more. And then there were some more parts that hadn't been covered at all. Or at least not to the extent that they wanted. So I went and revised it over the next couple of days. Greenlight Meeting 1: Due to the complexity of it all (or actually, the size), it was rejected. But the idea was something that they wanted to keep. So they asked me to scale down. A lot. Back to the drawing board and it a couple of days, I figured out what to do. It was a much tighter game, but a lot of the content was removed. Around 80% in fact. But the core combat was the same. Well I tidied up the document, checked that I highlighted everything that I may have overlooked last time, and presented it again. Greenlight Meeting 2: It was approved...in part. They liked the idea still and how the business side worked. But they were looking at it as a possible hybrid. I wasn't all that happy, but it was something. So lets see what I could do. I prepared for the kick-off meeting. I started took a bit of a breather for a while, well, actually I just switched my focus. I had a lot of work to do anyway. But about a week after the second Greenlight, a new Programmer came over to me (although experienced) and said that he had been given my Design Doc. My original one, the now 100+ page one. He understood it the simplicity. An opportunity! Well, I didn't want to waste anytime and went straight to the boss. We ran through it and explain once more the simplicity of it. He approved a prototype. This happened about 6 weeks after I started the project, so it's moving fast! But it's so big... Apologies for any grammar or spelling errors, I don't have time to proof read right now...

Let me clarify that. Basically, both genres can be original and unoriginal. All games infact. But FPS's generally don't get critiqued on this as much in the media (It's becoming more common recently). But, originality is what RPG's always get judged by. Perhaps it's seen as not being as important for an FPS, but why would this be the case? I will assume that it is because we have only really been playing them on consoles for around 5 years. Or at least in a mainstream way. Sure we had primitive FPS's on the 16-bit consoles, but it's only in the past few years where they have gained popularity and also the hate they have to go with it. So because you could say that they are 'new', we can be more lenient with how we judge them in regards to originality. But on the other side, we have RPGs. We have been playing those in full force for a long, long time. You could say that they have been the main gaming genre ever since Nintendo entered the console market. So to and extent, I can understand why and RPG is judged on originality and why an FPS (again, until now) had not been. But, I don't agree with that justification. Original games are nice and all, but if they are mechanically flawed, then they can also be bad games. An original game is not necessarily a great game, but also, an unoriginal one is not necessarily a bad game. I think this is where some bitterness may have come from. Fans see their genre of choice get ridiculed for something that another genre gets a free pass on.

@Johnny: I'm talking more about the experience provided rather than the experience that the player has. We are all provided with the same package when we boot up a game, but I agree that each players individual experience is something else. Maybe that's something for a separate topic. But it that aspect, the individual experience is the crux of gaming.

To be honest, I'd be happy to remove the tag 'RPG' from games entirely. Not because I am sick of it, but because all games are RPG's. They all allow you to play a different role; a sports game, racing game, shooting game, fighting game. You can deepen that role more by creating an fictional back story. I will play Tekken and feel like I am Kazuya Mishima. So, for starters, I think that needs to be cleared up. But it's not exactly in line with the question. What you are asking, is really if Character Progression is a substitute for Level Design. Let's take Level Design for one a moment. With the games that have been released this gen, we have seen the 'Sandbox' genre grow more and more. With this growth, we have also seen the complaint of Linearity. So, is Character Progression what we have to accept if we want less linear experiences? At the moment, it is. Banjo Kazooie, Tooie, Metroid are games with great Level Design, but they are incredibly linear. Yeah, Metroid is incredibly linear. Although I can wander around, there is always only one way forward. It's like playing Mario and walking around a level for 2-3 hours (if there wasn't a time limit). Regardless of how long I stay, there is still only one exit. Character Progression creates an illusion of freedom, the player can dictate an area of the game. Regardless of what we might think, if a game has a story, it is linear if you want to follow that story. You can only do what you are allowed to do. Character Progression allows you to tailor the experience for yourself. You have an area of the game that is yours to control. You play Banjo, and you control nothing. You just follow the path that is in front of you. As we have progressed in gaming, we have desired more and more freedom. Until games can be programmed with very advanced AI, the most freedom that we will get, is tailoring the character you play as. There are some games that want to be linear, and offer nothing more than an specific experience of play. They are happy with what they provide. But that is one that can only be experienced in a single way. There are other reasons from Character Progression as a mechanic, it allows a reward and goal. It's a quick cycle of satisfaction. We all love leveling up! But, we have room for those games don't we? I mean, if we have games that have Character Progression and games that have strong Level Design, then it's win-win!

I think that FPS's get the amount of flack that they do, because they are not the genre of taste for the vocal party. A lot of RPG gamers, especially JRPG gamers dislike them a lot. And rather than critique them, they just dumb down arguments and generalize. But that's the way most things happen to be criticized. I think the reason why they get as much hate as they do, is because they get as much love as they do. I mean, if you take an RPG, and read the media response to it, it usually refers to originality a lot, and the lack of. This is a comment that always gets mentioned with RPGs. More so than any other genre. But, this same argument is almost never used for FPS's. Regardless of some being no more than re-skins of the same mechanics almost. This then builds up a lot of dislike. People dislike FPS games because they are popular. It's as simple as that. There are some arguments that people may present to extend why they dislike them, but this is why THEY dislike them. Not that they are not good. Another case of good and like getting mixed up. And we can't really have an issue with a lot of people saying they don't like something, if they really don't like it. Is an FPS clever? It depends on the design. This is the same with those RPG's. A game should never be judged or praised so much, just because the playing view. If the game isn't good, it isn't good and vice-versa.

Shining Force 4.

Final Fantasy. I'm very open about my fanboyism and love the series as a whole. There is no best of, they are each a single story, and that's what I love. If a game has Final Fantasy in the title, then there is a 99.9% chance that I will buy it.

I'd be willing to offer up any advice. I'm kinda busy on a lot of my own stuff right now, but I'd be more that happy to share what I know. I don't possess a massive amount of experience, but I've been end-to-end on plenty of projects.

So it seems as though the main purpose of the course is to give you the basics in creating your own game, rather than preparing you to work with a company or team. I'm sure you'll be doing some team based projects though, but it's basically to equip yourself will all of the tools to stand alone. Also, it really seems as though schools are just trying to get to grips with the whole system too. I mean, go back maybe 6 years, and courses for games were very, very sparse. It's understandable though, with the speed that the industry is growing, how do you teach? There isn't really any uniformity, and it changes from company to company. But, it's positive that schools are at least trying. This is great. I won't claim to be an expert. But I will share what I know. I've been involved in the development field for coming close to 6 years now, so I'll try and share what I know in regards to criteria. But the main thing to remember, is that there really is no standard. The position, country, company are all factors. This is the case with all jobs, but more so with games because it is still a new industry. Artists, Animators, Concept Artists, Modeler etc - It's unfair to lump all of these roles into one position, because they can be very specialist. But fortunately, they share very similar requirements. Depending on the country, the qualifications may or may not be a factor. Some companies filter via qualifications, but many ask then as more of a routine thing. Qualifications are more important if you are new, because they are your only experience. For an artist, the portfolio is the main tool used for judging. So it is where the artist's focus should be in terms of where they can sell themselves. With the portfolio, they should also show there strengths, but also diversity. Lead with what you are best at, but make sure there is a mix of all kinds of styles, effects, environments, characters, sketches and models. Also, a major factor with art, is the time it takes to complete the work. Someone may be an amazing artist, but if it takes 3 weeks to complete a model, then that's not going to work very well in an environment where you may be asked to model 10 characters in 3 months. The most common software that I have seen being asked for, is Photoshop and Maya. Which is okay, because these are two tools that are widely available and used through schools and enthusiasts. Designer, Level Designer - Hardest position to get. No doubt. The only easy way, is if the company needs people, and people with experience are too expensive or just not available. That way, the guidelines loosen a little, making things a bit easier. There's no qualification that is a guarantee, just proof that you can do it, or have the knowledge that can get you a junior role. This can happen with schooling, but it's a rarity. Solid experience and physical proof is the best way to get a role, which is a catch 22 considering that would actually mean that you already have to have had a job doing it anyway. For game design, indie is the best way for it or mods. If you have built decent mods, or worked on small indie projects that show your design, then the chance increases a lot. There is a route in through QA, but this requires the slim chance of being a studio QA, and then that they have an opening for a junior position. It's tough. Software wise, there really aren't any specific tools. A lot of games have their own editing suites built with the game engine and refined for the job, so it's different each time. Programming - There are loads of areas of programming which fortunately, open up after initial employment. You may begin to specialize after you have been doing it for a while. Perhaps specializing in engines, AI, physics, or network code. This all depends on the languages you know, but again, most are learned by doing, and can be done through employment. Most of the main languages that I see, are Java and C++. C++ especially for large studios. And then there is Objective C, for those that want to take the App route into development. It's the easiest way to get a job, because it is really the only role where you really need to have gone to school. But Game Programmers are tough to find, especially good ones. A lot more juniors are coming through school now though, so this may change in 3-5 years. There are other job roles, loads actually. But these are the core roles that do the building. There is also audio engineers/designers and composers, but my experience isn't that great in that aspect. It's another tough way to break in though. Usually companies keep the same team of sound engineers and definitely composers. Plus there is a lot of outsourcing done in this area too. As I said, I'm far from a veteran. But this is what I know.

JRPG's. Almost any. I feel comfortable playing them, there's always one I can go to. Fighting games too. If all else fails, choose Guilty Gear.

Man, I rarely draw now...I'm too lazy, the last thing I drew was lazy too...

I have weights! Hardly use them though...no time. Too tired. I used to be relatively fit when I was in England. I cycled to and from work (14 mile round trip) and did Kung Fu 3 times a week, with some weight training on top. But since my move to Hong Kong, I've stopped pretty much everything. I picked up the weights about 3-4 months ago, but I've barely touched them. I should really, I'm starting to loosen up a fair bit, plus I gain weight easily.