Rxanadu

Sorry if I insulted you in any way. The overall message of my response was to merely show that, despite the attachment you may have with the game, at the end of the day, if it's made for profit you need to leave your emotions for it behind. Otherwise, you may be too emotionally hurt for you to continue making games if the game doesn't do well. Whenever I make a project for school, I tend to get far too emotional whenever I send it in for evaluation. I work from beginning to end trying to polish it off for the grader. If I get it back and I get a bad grade, I feel as if the grader spit on me in disgust; it's as if I shouldn't have ever tried. With experiences like that, I learned to not get too attached to my work. As a result, I'm able to have a more objective stance on the quality of the work and see what works and what doesn't. Even if all of that was for naught -and I still get a bad grade-, I shrug it off, learn from my mistakes, and work on the next project so it becomes better than the last. I have the fear that most developers and publishers don't see their emotional attachments (whether it be their product not getting the attention they feel it deserves or the fear of a salary decrease) as a potential negative. Rather, they should be as detached from the product as they can be to see in an objective standpoint whether it is of the quality they want it to be.

What would your idea of a "good [example] of leadership" be? I asked around, and I gathered a lot more examples of leaders in video games, including Chris Stone from Freedom Fighters and April Ryan in Dreamfall: The Longest Journey. Much like you, I've actually noticed that most traditional examples of leaders (e.g. powerful looking characters in military garb, people leading rebellions against an oppressive government) are usually in the periphery in video games. I think of characters such as Lars and his sister from Brutal Legend or, indeed, most princesses in games when I think of leaders based on my definition. Meanwhile, players are mostly placed into the role of commander of soldiers; there's the rare occasions such as Fable 3, but they're few and far between.

For the longest time, I've agreed with the notion that changing a game significantly can be hard thing for game developers to do since, "it's their baby," but I now see this a complete malarkey. The logic behind this quote alone makes no sense: you don't put your babies on the market; you train them to be better than you when they're out in the world; it's their job to create awareness for themselves on their own, whether through their own initiative or with the help of those they know. What you do with a game you wish to sell, however, is you "whore" them out to the market, creating awareness to those you wish to sell to, and make a profit based on whom you sell to. Everyone knows what happens to a sold product if it doesn't sell well: it's mourned, not for its distinctive traits or misunderstood potential, but for how it didn't benefit the developers with enough income. It's shunned by the very people who created it as some sort of leper they wished they had no part on creating. It's left in the market to fend for itself as the people who wished it well in the past pray for its effect on their social standing to pass like the common cold. A product someone (or a party of people) wish to sell does not get the "Prodigal Son" treatment: it doesn't get to come back home after a run-in with the cops and one too many contacts with the wrong crowd; it doesn't get a second chance. There is no reason to have a personal attachment to a sold product, as you know from Day 1 how you will treat it depending on its performance in its specific market: either you shower it with praise for bringing you millions; or you will despise (even hate) the product for not doing its only job, which is to make money.

The major thing about the game is that it's in pre-alpha, so I would think any criticism on the game so far would be welcome. However, I did say something along the lines of "I wouldn't buy this game no matter how polished it was." I explained my reasoning in the first of 3 large paragraphs to the lead designer by basically stating the game was going to end up as a "me-too" game rather than something that was unique. This was a major issue I noticed when the CEO (who was in the room) was discussing how to implement collectables in their game. I didn't tell this to the lead designer in person; I emailed these concerns to him because I strongly felt that I didn't completely say what I felt about the game in its current state during the post-test meeting. The overall message I was trying to convey was that if the game evolved along the path it was on when I saw it, it may not sell as well at they thought it would. Thinking back now, all I really wanted to ask was who the game was targeted for. For some reason, though, I didn't feel comfortable asking about that, as if it may take it as some sort of insult. Ultimately, I want all games to succeed, and "succeed" in most industries means to sell millions of product to make up for costs. So, I went for what I thought was the main issue and told them they may not sell for reasons I won't go into in fear of giving too much information of the game away.

Is there a major reason why most video game characters don't talk over each other? I've noticed how wierd its absence is ever since I saw (oddly enough) an anime called Red Garden. Specifically, I'm talking about a scene where a main character and her ex-boyfriend were getting into a heated argument about whether or not she was dating a teacher. The main thing I noticed, however, was how both character were constantly yelling over each other's words trying to get their piece in. It added immensely to the scene's believability (it even shocked me a bit). Ever since that scene, I can't help but notice how dry video game dialogue sounds in comparison. This is especially true in adventure games (yes, even The Walking Dead), where the characters are clearly pausing to allow for another animation or part of the scripting to play through before the player can continue with the game. It's even more showing in adventure games when the player is clicking/pressing buttons on objects to potentially solve a puzzle only to stiffly 'talk' to the player and note that the object is useless of that the player is daft for thinking the object would work in the first place. Now granted, some games have good (even great) dialogue... as long as it doesn't relate specifically to (or contradict) the gameplay. Any time the characters go from engaguing in a dramatic conversation to talking about what I need to do to move the story forward, it always takes me out of the experience. Also, any character that wants to "get out of the game" (i.e. not be a bad guy) always seems to turns arounds to gun down tons of thugs at the drop of a hat for some NPC he just met a couple of seconds after said conversation. It's extremely jarring when, in An Elysian Tail, Dust is still willing to kill some of the enemies in the game after findint about their past and eventually vowing to help them out through the rest of the story. Unfortunately, I can't remember a game where there were no situations where the diaolgue didn't break the experience for me at any point. Than again, I can't find out a proper way to fix this issue, nor can I find many games that are using dialogue as I wish (again, I know The Walking Dead exists). Do any of you guys know of any ways game writers could fix this problem or any games that are doing interesting things that other games could implement in their dialogue systems?

Wow. This explains a lot about why things are the way they are. It even explains why Nolan North didn't even know he was voicing a character in Portal 2 and why the voice of Adam Jensen is due to the popularity of his character in Human Revolution. This reminds me of a trailer for Trauma Team where one of the actors says, " ." At first, I was only thinking of this as a blunder on Atlus' part for letting such a striking statement into an advertisment for their game. However, my opinion on actors in games is solidified: even to this day, when so many games have proven how powerful voice actors are for creating characters players can identfy with, voice actors are thought of as expendable completely optional.I also know the same treatment is generally shown toward the sound department, epsecially when they have up to 40 mb of space available on a retail disk to place all of the sounds (music and all) in the game. I know the gameplay and interactive experience is paramount for most games, but to treat your other elements so poorly is beyond my comprehension. Just imagine playing The Walking Dead with no voices or sound, or playing Journey with no sounds whatsoever. Hell, unless they're deaf, most people couldn't imagine this scenario for most, if any, games made during this console generation.

Every time I've talked to a game developer about getting recognition in the industry, they tell me to, at the very least, contribute to forums. However, I've always been concerned about that because I can't do much aside from comment on the things that interest me - and don't get people turned against me - which turns out to be very little. Is there something specific I would have to do in order for it to be considered "contributing" in the sense of what the game developers are talking about? P.S. I would appreciate it if the replied did not feature any rude remarks, snarky comments, trolling (blatant or otherwise) or swearing. It's clutter.

I've been trying to create a main menu where the menu box appears slides (slowly) to the center of the screen slides (slowly) out of view when the player presses an item in the box However, whenever I try to find out how to do this (let alone anything about how to do things in Unity), I was met with little to no simple tutorials or correct tips on how to do anything relative to this. This is especially true when visiting Unity Answers; there's little to no help from YouTube, as well. So, does anyone know how to do what I wan to do? I've already tried using Time.deltatime to move the box slowly (i.e. not snapping to the new position when a button is pressed), but then the box just stays at the second position after the button is pressed. I've attached a .zip file with a C# file with some code I found online that I've been modifying to allow for the same function I mentioned above, but I just don't know what else to do. MainMenu.zip

I was completely unaware that this was a thing. That seems extremely useful for actors that can't get onto the set to practice their lines. I like how it's used as a way to get a feel for the lines, too. I could see how this could be hard to do for cartoon voice actors, though. From how many times I've heard Steve Blum's voice in every other game/Marvel cartoon/anime, he'd have to be in 5 places at once to get it all done on site. Then again, I'm not quite sure how VAs "phone it in". That just means they go to a local recording studio and send the files to the people that need them, right? But, if they're doing that, then can't the audio developers splice the audio in such a way that it sounds like they're having a more realistic conversation (regardless of the direction of the voices)? I remember a scene in Persona 4 where the main characters cheered for victory about something. Given the information from the people posting on this topic, I can't possibly see all of these voice actors coming in to all essencially yell, "Woohoo", then leave to do other things. The only alternate explanation I can think of is that the VAs phoned-in all of their lines, and the audio developers just synched the separate yells together to sound like they said it simultaneously.

It's the code I've been working on. It's not 'tweening' (i.e. the box is not sliding into place, but snapping into place).

For those who actually answered the question in a proper way: I'll take your considerations into mind. I just had no idea what the developers were talking about when it came to specifics; I always thought they were talking about adding more physical pages to a forum, or somethng. I just don't know how talking about video games (constructively or otherwise) will get me into the game industry. For those who took the bait: Surprise! You've been caught red-handed! Now, go back into your holes and think about what you've done!

Why do most games have characters reach into their butts to deliver and receive items? I know it's supposed to look like their 'back pockets,' but after so many games have done it (e.g. most polygonal Zelda games, recent Telltale games). It's especially jarring when this issue has been solved in clever ways such as with the Digi-Pouch in Beyond Good & Evil (i.e. the thing Jade shoves the first large, floating pearl into after the first attack on the lighthouse).

Practically 60% of the Humble Bundle purchases I've made in the past (e.g. And Yet It Moves, Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Gratuitous Space Battles, etc.)

If you're looking for some more 'nonlinear' games, then try out Second Sight and Sine Mora. Both games have stories told out of order. As for the Dungeon Fighter Online game, it's an MMO that plays like Streets of Rage, where the player is able to move right and left, as well as up and down the screen. It's available on Steam and was release in the US about 4 years ago. I would know; I was in the beta.