After 9 Months of "Game Developent: My Current Impression

[Archerx]

You can beat Myst so it's a game.

Think of it like this there' are games and there are toys.

A pogo stick is a toy. It's great fun, you can hop around do tricks and etc but it's not a "game".

A pogo stick race is suddenly a "game", why? Because it has win and losing conditions.

[Spoof]

It's worth consulting Wikipedia's entry for Game, which offers further insight.

[ambershee]

"Game" is just a term, we no longer define it as "a set of rules with a winning condition".

Do we not? There's quite a few people here who would disagree with you and not many to support you. The Wiki article is actually pretty good.

[lunatorra]

Do we not? There's quite a few people here who would disagree with you and not many to support you. The Wiki article is actually pretty good.

"In more open-ended computer simulations, also known as sandbox-style games, the game provides a virtual environment in which the player may be free to do whatever they like within the confines of this universe. Sometimes, there is a lack of goals or opposition, which has stirred some debate on whether these should be considered "games" or "toys""

This is what people who don't agree with your opinion are considering (more or less). The article does not say "sandbox-style simulations" or "sandbox-style toys"... It says games, and briefly mentions the fact that not all people agree with this, which suggests that such simulations are more widely considered games, than not.

Considering you've already admitted you can develop your own goals in games like Dear Esther (which I've never played), though limited ---- and considering that Dear Esther is even considered a game on it's wiki page, let's simply conclude that simulations of the sort (All games are simulations to some degree) are in fact, games, even though they don't follow the most common of game trends.

And from what I understand, Dear Esther even has a story, which is something I didn't know, initially.

This all suggests that circumstances are actually the opposite of what you say -- "not many to support you". It's likely that way more than half the community would consider Dear Esther (and simulations like it) to be a game. Just look around.

[ambershee]

Not quite; in a sandbox game it is usually the player that is allowed to define their own goals and objectives, but there are still rules and boundaries that present some kind of conflict or competition. Games like Creatures are a really good example of this. Dear Esther has a story yes, but it's really hard to define any conflict or competition for a game within it, since all you can do is traverse the environment and experience the story.

It's a really fuzzy, grey area, but I'll stick to my guns here

[merc-ai]

You can learn basics of some game development area relatively quickly, whether it's scripting, art or something else. But, unless game development is a temporary hobby for you, this level of skill will be useless.
And it will take you years of learning/practice to become a professional even in one area (coding, art etc).

So I'd say it's actually *more* complicated than how it looks from outside.

PS Dear Esther is not really a game. Also it's far from sandbox games, so that quote hardly applies.

[lunatorra]

You can learn basics of some game development area relatively quickly, whether it's scripting, art or something else. But, unless game development is a temporary hobby for you, this level of skill will be useless.
And it will take you years of learning/practice to become a professional even in one area (coding, art etc).

So I'd say it's actually *more* complicated than how it looks from outside.

PS Dear Esther is not really a game. Also it's far from sandbox games, so that quote hardly applies.

I have no intention of becoming a professional, and this won't be a temporary hobby, either.
My goal is to acquire the necessary level of skill to make a game that I, personally, can enjoy and consider to be "common" quality.
If my standards were lower, even my current level of interior-modeling skill could be enough lol... Alas, I want to do a bit better than this, in months to come.

So, since I'm not trying to sell a game or get a job in the industry, I expect to wield sufficient skill pretty soon (within the next year).

I realize most people ARENT making games for themselves, now, and that they will have a lot more work to do to meet the current demands of the industry.

"Making a game yourself" doesnt translate into "Making a triple A title yourself"

Also, saying "Dear Esther is not a game" doesn't really contribute to the discussion at all lol.

[Buddhist Punk]

this was my 1st level i made, there are a couple statis meshes from udk in there, will have to change them out b4 im complete!
i did one really amazing skydome, it is so alive, i used to just sit and watch it, udk is insane, and almost limitless, expect for my pc...

[Buddhist Punk]

passion is where its at, ignore the nay-sayers and do what makes you happy, eventually ppl will start to notice a spark in the dark void that is poop culture
and so it begins...

njoy the ride

[joshua.fontany]

The difference between structured play (games, etc) and unstructured play (toys, etc) is very important. You don't have to stick to one, you can "offer the experience" of the other. But you should choose one as a focus.

[oskaroh]

Learn 3d-coat (or z-brush, but 3d-coat its easier) so you can model hi-detail for assets and then get it on a normal map... so your game will not appear like and old game

[Spoof]

...and considering that Dear Esther is even considered a game on it's wiki page...

Well that's marketing. It's the same reason that app stores are littered with 'adventure' games that aren't.

As for Dear Esther having a story - Dear Esther is a story. It has closer parallels to a novella than a game.

[MonsOlympus]

Not quite; in a sandbox game it is usually the player that is allowed to define their own goals and objectives, but there are still rules and boundaries that present some kind of conflict or competition. Games like Creatures are a really good example of this. Dear Esther has a story yes, but it's really hard to define any conflict or competition for a game within it, since all you can do is traverse the environment and experience the story.

It's a really fuzzy, grey area, but I'll stick to my guns here

I respect that, not having played the game I cant talk on it but I was just making sure everyone understood why you are taking your position. Basically for me traversing an environment (such as in myst) is gameplay and gives me the ability to put my own rules and limitations on myself, ofcoarse in that game movement is restricted and there is preset boundaries. In mentioning handball I was hinting at the aspect where a player who is ace or king can create rules that others must follow, a game doesnt need hard coded rules to be considered as such. My comparisons were more directed at the "interactive cutscenes" like press A, press X for eg which dont go to decision making so for me if I were to call out Dear Esther I would also have to call out these games but I give them leeway. Alot of linear games only finish under 1 condition so some can be considered story based, I find puzzle games can usually be completed a number of ways much as in sandbox games, other games are infact endless (this can be just playing rounds till you deem it over with no hardcoded "end").

I just thought I would share my opinion and its much the same except in the light or darker grey where youre in the opposite shade

[Crusha K. Rool]

In a nutshell for something to be qualified as a game it must give you the ability to make decisions.
If you can't make decisions, it is not a game. Not that everything that allows you to make decisions are games.

Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy is an adventure without puzzles and an action game where you don't have the ability to make free decisions. Does it still qualify as game?

/blackwhite view on world

[Derp]

I think you guys are forgetting the title and main point of this thread..

[Crusha K. Rool]

I think you guys are forgetting the title and main point of this thread..

The title is lacking a closing " and I honestly can't really pin down what the point of the thread is. The OP was just posting his impressions after working with the UDK but neither is he complaining nor is he seeking help. There is a small recruitment offer included in the last line but we have an extra forum for that.

Feel free to enlighten me if you can pin the point down.

[ambershee]

Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy is an adventure without puzzles and an action game where you don't have the ability to make free decisions. Does it still qualify as game?

But you do make decisions, ergo there is some kind of conflict there. There are also winning and losing conditions

[BmB23]

Let's not use wikipedia for pedantry.

A game is now an interactive artform. Which is the only definition broad enough to cover everything that is commonly regarded as a game. The only reason you'd try to exclude anything from this definition is to sound controversial and get hits on your blog similar to roger ebert saying games aren't art.

At the same time yes, the more strict definition of a set of rules and a winning condition does still apply. There are some games that aren't art. Tetris comes to mind. Both definitions are valid. A term can have more than one use.

[ambershee]

Unless you can come up with a justified definition of what a game is that I can agree with, you're never going to win me over in this debate. If you can't give me a reasonable definition, I can only assume this is because you don't understand well enough what it is you're trying to define

[MonsOlympus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory <-- this is what we are all reading are we?

[Mougli]

Because something has been made in a game engine and is controlled with mouse/keyboard or a gamepad, or because it's sold on Steam, it doesn't mean it's a game. Products like Dear Esther, are interactive entertainment products, an ensemble larger than games.

[Bob_Gneu]

Remember that board game where all you can do is roll the dice and look at the pretty picture in the middle?

There may be some wiggle room regarding what constitutes a "game", but well... looking in a dictionary does help things get clearer.

https://www.google.com/search?source...w=1680&bih=920

A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck
A complete episode or period of play, typically ending in a definite result
A single portion of play forming a scoring unit in a match, esp. in tennis
A score of 100 points for tricks bid and made (the best of three games constituting a rubber)
A person's performance in a game; a person's standard or method of play
A meeting for sporting contests, esp. track and field
Sports and athletic activities as organized in a school
The equipment for a game, esp. a board game or a computer game
A type of activity or business, esp. when regarded as a game
A secret and clever plan or trick
A thing that is frivolous or amusing
Wild mammals or birds hunted for sport or food
The flesh of these mammals or birds, used as food

While it may seem narrow minded to suggest that games have rules and end game conditions, i would love to hear about what makes this method of thinking sound like it is 1979. Imagine any game you have played without them, i doubt you would play for long, its a reason trainers and cheating spoil games - no conflict = little drive to improve or continue.

[Spoof]

Let's not use wikipedia for pedantry.

I suggested the wiki entry because it had established arguments that add to the debate. If you have an open mind then don't dismiss it.

As for Tetris not being art - I agree. And yet I've seen works hanging in galleries that look an awful lot like Tetris

[ambershee]

Remember that board game where all you can do is roll the dice and look at the pretty picture in the middle?

Snakes and Ladders, classic example of a non-game that masquerades as one. With everything predetermined by the roll of the die and reliant on luck, there's no game there since all you can do is watch/progress the outcome. Another example would be 'Beggar My Neighbour' (probably has loads of other names) - the play of the game there is even more predetermined since the order of the cards never changes, all you do is watch it unfold in front of you.

Might as well flip a coin to see who wins.

[Archerx]

Snakes and Ladders, classic example of a non-game that masquerades as one. With everything predetermined by the roll of the die and reliant on luck, there's no game there since all you can do is watch/progress the outcome. Another example would be 'Beggar My Neighbour' (probably has loads of other names) - the play of the game there is even more predetermined since the order of the cards never changes, all you do is watch it unfold in front of you.

Might as well flip a coin to see who wins.

But you don't play snakes and ladders by yourself, you play with some one else. Sure it's purely luck based but it's still a game because there is a winner and a loser. Another thing there is an objective and it is to reach the end. Flipping a coin is less fun and less social.

Luck based games do exist since they can distingish a winner and a loser also they usually have goals. Craps is another example.

[BmB23]

I suggested the wiki entry because it had established arguments that add to the debate. If you have an open mind then don't dismiss it.

As for Tetris not being art - I agree. And yet I've seen works hanging in galleries that look an awful lot like Tetris

Well, that depends on the art style sure. Visual art can be applied to tetris. It can be ascii art it can be minimalistic or cute and bubbly. But the art is seperate from, not attached to, the game which is purely mechanical. Whereas something like Esther or Fahrenheit are almost pure art, where the gameplay the art and the story meld seamlessly.

So much so that certain types might not be able to tell one from the other. *ahem* They like to put it down but what they fail to understand is that in reality it is the final artform.

In a hundred years when we all play video games on holodecks in space, games like these will be the model.

[Saishy]

Snakes and Ladders, classic example of a non-game that masquerades as one. With everything predetermined by the roll of the die and reliant on luck, there's no game there since all you can do is watch/progress the outcome. Another example would be 'Beggar My Neighbour' (probably has loads of other names) - the play of the game there is even more predetermined since the order of the cards never changes, all you do is watch it unfold in front of you.

Might as well flip a coin to see who wins.

I kinda of agree with ambershee that Snakes and Ladders is not a game.

If you could choose between two exits that led to the same point it would be a game, if a dice choose it for you it wouldn't be a game.

[joshua.fontany]

Snakes and Ladders is a Game, albeit a very very introductory one. It's main purpose is to move children from Unstructured Play over to Structured Play (so you can teach them further board games with heavier rules sets). Snakes and Ladders's rules are the simplest procedural things, conflict exists between the players, and the winner is determined by luck.

It is not really a Contest, as contests involve a particular quality of the players at least as much if not more than Luck, either in direct competition (parallel performances) or conflict (simultaneous interacting performances).

Most adult Games are also Contests, from my experience. Even single player games are usually contests against "the clock"/"the level designer".

[LordNelson7]

When I first started learning UDK and 3ds Max and Maya I could make some pretty astounding things with enough time, but as you learn better techniques and your skill level with the programs rises, the TIME that it takes to do these things decreases.

It is entirely possible to make a game within one year by yourself, if you already have most of the assets and programming, as you could just concentrate on world design. As for me, however, I have been in development of my game for around three years, and have a signifigant amount of work done(programming wise). Check out my game thread below in my signature.

[lunatorra]

When I first started learning UDK and 3ds Max and Maya I could make some pretty astounding things with enough time, but as you learn better techniques and your skill level with the programs rises, the TIME that it takes to do these things decreases.

It is entirely possible to make a game within one year by yourself, if you already have most of the assets and programming, as you could just concentrate on world design. As for me, however, I have been in development of my game for around three years, and have a signifigant amount of work done(programming wise). Check out my game thread below in my signature.

That looks pretty cool I think I like the animations the most. The character mesh itself is cool.
Are you happy with the quality of your graphics, overall?

[Baructt]

As someone who has watched gaming evolve from the old Mario days (my first console was a Nintendo Entertainment System), my perspective is that you don't need the fanciest graphics technologies (normal/bump maps) to have a game that will sell very nicely. The best feature is fun gameplay. If people still play Mario on the PC just because it's fun, then you'll do fine with some cool ideas and UDK+Blender.

[ironbelly]

Funny enough I've been doing the indie game-dev thing for years and the longer I do it the more complicated I realize it is. Every time you move into a new area you realize their another rabbit hole of complexity to go down and to organize and the plan for that you never knew existed before. Like's been said so many times before, we're talking about making a game here, not a toy. You've made a toy to play with and kudos for you on that as that's more than most new people would have accomplished in 3 months but you haven't begun to touch the surface of crafting an experience, creating fun, let alone semi-original fun.

10,000 hours to become a master at something they say, that's about 3 years at 8 hours a day. Creating a truly compelling game is going to require masters at multiple disciplines to come together and probably be organized and managed by another master. You've got a ways to go, but keep on trucking and let us know where you are in another 3 months

[lunatorra]

Funny enough I've been doing the indie game-dev thing for years and the longer I do it the more complicated I realize it is. Every time you move into a new area you realize their another rabbit hole of complexity to go down and to organize and the plan for that you never knew existed before. Like's been said so many times before, we're talking about making a game here, not a toy. You've made a toy to play with and kudos for you on that as that's more than most new people would have accomplished in 3 months but you haven't begun to touch the surface of crafting an experience, creating fun, let alone semi-original fun.

10,000 hours to become a master at something they say, that's about 3 years at 8 hours a day. Creating a truly compelling game is going to require masters at multiple disciplines to come together and probably be organized and managed by another master. You've got a ways to go, but keep on trucking and let us know where you are in another 3 months

The stuff your team is doing seems really good, especially the 3D modeling, but I'm curious to see your individual work!
Do you have a site of your own? Or could you point me to your work on the Ironbelly site, perhaps? Would be much appreciated

Also, you say you have years of experience, but exactly how many years would you say?

Now, my recent project wasn't intended to be anything more than a virtual environment, mostly to improve my texturing ability. The point of me showing it here and the point of my original post was to express that the road to becoming a well-rounded game developer is all in a matter of steps, and there honestly aren't many of them. Sure, these steps can be REALLY LARGE and in-dept steps, but steps none-the-less.

If you're going for next-gen-quality skill then these steps may take a little longer.. If you intend to get a job in the industry, they may take a little longer too... But, as many have mentioned, to make a "good" game, you honestly dont need very much at all.. unless your definition of a good game lies entirely under the feet of next-gen standards.

Anyway, I will challenge your idea that one cannot make a compelling game without "masters" of disciplines coming together.
Hell, you don't even need a team at all.
What you DO need is resources, time, and motivation.

But guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Solid Snake]

There is also the fact that not everyone is capable of doing everything. For the life of me, I cannot ever write music or decent dialogue. But I can do most of everything else.

Some people simply cannot ever learn how to program, make 3d models, animate, etc, this is just a fact of life.

[lunatorra]

There is also the fact that not everyone is capable of doing everything. For the life of me, I cannot ever write music or decent dialogue. But I can do most of everything else.

Some people simply cannot ever learn how to program, make 3d models, animate, etc, this is just a fact of life.

I consider this a possibility, but I dont think I've ever met someone who literally couldn't do something... They either lacked the motivation or the proper learning tools, or both.

Music is a big one to tackle, and I'd be pretty screwed if I had to learn composition at this stage, to be honest... I was fortunate enough to have been involved in music for the majority of my life and have been making my own on the PC since a very early age. It's my background, so I've got a bit of an advantage when it comes to solo game development, using totally original material.

VISUAL stuff, however, is really new to me and was really overwhelming at first, because I had only ever dealt with audio... But after studying and practicing for a while, along with observing other peoples work on youtube and deviantart, it turned into second-nature.

I got to the point where I was literally having dreams about modeling in Maya and fiddling around in UDK lol. Think that's when you know you're doing something right.

So, while I feel your belief is plausible, I'm not convinced, even though I haven't really touched programming and have only grazed the surface of character modeling.

I think, anyone, given the time they need and the proper approach to learning can develop the game dev skills they require.
I'm not convinced that you cant learn to create interesting dialogue lol.

[Spoof]

Anyway, I will challenge your idea that one cannot make a compelling game without "masters" of disciplines coming together.
Hell, you don't even need a team at all.
What you DO need is resources, time, and motivation.

But guess we'll have to wait and see.

I think you're applying a broad brush to a broad canvas.

In the early 90's everyone began as an attic developer working on their own, and today many indie companies are small teams of one to three people. Professional Flash developers have a very rapid turnaround. A company I worked for once delivered two games for a high-profile client in ten days, with myself and one artist working around the clock.

There's nothing new to prove.

Game development is a craft, not competition. You don't need talent to make a game but, fortunately, talented people are sometimes allowed to get involved in the process

[ADF86]

It's not so much incapability to learn but the amount of dedication required to excel at any specific task. I can't draw for the life of me, and topology bores me, so I tend to not model or make textures generally at all. Do I enjoy modeling? Sure, enough to enjoy it as a hobbyist; Same with Photoshop. Does that mean I have the skills or ambition to do it long term even under the goals of what I would personally wish to accomplish with it? No way, not without starting at the foundational bottom and working at it for years. On the other hand, programming, level design, and technical focus is something I love, understand well, have enough experience and skill to succeed at, and love doing. I know many artists, and how much they work at their skillsets; the 10k hour margin to be good/great at something is a truth. Can you be capable at drawing, texturing, or modeling without 10k hours of experience? Yeah. Does this mean you'll be as good as you want to be? No, and even if you are, it doesn't mean you'll be as good as others would want you to be, or that you'll have a rounded capability with it. Time, discipline, and experience are what make skill a reality, and once that's achieved is when you can really open your creativity.

[ironbelly]

Exactly it isn't about a lack of motivation or people being lazy and you are painting everyone else to be who isn't modeling, scripting, animating, concepting and designing levles, it's about their only being 24 hours in the day.

Amateurs can come together and make an amazing game but it will be something akin to bejeweled or another quick casual game. The screens you posted were of a medieval environment so that leads me to beleive that you want to make an rpg, maybe an fps, who knows, but that's where my comments come into play. You want to make a game like that that holds up to other amateur games of that genre and you need masters to come together.

But what am I doing spouting off like this, go do what do and let us know what happens.. Our opinions and hot hair discussions about the topics mean nothing, actual finished results that's what matters.

I've been doing what I do for 7 years or so to answer your question

It's not so much incapability to learn but the amount of dedication required to excel at any specific task. I can't draw for the life of me, and topology bores me, so I tend to not model or make textures generally at all. Do I enjoy modeling? Sure, enough to enjoy it as a hobbyist; Same with Photoshop. Does that mean I have the skills or ambition to do it long term even under the goals of what I would personally wish to accomplish with it? No way, not without starting at the foundational bottom and working at it for years. On the other hand, programming, level design, and technical focus is something I love, understand well, have enough experience and skill to succeed at, and love doing. I know many artists, and how much they work at their skillsets; the 10k hour margin to be good/great at something is a truth. Can you be capable at drawing, texturing, or modeling without 10k hours of experience? Yeah. Does this mean you'll be as good as you want to be? No, and even if you are, it doesn't mean you'll be as good as others would want you to be, or that you'll have a rounded capability with it. Time, discipline, and experience are what make skill a reality, and once that's achieved is when you can really open your creativity.

[lunatorra]

Exactly it isn't about a lack of motivation or people being lazy and you are painting everyone else to be who isn't modeling, scripting, animating, concepting and designing levles, it's about their only being 24 hours in the day.

Amateurs can come together and make an amazing game but it will be something akin to bejeweled or another quick casual game. The screens you posted were of a medieval environment so that leads me to beleive that you want to make an rpg, maybe an fps, who knows, but that's where my comments come into play. You want to make a game like that that holds up to other amateur games of that genre and you need masters to come together.

But what am I doing spouting off like this, go do what do and let us know what happens.. Our opinions and hot hair discussions about the topics mean nothing, actual finished results that's what matters.

I've been doing what I do for 7 years or so to answer your question

Ah man lol. I made it clear that the project was "entirely" for practice and absolutely nothing more. Has nothing to do with the type of game I want to make.
I'm going to make a large array of environments in the coming months for the same reason. "Practice"

The game I want to make will be a post-apocalyptic sandbox-style game (3rd person, lol). So yeah! Hope that clears that up.

Now, there's no such thing as laziness or a lazy person... There's just motivated people and unmotivated people.
And yes, most people aren't going to be motivated to make an entire game by themselves. Again, doesn't mean they suck or are lazy.. It just means they're unmotivated lol, and motivation is required to dp absolutely anything in life, especially if you plan to do well at it.

The quote you posted from ADF86 is all about motivation (he uses the word "Ambition"), and he was making the same point that I am...
He's comparing his level of motivation to his goals, saying that HE doesn't have the necessary level of motivation to accomplish the goals he'd like to, likely attempting to suggest that MOST people don't, and I agree with that.

It's not so common for someone to have the drive and patience to tackle this task, and for good reason... But again, my point is, "It definitely seems possible", and POTENTIALLY, anyone can do it.

[ADF86]

You're both right, and all is generally opinion anyway. You are correct in your belief that one person can solo build a game; but if you put any time constraints on it then your work will be half as good as it would be with two people of equal skill working on the game, as focus and committed time on each task would increase; which is what ironbelly's pretty much saying. With many/most of us who work in game development for a long period of time there's an inherent desire to understand as many facets of development as possible; ignorance will cripple you if a related task comes across your path. This doesn't necessitate that every dedicated artist need be a master coder/scripter as well, or the other way around. When it comes to wanting to be consistently able to publish games and make your work in an acceptable time-frame with the most skill invested as possible, it's best to focus on a small set of facets of game design and become as proficient as possible. This is why I don't do much in the visual arts; it's a combination of things, and yes, I lack the motivation to spend the multiple years it would take me to become skilled enough in any given art field to balance with my skill in programming. This isn't a bad thing though, as it's relatively easy to find skilled artists who don't want to be programmers at all, and if they've spent years becoming skilled at what they do, they tend to be what I'd wish to be in that field, and thus it's the opposite of a waste of time to work with them.