好像从5月以来这里就一直没什么动静啊……
= =
没什么事发生，好多人也消失了……
本来就没几个人= =
最近在搞战争黎明
2的动静还没1大。。。。。。。。。。。
SC2其實可以有更多的創作空間 但要看作者怎樣想了 看來他忙於其他遊戲已經放棄了SC2
不是作者说了算啊！
是发行商！SquareEnix！
GPG里面的人自己都在收集bug和研究patch，可SE不说话不给钱，这些就出不来。
[
水雷补丁出得还算快,原来也都是thq,差距这么大么.
不知道其他游戏如何，SupCom两代的补丁算不少了，问题是都集中在发行后的大半年里，再往后的一些问题总是解决不了。还有就是感觉ChrisT做游戏创意不错，管理公司似乎有点悬。
同上
话说我好像也消失了好久啊…
哇去！LS贵姓？
姓“暑”名“假党”？
同意楼楼楼上的，老泰搞公司是不行，套句行话，那是技术天才，管理白痴，可惜了，要是微软收购他的公司，再让他自由创造，绝对是游戏界幸事。
:L老泰说有家大公司去年几次收购GPG，被他顽强的顶住，没有收购成。
[
My Kids Probably Won’t Go to College Because of Demigod
Chris Taylor talks about the risks of being an independent developer.
By Sam Kennedy, 02/17/2010
Share it: Tweet At the DICE summit this afternoon, Gas Powered Games’ Chris Taylor joked about just how risky it can be to be an independent developer – and how his company is evolving to remain independent in an increasingly challenging market. In a discussion between Taylor and Epic’s Mike Capps about independent studios, moderated by G4’s Adam Sessler, Taylor made that exact (joking) comment about Demigod, and about how self funding games is incredibly scary.
“There’s a fear when doing midsize games that are new franchises,” he commented. “You’re doing the numbers on a spreadsheet and it’s absolutely frightening.”
Taylor then spoke about how hard it’s been for Gas Powered Games to remain independent. “We got offered to be bought at least five times,” he said. “There are days that I really regret not having sold, and there are days when I’m really happy that we didn’t.” As for why he so fiercely wants to remain independent? “It’s because I’m still in it for the art,” he said. “20 years from now we’ll see if that was the right call or not…we’ll see if that completely kicks my ass.”
So how does Taylor suggest a game developer remain independent amidst increasing consolidation and competition? He said with its newest game Kings and Castles Gas Powered Games is “doing whatever it can,” from taking over a lot of the communication with the audience to how it deals with publishers.
For example, Gas Powered Games announced Kings and Castles less than a month after the studio started working on it – almost unheard of in this industry. Mike Capps commented, “Announcing the game a month into development scares the hell out of me,” pointing to all the changes and risks in development, including whether the game will even see the light of day. “It’s like saying you’re pregnant a week after you find out – people don’t do that for a reason.”
Taylor responded that he feels like getting the word out early is crucial to his company’s future success, and that waiting until a year before the game hits is simply not enough time to build up word on a new game. “I’m not saying I know all the answers, but I’m just saying the old model isn’t working – and that getting the word out more than a year before release is the way to go.” He also said that the old model of just spending lots of marketing money to get the word out just a few months before a game hits isn’t working anymore, either. “You can’t spend a ton of marketing money in a world that doesn’t care about marketing anymore,” he commented. “PR is the new marketing.”
And when it comes to PR, this is something that Taylor has started in house. See: the video blog he released last week talking about the new game.
“We’re going to be levering Facebook, Twitter, my relationships in the industry… everything we can,” Taylor said.
Gas Powered Games is also changing the way it goes about business with publishers. By announcing the game this early, Taylor is also banking on being able to generate multiple deals with a variety of partners to distribute the game, as opposed to just working with a major publisher. “We’re turning it into a menu of opportunities for investors, publishers, distributors, or to anyone else who wants to get involved with it.”
Taylor also said that the key is to have the game across all platforms. “We’re going to go PS3 with Kings and Castles as well,” he said. “Were pushing into the console space now. I’m no longer just a PC developer slugging it out on the PC, fighting piracy and all this stuff.”
When asked why, if the studio really wanted to make money while remaining independent, Gas Powered Games didn’t just go after the casual market, Taylor responded that he didn’t see it worth his time. “It takes me just as much of my time to come up with a game for iPhone,” he said, “and I don’t want to be distracted. I have to make a decision what type of business I’m in. You have to know who you are and make it work.”
Taylor also joked about the state of a lot of casual and downloadable titles, and how so many are essentially just fluff. “What is it about when we get into the smaller budgets that we automatically think silly and whimsical?” he asked. “It’s like, let’s do a game about skydiving into a giant pit of jello! Look, you can still kill people for $300,000.”
Mike Capps agreed, but joked about the current gold rush with facebook games. “Honestly, the safest place right now is to just spend three months on a smaller casual game and hope it hits big,” said Capps.
“Now you tell me?” Taylor joked. “Tell that to my kids.”
Why Does Chris Taylor Want Less Punishing Games?
The Supreme Commander designer explains his new philosophy.
By Patrick Klepek, 06/28/2007
Share it: Tweet A little under a month ago, Gas Powered Games Creative Director and CEO Chris Taylor published an editorial on GameDaily about the nature of difficulty in today’s games. In “Reward Players, Don’t Punish Them!,” Taylor pointed to Will Wright’s The Sims and Railroad Tycoon to propose that catering to the hardcore by making games intentionally difficult to win alienates a good segment of consumers. He argues the philosophy’s roots are in arcade games, where designers tried to prevent gamers from winning, so they’d pop another quarter in.
That doesn’t mean games have to drop what attracts the hardcore gamers, though, and Taylor paints Grand Theft Auto as a game that encourages a pick-up-and-play attitude despite times the player fails (tell that to someone trying to finish the last few missions in San Andreas). Strangely, however, he completely neglected to mention is own game, Supreme Commander, a decidedly hardcore strategy game.
In recent interviews, he’s mentioned a desire to create lighter, more approachable games. 1UP tracked Taylor down for a casual e-mail conversation about why he chose to eliminate Supreme Commander from his editorial and how that reflects his approach to game development going forward.
Patrick: Your very recent title, Supreme Commander, is the epitome of a hardcore game that requires an intimate knowledge of its gameplay facilities to put up a decent fight.
Chris: You are correct in that Supreme Commander is a “hardcore” game, but for the most part, it doesn’t quite lineup with the kinds of games that I was referring to. The theme and style of play is what makes it inaccessible in my mind, at least more so than the complexity of the rules and learning curve. Having said that, I don’t disagree, and personally will be working on a lot more titles that do precisely what my op-ed piece describes… rewards players and provide a highly entertaining experience, with little or no punishment.
I just want you to know that in no way am I contradicting myself… Supreme Commander was designed almost 4 years ago, and it’s just hit the market now. We have new titles in development that we haven’t announced that reflect this new philosophy that I can’t quite talk about yet… which I know you probably have figured out. 
Patrick: Have you played Prey? There, instead of quick-saving every five minutes before an enemy blows you to bits, there’s no game over screen; you simply spend 30 seconds recovering health in a mini-game-esque environment and – poof! – you’re back in the game. That strikes me as the gameplay balance you’re looking for.
Darren Gladstone and I were chatting about, and wondered how much having kids influences this methodology. I specifically remember an interview with Steven Spielberg, where he said the moment his kids were born, he completely rethought how he approached filming movies. That explains why he went back and changed the guns in E.T. to Walkie Talkies in the re-release (ugh).
Chris: I have indeed played Prey, and I agree that they made a huge improvement…but since the mini-game seems to just be a time penalty (and thus a punishment) I sort of wonder why that’s even necessary… look to Lego Star Wars for what I believe is one of the best there is for that design. I think an auto-load feature to x seconds before you died is probably where I would land if I designed it today. And hey, I could be wrong about any of this, but something tells me the future looks a lot more like these two games than what we have seen in the past 20 years.
My kids had a big effect on the subject matter, but not the specific punishment (or lack thereof) problem that we are talking about. I just want to see games that I design played by more people.
Patrick: The knee-jerk reaction to what like proposed always seem to surround a fear that machines like the Nintendo DS and Wii will broaden gaming’s appeal but somehow cheapen the experience in the process. Good luck explaining that to a seven-year-old who’s been entranced while creating French and Italian cuisine in Cooking Mama for the last two hours, though.
Do you think the two ideals – appealing to the hardcore and having more people play – are necessarily contradictory? Much of the discussion about your comments seems to bring up progressive adventure games like Zelda, where they’re easy to get into but modify the challenge parameters as you move forward.
Chris: It’s very important not to generalize about anything… IE, easy doesn’t mean simple, and hard doesn’t mean complex. You can have a simple game, ie, Chess, and have it start as a simple fun game and turn into a brain-melting mental exercise (as you well know)… but I digress…
I think we can really aspire to create games that are easy to learn, relaxing to play (my talk referenced this at DICE about how games can “re-create”), and also have enormous depth under them. I think Civilization kind of has this sort of design direction, but even so, it’s not a great example because it would turn away most people who just want to play for fun. That’s the key idea really, “just play a game for fun”.
To answer your question, I don’t believe that a well designed game that meets my new criteria has to eliminate a hardcore audience, not at all, but you have a much better chance of designing a game for everyone if you start simple, and work from there, adding depth as the game progresses… jesus, I’m really rambling now…
Patrick: Will Wright sounds like he’s on the right track with Spore. There’s so much potential there, yet its most basic elements can be grasped and enjoyed within a matter of seconds. Going to be very interesting to see the reaction when that’s (finally) released…
That sounds like what you’re proposing, anyway – a game accessible to everyone at its base level, with accessible depth to give the hardcore more meat. The rest of the world (i.e. your kids, my mom) doesn’t have to mess with the hardcore elements – but they’re there.
Chris: Absolutely, this is the right direction for games to move in… and the possibilities are huge, even when considering the constraints of designing for a huge market. I’m very anxious to play Spore, but I’m also very excited to see simple ideas implemented in big ways, and to break the correlation between “simple and easy” and “hard and deep”. Games should always be entertaining the player first, and challenging them second.
Patrick: Thanks, Chris.