Cool attitude; since this is actually something we get a *lot*, I'm going to try to reply to each of your points, no matter how facetious, so that we can link to it next time these sorts of things come up.
WARNING: this might get rant-y, and it's nothing that anyone with any common sense wouldn't already know, so feel free to skip this wall of text if you don't agree with kwisc's general demeanor. Also, this is Raigan again, if that's not obvious.
To start off, I realize how arrogant I sound. I realize that *every* developer thinks that their game is amazing and special.
What makes me truly believe that I'm right, however, is that we know a lot of other game developers, and they are very honest, and they are more or less unanimous in their appreciation of the quality of craft that went into N++.
This is what leads me to attribute any complaints about "the game is crap" to ignorance: my opinion has been vetted by people who are by definition the opposite of ignorant.
Not that N++ is perfect, but I believe it is at least in the running for "best platformer to be released in this century."; I'm a bit embarrassed to publicly state this, but not too much, because (a) obviously I have to feel this way, because if I thought it wasn't the best I would make the necessary changes so that it was the best, i.e by definition anything we make has to correlate strongly with our values and tastes, and (b) the whole point of N++ was explicitly "make the absolute best sort of this thing we possibly can" and we spent a tremendous amount of time and money -- and leveraged 10 years of experience, which I think is not something most teams have access to -- in order to achieve this goal. If we didn't think it was the best we wouldn't have released it because it wouldn't have been ready.
Anyway.. this is subjective and depends on your taste. If you want a platformer about the emotional journey of a troubled teen struggling to cope with their changing identity in a world ravaged by war etc etc, obviously you won't agree. And there are games like Spelunky which could be considered platformers which have a breadth and depth to them that N++, rooted in minimalism, couldn't possibly achieve.
I hope the above isn't taken out of context, obviously I realize that I sound like a horribly arrogant jerk, but honestly I chafe a bit at your post, it gets me in a particular mood.
On that note: let's proceed to the itemized list!
1) Value is a very complex topic; certainly one that I'm not an expert on. I don't disagree that the game would sell better at $10, but would it sell twice as well? Hard to say. Regardless of the value from the consumer's POV, we as developers (and humans) have to value our own time as well; from our POV, when looking at similar indie titles (Towerfall, Axiom Verge, Braid, etc), we thought that $20 was reasonable.
To be honest, as I've mentioned before, we wanted to sell it for $30 because we think it is a premium product. However, we realized that this would be an even more impossible sell, so we decided to start at $20 and then gradually increase the price, as an experiment -- to push back against the race-to-the-bottom that entitled attitudes like yours have helped to foster, where developers are competing on price rather than on quality.
2) I've covered our decision re: platform at length here (on the previous page..)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=175917087&postcount=895
3) We tried literally every combination of symbols, numbers, etc. that we possibly could. In the end, we had to admit that "N++" was by far the strongest name, in terms of what it connoted wrt the series, as well as being a fun geeky in-joke (since we're all programmers). We, as humans with opinions and beliefs, are willing to behave in slightly irrational or non-optimal ways, if it makes us happy. We think that N++ was the perfect name for this game, regardless of the various difficulties and hardships that it has caused. I would love to hear your suggestions for alternate names though.. it's a tough problem!
4) Yes, this is my main complaint: people are mis-judging the game based on appearances. Now, you might argue that this is our fault and we should have altered its appearance in order to maximize it's consumer appeal, but we prefer to remain idealistic, steadfast and true to the spirit of N: gameplay comes *FIRST*. We designed the graphics to aid and enable the gameplay first, because we think that games should be about gameplay -- that's what makes them games. If you want pretty but vapid games, well.. there are a lot of those you can play. Our niche is quality gameplay.
The thing you took offense too -- that I called anyone judging N++ as a bad game based on its appearance "ignorant" -- is sadly how we feel. Those people are by definition ignorant! And we're not going to pander to them; they need to mature and learn if they want to enjoy life, if we cater to them then they'll never grow up.
5) Sorry, we just disagree about this: to us, games *are* fundamentally about gameplay, just like music is about sound. Sure, there's the album art, the liner notes, etc. but fundamentally for us, every aspect of a game should be subservient to the gameplay. This was our manifesto when we designed N, and to betray that spirit in this final manifestation would be ridiculous.
So, as you said, games aren't *only* about gameplay -- and that's why we have sound effects, music, and graphics that aren't just hitboxes. We have carefully designed every aspect of N++ to complement and enhance the gameplay, creating a certain abstractly techno-futuristic mood, without ever getting in the way of the core game experience.
About your point re: originality.. sorry, we also disagree. Admittedly, Jumper came out in the same month, so maybe there was something in the air back in 2004 that inspired the modern era of hardcore running and jumping, but we think that N is a very original stab in a new direction for platformers -- specifically the performative "macro-moves emerging from sequences built from left/right/jump" mechanics of movement, as well as the "no game over unless you give up" post-arcade aspect.
(I personally wish more people would learn that from N -- i.e try to use a different movement/collision/physics model to get a different sort of platformer -- instead of the "it's really hard" aspect. Alas.)
Now: that's not to say that we didn't borrow heavily from other games. We have always been very clear that N is a synthesis of our favourite elements of 4 freeware games we played a lot of: Soldat, Zone Runner, Puchiwara no Bouken, and Super Bubble Blob.
(As well as our favourite aspects of classic games like Lode Runner, and some novel ideas of our own; also, there are other games like Elastomania that we love which probably helped to guide our taste without being an explicit reference point. And, we used the ragdoll simulation from Hitman.)
But we think that only the two of us could have concocted the specific blend of elements which is N -- and if that's not originality, I don't know what is!
So, to accuse us of not being original is simply to be ignorant, IMO.
Or, maybe you just mean that fundamentally N++ is the same as N/N+, in which case: yes. But only if you think that Super Mario World is equally unoriginal and fundamentally the same as Super Mario Bros.
(Also, IMO there are *not* hundreds of great games -- maybe 4-5 truly great games are released every year. Games of the caliber of Spelunky are few and far between. At this point there may be a hundred total, but frankly we think that the vast majority of games are "me too" attempts to make money, not true attempt to contribute to the development of game design. Sadly that's the world we live in.. but not one we feel compelled to contribute to.)
6) Yes, big publishers know how to market and sell games, and make lots of money. But you know what big publishers don't know how to do? Make great games. Their very structure is antithetical to creativity, they are inhuman machines designed to produce profit by churning out content using an assembly line-style process which guarantees that great games are the exception (eg Demon's Souls) rather than the rule. (and even then, it's typically the smaller ones that are the most creative)
Maybe I was a bit hyperbolic previously, but we didn't have "no" marketing plan. We had a marketing plan that took about 10% of our budget, and about 10% of our time, to execute.
We couldn't stomach throwing any more resources at the sad arms race that is marketing, because those resources are truly wasted -- all they can do is generate money. Whereas if you allocate those same resources to the further development of the game, they can generate something much more special and rare than money: *a better game*.
It's a fact that big companies compete on marketing spends because that is an easier, more efficient, way to generate profits than competing on quality. That makes sense for corporations, which are inhuman and don't have any human value -- they exist solely to generate profit. Those entities don't care at all about game design, games as a medium, or anything else that we, as humans, value.
The whole point of independent developers is that we are humans, and thus are able to have values beyond the profit motive. That's what makes us different -- and that's what lets us make better games. (IMO)
"Deal with it" is exactly what we're trying to do -- we're trying to push back against trends and changes which we think are negative and harming games. We love games, and we want games to be great, not just empty product to be produced for profit. And part of that means abstaining as much as possible from the marketing arms race, which adds a drag/tax that implicitly makes games worse.
This is the way of the world, but it doesn't mean we have to like it, and it doesn't mean we can't be angry about it, or rail against those cynical souls who are driving indie games straight into the same morass that AAA has floundered in for 25 years in the pursuit of nothing noble or notable, just money.
7) We agree. Admittedly we have not done a great job of communicating this, but we think that each and every one of the 2360 levels is of the utmost quality. Level design is the aspect of game design which we have the most experience with, it's something we're both very passionate about, and we are very proud of what we have been able to achieve with N++ wrt quality of level design.
IMO producers -- in the vein of George Martin, who worked with the Beatles -- would be an *amazing* addition to game development. We have had many conversations with our friends Jon Mak and Alex Austin on this topic.
Sadly, what are known as producers in games tend to be nothing like George Martin -- they are accountants and business people, not artists and engineers.
We think that art should be made by artists, not by business people.
We have had to learn business in order to survive in this capitalist world, but we don't think that better art is made by making decisions that result in better-selling art.
Sadly we are competing with many teams who have taken the opposite approach, and who make games to make money. We prefer to make money to make games.
It's just a bit frustrating when people write off our hard work as "lol atari game not worth $20" when quite simply, they're wrong. (IMO)
p.s - your English is pretty good
