Archive for the ‘Developers’ tag

Rant about the approach to Flash games development

Hi, Marco here. This will be a long one!

I’ve been present in some discussions in the FGL chat about the whole Programmer VS Artist war, and it annoys me every single time.

The reason for this is that there seems to be a very amateur approach to game development in the flash community. The very simple act of dividing people into different parts makes it look like one side wants distance from the other.  The point is exactly to put TOGETHER the two or the three or as many parts needed to make a game.

This is of course an old habit from the old “one-man-show” format usually associated with flash development.

There’s obviously a lot of young developers who are just starting out, but there’s also some people that have been doing this for some years and have actually already sold some games. The insistence in this “war” will not only deprive some good developers from creating long lasting bonds with other developers, but it will also keep the production value of flash games very low.

One of the problems of this discussion is that its set to die at its birth. It’s always the “programmer” vs the “artist”, which I come to find that in most of the situations it stands for the “Coder+Idea owner” vs the “Graphics designer”. If we were to call people by their occupation it would put the discussion on a new light. Suddenly, the “artist” which is a generic figure, is now the guy that does the graphics. But the artist could also be the SoundFX guy or the Musician or even the Game designer. The same way the programmer could be the Coder, or the producer, or the Game designer as well. This will usually have people cheering for one of the sides because they understand the hard work it is to do one of the parts of the game, but they neglect to see the other part.

This also leads to the second problem with this discussion which due to a simple statistical fact, most people will assume “programmer = idea owner = game designer”. This is true for a big chunk of the reality, but it’s not a rule. It’s not an indicator. It’s a consequence of most programmers being able to do a complete game on their own without the need of external help. A programmer, who wants to be a game developer, will in most cases start developing on his own, and as he does, he comes up with ideas for other games, and when the time comes to collaborate, he will have a pocket full of ideas to use. This in itself will put the visual artist in a dependency position. He will work under the direction of the person whose idea it is. He’s just doing the art, while the programmer is doing the code AND the design. This however is not a RULE. It just happens to be like this frequently.

So again, people tend to overlook the fact that along with the production itself, either it be graphics or code, one person may also be accumulating the work of designing the game.

And this takes us to the third problem I tend to see in these discussions. The one I heard recently was “He never complained about how much money he got, he just started complaining after seeing how much the game sold for”.

I’ve worked on titles that have sold for quite a lot. I’m happy to say that whenever I work with Ben Olding, for instance, I know I’m going to get huge visibility, because he usually makes very popular games. He’s also known to sell his games for a very good amount. It would be ridiculous, not to say unethical, to be knocking on his door saying “Right, you made more money then I though you would make, where’s my share?”

The reason the game sold for a specific amount may not be even remotely related to the graphics. In the specific case of Ben, he usually has really awesome game ideas. And those turn into good sales.

The programmers reading this will probably think “yes cause a good idea will always be a good idea, even if the graphics are crap”. And I say “True, but aren’t the good graphics and good sound the difference between a really good game idea and a really good game?”.

But before you start thinking that I’m saying that an artist should set his price, get paid and let the game sell, I have to say one thing. I do believe graphics have a huge impact on sales. Graphics may not be the single most valuable feature of your game, but they will get you views. They will get interest both sponsors and players. And even if the player tries the game just once to realize its “just graphics” the sponsor has already made some money out of that. Sponsors know this, and even FGL has stated that you should put an effort into making better graphics for your game. They will sell for more. And artists should know this. They should know their work can have a huge impact on the figures a game sells for. But they should know this going in. Not wait for the game to sell and say you want a cut. If you want a cut, say it right away. Say you charge $$$ plus a cut. Say you will only take a cut, or say you want to get paid and not have to worry about if it sells or not. Some programmers won’t give you the option of a cut, so figure out how much you think your work is worth for the overall value of the game.

Now if you’re an artist on a collaborating format with a coder, then both are, in my view, worth the same cut as long as they both work at their best abilities. Maybe the graphics won’t be the best, or the game won’t have as many features or the sounds aren’t perfect as expected, but the point is that all the team did their best.

Programmers should realize that graphics can make a game a completely different experience, and game artists should know that there a good chance their creations need some code to actually turn into games. AND they should BOTH realize that the best creations come from collaboration, from sharing of knowledge and know-how and from being a development force.

Programmers will most of the time have the upper hand, because they can code. That means they can make games. Doesn’t mean they can make a good game.

I’ve seen mediocre programmers make huge sales, and I’ve seen people bored to death with amazing graphics. It’s not the graphics that make the game, it’s not the code either, and it’s not just the idea. It’s the game that makes the game.

So, on a final note, if you’re a developer, looking for people to work with you, be fair. Sure, it’s nice to get more money than the other person. But is it really worth it in the long run? How many people will want to work with you? How many times will you have to resort to inexperienced cheaper people, who will not be able to deliver content that is above par?

And I don’t mean just art. We’ve hired a programmer to make a game. He’s good. We want to work with him again. We have to make sure that all parts are satisfied.

In the game development community, there seems to be an ambient of symbiotic relation between the logic and the art. But I’ve never seen so much discussion about it as in flash community. Probably because most programmers have to pay for their art. Its like it’s a war. And as Sun Tzu said: “There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.”

Posted: October 20th, 2010
at 9:48pm by Marco

Tagged with , , , , , ,

Categories: Caught our Attention

Comments: 9 comments

Warlords 2 Rise of Demons

Busy day today…

We’ve done some work with Ben Olding. Well… Marco has! I guess I’m just proud that through him Vortix is involved in games with the quality of these. Warlords 2 Rise of Demons has left the building and landed at ArmorGames. Marco did the graphic work with the exception of illustration.

Good luck to Ben and to his new game Warlords 2 Rise of Demons!

Check it out:

Posted: October 8th, 2010
at 6:58pm by Vlad

Tagged with , , , ,

Categories: Releases

Comments: 1 comment

BADJ Day 2: The Nape Wrapper

Hello again.
Like the previous days, I can’t really say we are already on full speed with Bruce Ali, mostly because there has been some loose stuff on other projects we had to deal with. After lunch I was able to pick on something that was on my task list for sometime: the physics!

We will be using Nape for physics. Nape is a physics engine developed by Luca Deltodesco (aka deltaluca on FGL and Nape’s forums) that focuses on performance. For more about Nape, visit also the Project Page on Google Code and the Documentation.

We’ve been authorized by Luca to make Nape a part of Bold Pixel. In order to do this work, Bold Pixel releases (starting at v2) will include the AS3 SWC and our own wrapper. The wrapper is being designed to provide presets, easy management and a debug view that can be integrated with both other pieces of Bold Pixel (namely and most evident good use is the blit engine) or a typical Flash/AS3 project. Obviously it will have a lot of conventions and to make full use of Nape you’ll need to know how to use it, but the worst case scenario is that any coder will much less code to write and maintain.

We wish the best of luck to Luca and wish we can pull a lot from Nape and Bold Pixel. As soon as we have a tech demo of what we are doing with it, I’ll post it.

See you all tomorrow!

Vlad out!

Posted: September 21st, 2010
at 11:12pm by Vlad

Tagged with , , ,

Categories: Dev Journal: Bruce Ali

Comments: 3 comments

Bold Pixel Engine v1 Post Mortem

I guess it’s pretty strange to have a post mortem of something that is not a game, but Bold Pixel Engine, in its first version was a fantastic learning experience, but it had a overwhelming amount of failures also. To sort my thoughts I checked the tag of the engine in our blog and read some of the stuff that happened as time passed. This led me to write this post mortem, on one hand to know exactly what is right about it, on the other hand to learn from our own mistakes.

A bit of historical perspective

Bold Pixel Engine started with our first flash game because of a simple music management class. Back then, both me and Diogo were coding and I remember (and I admit I deeply miss) our discussions about code standards and organization. I’m a bit of a dictator when it comes to have stuff organized, credits to Marco that has used the word “dictator” more than once and with a large amount of reason and giggles.

Soon our bunch of classes were our own internal library and I even posted some of my own experience while organizing that library. Some of the most important definitions of Bold Pixel where then starting to emerge. July 27th 2009 we announced Bold Pixel Engine was alive.

I was quite excited about it!

The turning page from internal library to public engine was the blit engine. We had so much help from many amazing developers that we would not keep it for ourselves. We wanted to share, we wanted to hear what others had to say and that’s what we did. After two games under his belt and a lot of opinions, the engine was publicly available and his version 1 life was pretty much that until the version 2 turning point a couple of months ago… but I’ll get to that eventually.

What went right! :)

The learning process was amazing code wise. After Diogo left I really had to raise my standards and get to work and the engine allowed that. Coding such a piece of technology made me contradict myself several times and pushed me forward. I’m absolutely convinced that I am a much better ActionScript programmer now than I was before and I feel I learnt little from the games but a lot from the engine because I forced myself to respect the principles I wanted to see applied to it.

And speaking of principles, these stay true from the first line of code until today and are something that really went right. And these are:

Convention over configuration: Bold Pixel Engine is written assuming some conventions. For example, if the programmer tells the Scene Manager to create a new scene, the previous one and all dialogs will be removed, which makes a lot of sense but maybe it makes less sense to say that all scenes have their pivot point at 0,0. This means that scenes and dialogs are simply added to the display list and that’s it, nothing to configure since there is a convention.

Ease of Use: This goes hand in hand with convention over configuration. If there’s something that really makes my head hurt is to look at the code needed to make something happen in libraries like Flixel and Box2D. I appreciate the effort put in these libraries and the flexibility and power provided but I believe that if we have to configure every single tiny detail the code becomes cryptic and extremely difficult to debug. I don’t mind loosing flexibility because I will create more mechanisms that will help me achieve my goals as time goes by.

Modularity: There is only one dependency in Bold Pixel Engine, which is the Manager class. If you want a single loop or to manage scenes and dialogs, you need to start it up. Apart from that Bold Pixel Engine started modular and will stay modular. The reasoning behind this were two questions I made once:

1. What if I don’t want to use the blit engine?
2. What if I want to add something that will wreck dependencies?

The answer to that was that I wanted it to be flexible, meaning, I can use whatever I want with only one dependency and that’s it. I don’t want the engine to behave like an engine. I want it to be a toolkit at my disposal. I even had a laugh about this.

What went wrong… :(

First and worst aspect of thing that went wrong was that I did too much stuff that we didn’t need that was requested and I didn’t do it with the same dedication I did the rest. That will never happen again. I’m convinced I got carried away by the kindness of a lot of devs, but we can’t have the engine restricted to the needs of others, which was something I said it wouldn’t happen from start. But what it really makes me feel bad about it was that other devs got involved in the project and this collided with either our work or their work making it a bad solution for everyone.

The second thing that went wrong was that I overcomplicated somethings because I felt it made sense. For instance there is a Scene Manager and a Input Manager and a Manager. All of these managers depend of a Display Object and/or its stage. While it sounds easier to manage code and it looks more tidy and clean, having a gazilion classes doesn’t make it easier to code with. I found myself looking through the classes to find what I wanted… that doesn’t sound like a good thing, right? I mean, I coded it!

And last but not least, I think I really rushed things. The idea behind the public releases of the engine were that we would make two games between each release, which we actually did with v1, but as soon as I had the mechanics ready and all the engine’s juicy code was on a actual project, I went head over heels with it. It lacked documentation, it lacked cross-testing (so, just because I did two games, I should have tried against the two games again) and most important it lacked a critical look and a some honest and critical analysis.


Great experience and I really appreciate all the kind words that I got from developers. I think the really cool thing that most developers got from it was the ease of use, probably the YouTube channel with some nice overview on it. I could’ve written a post trying to sell the idea that we are overwhelmed with joy and l33tness, but I would be failing to be honest. I truly believe that BPE v1 is a great piece of software, but I was naive in the approach and maybe over-friendly in the “pleasing my fellow devs” department.

We have a game going with v2 and I think I sorted my doubts about what is going to happen with the engine. Many things that were wrong with v1 are already gone and there is a lot of stuff that isn’t even started, like moving the Music class which started all this into the current version.

There’s a lot to be said about v2, but this is a hell of a long post mortem and I’ll write about that soon.

Posted: August 12th, 2010
at 11:53am by Vlad

Tagged with , , ,

Categories: Postmortems

Comments: No comments

Game Design Perspectives

I have several motivations to write this blog post. I knew I wanted to call it game design perspectives because it is about game design and perspectives about it but I didn’t really know how to put it. So I decided to put up an image and made a search on my favorite free image plugin. I searched for “perspective” and found this one: perfect.

When I coded my first game I had no idea what game design was. Some years ago, right before starting up Vortix with Marco and Diogo I had no coding knowledge whatsoever so I focused on game design. Problem with game design back then was that everyone wanted to be a game designer… it was the game designer wanabe boom period.

Back then (and it wasn’t that long ago) every guy that played games and wrote two paragraphs of a Tolkien ripoff considered himself a game designer, me included. Many of them didn’t make it up to the professional stage. Looking back, the only ones I know that got into the game development industry are either artists or engineers. The only game design wanabe that managed to pull it was me… and I’m more a programmer than a designer nowadays.

The perspective back then, the passion, was about the game. We all steped our of the dream and learnt that game design is about decision making, getting feedback and more decision making. All game designers, wanabe or not, had only one goal: the game! Like the two crossed railway lines, game design is all about crossing left and right sides of the brain. See the whole while addressing the details. Be able to analyse data and crunch numbers while being able to… well… feel…

It is sad to observe that on a market such as the flash game space the perspective is that a designer’s objective is to make a game that is sponsorable. I find this not only sad, but wrong.

Squize commented on a blog post of his that:

(…) it’s all about the creative process now, so I’d rather push myself and fall short than work to someone else’s design. (…)

Julian from LongAnimalGames mentioned today in the FGL Chat that he considered more interesting the psychology of players than game development itself.

It is a trend I find in many high profile developers. They care about business and particulary money when hiring, when selling, when paying, when discussing deals. Money doesn’t get in the way of design and they have other interests… the creativity, the psychology, the technical expertise and others. It is interesting that these are the ones that make the great, memorable and amazingly sponsorable games. I know one exception… that simply confirms the rule.

Like them we are not against the commercial or business side of all this and we take it very seriously, but game design is about the decisions, the rules, the player, the big shiny paradigms. Production, marketing, whatever, that’s the business part, our job as designers is to reach as many players as possible. We might argue that the bottom-line, that’s what will make the game sponsorable, but it is not the motivation when making game design decisions. Money is a unnecessary distraction while designing.

Posted: August 10th, 2010
at 12:46am by Vlad

Tagged with , , , ,

Categories: Caught our Attention

Comments: 1 comment

« Older Entries