Yeah... you're going to have to make games.

You have to be able to prove to somebody that you know what you're doing. There are companies that will hire you if you have no skills other than design. If you just have ideas they might hire you. Though they probably won't, for 3 reasons:
  . there are other people who are good designers and have shipped games
  . there are other people who have other skills and are designers
  . they don't know who you are

However, a lot of companies struggle with finding a design that's original, interesting, and _good_. If you can convince them that you can deliver all 3 of those things they might take a chance.

Screenwriters get paid crazy for their ideas. They just write them down then someone else makes them into a movie. Its like 1% of sent-in scripts get optioned. The rest get thrown out. Good screenplays are invaluable. Most suck. It's difficult to learn to write scripts because "real" experience only comes if you've had a script made into a movie before... and that requires having written a good script.

Game design is similar. Good designs do exist, but I think they're even more rare than good scripts. Screenwriting is an established, respected practice. Game design is brand new. The theory is almost non-existent. Most designers learn by iterating the game. Designers who don't iterate normally get fucked, because they're cocky. I think you'll hear a lot of people say, "just make a game dude, what makes you so special?"

Well, you might be special. It's not impossible to make a good design. People do it. Your dream may be to design large games, and to design your ass off. In that case, design your ass off. Just understand that the number of people whom I think love design enough to do something like that is very small. Theory is not easy. If you can't write a document that makes you say, "Valve would _shit_ their pants for this, without any explanation," then you shouldn't design, you should make games. Learning to program or do art or whatever is less work. If you think that design is less work then you're underestimating how good your designs need to be. To be a designer out of the box you need to be an order of magnitude better than the next guy, and it needs to be obvious just from looking at the page. Very possible, very hard. You can do it, but only if its the only way to your dreams. Otherwise you'll hit a dead end.

I love design myself, it's my favourite part, but I also program and write well, compose and study art. Games is all about the mixed bag. If you can't appreciate the value of the other attributes of a well made game, your designs are going to be mediocre. The fastest way to learn about the attributes of a game is to make one. That's why companies like people with experience. It's the only sure way they know that you know what you're talking about.

so i shat this out in a day

Feels like fresh air.

Libraries are a different story.

There are a lot of poor implementations of "components" in C++. I stopped thinking about why these exist after I'd seen enough. But that doesn't mean the language has inherent problems.

Messaging can be accomplished with clever use of base-classes and following whatever paradigm you pick for yourself. Choosing a different language just ensures that other programmers who write in your system don't shoot themselves in the foot because they don't understand how to use it.

I think components in general is something the gets underestimated. For every good implementation there's 5 bad ones, and it becomes easy to lose sight of what it was really about in the first place. Code is as flexible as you'd like it to be. C++ gives you pointers and classes. You can do whatever you want. Though how you should do it may not be obvious, and the necessary discipline to ensure you don't tread over yourself isn't forced. So you can fuck yourself over. It's natural to blame the language. But programming languages are like speaking languages. They're tools. Their function is up to the creator.

Think of it this way. Why would you need a language with more restrictions to implement a system design that offers more flexibility? If you see the irony there, and you know the power of C++, you'll know components are possible.

Without pre-compilers - which you mention, and which I would never write a game without (and I mean a custom one) - there are some limitations on how easy it is to leverage the power of whatever component system you build. The ideal language is lisp, closures, macros - I mean, really. But we've got what we got. C++ gets it done and it does it well, and there's certainly no flexibility barriers that can't be overcome. Relative to the scope of a game and the advantages of a powerful system, taking the time to figure out modular architectures is worth it. You've just got to bang your head a little, or maybe a lot.

I've been looking into component-based designs recently also. After reading up a lot and implementing some stuff I've come to the conclusion that I like the core idea, but C++ is really the wrong language to be trying to express this with.

C++ is fine for components. Any language supports them well.

It can be far more efficient, in the interest of production, to merely plan out where to put which functionality and forego components entirely. Component systems are good in things like Unity because the developers don't know how the user will want to use each bit of functionality. You, as the developer of a game or application, generally know exactly what functionality you need and where you need it. You'll save time and your code will be a lot cleaner.

No matter what you do you have to be smart about it. Components are always a good idea as long as you don't fuck it up. "Planning" functionality and sticking with structured code is valuable if you know what you want, but then you sacrifice the advantages of "iterative" development. There's a strict upper bound on the complexity of a system that's been pre-planned. There's non if you evolve it.

It's never a bad idea to learn how to code components.

Perspective is an easy thing to forget the value of.

Nah, it just means your idea was a good one.

. Yeah, pick a new one.

Come from a place deeper inside you. The Unfinished Swan guys relate to their material well.

Or do it if you believe in it.

I think a good test of an idea is, would you still do it if everyone else was doing it too?

I listened to Geekbox. I liked it. Rebel FM is okay too, though it's a lot like the IGN casts. But I'll still listen to it sometimes. It rounds me out.

I'm going through the other one's that people are mentioning.

The other ones that get regular attention:
  . The Economist (news, various)
  . The Escapist (sometimes, geeky, very geeky)
  . This Week in Startups (best tech startup cast there is, at least that I've found)
  . Back to Work ("productivity" guy, motivational speaker, ADD tech-person rambles about how people should do their jobs more effectively)
I'm also nutso about Extra Credits, though not a cast.

I'm also looking for some better news. BBC on the web is probably my best source right now, but it's just 2 min clips you have to sort through yourself. I wish someone would create an AI for this stuff.

It just takes practice.

I keep a "runner" of random thoughts I have while I'm working. Everything that doesn't have an obvious home goes in there. I clean it out into separate files in a way that makes sense every so often.

IGN - various
Podtoid - destructoid's podcast
8-4 Play
1UP - various (many dead/gone-bland)

Add to the list?

If you're crunching for deadlines, this is a good idea. Like, if you don't have control over your workflow and you don't make the progress you want, then sometimes you've got to bring the hammer down.

But as a general rule, no, you shouldn't do that. Shutting down your creativity will form a habit. You want to open all faucets all the time, that's how you get a reliable flow when you need it.

If you're married to someone and you stop talking to girls because you might realize you don't love your wife, is this a marriage you should be in? Use your best judgement. Sometimes you have to be practical, sometimes you don't.

I agree with that, easier programming, harder design.

*shrug*

If you minimalize the prototype you could get one out in 48 hours, if you just focused on gameplay. Maybe the AI would have a reduced intelligence.

Platformers, RPGs, action games and so on are easy to visualize. I can take a life experience and translate it into a prototype in my head really fast. Strategy games take a few more steps. Their core engagement is buried in the interaction of the game's primitives. The behaviour of what's on screen doesn't relay what the game is (hard to visualize). You have to spend more time at the design table.

I think strategy games are scarier. They really tests your design muscles up-front. AI's are similar. You have to know what the game is without being able to play it. You can tweak a platformer just be building something then critiquing - at least an all right one. You can't do this with strategy games. No way. AI is the same. You have to know what's going on with the game in your head, otherwise you'll be throwing darts in space. Without a budget why take the risk .

(so yeah, they're hard)


---
EDIT:

There is _no_ game with a high barrier to entry on the prototype. Computers do whatever you want. You move different colored dots around on the screen with 3 "noises" and from that you can determine a lot of things.

It's like saying "my novel is really interesting, but if I explain it to you in half a page then it won't really be that interesting." If that's the case then your novel isn't interesting or you don't understand why it's interesting. Prototypes strip your ideas bare, and show you what's really there. That's why their useful. My rule of thumb: if I can't prototype an idea minimally first, its not ripe enough to go into the game.

I actually keep a record of where all my ideas come from, then I organize to see where I should spend more time hunting.

But AIs are so much fun.

Game of Thrones.

There are many other options. Btw, Fabio is a man.

Something with twitter.

Goal: slam a super-model.

That picture is so funny for some reason.