next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

well, i'm not saying short prototype games are a bad idea, they surely teach you a ton about game design, just that they won't go down in history as important indie games or something -- you can do both: spend 4 years on a game and make short 4-day games occasionally during that period.

[Anthony Flack]

Oh, but that can be even worse!

Because you'll get all kinds of exciting new ideas and insights from your short prototypes... only to turn around and find you've still got two years' work to go on that idea you had two years ago. I can't split focus. Doing a side-project is so often the intermediate step you take before abandoning your main project.

From an audience perspective, I'm all for the ambitious projects - it's always something a bit special when somebody releases their labour of love. But my point is, there are also pitfalls for the developer which you need to be aware of... for example, having your soul crushed, which can happen quite easily.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

yes, i agree -- there are definitely problems involved. but this tutorial was just about how to make games better, not to avoid getting your soul crushed and not even how to improve revenue (since making few but very high quality games probably will make less money than a lot of good quality games). but you're right that i should have included a warning that this isn't practical for many people -- a lot of people have a sorta ADD and can't stick to anything for very long; i've been prone to that too when younger but i find i'm improving with age. when i was 20 i was jumping around from project to project like they were hot potatoes, but now that i'm 30 i'm finding it easier to work several years on a game.

[Anthony Flack]

I thought I was getting much better too, and I was proud that I'd finally seemed to have broken free of the string of abandoned projects that led all the way into my early 20s. And now I can say that I at least have the tenacity to work on one god-damn idea for seven years.

But the actual soul-crushing, combined with falling energy levels and my approaching death (I've only got five more seven-year projects in me, at best!) were factors that kind of caught me off-guard. But then, seven years is really too long for any game - even four would have been a lot easier to deal with.

But the two things that made it take so long were 1) I was aiming for a high degree of graphical polish and 2) I wanted to provide several hours of gameplay. It damn near killed me and I am an unusually stubborn bastard, so be careful, kids!

Try to make better games, but not too much better. Over-scoping is the #1 cause of video game fatality.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

yes, i wouldn't like to work on a game for 7 years either -- 3 years is about my max. that way i can at least make 20 3-year games over 60 years.

also, the post was primarily directed to people who don't tend to spend more than a few weeks on a game -- i'd estimate that the majority of the games in the feedback forum here took a few weeks to make, and that can really keep a game down.

[Anthony Flack]

There's probably a few people around who it would be good to see "step up" and do something more ambitious, I guess. And if that person is Jakub Dvorsky, and that game is Machinarium...  well, say no more.

But definitely tread carefully. I mean, my seven year project isn't even a big game, it's a silly platformer and I thought it would be done in three years, tops.

Also, pregnancy! That's another thing that can happen part-way through a big project.

[John Nesky]

i'd estimate that the majority of the games in the feedback forum here took a few weeks to make, and that can really keep a game down.

I assume that games that were made in a few weeks aren't even *intended* to become popular. There's no reason why you can't finish an experimental game in a few weeks if that's the sort of thing you're into.

Are there people who publish games after a few weeks of work who then complain that they're not getting enough publicity?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

no, but i didn't mean people were complaining about it. and, by keeping a game down, i didn't mean popularity necessarily, but things like play value and quality. presumably some people would like their games to be higher quality. i'd certainly like higher quality indie games to play. despite like 50 new indie games being released per day, the ones with the level of quality of iji, aquaria, etc. seem to be released once every few months, if that.

[deadeye]

I think the reason that people don't add more content is because the "hard", more fulfilling things are over.  I think that adding more levels and things just feels "too easy".

I agree with you there.  I find that I make engine after engine because it's challenging and fun to do, but when the engine is done and it's time to make content I get bored very quickly.  Once you get to that point you're no longer learning, you're no longer challenging yourself.  You're just grinding.

So I suppose, in a way, making the engine or the framework is actually the easy part.  The hard part is sticking through the content/polishing phase.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think the content is actually the more challenging part from the design standpoint. making an engine is easy, it doesn't take much talent to program an engine for a guy walk around and jump, the hard part is making the parts of the game that entertain people: the world, the levels, the dungeons, the cities, the characters and creatures, etc. this varies from person to person though. for me, making the engine is the most absolute boring part of making a game, and not challenging at all, just tedious. and for me making the content isn't tedious, but is challenging and fun.

[Alec S.]

I think that the level of challenge and interest in creating content varies on the genre.  Generally, things like level design are my favorite parts of the game design process.  In something like a SHMUP (which a few of the first games I released were), you're essentially just creating new enemies, and it feels rather simplistic and tedious.  However, now I'm working on a platformer, and I had quite a bit of fun laying out the platforms and moving spike-balls to create just the right level of challenge.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

creating new enemies can be very challenging and fun though, especially if you are creating new ideas and new movement patterns never done in a shmup before. bosses and their patterns would also would be very fun to design.

[TeeGee]

Different stuff is challenging and interesting for different people. Another good reason to have a team.

[PureQuestion]

I love boss design. Clever and interesting bosses can be very fun to make and to fight. Unfortunately, none of my bosses so far have been. Except for one.