next »

[Draknek]

This is a talk I gave for the student game-dev society at my old uni last month. You will have to imagine my impassioned delivery of (and elaboration on) the material because unfortunately it wasn't recorded.

It takes a somewhat opposing view to Chris Hecker's Please Finish Your Game rant. Namely, that while there are many games which should be finished, there are many more which should not.

In fact, I believe that the most effective way to create a great game is to first create a large number of games which are decidedly not great. Only by creating a large number of games will you be able to identify which ones actually have that "magic spark" of something with true potential.

Slides available here.

Thoughts and feedback welcome.

[Falmil]

Looks pretty good, though I have no experience with whether to accept failure or whether to improve, since I still have nothing made yet. Trying to get myself into some kind of routine where I can get something done on a game everyday is my problem. I agree that early on, a beginning developer should focus on learning and doing as much as possible before attempting to make a real effort at a successful game, though.

[Greg Game Man]

i agree with this, i planned to make a game-a-week website, http://gregmakesgames.com

as you can see there is nothing there. lol, i should give it a go though, i havent made a game in about a year D: though i really want to, all my ideas are too big! and thus too daunting to start.

[Falmil]

It doesn't have to be a week. It could be 2 weeks or even a month if you're trying to make something a bit more advanced or don't have a lot of time. Of course, it all depends on how much work you put into it each day.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

this is true but i don't think it's necessarily a good idea to intentionally make throw-away training exercise games, because then they aren't really practice for real games if you view them as throw-away training exercises. in other words, failing on purpose doesn't teach you how to succeed, failing by accident in an attempt to succeed teaches you how to succeed.

of course making a lot of games makes you a better game dev, but i'm not sure that someone who makes a game a week is always going to be a better game designer than a person who makes a game a year. they'd get better at coming up with ideas, but wouldn't get better at balancing, polishing, playtesting, etc., because those are the kinds of things you need long-term games to get practice on. i imagine that as long as equivalent time was spent for each person (like 4 hours a day making games, every day for that year) then their skills would improve about the same, regardless of the number of games involved.

in any case, i don't think it's a good idea to intentionally try to do something a certain way just because someone told you it works; it's all theoretical. some people work better when making a game a year, others work better when making a game a week; there are different styles of game development, people who are best at making a game a year shouldn't try to make a game a week, and vice versa. some people lose motivation after a few weeks and require a constant newness in order to be motivated enough to work on a game; other people manage to keep their motivation going for longer, or even gain motivation over time. some people like trying new things out to see how they work and prototyping, others like making levels and stories and monster types and new weapons and adding new stuff to their game.

[Falmil]

I'm not sure, but it seems like the talk was directed specifically at students and beginners. Beginners probably shouldn't get caught up in trying to polish and perfect their games, because they might expect and want them to be better than they're actually going to be. It probably has equally to do with learning as well as not getting burned out and frustrated on attempting to fix a failed game project.

[Chris Whitman]

I would say, definitely, too many people (not here, but among the people who speculate about someday making games rather than actually work on it) are like, "I am going to make the next killer FPS with million dollar graphics in my bedroom by myself," and explaining that you have to crawl before you can walk is probably a good thing.

But, I don't know. I think making short games makes you good at making short games. Spending years building sheds does not make you able to build a skyscraper, but you might get good at building a truly badass shed. That's obviously a skill with value in itself.

So I would be inclined to agree if that's your goal, but I don't think making a ton of short little games necessarily makes you better qualified to take on a big project (beyond having the technical chops, if you didn't have those to start with, say). That kind of has its own challenges that you have to take as they come (in my limited experience, anyway).

[Draknek]

I don't necessarily advocate setting out to make throw-away games, but rather I'm suggesting that many games that people start should be thrown away, either temporarily or permanently.

Because you only have enough time to make so many not-small games, you should pick carefully those projects that you do work on for extended periods of time. So you need to repeatedly check that the amazing game idea that you had is actually becoming an amazing game and hasn't turned into something else.

This goes double for people who've not made many games total, because they don't have so much experience to distinguish between "this game has way more potential than I thought it would: I must work on it more" and "this game isn't fun yet: I must work on it more". The former is a sign that you've got a game that deserves more work and the latter is a sign that your game may just not be as good in reality as it was in your head.

But when you have found a game that does deserve putting more time into, I'll agree that having many small/failed projects won't help much with finishing that large game. That is a different problem, and not one I feel particularly qualified to comment on.

This is very much a gameplay-centric point of view. Not every developer sees things like that: so this advice will be more or less applicable depending on your perspective.

[Cimpresovec]

I really like the presentation. I kinda agree with it but I kinda stick to the rule "Finish the game". Even if a game is really bad, I will finish it quickly and just release it as a game that is more a screensaver than a game. I think that making a lot of games is good, but not to many. Because then to much 1 screen point and click games will come out. But a game every month should do to make something more deep with more interesting gameplay. I just hope that some idea strikes me today so I can make something for LD... I still have 1 day. :D

[Toeofdoom]

Honestly, I find that really short game development cycles just don't work for some ideas I have. The idea didn't fail, I just didn't attack it right, or didn't have time to do so. Short game development cycles do work, but I think competitions with a specific time box aren't what I really want... some games might be quite interesting after just 2 days of work where others might need 2 weeks to really get at the point if you're exploring new territory.

[The Bag]

My advice to beginners is always start small, it's all about learning.  Years ago I started a project on a forum to remake classic games: asteroids, space invaders, a simple platformer, etc - it's all about learning and honing your skills.

I agree with your basic premise that experience helps develop a good shit filter and making lots of small things would help with the knowledge to create.  But, as has been mentioned, finishing is an important skill to develop.

But as with everything, it all depends on the game.  Maybe it should be abandoned, maybe you should finish it up and maybe you should go the extra mile and fully explore you mechanic.