Is he right?>Peak has shifted over 10 million copies and generated more than $55 million in revenue.>"I definitely felt lucky," Kaman said.>"Anyone can make that next hit game and find success. There’s always gonna be the player base and people who want an amazing game, right? That’s not going away. What is going away is opportunities: publishing, funding, mid-sized studios and small studios who can sustain that.">Peak's short development in South Korea came after developer Aggro Crab lost the publisher for its then-in-the-works Going Under 2. The studio needed $3 million to continue the project, but no one was interested in funding it. Reflecting on the shift in how the company approaches development, Kaman says that game creation isn't a one size fits all affair.>"Peak for me has kind of proved that there are definitely different, but maybe better ways to make games," he said.>He continued: "My prescription is: don’t spend three years. Don’t toil away on the things that don’t really matter. Like, figure out what your game’s about and focus on that.">Kaman also said that developers should be willing to take a risk in releasing something that is not polished, but rather is focused on fun.>"People can forgive that somewhat, if the game is fun, if it lets them have a really unique experience," he explained.
>>730657394>Is he right?
i've played more than my share of games that play incredibly and nail the genre, but since they're ugly and not marketed well they just die.
>>730658406Yeah none of those characters stand out
>>730657394>Is he right?How fucking young are you? Have you not been around to see Bethesda's games since they adopted the Gambryo engine? Yes, he's 100% right. Fun games tend to make people overlook that they're made shittily.
>>730657394This retarded nonsense is worth about as much as a millionaire telling you to pull yourself up by the bootstraps.What a fucking retard.
>>730658798yeah but they have some of the most fun kits of any fightan game i have played but again, ugly. ugly ugly ugly. muh graphics muh character design so it dies.
Depends on your definition of unpolished.Peak itself is relatively buggy still but the gameplay was polished and final from day 1.>anyone can do it!Hahaha.>there's always gonna be consumers who want fun, right?Yes... but if you try to be WoW when there's WoW and 5 other WoWs over there, then no.>people won't fund games anymore!!! Just look at Going Under 2, a sequel to a game that had maybe 100k owners, 500 players at peak, and its theme was "Lofi girl is an office worker but roguelite", who wouldn't fund that???...>don't spend three years making a game that doesn't sell!Wow, it's almost like that's how games were made before 7th gen gaming.>devs should release bad unfinished messes, and have no intent on improving them, if it's fun!Yes I guess. No-one talks about fun anymore in the industry except to say it's antithetical with money, in an entertainment industry no less.
>>730658995Pretty much this.He's also complaining that investors are too tight with their money when he previously had a bad product.
>>730657394Gamers don't judge games for what they actually are, but for the idea of what the game is in their mind.
>>730658995I bet you are a leftist.If you have a goal and actual purpose in life instead of just playing videogames, you can do something worthwhile.You might not be a millionaire, but you will fell worthwhile and actual be happy instead of being a disappointment to your family.
>>730659216>having investors at allNOTFUCKINGINDIEFUCKING INDUSTRY PLANTS
>>730658997The whole "Gameplay is the only thing that matters" was always an exaggeration for effect.Even back then, when gameplay was getting sacrificed for graphics in real time, the thing you'd always hear was "graphics don't matter but artstyle does".You should get angry at the devs and the artists for sabotaging what you claim would have been a good game.
>>730659216>>730658995>Mmm I wonder if this successful game dev has something to teach me about success in video games.>Nah. I'm the smartest man alive. There's nothing I can be taught. I already know everything.
>>730657394Of course he's right. Unpolished doesn't mean bad
>>730659618If you want good advice you usually have to pay for it as wisdom isn't imparted freely. Even state schools are paid for by tax.You also have to beware your source when you're dealing with a competitor.A few words of "Just make something fun" is also not sound business advice. It's about as valuable as saying you should go into mobile dev if you want money t. Flappy Bird dev - that's not helpful, that's a unicorn boasting about having lightning in a bottle.
>>730659786>If you want good advice you usually have to pay for it as wisdom isn't imparted freelySourceless cope
>>730659612>Even back then, when gameplay was getting sacrificed for graphics in real time, the thing you'd always hear was "graphics don't matter but artstyle does".Funny, all I ever heard was graphics are the only thing that matters.I'm not sure I ever heard artstyle unless someone was trying to say "The artist is shit and made something bad" but was giving a toxically positive review and didn't consciously understand it looked bad.
>>730659612the sophistry of a casual-pleb, as expected of /v/ at all times.
>>730658995Oh c'mon. He's got at least ONE piece of actionable advice: make something where the core gameplay is fun, andrelease it asap.
>>730659808>SOURCE???
the word 'polished' is really ambiguous. it reduces to 'looks pleasant', but in technical parlance it means 'you're on your final art assets and user interface and player animation implementations'like if you look at this screenshot here >>730658406 there's little doubt that the developers got whatever game this is to its final art asset and ui implementation. they polished the game before release. but does that mean the game will attract players? no. the quoted game doesn't attract playes because it doesn't look good enough. even thouguh both of the female characters have their ass to the screen, even though the models and poses look good enough, even though everything about it looks Fine, I Guess, that simply is not good enough.https://youtu.be/D6io5XZWBHkhere's most people's first exposure to peak. you might be able to make a point that this game is not fully polished. the graphics aren't mindblowingly amazing, the gameplay seems like it could be basic, but the point is to say that in 90 seconds, they sold the fantasy of the game very well, they instantly explained the appeal of the game, and it looks good enough to justify 8 dollars.compared to >>730658406, which in all likelihood is a clone of league that is f2p with endless microtransactions. why would you play this. for what reason? it would have to be far, far above league's quality to justify itself. from this screenshot alone i would guess it's not even close (and i don't care for league).
>>730660003>Just let me vomit my sourceless claims in peace! Nah, nigger. You are a piece of shit human being.
>>730658995>pull yourself up by the bootstrapshow about you actually try doing that instead of whining on the internet
>>730659936I'm talking about the late 2000 in /v/.Casuals were obsessed with MUH GRAPHICS, and /v/ was opposing that pointing out that artstyle was more important even when the game was visually technologically more outdated. It was a fairly common talking point.
>>730657394Co-op is criminally unexplored genre. That's why these "friendslop" games thrive.
>>730657394Yeah, bg3 was really unpolished and no one seemed to care at launch, he'll people were slurping up larian propaganda with their multi pages patch notes...
>>730660285>search for game to play with friend>early access (abandoned)>4 player party game>longform strategy game>literal boardgame ($$$)>critically acclaimed AAA game (buggy asset flip with bossgirl or other postmodern storyline)It sucks
>>730660683>game that can easily be 4 player co-op>only 3completely ignored many games because of this
>>730660629what does polish mean here? the game looked like this on launch, that's polished enough for most people. they can look past bugs if it's pretty.
>investors>indie
>>730658995He made a successful game while you spend all day bitching and moaning on 4chan
>>730658818Hasn't Bethesda also been kind of struggling since fallout 4?
>>730658818Bethesda games aren't fun though
>>730658995I think you are retarded, he isnt saying anything related to that. He was talking about the constraints of working for a publisher. And how being free from them enables opportunities to create things you actually want to make.
>>730657394>Peak dev: 'If an unpolished game is fun, players will flock to it'This is undeniably true. Thing is. People have to find it in order for it to actually happen though.
>>730662672polished doesn't mean graphics, it's like QoL features, amount of bugs, poor UX, maybe some animations that are janky, stuff like that.
>>730662842>this guy won jackpot therefore his opinion matterYou failed your father
>>730663217I'm sure crying on 4chan all day will improve your situation anon.
>>730657394>Kaman also said that developers should be willing to take a risk in releasing something that is not polished, but rather is focused on fun.>"People can forgive that somewhat, if the game is fun, if it lets them have a really unique experience," he explained.Wow it's almost like people won't focus on stupid shit like texture resolution if they're busy playing the fucking game.
>>730659983The problem here is that it's a worthless truism. How do you figure out the core gameplay is *fun*?>HURRRRRRR YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUN IS, RIGHT???I know what's fun to me. That's the easy part. The hard part is reaching a target audience and understanding its fun, and the Peak guy tells me literally nothing about that.
>>730660169Well there's your problem, the anon you're replying to wasn't born yet to know about that most /v/ discourse always shit on the graphicsfags
>>730665831The point is really that it can be all sorts of things, you don't even have to be able to explain it, as long as you know it.It is contrasted by approaches that lead to things like Concord or mobile Dungeon Keeper, which have a load of things not because they are fun, but because they tick a box, or achieve a goal that doesn't add anything from a game perspective.If you're designing a game like Peak in isolation and you're asking yourself "There's not really a game like this, how do I know if I can find an audience" or "I don't have revolutionary graphics, so who is even going to like this?" then what your really need to ask is "Is the game going to be fun?" Thinking about it that way helps to avoid paralyzing yourself when you shouldn't. Rather than a concrete approach to success, it's for avoiding automatic failure.
>>730667278>you don't even have to be able to explain it, as long as you know it.
>>730658406Sex with Velora
>>730657394he forgot the game needs progression and content update to retain players. peak has fallen off substantially. the hats and faces are something but heavily rng dependent so not really motivating
>millennial explaining shit to people who literally weren't alive to experience itYes, that'll go over well. It'll resonate and be digested, thought provoking as well. The people who weren't there to play burnout on a dogshit console at 60fps with all hell breaking loose, who've been paying for the same Forza "game". The people who're paying for tranny flags instead of getting free halo maps. The people cancelling each other on social media instead of calling each other niggers on CoD's chat for camping with a noobtube. The people who don't know what an rts is. The people trooning themselves to speedrun retro games.Yes, I'm sure the audience is there, just like your fotm streamer-bait garbage will be relevant in a few months.
>>730659983>make a game that's funon par with the advice grifters will give you on dating
>>730657394i only got peak because it was cheap friendslop and mainly because of peer pressure. we squeezed like a week of gameplay out of it and then moved on. it's absolutely not a good game in a vacuum or a game you should invest your time in in the long run.
>>730668619The game was profitable. Game companies keep trying to invest in long term player retention and losing a lot of money. Spending less on unique games that sell well but dont keep a player base for a long time is how games were historically made. Its only recently people complain about games not being played years later.
>>730669538Play with /v/ if you want to play it. I had gotten more than my money's worth out of it.
