What do you think about the last Jim Sterling video?

If you're talking about the video where he's reviewing that zombie game, 99% of his comments about the game being poor were about the fact that it was, according to him, another generic zombie shooter with pretty much zero level design (random spawning and random waves of zombies).

His first comments about the art were pretty much along the lines of 'ok will this be one of those cases where it might be technically an asset flip, but given the effort it's not really fair to call it that?' and ended (after plenty of gameplay that he obviously considered uninspired) with 'There's pretty much no design here, just art that the dev didn't make'. I would bet that if it was a much better designed game he would have pretty much ignored the art aspect, and in the circumstances I actually expected a much, much harsher reaction from someone like him.

Frankly, I think the whole reaction on this thread to Jim Sterling is a bit out of proportion. He's an antihero youtube journalist who knows how to add some drama and controversy to his presentation of things, but I find that his actual comments, whether in regard to a game or Unity themselves, are quite measured even if I don't quite agree. I wouldn't be surprised if many gamers share his general point of view.

 

I havent played the game, but looking at the videos and looking at the reviews it seems not much love was put into the mechanics etc. To me thats the definition of an asset flip. But even games with custom assets can show this trait, like Homefront 1 and 2 for example. What do we call these games? Custom Asset flips?

It seems the levels are a bit few and small too, like I said we use the same office asset, but at least we expanded the demo scene with a new corridor on the existing floor, and then later added a second floor. The demo scene does not even contain two ways or more around the map.

 

*follow him blindly.

The problem is these people don't have an original thought. Most people don't. This might surprise you. They never thought about asset flips before. Maybe a few people spotted blatant reuse and called the developer to task. This was working. Refunds came in. Stuff was going fine and it was largely self-policing.

Any actual damage comes from youtubers constantly orating. I think it's just a harmless version of witch hunting, and we all know the kind of mentality involved in that. It's shameful, it's not progressive.

I'm out of this thread, not the thread's fault but there limits to how much I can comment on the subject and where. It's sad that humanity doesn't want to explore the stars or invest in a budget for asteroid defence. In fact much of the world doesn't really care about women's rights or even human rights. These are all darker things than worrying about asset flips, but they're actually stemming from the same kinds of people, people who blindly follow each other into the darkness, reinforcing their own ignorance.

 

Well, the world runs on drama - but drama doesn't take a very strong hold until it finds something in reality to anchor itself to. Maybe people like Sterling are not progressive and largely just making noise, but I think there's a problem stewing that they are a product (or symptom, depending on your point of view) of.

Maybe the problem is a larger one, a more abstract one - the question of what the modern changes to the structure of working life, spawning freelancers/self-styled entrepreneurs selling unvetted products in largely unpoliced online markets, means for the future quality of these markets. Which is a problem that encompasses even the pond that Sterling is swimming in.

 

@Billy4184 we may have watched a different video. The very first thing he says regarding asset flip is around the 1:05 mark "the game is already confirmed to be an asset flip" then goes on to say the devs defend saying [yes but] they used very high quality assets.

2:40 "they're good zombie character models but I know the developer didn't make them. That's the issue."

I agree he makes some good points about games in general but I was referring specifically to his statements regarding asset flipping.

And overall looking at the game... sure it looks like it will get repetitive. It is a wave-based shooter. It is Space Invaders basically that is what all wave-based shooters are at their core.

But... it actually looks like a very well put together game. With different modes, weapons, progressive difficulty system and so forth. Still all simplistic but no more so than many other very well-received games. Makes me wonder if they had gone away from zombies to something like I dunno maybe aliens or whatever he may have felt differently.

 

This is just plain dumb from Jim, I do agree with him on most he says about the game, from my limited knowledge about it atleast. But thats just plain stupid, what matters is what you do with the asset not if you obtain it from a freelancer/contractor or the asset store.

 

If the devs themselves confirmed it's an asset flip ... besides, the very next thing he says is "but it does look good, it might be one of those cases where they used the assets well".

Anyway, to some people, it might mean a lot that assets are re-used. For me it certainly impacts the game, since I consider art to be part of what makes a game interesting and uniquely characteristic, but I wouldn't have a problem with a game that used it for mainly background stuff. In that game one might say that the zombie is by far the most characteristic part of the game, at which point it is probably a problem.

Overall the biggest takeaway I got was that he thought the game was lacking in originality and design values, and frankly, while I appreciate the effort that still must have gone into it, I agree.

 

... can we just agree that the dude is an idiot and forget that he either existed?

If you make your own model, the dude will complain about animation and model quality. If you don't make your own models, he will complain about asset-flipping. It is a very convenient position - for him.

 

Its not black and white, the guy does have valid points also.

 

@Billy4184 I agree that it seems like a very well done game as far as being solid executed very well. It is just not a remarkable game due to design / idea issues. It looks like they tried to make a scaled down version of that game Killing Floor or whatever it was called.

Anyway this is where so many people focus on raw graphics quality and implementention quality and it makes a very solid game. But it's the ideas... the design that can take it from unremarkable to something special. And it doesn't need to be big bold innovative ideas just simple things.

Maybe the player has one skill that stands out such as simply being able to kick or push a zombie back and it knocks the others off balance for a split second too. Or maybe there is more emphasis on up close combat and sticking them in the brain. Or maybe you can interact with the enviornment more than is typical and climb on all vehicles. Maybe you can jump and swing around a pole and knock them away. Maybe player can do roundhouse kicks or perhaps it is a very strong character capable of easily picking up a zombie and tossing it to knock the others down. Of course each new idea needs to then be balanced.

I was just looking at it in the context of I think he gets so caught up in the use of store graphics assets that he just automatically judges a game differently.

For depth I'd say this zombie game has more to it than this quite popular game

Visually the zombie game has better raw quality graphics as well. But I don't think raw quality is the important thing. Being interesting visually is the important thing I think and in this comparison DD looks more interesting IMO.

Ultimately we all like different things. I just think as others have stated these people such as Jim are kind of leaders out there. They say these things and they define the meanings of terms... and it becomes real. Basically he is redefining an asset flip as being any game that is using purchased (or free of course) graphics. Does he feel the same about sounds and music and the various scriping assets? We don't know yet.

And that bring me to another thing... someone (whether it is a Unity game dev who feels buying assets is cheating or a UE dev or a gamer that has way too much time on their hand... someone) is bringing these these things up to begin with. Then Jim sees it and takes off running with it. And many people will blindly agree. That is a risky thing man. What if Jim decides that using any scripting package is a flip? What if using Unity itself becomes flipping? The problem is Jim speaks and a number of people will agree and with the image Unity already has from a few people bitching so much about it... it is really not that far of a stretch.

EDIT: I just watched a few video reviews of the game from others and they approached it very differently. Like one said "this apparently uses graphics from the asset store which I have no problem with I mean that is what the asset store is for. I just think if you're doing that it should be so you can then focus on the other areas of the game making it better."

And another showed some of the cool things about it that Jim never touched on that I recall such as being able to aim your weapon independently to a degree from the way you are facing and also covering some of the glitches such as shadow always showing one weapon regardless of what is being used.

Finally perhaps the biggest flaw was the price they set. One guy said he got 4 to 5 hours of play out of it but that is it and cannot recommend it for $15.

 

I'm going to leave a comment I made on reddit here directly and expand upon it a bit in regards to this because Jim Sterling has a history with Unity and his "criticism" of it. I use the scare quotes because it's never really criticism because the guy has no idea what he's actually talking about when it comes to any game engine because he has no experience with them nor any inclination to do any actual research.

To expand on this, every so often after badmouthing Unity for a while, he gets pretty large pushback from Unity devs, leading to him going "now Unity isn't actually a bad engine" in an offhand remark or in the most extreme case, making a single video going "Unity isn't actually bad." But the problem with this is that this comes after literal years of him whining endlessly about Unity games, giving the impression that the engine is worse than it is. He does more damage than the splash screen ever did because unlike the splash screen, he has an actual dedicated audience who will go out and spread his message around.

Most of the games he covers, like the vast majority of them, would never be seen by most people. Most people would look at the screenshots and the gameplay videos, nope out of the page and never think of the game again. Even on the off-chance they did buy them, they'd just get a refund for their $3 after realising the game isn't that good. They probably wouldn't even notice the splash screen unless somebody kept making videos about it.

 

Good points. Like I said, it's not as if I agree with everything (or even most) of what that guy says. I don't really watch his stuff but I did watch the vids posted here (as well as his take on NMS) and I thought all-in-all he makes some relevant points.

I've had about enough of this topic, but basically my take on this whole thing is - Sterling is a jester and his rhetoric is simply a product of the problem, which exists in the structure of the game market as a whole. Sometimes it's better to prick one's ears and listen between the lines to get an idea of where the problem really lies. And in fact, IMO the worst thing that we can do as developers is to become cynical or antagonistic toward gamers who are reacting to a real problem - even if they are represented by a drama queen.

 

That is a central problem for the term "Asset Flip". Everybody has come up with different definitions for the term. Originally, "Asset Flip" meant somebody bought an asset pack, compiled it, and then uploaded to sell as a full "game" on Steam. The term used to imply that the game was only an asset pack and that nearly no work went into the game. Now "Asset Flip" simply refers to any game that somebody does not enjoy.

 

Yeah, the price seems like an issue for many. $15 for a wave zombie shooter is probably high. What is the correct price point?

 

Whatever people will pay.

The thing about pricing is that you can't really quantify it by length or genre, you can only quantify it by the quality of an experience, which is incredibly subjective.

 

I don't think it matters. His business is to profit from badmouthing games, pretty much. So if he can't accuse the game of asset flipping, he'll invent something else.

This attitude reminds me of a common mistake made by beginner programmers. I.e. "not invented here syndrome".

Meaning someone who starts with a dream of making a game may start thinking that they must make their own models, their own graphics, write their own music, record their own sounds, and write their own engine. It takes year to snap of this kind of thinking.

 

I agree for sure. And folks like Jim and his many followers and even non-followers who gripe are certainly helping to create that expectation again.

I honestly wish we could see some background on the people originally posting in the YT and Steam comments. I believe these are game devs mainly doing it. It would not surprise me at all if there is a tiny group of UE users for example who commonly attack Unity games looking for asset usage and so forth. And even worse it wouldn't surprise if there is a group of Unity users themselves who do the same because they believe a person should create all graphics themselves or it is cheating. I seem to remember seeing posts here in the past saying something along those lines.

Yet some of these same people probably use audio assets or scripting assets and have no issues with it at all. It's just weird really. But you know everyone has their beliefs and Internet makes it people to share those with the rest if the world and incluence others in the process.

 

If that's the case then it's not just indies that are going to feel the hurt, AAA use pre-made engines / frameworks and middleware all the time.. It's because it would be an unreasonable ask to make it from scratch, so ultimatley we'd take a step back in terms of scale and quality.

It would pretty much unhinge the game industry as a whole and we'd take a massive step back. I don't think that's the point, a lot of this seems coated in sub messages and blown out of proportion.

From a gamers perspective, I'd have a quick look at an asset flipped game on Steam.. Conclude that it's been pretty much asset flipped (as I'd of seen it in other games too) and deduce they've not put enough effort into said game to be worth purchasing.. I could loose that same 10 seconds deciding whether I wanted to buy a popular game or give it a miss too.

Ultimatley, it's not a massive issue? The real question is, does this practice have a knock on effect to games developers who do put in the effort and deserve the money? Because we're essentially masking said games with a slurry of others. Steam's algorithm goes someway to resolving this if what you're looking for is based on your usual trends.

Although just like music, there are many songs out there but you have to be very commited to find the diamond in the rough. I'm not sure if Jim is too focussed on the eye of the storm, I've seen it happen many a time to developers / critics etc. where it becomes hard to focus on anything but the negative.. Sometimes you have to lift your head up and see the clouds.

 

@ShadowK I agree not good to dwell on the negative definitely although the reason this thread is going there is because Jim and the comments on the new Unity game video are very negative.

The YT commenters on that second video of D.R.O.N.E. are in fact worse than Jim. By far. The freedom of the Internet lets any idiot go online and cuss and call things just a bunch of crap and so forth. It just seems weird to me why any gamer wouod have such strong views about it. And actually IIRC some of those folks bitching the most on the YT video said they tried Unity found it was a bunch of S*** and went to UE or something like that.

I don't quite get people being so extreme over stuff like this but again it is the Internet shere they can say and do anything pretty much without any consequences.

 

Life is not black and white Take the zombie game again, I happen to own every environment asset they used. Basically they have not changed a thing on the demo scenes. Were do you draw the line?

Public assets are great but you need to make them your own, the office map from the zombie game is a good example, here is how we made it different from the demo

 

But we cant stop being hard on bad Unity developers just because its a risk idiots will blame the engine, thats even worse than not give bad games bad reviews. How do we educate the public that its not the engines fault that games are bad?

 

Another aspect of public assets are the public that thinks you ripped the content..

Zombie game again. http://steamcommunity.com/app/660990/discussions/0/2132869574258035309/

Fanboys from same game that are discussed in that thread blamed us for stealing that games assets, funny thing is, we were first with using said assets. Not that we care, public assets are public

 

If they wanted to believe it is not the engine they would IMO. There are plenty of YT game reviewers for example check out other reviews of that zombie game and notice the difference. They don't judge it just because it is Unity. They don't uudge it just because it uses store assets. They judge it solely on the game itself.

There is no reason to bring asset store use or Unity into it at all. Those people do that simply because they want to. Because that is a lot easier than taking the time to do a proper breakdown. Heck at least one of those other reviews I watched the guy broke it down into graphics, audio, gameplay etc. But Jim is a showman. He is an entertainer first & foremost. And there are a bunch of people who like hearing someone bash Unity and bash using assets (again I think these are other game devs). If nobody liked it he wouldn't be doing it.

 

I agree, BUT, jim does have a point. You cant take a asset (environment mostly but it applies to all types), do nothing to it and believe the game will be good. You just cant. I love Jims greenlight videos, there are so many bad games there (he uses the term asset flip), and since I look every day at asset store to see if there are something new I should buy I know almost all of the assets

 

I did not realize they did that. I saw the video, but did not play their zombie game. If they used entire demo scenes without making any changes, then I can see some people calling them out for that.

 

I agree although from what I recall Jim never mentioned anything about the environment as far as asset flip. He may have I just don't recall it. He did specifically talk about the zombie models and that was the weird part saying they are good but I know they didn't make them and there is the issue.

Overall if everything came from the asset store I'd say this is very good example of how to use it. The game looks very good visually as far as quality goes. Not saying it looks all that interesting because it is a city block with road, houses etc but quality wise this all looks higher and just as, if not more, cohesive than many games I've seen posted around here including I would guess some that have all original art.

Personally I see nothing wrong with this graphically at least no more than could be said about many other Indie games. And just because they used assets from the store doesn't change that. It kind of makes no sense. What if they had hired artists to create the art and the levels and it was all basically exactly like it is because that is how they wanted it to be? Does it really change anything simply because they had created new art that looked near identical to art available on the store?

 

Actually if the demo scene is good enough for your game you dont need to change a thing, but they seldom are. For example the office map they used has only one way to get around. There are NO alternative way around the map... I cant think of one game type that can use that out out of the box.

It was a easy fix though we just added a corridor


Trivial things like that make all the difference

 

I agree modifying to better support the game should be done. But I seem to remember some folks on Steam and Jim even pointing that out in other games saying something along the lines of "they tried to hide it in this case by making some changes". So it seems to be a case where you just can't win. Because these folks just want to find a problem.

 

Well, then its just plain stupidity

 

Well from someone who worked on two projects and had to move it to Unreal to get it to run right / released, I can't say I'm at utter odds with them so I'd be a hypocrite to argue otherwise. Although as I've said a few times my opinion is slightly changing due to Unity 5.X, although not fully.. Some dev's will have dumped it and never looked back whilst retaining a historic viewpoint..

I won't deny it Gar, I've said the exact same before.. Yeah Unity has a lot of mobile / small / simple games under its belt but that means nothing to me as it's not something I do. Although on the flip side I also understand there isn't a perfect solution, it's up to the dev to choose the best product for their game (even though options were limited when these were being developed) and ultimatley you didn't have to make X type of game in the first place.

So it's not Unity's fault however frustrating it might be to bank on a solution that doesn't pan out..

 

I think he didn't really explain it well in that video, but I think the issue was more like he thought the game overall was kind of boring and meh and the only thing he could potentially praise it for are things that the developer didn't make. Like, it wouldn't be a problem if the game was good, but he obviously wasn't enjoying it.

The problem is: Putting well known assets in your game (especially art assets), is an indicator of lack of effort. That indicator may as well be false, but it gives you a bad first impression.

It's the same in music. I get really distracted when I hear presets of really well known VSTis, or built in instruments. I eventually forget all about it if I end up liking the song, but it gives me a really bad impression early on.

 

Also are people forgetting the funding side of things? Our game for one would not have been possible without public assets. The custom things we order cost anywhere from 3 times as much to 10 times or more as a asset store asset

Artstation.com is a godsend though. We have bought alot of things there for maybe 2x asset store prices that are a bit more unique than buying stuff on the asset store

 

Yeah that is very strange to me and honestly I don't see who would view it that way or even be thinking of such a thing except other game devs. From what I have seen the bulk of gamers including those making YT videos are focusing on whether the game is good or bad and to what degree. How much enjoyment do they get from it etc. And how much effort a developer spent is neither here nor there as far as the game ending up enjoyable or not.

If effort is what counts most then the new person that struggles for weeks and maybe months to make Flappy Bird or Space Invaders... such games should be the most well rated of all. As good or perhaps more than if @ShadowK made a mini Skyrim in the same time.

I mean within reason of course. A game full of bugs, text not centered, large number of spelling mistakes, things unfinished, etc sure gamers will probably see that as lazy. Still might not be lazy or have anything to do with amount of effort that was put forth though. These things may be incredibly easy for one person and very difficult for another particularly spelling for a language that is not their native language.

 

Bruce Willis plays the same character in every movie, I don't see why we cant reuse the same assets with different gameplay. That's the whole point of the asset store, why should have to pay 10x as much for a new unique asset.

If you look at that video the graphics looks good but the gameplay looks boring. Now imagine if someone paid 10k for unique assets it wouldnt make the game any better. Someone could take those same assets, same gameplay (with more refinement and tweaks too few zombies, no spawn points too much rooom to walk around etc) some unique mechanic and it might sell like hotcakes

 

It wouldn't, but it would potentially indicate that similar amounts of money/time was spent for the rest of the game.

Using well known art assets in your game is roughly the equivalent to starting your novel with "It was a dark and stormy night". The novel might still be good despite the bad first impression, or if it's bad overall, it's not that phrase's fault (even if it started with the most thought provoking phrase ever, the rest of it would still be bad).

So...

Whatever.

I think this issue has been blown out of proportion. I think Jim Sterling is blowing it out of proportion, but... whatever. We are also blowing it out of proportion it by further discussing it here (and going in circles).

Strive to make good games. If you need to use assets, use assets. But strive to make good games. If your game is any good, the Unity logo/association and/or using some assets won't be a problem. If Unity has an image problem (not sure if it does), that's actually a problem that Unity might want to solve (if they deem it to be a problem and if they care to solve it) and it's not really our problem.

The end.

I'm out.

 

But what does good mean? Jim reviewed (excuse me, I mean rip apart) this game, a clunky asset flip:

His own audience ask for a part 2, and a lot of comment are talking about the content

On steam:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/410430/Morphine/

It's badly done, but it's good, but it's bad so it's kinda good? Which one it is?

Good or bad is not about outrage or Giving prize for participation, we are not a Manichean world. Stuff aren't just either one or the other.

 

Well... I usually hate this kind of answer but... What does "good" mean to you?

At the very least, I definitely didn't mean to strive for an imaginary objective standard for "good".

 

Mr Jim does a correct assesment of the state of Unity real time point lights though

 

Pissing with eyes closed. Balls of steel on this man, I tell you.

 

I'm so old so I sometime wake up in the middle of the night in the need of a piss (I know, but its mostly in connection to alcohol consumption). Anyway, I dont want to make my eyes blind so I do not turn on the light, always fun to see if I made a good job of it in the morning

 

Yeah but if you don't open any lights at night, you retain some vision. I can piss in the dark. Easy. But pissing with eyes closed...

 

ok, its a bit darker true
no light and no hands then?

 

Should I lock this thread? seems useful content has degenerated into urination?

 

I was hoping to get a point light shadow quality discussion going :/

 

It's simple man as I mentioned before there are different aspects to a game. Two distinct sides are the ideas (design) behind the game (i.e. what is the game about... what do you do in the game... etc) and the other broad half is execution.

Here the people are not so impressed with the execution but the ideas behind the game do impress them. They like what the game is about even if it is all executed poorly compared to how they would like.

Probably a perfect example of ideas vs execution. On the opposite side it could have been a flawlessly executed game based on different (more commonplace) ideas and may have been just another solid & unremarkable game. The ideas alone here make the game remarkable.

So the game can be both very good (unique ideas) and bad (execution). Although saying that a game focused on substance abuse (I think?) isn't something I'm interested in but is one probably a lot of people can relate to.

 

It's not about substance abuse in this game though lol, it's about the fear of being a loser and the consequence in behavior to a teen boy, which lead to mass shooting at the end and suicide, ie how societal expectation put pressure on a developing child and lead him to self destruction, the morphine is what he use to sedate itself and be able to carry on "the task" ie to get the confidence he does not have, to be the hardcore male his father and other think he is not able to be (hence all the scene where his father is trying to toughen him up, or the bully accuse him to not be).

Like the author said, it's not an experienced situation but experienced feeling, and I think the genuine emotion showed through the clunkyness, hence why the audience of Jim, likely to be awkward nerd teens, on a show where the persona is a performance of dominant masculinity, were able to relate to the content.

I mean we need to declare the metric, is it personal taste, a perceived consensus, technically, what is used to "measure" it? The thing is good can objective relative to a metric, but the selection of that metric is where the subjectivity is generally at, we can only discussed only when the variable as been properly declared or else it will point to random data, that programming 101 lol except the random memory mapping is each people experience and the program is the discussion. That's why I was asking what does bad "mean", ie declare the variable. The last post of GarBenjamin establish metrics and it help better understood (and react) to the value judgement (technical vs design).

 

You're the one with the banhammer, so it is your call. I would strongly consider locking it up.

The main function of the thread is bringing more money to Jim, despite people's intentions. Since the dude is already doing well...

 

Yeah lock it,we shouldnt give jim 1 more penny then he already gets

 

That last video was a bit of comedy. I never heard him say unity or asset flip. I did press f repeatedly.

 

Last post before locking, for posterity lol