next »

[mirosurabu]

This is slightly tangential, but my opinion is that people shouldn't be told that their first 10 games will suck. I've seen this statement circulate in every single game design book I touched and I'm really not sure how good that is.

Personally, knowing that I will fail will demotivate me and will make me less willing to finish the project. I want to believe that I'm going to succeed, I want to be sure that what I'm creating is not going to be worthless, it's essential component of my motivation. If I have to know that my babies suck, I want to know it after I'm done making these babies.

So, in short, I'm not sure what's the point of telling people their first games will suck. I'm not sure, perhaps it's just a rhetorical statement that doesn't work on me.

[joulimousis]

my opinion is that people shouldn't be told that their first 10 games will suck. I'm really not sure how good that is.

I'm with you there. But maybe it helps the newcomers to take chances while learning.

About the "ugly baby", I still don't know. We are all blind here, it hard to know how a project will end. Right now, mine seems blend, it lacks of deep in a vary basic level. I think I'll throw it our the window, it's ugly, if it flies is a bat.

[joulimousis]

So, we killed the baby. http://heavyboat.com/devblog/

[Fluff]

Personally, knowing that I will fail will demotivate me and will make me less willing to finish the project. I want to believe that I'm going to succeed, I want to be sure that what I'm creating is not going to be worthless, it's essential component of my motivation. If I have to know that my babies suck, I want to know it after I'm done making these babies.

Yes! Failure is a huge demotivator for me. If there's any chance I might fail, I usually don't even want to try! That's why I have to remind myself it's ok to fail and, in the end, it's inevitable to fail sometimes. Of course I'm always striving for perfection but if I don't make it, I need to remember to keep trying. I guess motivation is different for everyone! It's just important to find what motivates us personally.





Also, there is a rich history of discussing failure.

I think I'll throw it our the window, it's ugly, if it flies is a bat.

When your baby is ugly can be hard to know when it just needs makeup, when it needs major reconstructive surgery and when it's time to simply resort to defenestration. If it's bone structure can be salvaged, it's even harder to know how to fix it. I guess that gets at the heart of what game design really is. When it comes down to it, designing games is a lot like baby surgery.

[farcodev]

since the fun factor is a subjective one, it's anyway impossible to evaluate it as an universal value.

A fun game for one person can be pretty boring/immature for an another one

[LemonScented]

When it comes down to it, designing games is a lot like baby surgery.

 

[Konidias]

When it comes down to it, designing games is a lot like baby surgery.

Haha, words to live by...

I really think that a good designer can take an ugly baby and make it beautiful. Even the worst game mechanics can end up being a great game if designed well enough.

since the fun factor is a subjective one, it's anyway impossible to evaluate it as an universal value.

A fun game for one person can be pretty boring/immature for an another one

This is also very true... You might not like your own game but others might love it... But then again, that boils down to whether or not you're willing to work on a game that you don't enjoy playing... If yes, then finish the game! If no, then either change the game until you enjoy it, or I guess you can abandon it and maybe pick it up again later when you have something new to throw at it.

[Danc]

my opinion is that people shouldn't be told that their first 10 games will suck. I'm really not sure how good that is.

Having said similar things myself to many new developers, the goal is to get the developer past the state of perfection paralysis.  The vast majority of new developers with a hint of talent have a big idea that will take them 4 years to complete.  Such is the curse of ambitious dreams and just enough skill to think they are possible.

Instead of making that one big game, make 10 games that aren't going to be quite as big or polished and learn from each one. Instead of stating it in terms of 'it is going to suck' think of it in terms of 'it is okay to release something that isn't perfect.'  It is so much better to finish an okay or bad game than to get stuck and stop learning.

Re: Ugly Babies. The thing about ugly babies is that all games are ugly babies to begin with.  It is not an exception, but an inevitable part of the design process.  The scary part is when the game is no longer converging on fun.  It is like being a bloodhound that lost the scent. 

Everyone's suggests about playtesting and getting second opinions are spot on.  And if that doesn't work, release the game and call it finished.  You'll likely learn a lot just by getting it ready to ship.  And even more importantly, you'll have it out of your head so you can move onto something else that uses all your learning.

take care
Danc.

[joulimousis]

Danc: the problem with releasing a shitty game (I'll write a blog post about the game itself soon with a gameplay video) with our name is that we try to make, like... good games. And I would feel kind of embarrassed to publish this ugly baby. Let's just kill it, we are already working on a much beautiful one that was born from a internal jam.

[farcodev]

This is also very true... You might not like your own game but others might love it... But then again, that boils down to whether or not you're willing to work on a game that you don't enjoy playing... If yes, then finish the game! If no, then either change the game until you enjoy it, or I guess you can abandon it and maybe pick it up again later when you have something new to throw at it.

Yes, in this case i can be only agree with you 

[J. R. Hill]

edit:  Make sure you invite some girls too.  Nobody likes a sausage party.

Beg pardon?

[ink.inc]

sausagesssssssss

[pixhead]

Looks fun to me

[PompiPompi]

Well, some games are easier for yourself to enjoy than others.
If it's a puzzle game, and you made those puzzles, you arn't really going to enjoy the puzzles.
If it's an action game, but a single player, you arn't going to enjoy playing the same level for the hundreth time.
Things that could make it more fun FOR YOU, are perhaps:
Multiplayer: Playing against\with others change things a lot.
Random\procedural generated.
"Creative"\Open world: A la Minecraft.

Maybe there are more, but you get the point. Some games types are going a lot more harder for the developer to enjoy(and kno if they are enjoyable).

[Destral]

put the game in playtesting; if it's not fun, change it until it is. when playtesters can't stop playing it and are eagerly asking for the next version, and when you can't stop playing it just for fun yourself, then you know it's fun.

This. Taking your playtester's feedback and using it to improve the game is the way to go. It's one of the reasons why established game designers like making social games, you make them fast, put them out there, see what the players like and don't, and change it accordingly.

At the end of the day, it really depends on why you are making the games. If you are trying to make a fun game, you need to expose it to the people who will play it, so they can tell you if it's fun or not.

Also, the "Indie Art Game" defense is lame and should never, ever be used. Saying 'It's art' as a way to cover your own ass for making a bad game is really, really bad form, and hurts not only your image, but anyone who really is trying to make a game as 'art'.

[droqen]

Damn it, have I really just turned into a human-quoter

They’re not seen as transformative forces that can change a human being; that can change a society.  They are seen as simple entertainment; things with which we can fill 20 minutes, half an hour, while we’re waiting to die.  It’s not the job of the artist to give the audience what the audience wants.  If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn’t be the audience.  They would be the artists.  It is the job of artists to give the audience what they need.

Obviously, playtesting is still useful and something not to be ignored -- but don't just playtest the hell out of a game and accept all common feedback without ensuring that it's what you want to do, and what would benefit the game. You're the most qualified to make these decisions: you are (likely) the one who knows the game most intimately.

Last of all, not fun to fun isn't a straight line. Make a game more 'fun' for one person, and you'll be making it less 'fun' for another. In some cases, you might even make it less 'fun' for the exact same person in a different way. (Or, if something went really wrong, you could show them with the suggestion added and they could have less 'fun' with the same thing with their suggestion implemented just as they envisioned it!)

Wait, what were we talking about again? Anyway, this was in response to Destral.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't think anybody was suggesting that someone just blindly do whatever playtesters say -- just that if a game isn't fun, chances are it's because it's not being *played* very much -- either by playtesters or the developer. and that with a wider pool you can sometimes see new things to improve.

but i disagree about the art game thing: it's okay for games to not be fun, if that's what you're going for. sometimes games are great despite not being very fun -- silent hill for example. the angry mob attacking games that aren't fun is exactly that.

it's just that if you want it to be fun, make it fun, if you don't, don't, but if you want it to be fun and it's not, having a wide variety of people playing the game (particularly other developers, who can offer more targeted advice) is usually what will help the most. mainly because games can lack fun for a large variety of reasons, and it's hard to recognize those reasons unless you're very experienced, and nobody is more experienced than a large audience (due to their collective experiences adding up).

[Muz]

Yeah, I'm aware of this syndrome after a few years of making games. I really have no defenses for it. The best I can do is make excuses - "It was rushed, it was the most technically complicated so far, STFU". And that art game defense worked great for my last game. And "I'll fix the gameplay in the sequel".

The funny thing is that there's always someone who thinks that my baby is cute, no matter what. I could call them blind, but they still won't budge and will cheer on my game despite the broken bugs and beg me to hurry with the non-existent sequel. I've had a guy follow an ugly, broken, vaporware game for 4 years, before he sodded off when I stopped replying his emails.

On the other hand, there will be a lot of people who'll hate your kid for no reason. I guess they're easy to tell in that they tend to be shrill and illogical, but the careful trolls make me question whether my game would really suck or not. But if say, someone who loves Halo criticizes my Civilization style game, I guess I could brush it off as simply not being his kind of game.