next »

[Alec]

My only real point was like... yeah, some box prototypes might work for some developers, that's cool if it does. But for me it usually doesn't. (depends a lot on the type of game, really)

I prefer to have -some- kind of art in there, so the art has a chance to evolve along with the gameplay. I also put in music and as much other stuff as I can to get more of a feel for things. The music influences the gameplay, the gameplay influences the story, and vice-versa. Essentially, for me, all elements of a concept are interconnected and I feel weird separating them.

Now, in some cases, its necessary to look at one piece at a time, and that's fine. But in my mind its still interconnected.

I know some other devs are cool with prototyping game play by itself and finding a musician to write music for it later as a completely separate process, etc. That's totally valid, its just not my approach. You end up with a different type of final result. I'm not saying its better or worse, its just kinda different!

 

[Derek]

Yeah, what I was trying to get at before was that there's a big difference between a game and a "non-game-related software project."  I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, but...

This is interesting, because it sounds more like an artist approach (first doing the overall sketches and outlines of the image - literarily - and then adding detail).

Yeah, exactly.  Games are like movies, books, comic books, paintings... they're creative arts and oftentimes have to be made as such.  Stephen King doesn't plan out his books before he starts writing.  Werner Herzog doesn't ever do storyboards, apparently.  (To name a few examples in other mediums.)  A lot of game developers likewise improvise, and let the creative process lead them.  It can make for good games.

Lyx, you strike me the consummate engineer personality type, where logic rules above all else... your last reply to Adam kind of clinches it for me.  Anyway, it's not a bad thing, but yeah, he was right to call you out imo.  I don't think you meant to be rude to Greg, but you were.

[Anthony Flack]

I wish this forum had a "thanks" button so I could thank Derek for his little art rant. Instead I will have to settle for: WORD.

As far as the planning thing goes, ideally I prefer to just hammer things out until they feel right. Which works great when you're working alone. But if you are, say, working on a 360 game, then you have some problems. Like, Microsoft wants to know exactly what you're going to do before you do it. They also want to know exactly when it's going to be finished, before you start, so they can work you into their release schedule.

Eeek.

So here's me. I have a first version of my game to act as a prototype. That helps. But a lot of the design is going to change; it has to support 2 players for a start, which changes EVERYTHING. Huge question marks are hanging over large areas. But I have to write a design document that describes the whole game from start to finish and everything in it. So I make a whole bunch of stuff up. We schedule it all in. Everybody gets to work. I hope like hell the design is solid.

Inevitably, it kind of is, but also it kind of isn't. Ok, here is the challenging part. Dropping the project is not an option. Radical redesign is not an option. Time is extremely limited. We've got no money left and some of the people working on the game are being paid a salary.

So the design is kind of working, it's not bad but it will never be perfection. It can't be that perfectly crafted, ideal object that we all hope we'll be able to make one day. I just can't afford it. But it maybe still can be pretty good, if I'm smart. Small changes can be made and things can be shifted around a bit.

Did I mention eeek?

[Alec]

There is definitely a "point of no return" element to every project. At some point the game has to be finished and the lingering "problems" can't be fixed.

Such is life though, we're only alive for a limited time.

[fucrate]

I don't know what I'm doing 100%. And I'm not going to let some almighty preconceived plan or previous iteration get in the way of both the learning and making the game way better. That's what they mean when they say "Kill your darlings".

Try doing that with a large project.

Alright, I wasn't sure you were gonna make it, but Congratulations! 

You've successfully passed the trial and refused help from some of the most experienced devs in independent gaming!  You are awesome

Now go do exactly what you were already doing because you're way beyond these lame-oh's, honestly they couldn't art their way out of a paper bag if they had knives for fingers or a machete or something else cool and sharp.

Keep on being you!

[aeiowu]

Yea, Lyx, a couple of your comments seemed a bit crass, so I share Adam's frustration with that sort of attitude. I'm here posting this stuff because it's what i've learned over a few solid years of game making. You've gotta find your own way though, and I respect that. That's what I had to do.

I'm not trying to convert you here. We all have a process, but it's always some kind of mish-mash of styles that works best for you. Sharing our styles might help you to co-opt elements of them into your own. This is a fresh art form, nobody's got a decent formula yet. We're all chemists.

[Lynx]

We're all chemists.

I think perhaps you mean to say 'alchemists' since there's no fixed formula. 

[aeiowu]

good point!