Got Questions for former dynamix employees?
- Thread starter Got Haggis?
- Start date
Devil Slayer
Veteran XX
vawlk said:
Good questions.
vawlk said:
so?
vawlk said:
The learning curve for T1 actually decreased as time went on. You can download the game now already pre-configured with scripts and everything. Skiing isn't about mashing the space bar or whatever, you just hold down a button and it's a constant state. The point is, the developers didn't need to dumb the game down to cater to new people, just kind of pickup where T1 left off in terms of what we'd already done to make it more "user friendly".
Any sequel is going to have an experienced and skilled following. You should ALWAYS cater to the core audience first, period.
vawlk said:
State the obvious much?
vawlk said:
Thanks for the lecture sparky. Now I'd like to hear an actual explanation from a developer.
:|:ArcaneGel
Veteran XV
Grief said:
Yeah, where are the answers?
Doesn't matter if they work for GG or not. They probably know everyone there. I'm sure they are automatically made "associates" and are helping out.
Doesn't matter if they work for GG or not. They probably know everyone there. I'm sure they are automatically made "associates" and are helping out.
A couple of good questions:
What are some things that set Dynamix apart in its development focus, as compared to some other dev houses? Or, if not in comparison to other dev houses, what are the key strengths that you would highlight?
The engines created for Starsiege, Tribes and Tribes 2 had no peer at the time for what they did, and in a lot of ways the ideas pioneered in Tribes are only now hitting the big-time -- huge outdoor environments, a variety of movement systems, etc. And at the same time, those games accomplished gaming innovation efficiently, while today's games seem to have ever bigger budgets but ever smaller return on their efforts. Where do you think the dynamix team would have focused on innovating next, and what aspects of game innovation would you say hold the greatest opportunity for RoI (return on investment ... or, return on innovation I guess)?
What are some things that set Dynamix apart in its development focus, as compared to some other dev houses? Or, if not in comparison to other dev houses, what are the key strengths that you would highlight?
The engines created for Starsiege, Tribes and Tribes 2 had no peer at the time for what they did, and in a lot of ways the ideas pioneered in Tribes are only now hitting the big-time -- huge outdoor environments, a variety of movement systems, etc. And at the same time, those games accomplished gaming innovation efficiently, while today's games seem to have ever bigger budgets but ever smaller return on their efforts. Where do you think the dynamix team would have focused on innovating next, and what aspects of game innovation would you say hold the greatest opportunity for RoI (return on investment ... or, return on innovation I guess)?
Dynamix had a long record of fairly (sometimes epic) successful games, so they not only had a solid development crew but good marketing/management. All that went into the shitter when they were swallowed by VUG. EA just swallowed DICE, so sometime in the next... 6 years they'll get closed down too.
Also, gaming back then was for the love of the game and a little cash. Now, it's *serious* money. You could draw parallels to NASCAR being a money-grubbing sport now as opposed to its true racing roots.
Also, gaming back then was for the love of the game and a little cash. Now, it's *serious* money. You could draw parallels to NASCAR being a money-grubbing sport now as opposed to its true racing roots.
Moker said:
are you shitting me?
nothing beats the mighty polar bear except something with poison or a gun (except maybe a elephant, but just maybe)
