The Smashmouth Project

[Hooe]

I'm sorry to be the token negative guy, and I may be completely offbase on my assumptions, but...

You're building a football game (you mention the XBOX360 so I assume you're using XNA) which is supposed to be the most realistic thing on the market, yet it's going to be sprite-based and 2D (if it's not 3D and polygon-based, then you must be using sprites because that's really the only other graphical approach). Basically, you're harkening back to football games prior to NFL Gameday 98, which was the first 3D football game. I don't see how this is technologically superior to full 3D polygonal graphics with million-dollar rendering, lighting, shading, and animation engines. Care to elaborate?

How are you approaching problems like, for example, catching? You're not going to easily be able to keep track of where a receiver's hands since the player is more or less a picture of a player in a catch animation. Without having a concept of a player's hands in 3D space, the problem of catching more or less reduces to a collision between the player's body and the ball along with a ratings check.

Your process (tech prototype to game prototype to demo to game) also really isn't that unprecedented; prototypes are developed all the time in the video game industry before full game development even gets green-lighted.

I'm not trying to discourage you, I certainly admire people that try to work on independent video games at all (seeing as I do the same thing myself; I'm a CS major at UVa who will be interning with a video game company starting in June), I'm just trying to see through the overly flowery language and get some substance and I'm getting confused.

[TheWatcher]

Quote: Originally Posted by Krioniq

I'm sorry to be the token negative guy, and I may be completely offbase on my assumptions, but...

I appreciate feedback both positive and negative. I want to know what people are thinking. My feeling is that the more I know from the perspective of other gamers the better refined the final product can be.

Quote: Originally Posted by Krioniq

You're building a football game (you mention the XBOX360 so I assume you're using XNA)

Any developer developing for MS platforms would be wise to use XNA, and in fact many do. You might be surprised to know that XNA is used by many major developers for a variety of purposes, including testing in many of the big time games you enjoy every day (assuming you play on XBOX 360, of course), even sports games..

Quote: Originally Posted by Krioniq

which is supposed to be the most realistic thing on the market, yet it's going to be sprite-based and 2D (if it's not 3D and polygon-based, then you must be using sprites because that's really the only other graphical approach).

As you can see in the picture, there are no drawn sprites in the game. Each character and environment is extracted from real live captures. But if there is something more realistic than real, then I'd certainly be open to seeing it

Quote: Originally Posted by Krioniq

Basically, you're harkening back to football games prior to NFL Gameday 98, which was the first 3D football game. I don't see how this is technologically superior to full 3D polygonal graphics with million-dollar rendering, lighting, shading, and animation engines. Care to elaborate?

"Superior" is a matter of subjectivity. That said, in my opinion real is always visually better than polygonal, it's kind of stating the obvious in my mind, but I'm sure there are those who would prefer polygons over the real thing for personal reasons and that's okay, too.

A polygonal model cannot match the realism of a real person though. Someday the line between the two will be blurred to the point of not being able to make the distinction, but that's still quite a ways down the road. For now, real will continue to have the undisputed edge.

Quote: Originally Posted by Krioniq

How are you approaching problems like, for example, catching? You're not going to easily be able to keep track of where a receiver's hands since the player is more or less a picture of a player in a catch animation. Without having a concept of a player's hands in 3D space, the problem of catching more or less reduces to a collision between the player's body and the ball along with a ratings check.

Those things are not an issue with the process I'm using or in connection to the game concept. I'm able to capture and program players to move and react normally like any game can... and do it using a heckuva lot less memory.

Quote: Originally Posted by Krioniq

Your process (tech prototype to game prototype to demo to game) also really isn't that unprecedented; prototypes are developed all the time in the video game industry before full game development even gets green-lighted.

I didn't actually state that part to be unprecedented... I only explained what steps I'm taking. I did however state that the community involvement will be unprecedented and that's something you'll see in due time.

I should also mention that it's very common for companies to skip game prototypes and begin working on the demo of the game after mastering (or getting a decent grasp of) the tech, especially since major games are made on tight schedules and don't allow for an unlimited time window. They also have much larger teams. My position is different. I have the freedom to do whatever I like on any timetable I choose.

Quote: Originally Posted by Krioniq

I'm not trying to discourage you, I certainly admire people that try to work on independent video games at all (seeing as I do the same thing myself; I'm a CS major at UVa who will be interning with a video game company starting in June), I'm just trying to see through the overly flowery language and get some substance and I'm getting confused.

"Overly flowery"... I'm not sure about that one... but you have to understand that this is a product after all. Downplaying it would obviously be counter-productive for any product. I'm also not over-hyping it either, the project is what I'm stating.

I have no idea how the final will turn out, no one ever knows that. Best case scenario, it turns out great and we get a new game doing something innovative and finally getting to the last plateau of visual quality. Worst case scenario, I put out a new process for doing it that winds up becoming an asset to the industry in general and we all still benefit. There really is no negative or point of discouragement. No one loses either way. It's all positive

[Hooe]

Foremost, it wasn't my intention to badmouth XNA; I'm actually part of a small team working on an XNA game (not a sports game) for XBOX Live Arcade right now, and it's very easy and dare-I-say fun to work with.

As for the rest of the post, I guess I'm just not understanding exactly what your game is. My understanding of graphics (having taken computer graphics and game design courses here at UVa) is that you either have a 2D environment with sprites, background textures, etc., or a 3D environment with bunches of textured and shaded polygonal meshes. You seem to indicate that your game doesn't use either, which has me wondering exactly how the graphics are done in the first place.

I suppose waiting to see what you're working on in some sort of "finished checkpoint" state and in-action might better answer some questions I have about what you're doing, though if you care to offer a more detailed explanation I'd be all-ears for providing feedback to it.

Good luck, either way.

[TheWatcher]

Quote: Originally Posted by Krioniq

You seem to indicate that your game doesn't use either, which has me wondering exactly how the graphics are done in the first place.

Ah, but that my man is the secret

But people with your experience are precisely the types of people I want in addition to the average gamer. I think the community approach I'm taking will allow you to really give some good insights. As time passes, more about the process will be talked about. For now, the most important thing I want to communicate is that real characters and real environments are being used.

[24]

looks very promising good job

[HOKIEBEN]

Good Work!

[red95vette]

So, are you saying then that you won't have any animations in the game, only static photos? Or are you planning on recording video footage of every possible play and play outcome? I'm not quite sure an approach of either type is going to yield something the gaming world gets excited about.

To be honest, I had to check your original post date to ensure it wasn't posted on April 1st. In any event good luck. I'm not one to discourage people's projects.

[TheWatcher]

Quote: Originally Posted by red95vette

So, are you saying then that you won't have any animations in the game...

The characters are real and they are taken from live captures. There are no drawn sprites.

Quote: Originally Posted by red95vette

only static photos? Or are you planning on recording video footage of every possible play and play outcome?

To allude to an earlier post in this thread, this not an FMV game. It's not a situation where you're watching a video and you have no user control. With Smashmouth, you will be able to have full control of your players the same way you have in any other game (and with some new control features, too).

I can see from some posts and emails that the way games have been made over the past 3 generations has forced gamers (and game developers for that matter) to only think inside the box and only see one way of doing things. I like that because this project is--in part--meant to challenge that ideal.