Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Why FromSoft is So Successful | Day9 Mini Rant
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 07. 2024
- A little baby rant on why FromSoftware is so successful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
★Watch live on Twitch: / day9tv
★Check out my Website: day9.tv
★Day[9] Merch: shrsl.com/2g4l1
![[Highlight] My Incredibly Chaotic 1st 10 Minutes Back to Hearthstone](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2OfHdq12dus/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Highlight] My Incredibly Chaotic 1st 10 Minutes Back to Hearthstone](/img/tr.png)
![[Highlight] Day9 Reacts to YuGiOh Gameplay for the 1st Time](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CchMffzPUTI/mqdefault.jpg)
![Day[9] Story Time - The Horrifying Time Artosis Raided Me](/img/n.gif)
I've watched a lot of episodes of Matt McMuscles "What Happened?"-series about projects that had a rocky development (most of of the subjects ending in failure), and for a lot of them the biggest issue was indecisive management.
Duke Nukem Forever was probably the worst one.
Yup!
The system shock remake was something else despite how the game ended up being good. It's a project that should have easily been done in 2-3 years but because the studio founder didn't have the balls to say no to the morons who thought that a kickstarter funded remake should be a 'reimaging' they ended up remaking the game like 4 different times.
Fun fact, there were 6 different King's Field games, with the first one being released in 1994. So FromSoft has iterated on this same formula 13 times (ignoring DLCs).
I think it's safe to say they've gotten out of the awkward phase of finding the game they want to make and are now knocking out different takes on the same core ideas
It truly is the video game development equivalent of living the famous Bruce Lee quote, "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times." Because you are correct, in the last several years they are creating variations on a theme, and knocking it out of the park every single time.
They got a style they like and are running with it.
Some others every other game is different. Then you have the FiFa/Maddin style that is the same game and not even a lick of new paint sometimes.
@@njp4321by that logic Ubisoft would be a kings of game design. Magic is not in repetition.
@@dmitriyrasskazov8858 I think you're making a different argument. Personally, I would say Ubisoft is the best at making the kind of games they are trying to make. You or I may not like, or have high esteem for that kind of game (I know I personally am not a fan), but that doesn't mean they aren't great at making them.
I've never seen the reasoning or value in producing extremely expensive high-end sports vehicles for ownership by regular drivers on public roads, but that doesn't mean I would claim Lamborghini hasn't mastered making exactly that.
@@njp4321 Just to pile on top of this one of the points Day9 made in this video is how quickly From is able to release games, and Ubisoft has them beaten in that regard. Are Ubisoft's games masterpieces? I think most would agree no they are not, but we can also see that they are pretty much all financial successes. If we want to see fewer soulless games (pun intended) then we should be allocating our money as buyers to soulful games like From is known to make.
It also helps that From Soft have made like 6 souls like games by now, and unlike most other studios, they dont have a big publisher gulping them up and forcing them to fire their staff after every release, it's also what enabled Baldur's Gate 3 to be as good as it is, a staff that is familiar with the tools used to develop the games they want to make, and have been doing so for many many years.
Exactly. Talent retention is rare in the industry, but gives a few devs what seems like superpowers.
Why are people referring to the Soulsborne games as "Souls Like"? This is the dumbest trend that seemingly just popped up since the ER DLC dropped. The Soulsborne games are not "Souls-Like". They are the Souls. They literally defined the genre. No one says a Toyota is a "car-like". Rogue is not a "Rogue-like". Spades are not "Spade-like". This is stupid.
There were a lot of reasons BG3 was successful. The pandemic happening, taking the gamble they could even make it happen when money was running dry, developing divine divinity series as learning experiences to make BG3, Early access and a dedicated fan base to play early access. There's a lot that made BG3 work.
@@mistere5857 Because it's become a genre unto itself and everyone knows what it means. No point splitting hairs.
@@mistere5857 This is like saying Metroid isn't a metroidvania it's a Metroid. You will be happier if you don't waste your time trying to argue points like this
I like that they prioritize art direction over graphics.
Their games are technically....very bad. Good art direction is very important, but they should really fix their issues.
@@Frodonsake24 they're not "very bad" from a technical standpoint. play some eurojank to get some perspective
@@Frodonsake24 Here's my theory: FromSoft knows it's wack that they're still building atop the engine from Armored Core 4, which came out in 2006. But since they're so focused and on-the-same-page about the games they wanna make, the creative urge causes the engine change to repeatedly get pushed back. (Tho I personally would prefer if they slowed down long enough to swap engines.)
@@Frodonsake24 can you explain to me like I’m 4 what makes their games “technically bad”?
This one goal / direction is more easily achievable with 1 person leading a team, especially where the team trust's that leaders vision no matter what, ie. Miyazaki in this case, but this also applies to Kojima and Sam Lake etc.
I think fromsoft is a rare company where the artists are able to keep creative control over their projects. They have a strong vision, and are allowed to execute on it without endless interference from business people. That's what makes their games so good
They also don't change their engine constantly or chase whatever new tool exists to 'optimize' their production flow. Anthem is a prime example of what can happen to a dev cycle when 70% of the total effort expended was to make an engine support gameplay implementation it was never intended to.
I'm a software engineer and one of the biggest indicators of if a project is going to work out is clear requirements and an understanding of what "done" means. I've never worked on a game, but I've worked on firmware projects where the requirements just weren't quite understood and then every few months they changed, forcing us to scrap or redo code and give up on rigorously testing things because we knew the requirements would change or the project might even be scrapped. That led to buggy software, where we knew we could do better, but were being jostled around too much to make better engineering decision. What you said about FromSoftware having clear goals and not deviating (too much) from them really rings true, leading to their success really rings true.
That was a great advice for me, I'm on the "idea moment" to create my game with a company and I was feeling that we need to put everyone on board before start creating otherwise will be a disaster
What you're describing is Miyasaki's style of direction, known as "total direction."
And this "total direction" is, as we all know, poison swamps
@@ThePiroMonster 😂
That feels like a problem with a lot of modern mmos. Even if I like several of them, it feels like they aren't really sure what they're making. Does the game actually facilitate being an mmo?
Is there PVP in the game because it makes sense for PVP to be in the game, or are they just including it because that's something players expect?
Is there an open world because there's any real point to having an open world, or does it exist because that's just a genre convention?
FFXIV really seems to have nailed a formula and pace to each expansion. There's going to be an expo with 5 major patches, and it's going to take ~2.5 years until the next expansion. We're going to include new jobs and race options. Each major patch is going to include more story and a similar gear/raid structure.
Oh and here's a free to play trial that can give you hundreds of hours of content to see if you like what we do.
"How One Gameplay Decision Changed Diablo Forever"
This story immediately came to mind, because they basically invented ARPG as a genre (on a large scale). But it still has that core RPG experience design underneath, making it feel oh so good. A good compromise here is that making a slight deviation, in this case adding Action to an RPG can really leave behind a beautiful structure in which a game can grow on. This is similar to fortnite but I had to bring it up because it's a great example.
I think there's also an argument, because of experience and vision and iterations, that Elden Ring didn't take 3 years to make.
Elden Ring took 13 years to make. Each and every Souls game is an iteration. Some of them (like Bloodborne and Sekiro) were branching spinoff ideas but they came from the same tree. Elden Ring wasn't an idea that Miyazaki had when he made Demon's Souls but every game FromSoftware has made sailed in that general direction.
A lot of people forget this fact. Baldurs gate 3 and larian was similar. You can't throw money at a bunch of talent and get games like elden ring and BG3. These games are decades in the making.
Because Fromsoft use mostly the same game engine that works for them with their art style. That way they can concentrate on their game(s). While other company and all they does is making the same game over and over again and only upping the quality of the graphic fidelity of their games.
While I agree with the general statement, it's weird to compare a studio that invented and perfected a genre to studios that switch genre within one production... There's a whole spectrum in between those two things. Even within a coherent vision there can be a lot of iteration, if you're not mostly building on other games out there that have already figured things out for you. And then there's just the way a team functions, you can't just hire a bunch of people and work at the same place as a team that's worked together on multiple titles. From Software is a highly specialized studio that somehow is also very good at innovating on its own product, so it both has the ability to be fast and efficient and to create novelty and further explore the genre. On top of that, the actual development cycles of these games are longer than the time in between games because some have been developed in parallel. Sekiro and Elden Ring for instance, so you might say they are actually several studios working with partially shared tech and knowhow.
Iteration happens at every point and every scale. It's not just massive pivots in design (driven by business choices). I've worked on a game that just had a novel main mechanic and it takes a long time to figure out how to properly implement them and all of the content depends on them so you can end up blocking level design, art, writing,... And it can be really hard to estimate how long it will take to fully nail that stuff down. Even though the general plan hasn't changed much at all.
In the end I think people always compare budgets and studio sizes in order to call out studios of not making games fast enough. But one thing that must not be underrated, is the actual team and tech they already have. There's no replacement for having a few talented, core people on board for 20 years while working with the same tech and genre. I would say that equals 10s if not a 100 employees, but you can't even make that comparison because the game would be different and less coherent when made by a larger and less skilled team.
Probably also helps that they have a stable engine which they all probably know extremely well by now. Also reusing assets. Instead of throwing everything away for the new shiny tech. Backside is that the engine is somewhat dated and not state of the art.
The funny thing is the first part is basically describing the development of Dark Souls 2. It was going to be open world with giant bosses and then they realised the technology couldn't handle it and had to change their goal, ending up with a game that (with much debate that isn't the point of this comment) some people see as the black sheep of the series.
There's a bit of a luck factor too. The souls series hit their stride when talks of video games being too easy was becoming a common topic after decades of video games considered too hard by default. The timing for a hard game when everybody was starting to wear thin on easy modes was a very fortunate timing.
I agree with you Day9, but I think it needs to be noted regarding this subject that these games are also pretty much the same structurally and gameplay-wise (maybe except Sekiro), which also helps a lot to reduce deveopment time. Im pretty sure they are using the same graphics & physics etc engine too (with continous development obviously).
Well yeah and they’re also reusing models, animations, movesets, enemies and much more. But that’s fine because every iteration they build a crapton of stuff on top of that which makes the games feel familiar and new at the same time. It’s like your favorite game just gets bigger and better every few years
I think it's worth mentioning that no other game has nailed the souls-like formula like FromSoftware has. Sure, there are some more indie or roguelike games that aren't exactly like Dark Souls and have been fairly successful, but every game that has tried emulating FromSoftware's games have Fallen to meet expectations.
From seems to make the games they want to make instead of some game thats been insanely focus-grouped into overly homogenous pablum.
Third point contradicts the second because that's exactly the problem: changing your mind to chase trends, which is what Fortnite did. Epic did not "come up" with the Battle Royale, they saw PubG and wanted a piece of the flavour of the month pie.
Also note that "From Software" couldn't have done what they did, no group could have. What Day9 describes here is "auteur"-driven crafting: when one person holds the vision and the team executes on that vision. A team cannot have one vision because inevitably differences of opinion drive so many wedges that all the compromises pile up into mediocre products. It's called "design by committee" and it's why a lot of artistic and technical endeavors fail: instead of delivering one thing for a large enough niche, they chase every duck and catch neither.
The aprehension companies have to letting auteurs is risk-based and From Software was on the brink of failure with a sequel to King's Field so they let Miyazaki, an impressive recent QA hire with a background of salaryman take the reigns of a perceived failed project. He turned that into Demon's Souls and nobody argued with him because the product was perceived beyond salvation. At rock bottom you can only go up and "up and up" they did.
Everything following that was shrewd leadership on both the former president of From and Miyazaki himself. Hiring and contracting very good people and sticking to the vision of the directors. In essence it's nothing new, Capcom and Nintendo do it with so much success we rarely think of the huge gamble they pull every time. Itsuno-san could've missed with DMC:V for all we know. Their success comes from loving games and wanting to make games they would enjoy playing. Many others in the industry profess to "hating the gameplay" such as Dragon Age 2's writer - a key design position like that hating gameplay is seldom a good sign.
Don't go hollow.
That's fascinating, I'd never heard the anecdote about the DA2 writer "hating" the gameplay aspect. I think that explains why I've never been a dragon age fan, one of the reasons I love Fromsoft/soulslike is how the gameplay and lore play off each other so well, and I think you can feel the difference between a game where the world building side and game play side support one another vs are managed by creatives who see one another as obstacles to their vision.
Why is the Fortnite example contradicting?
You have a game that has certain attributes like 3D, shooting, building and a multiplayer component and the first destination was a tower defense (coop?) game. Then there is a new trend and you see that your first idea wasn't really clicking but you have almost everything to change course and make a battle royal with extras.
Everybody on the team probably knew at that point what they had to do to make it a very good BR. Or am I missing something?
fornite worked because they already had an engine and game based on having a lot of characters doing a lot of things on a big map, as long as the netcode was good they had already built the bones of a BR without even trying, their competitors at the time pubg and arma2 both ran like trash on scuffed engines and they swooped in with most of the work already done and could then generate new content quickly because their engine could handle anything
@@minementalx Because they're chasing the trends. They don't iterate on a singular vision.
How would they know to make a "very good BR"? Sure, they did make it a BR: they copied every single mechanic popularized by PubG.
Game Design-wise can you name any significant change or addition Epic Games have brought to the BR genre? Because if i recall correctly the only reason those millions moved away from PubG was massive performance issues which Epic Games' product did not have (and likely the leaner aesthetic that easily converted kids and got parental approval).
In the souls series I can tell you how each game's different from its previous one - despite them being fundamentally the same genre. Sekiro's the major dark horse yet i've beaten everyone but Isshin using typical souls game mechanics: dodging, slashing, positioning, items and prep; i suck at parrying but don't give up, skeleton!
@@postblitz I think Day9s point wasn't that the game is unique bit that the team behind can outperform most of other teams in the industry. Not only in quality but also in quantity.
And I think that is what Fortnite team and director did better that the other BRs. They head probably a strong and competent lead designer and a good team.
Even though I am not a fan of Fortnite and they were just ripping of ideas, they executed it probably the best overall.
Thanks for your insight.
the reason is simple, they focus on the experience first, and everything else second
not on how to bind players, not on how to make people spend more money, not on how they can instill their agenda
plain and simple focusing on the experience
Exactly. They've mastered "the experience". It feels like some kind of magic just existing in the world they've created. Everything thereafter, all the mechanics & parts, are icing on the cake. It makes most other games feel like playing with fidget spinners afterward
From’s deep understanding of level progression, both stats wise and environmentally, coupled with minimal storytelling through environment and item design, is what makes them a good developer. Not the “experience” which is also known as “playing the game”
Like no other publisher thinks about user experience lmfao
Edit: From caved to woke agenda already, too much gay with Miquella
@@ArticulateAnodyne there's a difference in "thinking about user experience" and focusing on it first and foremost.
i guarantee you that when the ceo's of Activision sit down in their first annual meeting discussing CoD, they even so much take into their mouth any user experience.
That's what it means to focus on it, not talking about money all the time, but how to create a media piece for the love of creating and shaping an experience.
that's the difference, the mindset of a creator not a businessman.
@@cedricschmidtke4287 I agree with the gist of what you’re trying to say about prioritizing financial success over making a labour of love, just trying to say video game development is more complicated then simply focusing on user experience
A cohesive team working on one style of game over many years. They committed from the get go. Hopefully their next game will be even more refined.
*Its because they dont churn through their devs constantly loke every especially american AAA studio.* Far better than just 'doing one thing' they have a team of developers and a work flow that is tried tested and proven with the same people who can then take Junior developers and work them into it. Zelda is the perfect example of this, The same team has been working on that series forever and that's how we get things like BoTW. If you took fromsoft's same goals but then started applying EA style tactics to torturing their developers, you would not get an Elden Ring. I wish danine would respect the importance of ground level developers more, but I guess that's pretty typical for gamers to not do
Also helps when your primary focus is making an incredible game and story, and not trying to push some kind of current year ideology or message.
It's true, especially from triple-A studios, there's a tendency to get goal shifts. I mean, look at Skull and Bones, couldn't decide on being a pseudo-MMO, PvE coop, juggling single-player content, so on and so forth, and the gameplay ends up with 2000-era flash game quicktime events as a core mechanic.
Friggin' FromSoft though? They put out the game they want to make, and THEN they say "that was good, this worked, this got well received, this didn't, let's do this next time".
Long Time no see :) Keep it up Day9
Personally, I love when the lore of the game fits the game mechanics.
For example, character death. The souls games have it written in the lore a reason that your character can come back to life.
Can we also mention that they build off the back of each release? Like every claymore in their game has the same moveset/animations. A lot of the enemies and movesets are recycled as well from previous games(think the Erdtree Avatars and the Asylum Demons. Or the giant crabs from DS3 are in ER.) They have no issue recycling things or cut content into the next game, which I think is a good thing, it makes their games familiar but also makes it feel like each game is MORE.
To be fair, for Elden Ring this is also a big point of criticism. Too much recycled, too much reused, not only from previous games but from it's own game. If ER is your first game, you don't notice these things at all. You think everything in the game is new.
Arkham Asylum started development as a rhythm game.
If a company is interested in making art, they make art. If a company is interested in making money fast, they make trash.
I think the error too far in that direction lies maddenism where youre not even iterating just repackaging
Thats one reason, sure, but getting down to the heart of it, i just think they take a Craftsman's approach to their games, from the top of their leadership down to their entry level employees. They craftsmen honing their craft wjth each game. They have a passion for game design and have an outlet to execute their vision. Like a Chef owner and his restaurant. These games are just so well thought out. They are masterpieces of game design and I'd have to think that it comes from miyazaki.
I took a platinum on Sekiro 😅
I agree with all of this but i would also like to bring up that fromsoft games treat the player like a while person. It does not have a navi* telling us the tutorial it does not give us quest markers it trusts us the player to play the game and learn.
I have a question actually, ive seen no eldenring on your stream schedule, will the playthrough continue? I really enjoyed it so far.
That "switching" you're talking about - I know of a particular example where that lead to one of the most successful video games today.
_Fortnite_ used to be just what today is known as "Fortnite - Save The World". Then came PUBG. Epic Games basically carbob-copied the gamemode, made it their own - and voila.
Sometimes the hail-mary pass works :D
Honestly, it's not even that complicated: They let the product get finished. One of the main reasons most triple-A games suck and disappoint is that their publishers are impatient moneygrubbing idiots who will happily plunder their own brand and sack their talent to make a quarterly revenue projection. They make and break promises with their developers, hemorrhage money on marketing subpar, half-finished products, exert creative control over matters they have no business meddling with, and then give their employees the shaft when they deliver the goods.
Take Infinity Ward and Call of Duty. This was a studio ATVI was able to poach because the creatives who made Medal of Honor were treated like shit by EA. Did they react by learning from the mistakes of their rivals? No. Different publisher, same problems: Creative meddling, poaching of the brand to farm out to other studios, and screwing people out of their bonuses. And, big surprise, the creatives left, and the brand lost its value as the people who made the product great left.
Don't sell out to a publisher. It just means some finance-bro is going to steal your baby to flip for a better rate on his stock options. Make a good product, and gamers will find **YOU**.
I don't like the argument of "finished product". There are only two kinds of products, Perfect products and released products. The absolute nonsense I've seen gamers call "unfinished" is ridiculous. I saw someone call Mortal kombat 10 an unfinished product. Why? because Smash brothers released with 35 characters, but MK10 only had 20. That was it, that was all it took for someone to call a product unfinished. Games like using the word "unfinished" too much.
And as a fun fact, a lot of the complaints gamers have about modern games (game crashing bugs, game breaking bugs, etc) baldurs gate 3 did as well (had a lot of issues on release which they patched later) but they turn a blind eye too.
Elden Ring was unfinished when it released. The DLC is unfinished. Please stop saying they release finished products when they just don't. They LITERALLY had to patch in quest endings to Elden Ring. People just assumed they hadn't found the ending before that's why everyone ignores it. Their itemization is terrible because they just do not know how to balance properly. Their UI is atrocious. Their QoL and Accessibility is non-existant. Their optimization is also terrible. So no. Their products are not "finished games". People just ignore their issues completely because people are not allowed to say anything negative about them without getting dogpiled. And I am no saying they are making bad games but if people judged FromSoft the same way they do other companies they would not get as much praise as they are getting.
Also the amount of bugs in their weapons is staggering with each release which is also completely ignored by players and reviewers a like. Remember Arcane Scaling just not working at all at release? I think at least half the weapons in the DLC are bugged into one direction or another.
To be fair a lot of older Souls players really dislike Elden Ring because it feels that Fromsoft is basically becoming a Flanderized version of itself. The older games had significantly better telegraphs and restraint when it came to their bosses but now almost every boss is so self indulgent with their anime phase moves that it clashes really hard with the usual dour/subdued nature of the games. Not to mention that the enemy telegraphs are purposefully misleading which was rightfully called out and clowned on in DS2 but Elden Ring has so much mainstream appeal that a lot of newer Souls players to the series don't see the massive issues that the game has. It's certainly the weakest of the Souls games and the DLC seemed to have just make a lot of the problems even worse.
To be fair, the older souls were quite clunky to play and as the tech and game-feel improved, so could the aggressiveness of the fights. I feel like From has done a phenomenal job of amping up the challenge and fights over the years while keeping it feeling fair. Only exception is the final DLC boss that felt like they cooked a little too hard. Sekiro, I felt, was the most refined and rewarding of all there games combat-wise but that couldn't be done with an RPG style character customization (weapons/builds/levels/stat distribution) so elden Ring had to pull back a little, save for the final DLC boss, which again was a bit too much.
I agree with you a bit, still feel like DS1 and Bloodborne's bosses are the best. Bosses were pretty challenging but not some the main focus. One of the hardest parts was getting back to the boss from the bonfire, for example: it was a significant journey and you had to keep flasks to get to the boss, etc. In Elden Ring the graces are literally at the boss entrance or there are Stakes of Marika serving an identical purpose. This is because bosses are so much harder that they just couldn't afford to have a long track back to the boss.
Even Ornstein and Smough had a long journey back, with several high-poise enemies on the way. Not to mention if you wanted to summon help, you had to turn human at the bonfire and run back to the boss with the risk of being invaded all throughout
@@VyxelOP imo I don't think this is accurate. DkS 1 does feel a bit clunky, but Demons Souls and Bloodborne feel much more fluid and refined than Elden Ring. I never have any moments in those games where my attacks feel too slow, or input queueing breaks in an annoying way, or enemies spam an ultra long combo into thin air when I'm behind them, or enemies that randomly stall in mid air after a jump etc. The way animations chain together in DeS also feels much better than ER.
DeS also has 0 glitchy grab attacks while ER is stuffed with them.
Tbf plenty of new players also get annoyed af at all the poorly designed telegraphs, roll-catches, gap closures, gank fights etc. People generally seem to see it as a problem, but just don't hold it against the game that much because everything besides the combat is really good.
ITT: Jaded souls veterans who don’t like the direction the series evolved.
It’s okay guys, I get it. Plenty of series I loved evolved into something I didn’t like. Just know that saying the game has „massive issues“ makes you sound very silly.
Jesus Christ one commenter even tries to excuse bonfire runs as good and challenging content, that’s the level of nostalgia goggles we are on here.
They're the goats
.... Yeahhh maybe.
what an absolutely worthless comment.
So here's a different problem I have. I have a perfectly flushed out vision (so I have my port) of a game design that does have elements of other games, but at it's core, what will make it unique and memorable is something that's never been done before - something for all the games, and not just hardcore ones.
Now, I don't have gaming industry credentials, I have many other IT credentials like, being a gamer for over 30 years, MS in physics and some programing experiance. I've contacted 2 major studios, CD Project RED and Larian Studios (yes, for all you clever folk out there I am based in Poland currently). One said they don't take outside ideas and other hasn't responded. All I wanted was 15 min for a pitch meeting. I've contacted some other smaller creators, but no one could recomment any contacts in the gaming industry.
How the hell do you get in to this industry?! I have what you need and I'm already an IT Sr service manager, just need the resources to do it.
Man, I pured my soul out in that cover letter and no response 😢
Yeah.. No one's going to just take you in and fund your ideas. Imagine I, someone unheard of with no credentials or anything to show for had an idea for a movie and tried calling Disney or Universal.. Being laughed out the door would be way more than I deserve. That's an equivalent of a hobo asking to be taken serious as financial advisor and also a small investment of tens of millions of dollars.
Start by making very small, very basic indie games yourself. Hell, it doesn't even have to be games in traditional sense. Narrative works, worldbuilding or tabletop games. Then onc you have anything to show look for like minded individuals and make more small basic indie games. Build a portfolio. Then look for work in some studio and climb the corporate ladder or start your own studio and fund it yourself if you're filthy rich or go the way of crowdfunding and underestimate the insane amount of cash you need to develop a game and close shop before reaching beta.
The industry doesn't like idea guys. If you want to break into the industry, you need to walk into offices and take meetings with a product in hand and a detailed plan. It doesn't need to be 100% complete, but it needs to be playable, it needs to be stable and it needs to be solid. They meet with a whole load of teams and people weekly if not daily. You need to assure them they aren't throwing their money away.
if you want the best explanation, go to youtube and search for
30 things I hate about your game pitch (from GDC)
@@MATCHLESS789 That's obviously a good point with the movie comparison. However, I'm not a kid fresh off high school or college. I'm older than Day9. I sent them my linkedIn profile. I do have experiance in software development as a Project Manager and IT Manager. I currently have projects that my team is working on, one in Kanban other in sprints. It's not the same, but software is software.
In anycase, I'm a man with education, a career and kids. I don't have time to start from the bottom or take a huge risk that migh impact my family.
All I'm saying is there should be a way, if you have credentials in other industries to say "hey, I'd like to apply for a job in Larian Studios. Can you give me 15 min of your time? Here's a NDA and let me sell you on this idea. You don't like it? Then thank you for your feedback. IF you like it, let's get to work."
Credentials aren't the be all to end all. You have a PHD? whoopty do, do you have an alpha build that demonstrates your game mechanics? no? there's the door, we have five other candidates that do. To quote glengary glenn ross "Good father? go home and be a family man, you're here you close"
nobody cares about your back story or your hardships and you aren't owed anything. You need to make them care. They are here for your game idea, not your life story. Other people have tragic backgrounds as well, they have kids, they have credentials and experience and they can be 20 years old or 40, but they can show them a vision and a tangible product.
you can tell he hasnt played a From Soft game before Demon Souls. He thinks that's all there is to the company.
Honestly? I believe it's 100% sheer dumb luck. There are better games in the same genre (no, fromsoft didnt invent it) both before, after and literally during the development of the first dark souls.
I mean let's be honest, especially the first 2 games arent even good.
The whole game feels like playing with your controller struggeling to keep connection or as if you're using a poor a streaming service, which i guess they know since they bothered to fix the controls somewhat for later installments.
80% of the difficulty is due to cheap random stuff and sluggish controls.
Honestly, im almost certain the game gained tracktion as a gag and that people only played them to out-do eachother.
Dont get me wrong, im glad it happened, cuz it sure made the the genre popular..
But still
sounds like a skill issue
@@anywhere_but_here Sounds like an ignorant response 👀
I mean, Lies of P is harder and probably the best game in the genre 😂
@@DarkWidget im just joking. The reason the controls feel sluggish to some people is because everything is tied to frames of animation instead of the moment of input. Vast majority of action games do not design their games this way. Theres also the issue of input queuing, which people also attribute to "lag" or "delay", but it is in actuality a very useful tool when used properly. Example, i can think of an instance specifically in the Margit boss fight in ER where you can only attack and receive i-frames if you've queued both the attack and roll instead of doing both in real time.
luck is when you win 9 times in a row, or could it be that people like the games? certainly not
@@anywhere_but_here Yea, you can't possibly argue that that's good game design really? I mean, the sheer amount of trial and error to figure that out is crazy, unless you look it up which kinda defeats the point to begin with, no? I mean sure, I'm not gonna lie, I've looked up bosses before too in other games but that's to see if there's like a weakness I missed, not shit like that. 😐
And yea, I realize what's happening and why it feels sluggish, I'm just arguing it's not really good game design truth be told.
I mean, I've watched people build small games for fun here on CZcams and those controls are pretty much the first thing everyone fix.. Fromsoft just left it there and have been slowly making it better throughout the different souls games 😐😂