next »

[baconman]

Alright. Wrapping my head back around where it was before my long break. Lots of simple things that all tie together, and work between many of these game styles. Fundamental things that are fun and work on multiple levels. A variety of goals to orient iterations of these games around. Maybe even multiple types of level generators, but Level Chunker is doing pretty good as it is.

Also, looking at such recent gems as Nidhogg, One Finger Death Punch, and Divekick - maybe I'm going too far/deep with fighting games than I need to. It could be as simple as 'nothing but special moves and extreme hit reactions.' AND work within a '3-10 heart containers' formula, after all.


I know what I *want* to do. That's far from the problem. I have it pretty well documented, too. What I need to accomplish is minimizing that into something that can be executed on my 'intermediate' level.

Latest concept is a program that generates 7 game iterations a week, based on the dates involved, of 7 levels each. Some are more casual, some are more hardcore, it all works out. Depending on how days and dates line up, sometimes objectives of the game will be different; like a Hop 'n' Bop may stick to certain cliches, but one will be oriented on speedrunning, another on collection, etc. Also, planning 15 level variants of each game means that not all content is explored in each title; and differing levels of design difficulty may mean that even similarly generated levels wouldn't necessarily play the same way.

But with that much alone - am I already overdesigning?

[Graham-]

So I've developed a new system, that is dead simple. To be clear, all of my game work is design only, and maybe a few prototypes. All of my programming is non game related. But the relationship between design and implementation holds for all software.

Let's work through an example. You have this "massive thing" you want to tackle. You have lots of ideas, inspirations. What you want is a plan to follow. No good! No plan can be so well conceived that it can withstand the pressures of what you learn as you develop.

Let's say I make a plan that lasts for a year. Then I follow that plan for 3 months. What have I learned in those 3 months? Hopefully a lot. When you code a thing you learn a thousand things you did not know before you coded it. So you have to change your plan, or not change your plan and suffer the consequences.

This is why adapting is the core thing you want to do, that I want to do. I am building an AI right now, a giant "computer brain," that just crunches numbers. I have a giant list of things this AI needs to do. But the designs are too complicated to implement directly. I still need to iterate.

So sometimes I have this big feature, and I write the thing out, and it is really big. Then I build it. But then there is a bug. Or I realize something obvious that negates half of the feature's value. Fuck. So I put in some reporting, or I strip out a piece, or whatever. Now what?

There a quote I like that I think is from Churchill. Here it is: "plans are useless, planning is everything." So if you want to design, go for it. Designing is never a wasted activity if you actually get design work done. But when it comes down to building you have to follow your gut. Just build any piece at all, and when you find that your instincts change, build a different piece.

Building is this very real thing that makes you face what you value. If you have lets say 3 ideas:
 . a platformer, like Mario
 . a simpler platformer but with like an artistic edge
 . some puzzle game for iPhones etc
Then you are like, okay, the puzzle game has no relationship to the platformers, but maybe iPhone is more stable and easier to publish on, but Mario is your favourite game, but you think you'll be happy with something more artistically meaningful and ... it's all so confusing?!

Pick one. Build the most important feature in it, and keep working until you have learned enough to realize that you should pick something else. As long as you focus on the components that inspire you, you cannot waste your time.

There are only two ways to waste time: not working, and not working on something you care about. Not working on something that fits "your plan" being a problem is just this fallacy, that we fall into because we want our work to "make sense," and have long-term "potential."

Phew.

[baconman]

That's a very good project. When's it being released? lol


I think that really gets to the heart of my procrastination crap, though. I really *do* just want to design. All the time. I'm only programming because I don't know where else to go with this stuff. I really wish, in my deepest self, I could just design on paper, and then it happens. Or at least simply script the content into a ready-to-go engine/framework.

But the closest to a framework like that I've found, anywhere, are programming IDEs like Game Maker.

[Graham-]

Never, it's never being released.

[Udderdude]

I had some more thought about what you're trying to do, and the best bet I think you can aim for is a Mario Party clone.  Of course, easier said than done.

[Graham-]

Mario Party is interesting.

(you're talking to the OP right?)

[Udderdude]

Mario Party is interesting.

(you're talking to the OP right?)

Yeah.  The multiple characters, multiple types of minigames, etc. really reminds me of that now that I think about it.  Still would require a boatload of work.  And would be way easier to do with 3D models.

[baconman]

A "Mario Party" kind of system is something I thought about including. It's also something I thought about including in the game types - and once stuff like the objects and physics were implemented, minigames that could be fun to make with those. Then the overarching board game part could be simple to produce in comparison.

The only problem with making it *primarily* an MP-style game, is that MP derives it's fun factor almost exclusively from multiplayer; while this should be something fun in single player as well. Also, competitive forms of these games would be awesome.

[Graham-]

Another thought comes with profit. If you have 3 game ideas it is not unreasonable to release 1 super-tiny one, then update it slowly. Then do the same for another idea. You can effectively make 2 games at once and plan to profit from both.

Before digital distribution this wasn't an option. Now it is. We just aren't used to thinking this way yet.

[Udderdude]

A "Mario Party" kind of system is something I thought about including. It's also something I thought about including in the game types - and once stuff like the objects and physics were implemented, minigames that could be fun to make with those. Then the overarching board game part could be simple to produce in comparison.

The only problem with making it *primarily* an MP-style game, is that MP derives it's fun factor almost exclusively from multiplayer; while this should be something fun in single player as well. Also, competitive forms of these games would be awesome.

Add CPU opponents, don't have every minigame be "Everyone on the same screen at once", etc.  I really doubt you can add all of those game types as anything besides extremely simple minigames anyway.