Ling at argonaut.com
Tue Oct 7 15:20:12 New Zealand Daylight Time 2003
Daniel.Harman at barclayscapital.com wrote:
> From: Amanda Walker [mailto:amanda at alfar.com]
>> Sigh. If we go back to the *context* of this discussion, the
>> claim was being made that graphical MUDs take a lot of money and
>> time to develop, which is why they require a big bankroll. Sure,
>> if we assume they don't, that does solve the problem, but that
>> wasn't really the question at hand :-).
> Well I'd argue that the 3d engine is the least of your problems
> anyway. Its generating the meshes, the the textures, the music, the
> sounds, the animations.
Not forgetting the more funky features your engine provides, the
more expertise, work and tools required to put consistent content
into the game. For example, surround sound, interactive music
scores, animation state machines, bump mapping, all require
additional asset pipeline stages and most likely tools.
It all really depends on your aim and your expertise. On a hobby
level, if I wanted to make a game, I would mod a commercial game.
If I want to tinker with graphics, I'd write my own engine. They're
all valid things to do within a context, just wrap it in corporate
lingo and scale it up to a business level. ;)
A useful method of thinking about production, paraphrased very
badly: amount of work with assets required to please the average
customer (a key point about this discussion) increases by bleh
percent each year, the amount of work an artist can do is fairly
constant, tools increase productivity by blah percent each year. I
would bet bleh is higher than blah hence money, and lots of it, is
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev