If they cannot make games that convince me to play them over older titles I already own, that's really only their own problem.

Yes, that is their problem. No one is forcing you to purchase new games. You are at liberty to play the classics that you already own to your heart's content.

I do have a little bit of trouble believing that there are NO new games that you are interested in. Especially with the recent trend for companies to revive classic series with classic 2D mechanics. I personally spent the full $60 for a copy of Marvel Vs. Capcom 3. I loved the classic titles in that particular series, and I was very pleased to hear that Capcom was going to be using similar gameplay.

No one is forcing you to purchase every game that comes out, and especially not games you loath or object to. But the best way that you can show support for games that you DO like is to pay for them. I am a big fan of text-based and point-and-click adventure games. Every time that a new Ace Attorney game comes out, I buy it at full price. When Ghost Trick came out, I laid down the full $30 for it as soon as I could find it in a store. These are games I like, and I try to encourage developers to make more by purchasing copies. It is one of the most direct ways in which I can show my support for the games I like.

Why should I buy new games if I don't want to, regardless of the source of the old games I play? 

Well the overall back-catalog of the video game industry has reached a point where it would theoretically be possible to spend years playing nothing but older games, and be perfectly happy. If we consider the numerous legacy consoles, as well as the PC and its extensive catalog of titles, you could spend close to a decade playing nothing but classic games, and still not even come close to playing "all" classic games.

I could probably spend three years playing through the back catalog of PC games that I own legitimate copies of. If you had access to play games you download off the internet for free? Forget about it.

And the experience of playing games is not only a monetary investment. It is also an investment of time. If you spend all of your time playing old legacy titles, that means that you wouldn't have any need to purchase new games. And if you never purchase any new games, that makes it less likely that more new games will be produced. As much fun as classic gaming is, all of those titles were originally new games, and commanded retail prices in their day and age. We still need to support fresh game development.

It's easy to take a hard-line stance on an issue like this, and just say that all ROMS are bad.

But the truth of the matter is that ROMs themselves, and the emulators that run them, are not inherently negative. Being able to store archival copies of games easily, and divorcing software from specific hardware restrictions are both very positive developments. They have obvious benefits for video games in general.

One of the most common (and best) arguments in favor of ROMs is game preservation. The physical media that most games were originally stored on can, and usually do, degrade over time. I own several classic PC games that originally came on 3.5 floppy disks. These games may not even run anymore due to magnetic damage over the years. As sturdy as classic cartridges can be, they are susceptible to damage as well. And then there's the issue of hardware. It becomes increasingly difficult to play a specific title if you don't possess the original hardware it was designed to run on. There are many classic game systems that are no longer readily available. And yet, the digital nature of games means that effective software emulation can replicate these hardware platforms for us. It's no longer necessary to search through garage sales and flea markets in order to experience most classic games.

The real legal issue comes up when a company is still attempting to maintain control over an ageing back-catalog. For some companies this isn't considered a big deal, and there are numerous instances of them "opening" up older games. Activision has been relatively open in regards to the classic Sierra adventure games that they own the IPs for. It is currently possible to play several of those games on-line right now at Sarien.net. After investigating the site and its purpose, Activision gave them the go-ahead to allow users to play these games for free. ID software is known for open-sourcing older versions of their game engines. And I believe Rockstar made its older Grand Theft Auto titles (the 2D ones) free to download and play.

The usual suspect in vigorous defense of legacy software is Nintendo. They are known for sicking the lawyers on almost anyone who takes advantage of their older games. Of course, they also have a reputation for exploiting their old software, over and over again.

If you are getting all of your playtime from ROMs, that's probably not good. Game developers need money too, and the time you spend on ROMs could be spent on current games that monetarily contribute to the industry. If you are just wanting a taste of a hard-to-find title, I don't think anyone is going to bust your chops over it. (except maybe Nintendo)

For me, one of the real advantages of ROMs and emulators is actually in documentation. There is no easier way to take screenshots or record audio from classic games than emulators. Most emulators have such features built right into them.

I use Flashdevelop for flash coding. (AS3) I use NetBeans for most of my web programming. (PHP, HTML, CSS, etc...) And I actually use MonoDevelop for all of my stand-alone coding.

I'm not sure why there aren't more MonoDevelop users out there. I've really enjoyed being able to code in an almost identical fashion on three different operating systems.

To be fair, a large part of the argument Nintendo was making wasn't about quality, so much as "value." They see the app store and are afraid of their software being de-valued with that open approach to platform development. They are hoping to avoid the $1.00 app syndrome. They don't want everyone to start thinking that all downloaded titles should be that cheap.

But once again I can't help but think of glass houses. I would point to the My Notebook example that was brought up. That happened. That series of apps exists on the DSi store. It's hard to imagine a more cynical money-grab, but there you have it. Those are apps that they would be overcharging for at $1.00, they are that pathetic.

That kind of software gets Nintendo's stamp, because supposedly their developers had an office. I honestly don't think most "garage" developers would mind charging more for their software on Nintendo's platforms. What they WOULD mind is signing exclusivity agreements with Nintendo when a platform like the iOS doesn't require that kind of crap. And if the same program is $1 - $2 on the iOS, and $10 on the Wii or DS, which version are people going to buy?

all nintendo wants is a real office

But in this day and age, in this digital frontier, is that really necessary? I don't work from an office anymore. I'm an independent contractor who codes web pages from my living room table. And I'm rocking a better salary than I ever did before. Are all my years of industry experience suddenly negated because I don't go into an office every morning? My current employer doesn't think so.

I can't help but feel that Nintendo is behind the times on this one. Apple took a risk on opening up their platform to smaller developers, and it has paid off handsomely for them. I'm not saying Nintendo ought to take the exact same approach, a bit more in the way of flexibility would be nice.

A lot of people, especially creative individuals, prefer the freedom of working alone. As the tools for making games improve, we're going to see a lot more hobbyist developers producing better titles. And most of them are going to be going to Apple for publishing, not Nintendo.

Monocle? Work on it (re)started only a few days ago.

It looks like a promising project. I definitely agree with their objective. My own efforts have the same aim. Constructing a capable hardware-accelerated cross-platform game creation framework geared toward 2D titles is something that the indie scene could definitely do with.

The 3D indie scene has tools like Unity and UDK to play around with, those bases are covered. But where's the love for 2D game creation? One of the best toolsets for that is XNA, and we've seen where that leads. My only problem with Monocle is that it is apparently being developed for C++. This is great for cross-platform support and performance. But I can't stand using C++.

I have quite a nice goatee/mustache combination going on right now. Very much a William Frakes look. I keep my sideburns and neck clean-shaven, but all around the mouth, chin, and under-nose area is well-bearded at the moment. I actually went to the trouble of dying my facial hair last week. Most of my hair is a nice, even brown. But my facial hair has always had streaks of blond in it, and this occasionally makes my beard look patchy and unkempt. The effect of the dye is subtle, but I believe satisfying.

Okay, I failed at my first assignment, but I think I'm finally ready to re-up.

I spent the past week figuring out how I wanted to produce the basics of my game framework's camera system. I made a test bed, and I'm reasonably confident that I'm on the right track now. I'm going to go ahead and give myself some more time though.

My new deadline is for the same project, but for April 1st. (roughly two weeks)

If I'm not mistaken, I just successfully used OpenTK to draw to the normal backbuffer, switched drawing to a framebuffer object that I had created, drew some more, then drew the product of my framebuffer object to a texture-mapped quad, then switched back to the normal backbuffer, drew even more, and then swapped the buffers.

Now I have successfully abstracted out a camera "window" that I can apply transforms to.

If you REALLY want the low-end stuff, then you could create an array, assign a different color value to each element in the array, and then use Direct3D or OpenGL to draw each individual pixel. I wouldn't necessarily suggest this method, but it is possible.

It would be a lot easier to draw your sprite in a program like The GIMP, export it as a Gif or PNG, and then load it into your program and either blit it to the screen, or use it as the texture map for a polygon.

Compositional balance. Sight lines. The dynamic energy of diagonals. Color theory. The proper application of contrast.

You're talking about a pretty big subject. But I think's healthy that you're taking an interest. A strong grounding in sound Graphic Design principles helps any artistic effort, and is especially good for proper interface design.

Start your own DevLog on your idea, and your progress towards achieving it.

As has already been mentioned, ideas without practical application have no value. And it is very hard for most people to get passionate about an idea that they did not originally have, no matter how good it might be.

Also, you don't need to worry about Zynga stealing your idea. They only steal ideas that have already been fleshed out into full games.

Yep, I'm in the process of rolling my own C# + Mono + OpenTK engine.

I think creating your own engine and/or programming framework is a rite of passage for tech-heads and in-depth programmers. It's just something you want to try doing at some point. Normally it happens after you've seen enough of other game engines to wonder if you could pull it off yourself.

I would suggest that you don't wait until your engine is "complete" before building a game with it. Create enough of your engine to cover the features of the game that you want to make, and then make it. You can always come back to your engine later to add new features for new games.

I would say that GM is good, yes. It is a perfectly serviceable graphical program for creating games. With a little talent for coding, you can use its scripting system to tweak your GM creation to a significant degree.

GM will probably never be the end-all be-all of game design, not even indie game design, because of the limitations of a graphical editing system. The more you abstract the development process with user-friendly tools, the more control you have to take away from the designer. This is a balancing act. The user-friendly visual interface makes it easy to create basic elements quickly, and in a way that is easy to understand. But the abstraction conceals the fine control necessary to really experiment with what can be done with the medium.

Personally, I feel there is a place for programs like GameMaker. In all honesty, I would love to see more software created for specific genres of games. There are plenty of people out there who aren't coders, but who could create solid games with the right tools. There are writers with great ideas for complex adventure games who can't wrap their minds around OOP. There are artists who just want to create abstract visual games with minimal interactivity. I would love to see tools developed that would allow those people to get their creations out to the public quickly and easily.

Low-level coding is never going away, and there are more tools for it now than ever before. There's no reason why the non-coders shouldn't get a little love too.

Destral is right. If you really want to work in games, the best thing you can do is MAKE A GAME. This is my advice to all the budding high-schoolers out there. Nothing says "employ me" like actually producing a playable title.

The most sure-fire way to get into game development, whether professional or hobby, is to make games. The best way for you to facilitate this is to go to college and get a computer science degree. And I'm not encouraging you to go to college just to get a degree. Most college students tend to have a decent amount of free time, and they are usually given access to plenty of tools and resources. Free time, tools, resources, and possibly the expertise and advice of your professors can all be very helpful for developing your own games. College is also a great place for recruiting small development teams to work on a game. (without having to worry about paying any of them) And of course, in college you can learn one of the most valuable skills for any game developer...programming.

Programming is the magical gateway into game development. If you can program, there will always be a job for you somewhere. Even if you can't find a job in games, there will still be a job to keep a roof over your head. People always need programmers. And if you can program, you always have the option of making your own game, the way you want to.

27 here, and I assumed the demographic would be skewed slightly older than it actually appears to be.

Word. I'm 30, and I really expected to see a higher percentage of old-timers like me around these boards. It's a little surprising to see how young a lot of the ankle-biters around here are. Bunch of starry-eyed dreamers with no appreciation for the rigors of the real world or corporate servitude.

I suppose that by this age, a lot of people have either transitioned into non-indie development, or fallen out of the game.

Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen 2
The first game was a rather entertaining Zelda-esque 3rd person overhead action/rpg. It had a delightfully complex storyline, an incredibly dark and moody atmosphere, and some of the best voice-acting to grace the video game industry at that time. The first "sequel" to this title was actually Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, and it was actually a solid title. (it had its issues, but overall a great experience) Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 2 wasn't as good as its predecessor, but was still quite playable in its own right, and discarded some of Soul Reaver's unnecessary elements. Then came Blood Omen 2. And it was awful. Worse than the original title, and worse than either of the spin-off sequels. The controls were clunky and annoying. The characters were unlikeable and disposable. The story didn't come close to the example set by the previous games in the series. We're just lucky that Defiance managed to bring things around for a much more enjoyable continuation.

I'm a 30-year old web designer. I'm not about to tell you how much money I make, or how much I have. You get as old as I am and you begin to understand how unwise it is to divulge that kind of information on a public internet forum.

Do I want more money? Yes and No. I would appreciate the future security that more money could give me, and I wouldn't mind raising my entertainment budget a bit. (and possibly my food budget as well) On the other hand, I have a salary, and it is adequate for paying my mortgage, living expenses, and enables me to live quite comfortably. I could continue at this level for years and be perfectly content.

I went to a small college on a decent scholarship, and graduated in four years with a major in Graphic Design and two minors. (Business Management and Theater) My college tuition was not very expensive thanks to my scholarship. I enjoyed my college years and learned a decent amount there about numerous different subjects. My degree hasn't been instrumental in opening doors, but its never hurt to have it either. Having transitioned into a more technical discipline, a college degree definitely helps. (people are more likely to take you seriously, and a lot of the places I apply to for jobs look for it)

Do I use free tools? Hell yes I use free tools! I love open-source software, and use it extensively in my personal projects. I use Blender for my 3D Modeling and animation. I use the GIMP for image and photo editing. I use MonoDevelop as my primary IDE. I use Flashdevelop for producing flash animations and applications. I use Notepad++ for a lot of my web coding. I use OpenOffice for all my word processing and presentation needs. I have a Ubuntu box at my house that is stuffed to the gills with open-source software. As far as I'm concerned, it's no longer necessary to spend money on productivity software. Some one is out there, making what you need, and isn't going to charge you a dime.

Ahhh Xtra Normal. You make producing internet videos so easy and quick.

Very funny, and very true. (and just a little bit depressing as well) This is exactly why I'm still a hobbyist game developer. I'm old enough to have outgrown the somewhat juvenile expectations of the character in the video. And I've worked at enough non-game companies to have seen what corporate environments are really like.

Currently I'm working from home as a contractor for a web-design company, and getting paid respectably for it. I'll continue my efforts at indie game development in my free time. I'm currently making a solid living working 40 hour weeks. If I tried to squeeze into the professional industry, I'd be swamped with twice as many hours and likely get paid less than I'm making now. I'm more thank willing to trade the recognition of professional game development for the creative freedom and low stress of indie game development.