My reasons... actually, I need only one:

The pre-eminent argument in my eyes is that of audience. There is an element of self-gratification as a developer, but ultimately, we do what we do because we want to share our ideas.

How many people do you think still play EVC/O? I haven't as much as looked at either in years. Those people who do still play them, play them for the stock scenarios, not because of some crazed loyalty to the engine its self; those people, I suspect, will be in a minority. Just look at the number of people calling for ports of EVC/O to N. Some desire it because they think it'll make the experience better; some, because they played C/O years ago and no longer have the original games, and don't really want to fork out for them again. By contrast, how many people are there out there that have requested that the N scenarios be ported to C/O? You and I know that doing so would be impractical to say the least, however with some work it would be achievable. But how many people do you think realised the practicalities of porting O/C to N before they asked? Few, if any. The point is, not enough people care about the O/C engines to make it worth the effort building a TC for either would require.

And by the way, don't use these forums as a gauge on the number of people playing O/C - for the same reason that you don't measure American public opinion on gun ownership by going to a NRA rally.

Don't forget either, that EVN was the first of the games to really hit the big time, purely because it's cross platform. Only about 3% of the people in the world have had the opportunity of playing C/O, while N is open to well over 90% of computer users world wide.

If the point in plugins is to have them played, why would you target such an infinitesimally small sector of your potential users? It seams very, very short sighted indeed.

This post has been edited by Hudson : 20 July 2005 - 10:16 AM

Quote

Give me 3 reasons why anyone would use the EVO engine over the EVN engine. Reasons that don't round down to subjective preference.

Very sly Hudson. Just about every choice that consumers make can be rounded down to subjective preference. Want examples?

Quote

Not an argument at all in my book. If they're serious about their art, they'll spend the measly $30 for the most recent, fully functioned engine.

Subjective preference: the phrase "in my book" indicates that this is an opinion, not hard fact. The bit about spending $30.00 to buy Nova to be considered "serious about their art" is also an interpretation of the facts based upon your experience.

I would think, in fact, that anyone that was serious about plug-in development would want to expand their knowledge with as large a variety of engines as possible, rather than limit themselves to one certain type.

Quote

2: Anyone who thinks that just because they have fewer colours to play with, they don't have to try as hard with their graphics, isn't worthy of the title 'Developer'.

Subjective preference at it's best: Technically speaking, anyone who has ever developed any plug-in, on any engine, is a developer.

That said, I happen to agree with you here. The challenge of doing "more with less" is the exact reason I dabble in EVC/O development. One very good reason to use the EVO engine, not over, but in conjunction with, the EVN engine.

Quote

And that argument won't stand the test of time.

Again, an opinion. In MY (subjective) opinion, it already has stood the test of time. Look at how long Nova has been out, and how many TCs have emerged for it. Compare that ratio with the same time frame for EVO or EVC. You'll find that the ratios for previous versions are considerably higher.

Lastly (because I'm not trying to write a book here...) Nova is what I call an "aspect" game- it combines aspects of several other games and programs into a playable engine. The fact that EVC/O was available to "only about 3% of the people in the world" means that 97% of the people in the world have not experienced the aspects of those engines. A main consideration in developing a successful plug-in (or game, or movie, or etc...) is to provide the user/consumer with a new experience. Why then, we we (as "serious" developers) not play the EVC/O engines to gain ideas and material for our TCs? Why we not dabble in their development to see how they were created?

Edwards, on Jul 19 2005, 12:39 PM, said:

Edwards the Annoyed at People Who Omit Essential Information
View Post

Edwards the APWOEI?

I am so going to start calling you that now.

Hudson, on Jul 20 2005, 05:23 AM, said:

Yes, it was an assumption that he is working with EVN, but it was an entirely valid one, like what direction 'up' is in.
View Post

Up is off to the left a bit. A bit more. Not quite that far. A bit to the right. Yeah, that's it.

Flyboy, on Jul 20 2005, 07:58 PM, said:

I would think, in fact, that anyone that was serious about plug-in development would want to expand their knowledge with as large a variety of engines as possible, rather than limit themselves to one certain type.
View Post

If you believe that the C and O engines are redundant for anything other than messing about, that's not an argument either. There is nothing in either the C or O engines that isn't also in N. Neither of those engines has any advantage over N, other than the fact that they can be regarded as N with training wheels on. By all means, use C and O to cut your teeth; to learn the ropes. But one day you're going to have to face up to the fact that C and O are commercially dead, and that you'll need to graduate to N if you want to do anything of any public worth.

The only way for you to convince me, is to prove that the C and O engines are commercially viable for plug-in developers.

Flyboy, on Jul 20 2005, 07:58 PM, said:

Subjective preference at it's best: Technically speaking, anyone who has ever developed any plug-in, on any engine, is a developer.
View Post

So you're undermining my criticism of bad developers. What you're actually doing there is defending people's rights to do a shoddy job. Interesting.

Flyboy, on Jul 20 2005, 07:58 PM, said:

Again, an opinion. In MY (subjective) opinion, it already has stood the test of time. Look at how long Nova has been out, and how many TCs have emerged for it. Compare that ratio with the same time frame for EVO or EVC. You'll find that the ratios for previous versions are considerably higher.
View Post

I don't believe that the volume of released TC's for N has anything to do with engine documentation, and everything to do with run-away dev teams trying to out-do an excellent stock scenario, or not being able to organise themselves effectively and efficiently. How long did it take ATMOS to produce the Nova scenario? And that was with tight deadlines, a hard but fare taskmaster sat on their shoulder and a mature team that was -for the most part - separated by a car journey. No plug team that I'm aware has the benefit of any of that. If Aftermath were similarly endowed, we'd have been live 6 months ago.

The possibilities within the N engine have given us too many stelar ideas. And because we have no clearly defined upper limits, you get project scope creep. That's mostly due to the free-sweetshop mentality that the N engine encourages ("Oh, I want a bit of that, one of those, one- NO; two of those, a spoon of that, a bag full of that stuff over there... etc."). To claim anything else is delusional. You're blaming ATMOS and ASW for our deficiencies.

Flyboy, on Jul 20 2005, 07:58 PM, said:

Lastly (because I'm not trying to write a book here...) Nova is what I call an "aspect" game- it combines aspects of several other games and programs into a playable engine. The fact that EVC/O was available to "only about 3% of the people in the world" means that 97% of the people in the world have not experienced the aspects of those engines.
View Post

Let's break that down. EV* is a combination of the following major aspects: trade, roll play, space shooter. Your statement can be read in two ways; either that 97% of the world have not played a trading game, or a roll playing game, or a space shooter; or that 97% of the world has not played a game with that mix of aspects.

Either way, you're patently wrong. You can't possibly argue the first position and still be sane, and you can't argue the latter and retain any sense of credibility as either a gamer or a game developer (Elite, arguably the father of the genre, predates EVC by a decade). Either way, I don't see what that has to do with what we're talking about...

Flyboy, on Jul 20 2005, 07:58 PM, said:

A main consideration in developing a successful plug-in (or game, or movie, or etc...) is to provide the user/consumer with a new experience. Why then, we we (as "serious" developers) not play the EVC/O engines to gain ideas and material for our TCs? Why we not dabble in their development to see how they were created?
View Post

In context, what are you saying there? That because 97% of the world hasn't played C/O, that it's fare game during Rape & Pillage season?

Anyway, I have nothing against people using C/O to better themselves. But that's not what we're
talking about, neither is it the point of this discussion. What we're talking about is the validity of developing a TC for public release on a platform that's barely used by anyone - other than developers and fanatics. It's like Microsoft coming out and saying "we've developed this brilliant bit of software, it's gonna change you're life. But, by the way, you've got to dust off your Intel386 Microprocessor systems and it's all done through DOS."

...though I wouldn't put it past them...

This post has been edited by Hudson : 20 July 2005 - 04:52 PM

Hudson. Dude. Cut the high and mighty bullcrap. This kid wants to play with the EVO engine for whatever reason. It's really none of your business what his reasons for doing that are. Stop getting so incensed

This post has been edited by lotsofblackflags : 20 July 2005 - 06:01 PM

I'll agree with Hudson here, developing for the EV C/O engines is only smart if you don't want anybody to use what you make. Look at it this way, in about two years no new computers will run EV C/O without some sort of third party emulation, not even a Mac. So unless somebody likes working with an engine that has been built upon and surpassed, and won't even function on modern computers, they will have to use the EVN engine.

To expand upon what people are saying...

If it's for public release, he definitely needs to develop it for EVN. The practicality concerns trump almost everything else. So Ragashingo is right.

Otherwise, it's his business and his business only why he'd want to develop it on EVC/EVO. Perhaps he wants to get used to the development process in general before he starts a large project. Perhaps he only has EVC/EVO at home and wants something for his own gratification. Perhaps he feels that his work will not (at least initially) be ready for public release. The whole argument is whether EVC/EVO are engines 'suitable' for public development. Did the person ever say that he was going to release (or even finish) his TC? He does not necessarily have to release what he makes, just as an amateur artist or novelist does not have to show the entire world his or her artwork or writing. It may or may not be of that caliber the first time around.

I don't remember seeing him specifying a reason. I don't see why we should judge his motivation as being 'better' or 'worse'. Maybe 'better' for us and 'worse' for him, but I'm sure Retribution and Aftermath are going to be works that I and Nick want them to be, not necessarily the works we think the community wants them to be.

Is it worth arguing over? The original author had a simple question. There was a misunderstanding. Something that could have been answered in less than fifteen words is now a freaking two page topic. Why? Do we think calling people out of their 'right mind' is going to convince them to change their medium of development? Is it really worth arguing over whether it's 'appropriate' to ask what medium of development the author of any particular topic is asking about? Are we now on a holy crusade to crush the heresy that consists of EVC/EVO development?

My personal thoughts: People like to say 'use stock graphics, graphics don't make the TC'. If people don't have access to fancy 3D software or someone with the skills to make 3D graphics, are they not developers? I commend Hudson for raising the bar (personally, I feel that even if the storyline is good, if the graphics are crap the plug will still be more or less non-immersive), but I can't help but feel for the people without those...resources. I do agree, though, that people should try their best when it comes to artwork. Maybe not model every single access hatch and external plate when it comes to a capital ship, but they should make stuff they would be proud to call 'their own art'.

Tangentially, the notion that 'if you write the plot, they'll come and make the graphics' is totally absurd. I've had time to do two major rewrites to Retribution's extensive storyline, and I actually have fewer artists now than a year ago. I post recruitment topics, post samples of art, and I count myself lucky to get a few comments.

Enlightenment would be appreciated :).

This post has been edited by UE_Research & Development: 20 July 2005 - 09:13 PM

lotsofblackflags, on Jul 20 2005, 11:59 PM, said:

Hudson. Dude. Cut the high and mighty bullcrap.View Post

Please forgive me for being professional in this respect. Not everyone can be expected meet my standards. At any rate, I didn't start the argument, neither was I the one to turn it aggressive. You need to look elsewhere on those accounts.

Ragashingo, on Jul 21 2005, 12:56 AM, said:

developing for the EV C/O engines is only smart if you don't want anybody to use what you make.View Post

Hear hear.

UE_Research & Development, on Jul 21 2005, 02:57 AM, said:

My personal thoughts: People like to say 'use stock graphics, graphics don't make the TC'. If people don't have access to fancy 3D software or someone with the skills to make 3D graphics, are they not developers? I commend Hudson for raising the bar (personally, I feel that even if the storyline is good, if the graphics are crap the plug will still be more or less non-immersive), but I can't help but feel for the people without those...resources. I do agree, though, that people should try their best when it comes to artwork. Maybe not model every single access hatch and external plate when it comes to a capital ship, but they should make stuff they would be proud to call 'their own art'.
View Post

I agree. I think my point was aimed more at people who have the skills, and think they can get away with less effort, rather than those who do not have the skills and need to use stock graphics by default.

This post has been edited by Hudson : 21 July 2005 - 01:11 AM

Hudson, on Jul 20 2005, 10:04 PM, said:

Please forgive me for being professional in this respect.

OK, now I'm offended. I, sir, work in the graphics industry. Having spent a few years here and there working for EA games, I have spent most of my career working with Vinton Studios.

Most graphics projects involve teams of people, all with separate specialties, working together to achieve a common goal. I can assure you that the arrogant, intolerant, elitism that you have shown throughout this subject does not even (/B)begin(B) to pass for professionalism. Instead, it smacks of youth and inexperience. Rest assured that if you ever grow up and enter the real world of computer animation and graphics design, you shall have a rude awakening in store.

To say that your actions are professional does a major disservice not only to me, but to thousands of hardworking people in the graphics industry. Good people. People who deserve better.

To all inspiring developers: Press on. Do NOT be detered by the naysayers. Continue to develop and hone your skills, in whichever medium you see fit. You may become the next specialist needed to fill a niche. Several years ago, with the advent of computer generated graphics, people began speculating that clay animation was dead. Indeed, even in this day and age, there are several talented clay animators out there drawing top dollar.

To the other members of these boards: My apologies for the flame, but I considered Hudson's posts to be merely bothersome until he claimed professionalism. Then they became an affront to an industry that I'm passionate about.

To Hudson: No apologies, just this- Now that you have shown what I'm forced to consider your true colors, I can see that any further correspondance between us would be pointless, and is therefor at an end.

Flyboy

heh heh heh...

Flyboy, on Jul 21 2005, 09:53 AM, said:

OK, now I'm offended. I, sir, work in the graphics industry. Having spent a few years here and there working for EA games, I have spent most of my career working with Vinton Studios.

Most graphics projects involve teams of people, all with separate specialties, working together to achieve a common goal. I can assure you that the arrogant, intolerant, elitism that you have shown throughout this subject does not even (/B)begin(B) to pass for professionalism. Instead, it smacks of youth and inexperience. Rest assured that if you ever grow up and enter the real world of computer animation and graphics design, you shall have a rude awakening in store.

To say that your actions are professional does a major disservice not only to me, but to thousands of hardworking people in the graphics industry. Good people. People who deserve better.
View Post

Okay, if you want to play the 'credentials' card; I graduated from Bath Spa University College (the formal Royal Academy of Art) in 2000 with first class BA Honours in Graphic Design, specialising in digital Media. I was head hunted by a London Agency and went straight into full time work. When I left that company two months ago, I was the senior pure-digital designer at the firm, with approximately 25% of the companies billable work-flow passing through my hands.

In that time I worked for international companies such as ICRC, the Red Cross, British Airways, British Telecom, GKN plc, Scotish & Newcastle, Cunard, The Imperial War Museum, HBG Construction... shall I continue?

I've since gone freelance (a move that relies upon my professionalism as I have to function as designer, producer, coder, illustrator, account handler, and accountant all at once), and I currently have the likes of The Brewery, Beechwood, HBG, EMI, Trinity Mirror Group and TearFund on my books, not to mention a ream of small businesses that I don't care to mention.

I'm good at what I do, and the repeat customers I have prove that. Now, you can look at this in one of two ways. Either I'm arrogant, intolerant and elitist, masquerading as a successful, reliable and professional self-employed designer; or I actually am what I say I am and this is nothing more than a difference of opinion.

You choose. If you choose to stick by your opinion, that's fine by me. But I have a list of people that'd disagree with you.

Flyboy, on Jul 21 2005, 09:53 AM, said:

Several years ago, with the advent of computer generated graphics, people began speculating that clay animation was dead. Indeed, even in this day and age, there are several talented clay animators out there drawing top dollar.
View Post

Nice illustration, but not a good one. Clay animation is only a technique presented through a particular medium, such as TV of cinema. In terms of this discussion, clay modelling is comparable only to - for example, mechaisto or EVNew. What I'm saying is that the medium of the C/O engines is dead, not the techniques that go to fill that medium.

Flyboy, on Jul 21 2005, 09:53 AM, said:

To Hudson: No apologies, just this- Now that you have shown what I'm forced to consider your true colors, I can see that any further correspondance between us would be pointless, and is therefor at an end.
View Post

Naaaw, you make me feel warm and fluffy...

Hudson, why do you have to turn every post into your own personal crusade?

The guys question was answered within the first few posts - he's probably not even listening any more. Give him a break.

Chill dude

tycho61uk, on Jul 21 2005, 02:02 PM, said:

Hudson, why do you have to turn every post into your own personal crusade?
View Post

Because these days it's generally frowned upon when us 'crusaders' pop over to the Holy Land to lop the heads off a few Moors and Saracens. We've got to 'crusade' somewhere

tycho61uk, on Jul 21 2005, 02:02 PM, said:

The guys question was answered within the first few posts - he's probably not even listening any more. Give him a break.
View Post

Eh? You think I was replying to T-h-r-e-a-t? I'm replying to the people with little or no business acumen who are arguing that it's entirely valid to expend months of blood, sweat and tears on a TC which few people will play.

tycho61uk, on Jul 21 2005, 02:02 PM, said:

Chill dude
View Post

I am chilled. I do this to entertain myself; that much I apologise for.

Soooo.. let me get this straight Hudson. You're a developer without a home crusading on boards where nobody makes money.

Imagine my surprise............

...no, I definitely have a home...

Flyboy, on Jul 21 2005, 12:40 PM, said:

Soooo.. let me get this straight Hudson. You're a developer without a home crusading on boards where nobody makes money.
Imagine my surprise............
View Post

Don't be stupid. Even from reading his signature, you'd know he's part of AfterMath.
Of course, you hardly ever understand what people say. The EV boards are littered with your jittering.

**Enough is enough. This topic has gone badly off topic and therefore is closed.

Hudson and Flyboy- if you wish to continue this debate, please do so in private.

_bomb

**