This has a lot of remeshing/resurfacing functions that could possibly take a kit-bashed mess and turn it into something that could possibly be suitable for real-time engine:-
It would also be possible to just automatically unwrap UVs and bake the details onto the model. It's never going to be "great", but with enough time and care something might end up "suitable" to some degree, at least.
I honestly believe this is the way to go, at least when working with a stranger, even if they seem to have a portfolio and apparent reputation.
Split the jobs into small manageable pieces, all planned and documented, and begin piece by piece with very small payments. Save the pricey/difficult things until very last. All jobs would be per-task and regardless of the time it takes, because there are always excuses for time but the tasks remain. This also gives the added benefit of seeing the work in progress and making iterations along the way.
Anyone not willing to work like that is not someone I could possibly trust. I've been burned before and ever since, I completely insist on doing things this way. Someone with real integrity and skills should not have a problem with it.
I think MedicineStorm has the right idea, to make it a fundamental function of the website itself to gauge whether a user has potential to be an active and capable developer right from the moment they sign up. The registration process itself should make it pretty clear that it's about getting teams together and getting projects finished, a community effort, and nothing less. Infact, it would be funny if "game designer" was automatically ticked and greyed-out.
I don't think having a closed "elitist" section is good, anyone should be able to read any part of the site, even if they can't post there. It would be a great learning tool in itself, for everyone to read how the doers are actually doing the do. :) So long as people can update their profile at any time, at any moment they could be classified as a "machine" in the "development factory" instead of a "talker" in the "junkyard of dreams".
There's a big difference between outsourcing assets (which pretty much everyone does) and being an "asset flip", which the key word here is 'flip' as in selling something off without bringing any value to it. If you build a game using outsourced assets, and the game is more than just that, then you can't be accused of flipping it off because you'd bring extra value to it. It's a term getting thrown around a lot by people who don't understand that concept, like mistaking "old school" as meaning just "old", etc... Not the kind of people you'd ever make happy anyway, they get off on being unhappy, I believe.
My approach is to keep outsourcing to vague materials and little bits of scenery, but make sure the characters/weapons/vehicles/items/GUI and anything that bring real character to the project as unique and original.
As for the resource question, it really depends on your engine and the target platform. If overdraw is a problem VS your texture memory and project size. It's really difficult to answer without more details about the project on a technical level.
Sure, but I don't think something like this exists, its own thing that is for general game development, focus on multiple upvoted projects, and a 'skills bartering' system shared among them.
It does sound elitist, but moreso it sounds like it would actually get things done, and spit out chunky-sized teams at the end. If it brings all the right people together for the right projects, it could be awesome, because that is very difficult and very rare.
My philosophy is there are no "pure designers", especially not virgin indies. Everyone needs a practical skill, and yes they should be weedled out if for nothing else than preventing the place being flooded with them, just to keep it clean.
This has been happening for yeeeeeeears, "here's my idea, I just need programmers and artists to do it all for me"... if that was ever going to go anywhere it would have happened by now, but I seriously don't think it ever has.
They shouldn't feel too bad about it - it's not like they don't have the rest of the entire internet.
Someone who says they are a programmer but have nothing to actually let people play, or someone who says they're an artist but have nothing to actually look at, but who will do a lot of talking about game projects they want to start(=be the founder/boss and make all the decisions) which is all based on a paragraph or two in a forum.
It doesn't even need to be much, especially considering programming, I fully understand that someone could have excellent skills and experience, while not having anything they can ZIP up and share around, for various reasons, but anything is better than nothing.
I don't know of any community that is, from the ground-up, geared toward preventing that or at least segregating that into different categories. If not, then it's just like yet another gamedev community, of which there are plenty enough around already, and this whole discussion is rather pointless.
My only advice, if you guys are going to spend time planning something out - think top-down with rules/guidelines/automation that ensures projects come first, trolls and time-wasters get shoved out, and dreams are separated from reality. Everything as professional and mature as possible. Also, careful not to make it an ego-fest, like I said before, it's not so much about reputation as it is about how functional someone actually is. Working on a game project is not cool, it's everyone, but having completed one or more that people actually play, kinda is, a little, I guess.
An example of a rule/guideline is something like - when pitching ideas for game projects, there must be a fairly substantial criteria for even being allowed to pitch. It doesn't need a title or names or anything, but it needs to be unique and have something to see or even play, covering core mechanics in great detail. Any pitches that don't meet the criteria should not even be considered, I think. Obviously there will be moderators calling the shots, but these moderators need a carefully planned list of guidelines to reference, to decide if a pitch goes into the "serious pile" for voting, or the junkyard of dreams.
Without such rules and criteria, I see it being a waste of time and if it does go anywhere, it will just end up infested and become toxic.
"...I think it's saying we emphasise that these projects ARE your project." MedicineStorm, I never said that... Infact I can be certain the top-voted projects wouldn't be "mine", they would be new and born from open discussion among developers and reached by a consensus, I imagine. The moment someone starts throwing a tantrum and screaming "but meee mine mine meee!!!" = out. This is known as "awesome-to-asshole ratio", I think. :P
= Doers over talkers, possible over impossible, compromising over stubborn, teamwork over rockstar-alpha-wannabes. Cool talented people in and together, trolling obnoxious ranters alone and out.
...if someone wants to look down at that and call it elitist and draw all kinds of suspicions over it (things never actually said), then that's fine, no need to get involved.
This has a lot of remeshing/resurfacing functions that could possibly take a kit-bashed mess and turn it into something that could possibly be suitable for real-time engine:-
http://www.meshlab.net/
It would also be possible to just automatically unwrap UVs and bake the details onto the model. It's never going to be "great", but with enough time and care something might end up "suitable" to some degree, at least.
I honestly believe this is the way to go, at least when working with a stranger, even if they seem to have a portfolio and apparent reputation.
Split the jobs into small manageable pieces, all planned and documented, and begin piece by piece with very small payments. Save the pricey/difficult things until very last. All jobs would be per-task and regardless of the time it takes, because there are always excuses for time but the tasks remain. This also gives the added benefit of seeing the work in progress and making iterations along the way.
Anyone not willing to work like that is not someone I could possibly trust. I've been burned before and ever since, I completely insist on doing things this way. Someone with real integrity and skills should not have a problem with it.
I think MedicineStorm has the right idea, to make it a fundamental function of the website itself to gauge whether a user has potential to be an active and capable developer right from the moment they sign up. The registration process itself should make it pretty clear that it's about getting teams together and getting projects finished, a community effort, and nothing less. Infact, it would be funny if "game designer" was automatically ticked and greyed-out.
I don't think having a closed "elitist" section is good, anyone should be able to read any part of the site, even if they can't post there. It would be a great learning tool in itself, for everyone to read how the doers are actually doing the do. :) So long as people can update their profile at any time, at any moment they could be classified as a "machine" in the "development factory" instead of a "talker" in the "junkyard of dreams".
There's a big difference between outsourcing assets (which pretty much everyone does) and being an "asset flip", which the key word here is 'flip' as in selling something off without bringing any value to it. If you build a game using outsourced assets, and the game is more than just that, then you can't be accused of flipping it off because you'd bring extra value to it. It's a term getting thrown around a lot by people who don't understand that concept, like mistaking "old school" as meaning just "old", etc... Not the kind of people you'd ever make happy anyway, they get off on being unhappy, I believe.
My approach is to keep outsourcing to vague materials and little bits of scenery, but make sure the characters/weapons/vehicles/items/GUI and anything that bring real character to the project as unique and original.
As for the resource question, it really depends on your engine and the target platform. If overdraw is a problem VS your texture memory and project size. It's really difficult to answer without more details about the project on a technical level.
Sure, but I don't think something like this exists, its own thing that is for general game development, focus on multiple upvoted projects, and a 'skills bartering' system shared among them.
It does sound elitist, but moreso it sounds like it would actually get things done, and spit out chunky-sized teams at the end. If it brings all the right people together for the right projects, it could be awesome, because that is very difficult and very rare.
My philosophy is there are no "pure designers", especially not virgin indies. Everyone needs a practical skill, and yes they should be weedled out if for nothing else than preventing the place being flooded with them, just to keep it clean.
This has been happening for yeeeeeeears, "here's my idea, I just need programmers and artists to do it all for me"... if that was ever going to go anywhere it would have happened by now, but I seriously don't think it ever has.
They shouldn't feel too bad about it - it's not like they don't have the rest of the entire internet.
Someone who says they are a programmer but have nothing to actually let people play, or someone who says they're an artist but have nothing to actually look at, but who will do a lot of talking about game projects they want to start(=be the founder/boss and make all the decisions) which is all based on a paragraph or two in a forum.
It doesn't even need to be much, especially considering programming, I fully understand that someone could have excellent skills and experience, while not having anything they can ZIP up and share around, for various reasons, but anything is better than nothing.
I don't know of any community that is, from the ground-up, geared toward preventing that or at least segregating that into different categories. If not, then it's just like yet another gamedev community, of which there are plenty enough around already, and this whole discussion is rather pointless.
Then how would it be any different from what already exists? There's no point in reinventing the wheel.
My only advice, if you guys are going to spend time planning something out - think top-down with rules/guidelines/automation that ensures projects come first, trolls and time-wasters get shoved out, and dreams are separated from reality. Everything as professional and mature as possible. Also, careful not to make it an ego-fest, like I said before, it's not so much about reputation as it is about how functional someone actually is. Working on a game project is not cool, it's everyone, but having completed one or more that people actually play, kinda is, a little, I guess.
An example of a rule/guideline is something like - when pitching ideas for game projects, there must be a fairly substantial criteria for even being allowed to pitch. It doesn't need a title or names or anything, but it needs to be unique and have something to see or even play, covering core mechanics in great detail. Any pitches that don't meet the criteria should not even be considered, I think. Obviously there will be moderators calling the shots, but these moderators need a carefully planned list of guidelines to reference, to decide if a pitch goes into the "serious pile" for voting, or the junkyard of dreams.
Without such rules and criteria, I see it being a waste of time and if it does go anywhere, it will just end up infested and become toxic.
"...I think it's saying we emphasise that these projects ARE your project."
MedicineStorm, I never said that... Infact I can be certain the top-voted projects wouldn't be "mine", they would be new and born from open discussion among developers and reached by a consensus, I imagine. The moment someone starts throwing a tantrum and screaming "but meee mine mine meee!!!" = out. This is known as "awesome-to-asshole ratio", I think. :P
= Doers over talkers, possible over impossible, compromising over stubborn, teamwork over rockstar-alpha-wannabes. Cool talented people in and together, trolling obnoxious ranters alone and out.
...if someone wants to look down at that and call it elitist and draw all kinds of suspicions over it (things never actually said), then that's fine, no need to get involved.
Pages