Multimedia Fusion 2 is a design and compiling software. In other words, it's a TOOL If you take Photoshop and use the library's that come with it to make something, it's no longer your original art, it's an edit. Same goes with Multimedia Fusion 2.
If you want to keep going on with what you said DeadmanDines, you're basically telling me that the only way to take pride in your work is if you go into a computer and design a game with binary code.
Using library graphics by absolutely no means, undermines the concept of Click, because the concept of Click involves using specific SOFTWARE, tools, to design games and applications.
Edit: I agree the idea behind using sound library's, using what I said, it's not right. I believe the reason it's overlooked though is because not everyone has special high tech sound recording studios, while in the same aspect, everyone does have Microsoft Paint.
"If you want to keep going on with what you said DeadmanDines, you're basically telling me that the only way to take pride in your work is if you go into a computer and design a game with binary code."
Lol, no, I said 'By that standard...', I was extending what you'd begun. That's the point, IF using graphic libraries robs a person of all pride in their game (as you seemed to be suggesting), then what about using extensions and open source engines? Graphics is just one aspect, there's also sound, coding, runtime, music. We can use premade things there with no fuss, but not graphics.
And while people have MS Paint, not everyone has the skill to use it well. After all, I've got a couple of music apps but it doesn't change that I have no musical talent. Unless I go with VGMusic.com, my games will have no music, cos there's no way I'm inflicting my Midis on mankind. But music from VGM doesn't bother anyone because the only stigma here is with graphics.
If we're asking what things are keeping the click community down, I'd say this is high on the list (in my opinion). Having a library can inspire you in the same way that having a premade tune from VGM can inspire you. It's another way of developing ideas.
I'm sorry if I've been argumentative about this (yeh, I have been, my bad), but Sprite Libs have been extremely useful to me. If we just analyse the pros and cons:
CONS
- They can result in several games having the same or similar graphics
- If you always rely on other people's skills, you'll never learn
- The ones shipped with MMF are tacky
- People who use only lib graphics will have to find pride in the rest of their hard work instead, like coding, storyline, level design, etc. They can't have the pride of 'my game looks awesome thanks to me'.
PROS
+ They give you source material to work with, so that you CAN learn (I personally used Mug'O'Tea's libs extensively, largely to improve)
+ They make for a good base that you can edit (so a lib with four cars can easily be edited into a lib with 24 cars, whilst gaining experience. I was helped by creating new Zelda characters based on the original Link sprite, for example)
+ They're easily the best way to see character animation frame-by-frame, and learn how to implement your own animations
+ They can spark ideas for new games
+ They can reduce development time - after all, you can have explosion libs. If I'm an awesome artist, but suck at explosions, I could just use a lib in addition to my own work.
+ They provide something that sprite artists can do if they find building a complete game too hard, and don't have the circumstances to commit to a team project
+ People with great ideas can finally have the graphics to express those ideas. It must suck to have an amazing character idea, but his sprite looks like the dude in 'Hey Arnold'.
+ Less ugly games, which is gonna be a good advert to the click community.
I don't know how strong I'm coming on, I'm not trying to be rude, but I agree with what you're saying about using open source engines, sound effects, music, etc. I think what I'm getting at though is, yes graphics are only 1 aspect of the game, I absolutely agree, but they are also the most commonly looked upon aspect for the most part, along side with the engine itself.
See, when you think about sound effects, you don't really think about them. If you see metal hit metal, you expect to hear a metal sound. Whether or not it's the same metal sound in every single thing you've played or even seen in movies, it still sounds correct.
Music, I agree that this is another major aspect of originality stripped away when you use library's. No real exceptions here, this goes along with library graphics.
Gameplay, why re-create the real? Thats why open source engines exist, and thats why so many people use them. Take Unreal for example, that engine is open source, incredibly flexible, and allows people to design games with ease, but not remove the quality aspect.
Like I said earlier, when people play a game, the graphics and even music, are the two things they notice the most. The rest of the stuff such as Sounds and Gameplay, the less you notice them the better. When you use custom graphics, it's a sign that you as the designer, truly put hard work into the game, because you either made the graphics yourself, or you took the initiative to find a good designer. Either way, it shows you're a good director if you will.
If you see graphics in a library, and then you see those same graphics in a game... most people generally just think lower of the designer. It's basically like "This guy must have real pride in the game he made, if he can't even care enough about the game to get custom graphics."
There are so many advantages to library graphics, but I think when it comes down to it, the work involved in making a completely original game is just something you take pride in, and library graphics take that away from you, both as the designer and as the player.
Originally Posted by BrandonC Gameplay, why re-create the real? Thats why open source engines exist, and thats why so many people use them. Take Unreal for example, that engine is open source, incredibly flexible, and allows people to design games with ease, but not remove the quality aspect.
You mean the original Unreal engine? Cause if you mean in general, then Silicon Knights would like to have some words with you.
I can absolutely never find a betatester when I try to work on a game. I've had this problem for 3 projects in a row; oftentimes a week or more I'd try to get someone, then finally I'd give up, post it as a regular download, and abandon it since nobodys even interested enough to BETA it, much less play the full game.
I think the trouble with a large and flexible open source higher level engine for MMF is that it takes a very long time to complete, is prone to extreme slowdown due to the wide array of features, and also it can become obselete very quickly.
I started working on an big engine project a while back. My goal was to create a particle engine, lighting engine, physics engine, AI engine, Sound engine and merge them all into one big lump of coolness. Trouble is, about halfway into the development of the engine, MMF2 was released. Hence, extensions that I'd previously relied on were not available, new features made many design choices obselete and then there was talk of a 3D extension. I thought it best at this point to hang about and maybe work on something different while i see how things pan out.
I'm not complaining about the fact that MMF2 came out, far from it, and I don't think the hours I spent working on that engine were wasted time. It taught me a lot about making games. My spare time project is The Orphanage, which started as a not very ambitious game, but has slowly gone through iteration after iteration and I think it is by far the best complete engine I have made in MMF. The trouble is, although the code is well commented and organised it, I don't think anyone but me would have a clue what it all means
Stuckboy
JC Denton: "I know your UNATCO killphrase: Laputan Machine."
Gunther Hermann: "I - am - not - a - machi --"
JC Denton: "Sticks and stones..."
Originally Posted by Phizzy [Ectoprods] The Unreal engine isn't open-source. They licence it to developers. It costs a lot of money.
I think you guys are missing the point I'm trying to make in favor of some loose details I didn't think I needed to tie together. Even if you pay $3000+ for a graphics library that everyone knows about, it is still not going to appeal to a lot of people merely because everyone knows about it and everyone will be able to look at your game and say that you were lazy enough to just buy graphics from a library.
Brandon, we can't get your point because you're jumping all over the place here. You started with engines and now you're talking about graphical libraries. Which one is it?
I think I'm going to write a small clean article that voices my opinion over the matter of library graphics, because you're right Shab, I'm throwing my opinion all different directions and it's not working out. Sorry bout that. Give me a few hours (day at the most) and I'll have an article up.
Plenty of ways to speed up a game's making, most of the stuff you guys have mentioned I've attempted to do for years. But then someone would shoot the idea down or someone would spearhead the operation and ruin it with his lust for glory.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
