Are people in denial about how hard it is to be a game dev?

Assuming you intend to be a solo dev that is. It seems to me that a ton of devs (many of whom are young, as in younger than 25) don't seem to have a good understanding of the massively challenges and skills required to be a solo game dev. You have yo learn how to be a coder, an artist, a 3D modeler, a level designer, a writer, an audio designer.....the list just goes on and on and on...........

I don't want to destroy anybody's dreams but I can't help but feel a lot of solo devs are somewhat delusional in regards to how realistic their ambitions are. Realistically speaking most devs won't be able to create complex games all on their own unless they are very talented and have tons of time, and will probably have to work in a team instead. And even if you do have all those skills, getting good at all of them could easily take 8-12 years so if you are under 30 then there is a strong chance that you aren't even ready to start making the games yet anyway.....

Do you think devs are a bit deluded when it comes to the harsh reality of being a game dev?

 

because there is always exceptions: flappy bird and crossy roads didnt need half the skill you need for an rpg game

 

My take on it is that the difficulty is related to the task.

I'm pretty sure I could easily make a box cart. I'm not sure I'd ever finish a real car.

 

I know I have. This delusion, however, has kept me going while learning by doing all these years. It might even be a good thing - otherwise a lot of people may never start making games in the first place.

 

I did a full civ III conversion mod over a decade ago. I did 90% of the work. Took three years. I thought that was hard. This is hard.
But life without struggle is boring. And life without the rewards of struggle, is pointless.

 

Do you think guitarists are a bit deluded when it comes to the harsh reality of being a rock star?

Being at the top of your craft and/or making money from creative work is always hard, because it's a competitive space.

 

Well, I don't know exactly who you are talking about. I mean, at the basic level I think there are people who have done game development who know what it means, and then there are people who haven't done it yet, or haven't really tried. Maybe a disproportionate number of the latter are on the forums?

I definitely think that if you are taking the tried and true route to content production (modelling and texturing all the assets individually), there tends to be a lot of underestimation of time and effort expenditure to fill out a game world. If each asset takes on average six hours to make, and you need to make hundreds or thousands, that an insane amount of work - really that amounts to solid years of one's life. And more can be added as a result of changes to the design throughout development.

It would be great if procedural generation could simply create everything instantly. But you don't even have to get there to reap the benefits of a good workflow. For example if you use a master material in Substance Designer for all of your assets of the same style, where all you do is plug in the baked maps, you can get a very solid result for a lot of assets for almost the cost of texturing just one.

If you create kitbashing sets, or even better really get to know how to design a modular set of building blocks, you can shave tons of time off production (though maybe not on your first game).

If you add editor tools (inside your favourite 3D modelling program and the Unity editor itself) that can help you cut time down a lot more, depending on how much of your game you can parametrize for a semi-procedural or procedural toolset.

I guess my point is that yes, probably there are a lot of people in denial about how long it takes to make a game, but those who consider themselves enlightened about how long it really does take are probably just as wrong. Especially if one is a solo developer, there is no room for ignorance about workflow considerations and development practices if one would like to finish the game in a reasonable amount of time without undue suffering.

 

From my point of view, game dev is specially difficult, if average dev Joe, does approach game dev matter with similar thoughts as OP describes (no pun intended). What I mean is, that probably most of us, if not all, had, or have some big aspiration for big game dev at some point in our life. We do learn over the time, that most of us need cut these aspiration down to bear fraction, to be able to achieve actually something.

So my point is, most of us as startup dev, probably fails, at least at begging, taking scope too big. See for example, lets take these initial requirements, derived by aspirations / thoughts:

For many games, you can probably cut these requirement, to very handful, starting small.

But that is often our dev issue. We want to start big. Leading us to imminent failure, because of lack of intermediate skills and resources. Here, probably not realizing, how much time it requires, to gain required skills. Not to mention, to develop required content itself, on top.

This really can be scoped down, to make small games or even prototypes, with fraction of time. This way any dev can drive their further motivations, by experiencing sense of progress. Hence getting step closer to desired goal.

Unfortunately, many of us, don't have comfort of having much time to develop what we dream about. And even, if some of us have, not everyone has much of commitment and self propelling motivation to do, what we would like to be done.

It is like being running own business, where not everyone has predispositions, to be own boss. But thing is, we don't know it, until we don't try. And even fail, try again and try again. And maybe, we eventually find this something, which will leads us to desired success. Sometimes we just need be at the right time ...

 

Divide and conquer. And be prepared for putting in some serious time.

 

yup

 

Well, I've got hobby making almost A-title FP Shooter. Which development already lasts more than a year, and I haven't abandoned it yet. Which I may not ever finish solo, but it's fun to do.

Way more fun that making complete brainless games for mobile that I do at the day job.

So here's that.

And yeah, S*** I know it is hard, no denying that.

Each dev has their own reason to do what they like. Like making crappy outsource games for survival and living. And making impossible dream projects because it's how you thrive as a dev.

 

You have a WIP page? Always fun looking at devs that make quality stuff

 

I'd rather finish that vertical slice first before posting anything. (That would be a free demo to play)
I'll surely post some info in the future, but it's way far from that.

 

Dont forget to start devlogging, its a solid way of building a community

 

I don't think gamedev is necessarily "hard", per se. But I'd say that releasing a polished, professional-quality game, especially for commercial release, is hard. The beginners that want to make a shipping product will understand what that last "90%" of work means, because a lot of the tools, supporting code, and time and effort to getting the software as bulletproof as possible can easily take up far more time than the game itself. And all of that stuff is not glamorous at all, but necessary if your next plate of food depends on it.

EDIT:
Gamedev is definitely time-consuming. I'd go with that.

 

Game dev is super easy. All you have to do is buy this:
https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/templates/full-game-kit-hammer-2-43670
Change the the title screen and then build for windows.

 

Anything worth doing is usually difficult.

 

Having enough sleep is usually easy. Keyword - usually.

 

Well said. Only if my sleep was so easy, as typing this line

Of course it (again) depends. But lets say, some part requires from you so much thinkering. In fact so much, that can not get head round. Is like asking some sportsman (as example), to derive complex algorithm, chances are, they will never will be accomplish it. Or with huge amount of study and effort. Which leads to topic header word (hard). This is more than just a time. But if you familiar with a subject, asking sportsman to run marathon, that then become feasible.

 

I get what you're saying, but at that point, is it the complex algorithm (i.e. mathematics, computer science) the hard part or game development?

 

Bright-eyed, naive children think that game development is easy. Or at least, expect it to be easy. Anyone who has gotten their hands dirty with actual development know that it is insanely hard. You have to learn tons, and always be prepared to learn more. You have to constantly find creative solutions to difficult problems. You have to be multi-talented, and spend an inordinate amount of time honing those skills. And the sheer, mind-numbing amount of work required is insane.

Some people here make comparisons to other disciplines. There is no adequate comparison for game development. A musician learns their instrument, and then spends time perfecting their craft. Game developers have to absorb far more knowledge than almost any other discipline. They have to simultaneously be writers, artists, musicians, painters, animators, sculptors, performers, directors, marketers, salespeople, business-people, and technical professionals. How many other comparable fields cover that?

 

The sad irony is that while a musician can probably create finished work in a matter of days or weeks, a game developer's work could take months or years, and the results can very well be all the same.

 

I'd have agreed if the scope of what is a game is clearly defined. It isn't and I can't in good faith, argue that it could be. Even a walking sim qualifies these days, which is why I can't really say making a game is a fixed point of difficulty, not least when there's asset store, visual scripting and millions of dollars poured into making it easy to click and deploy a playable game from start to finish.

If you make a fixed point somewhere, then you're right. For example: how hard is it to be a game dev making Eve Online might raise a few eyebrows.

 

Even with the minimum requirements, we're still talking about a level of technical proficiency that is daunting. And there is a long distance between being an Asset Flipper and an actual game developer. In order for someone taking the route you described to actually be acknowledged for their skill, they would have to have refined their level design and visual scripting skills to an incredible degree. We would still be talking about a remarkable amount of time, effort, and practice.

There is no "Make Game" button.

 

If it were easy everyone would do it successfully.

 

It seems like many people greatly underestimate the amount of skill and work involved based on the number of people who are solo developers and have a dream of making a game similiar to any AAA game in recent years.

In reality it would be very challenging for most solo developers to tiny teams to be completing games as good as the ones back on the N64 and similar. Of course sometimes people do it but even those people generally comment at how much harder it was than they ever considered.

This is all in a person's control as @hippocoder mentioned. Ultimately to a large degree game dev is as simple or complex as a person makes it with their choices. Of course trying to make a game very much like a game made by a team of 100+ skilled people will be an incredible challenge and quite likely never completed. But a person doesn't need to set a near impossible goal and can instead choose a much more modest realistic goal.

So yeah many underestimate and scope way too big as a result. Often they learn and their next game is a fraction of that scope. Just part of the learning process I guess.

 

Well thanks to Unity there technically is now. Such games are just not very good lol.

 

I wouldn't compare something that usually requires a team to something an individual does. It would be more on the level of someone writing music for an orchestra, playing every instrument, and advertising/selling it to the public. That is years worth of skills.

 

Gesamtkunstwerk

 

Small indie teams should focus on the mechanics, it's here they can shine and even blow triple A out of the water. It's always Indies that innovate.

 

I agree completely. Of course people can and will do what they want. I just focus on what I can do and more specifically what I can do well. I try to innovate in the ways that I can. Some people will like what I make and some people won't.

I think maybe that is an important thing for devs. To just accept that. Maybe people try so hard trying to impress people or maybe they are afraid some people will criticize them if they are not trying to create some epic game. But there will always be people who don't like what you make or don't like what you are doing. Just the way it is. And that is fine.

 

To be honest, I think the biggest issue for a solo developer is being an artist and an engineer at the same time. It's an almost physiologically difficult thing to do to switch gears for me, and when I am actively doing both I feel like I am at about 50% efficiency.

Because let's face it, the most difficult thing about being a solo developer is when your game has a big hole in it and you find your skills wanting in terms of fixing it or improving it.

Most people just find one thing they are good at and make it their world. But when you have to face a new and completely different dragon every day it can be hard to keep up the motivation. A good example is marketing, which I think often ambushes devs at the very point that they thought their work was done.

 

You can always use assets and customize in blender. Find ready to use and custom models on artstation etc

 

I get this completely. I do my best work when I shift into that specific mode. Like when I am working on logic and I am "there" I cannot make art beyond basic shapes and junk sketches. I have to truly make a shift into that other mode and I mean it is something I can physically feel happening.

Over time I have learned to work with it instead of against it by literally making quick junk art stick figures rectangles etc just to have available for logic and testing. Then later I will make a shift to that other hat and do an iteration to make stuff more proper. And I iterate like that many times on a piece over the project lifetime always improving it a bit.

Been thinking a lot about (and actually made a post on a forum a few days ago) hiring an artist again so I just don't even have to deal with it at all. Although I enjoy making art especially ultra low rez pixel art all of the different hats needed... it's just a huge amount particularly for doing it very part-time.

 

You

Can, some can, but not everyone can. That will be introducing step of difficulty.

 

In particular example yes. However,we got tons of assets, but lets put that aside and say, can starting dev write own full blown AI algorithms? Most probably wont.

 

Well first of all I don't have any trouble being either an artist and engineer, I dare say I am more than good enough at both though definitely a better engineer. It's that it takes me a few hours to become adjusted to the different psychological demands. To be an engineer you have to be focused on functionality and design specs, whereas an artist is driven mainly by emotional response and a vivid imagination.

As an artist, I don't think it's reasonable to try to customize bought models. Unless you are just adjusting the colors, it becomes a tediously difficult task to do anything, especially when there are baked maps involved. It's easy for me to build a highpoly model, retopologize it and bake it, but when I don't have that highpoly, any substantial modifications are really out of the question.

So for me, there are only 3 options: getting models custom made ($$$), procedural generation (somewhat of a black hole of diminishing returns), and doing it myself. For my current game I am using a combination of procedural generation (for the asteroid belt environment) as well as a combination of modular assets and a fine-tuned efficient workflow for the rest (mainly a good-sized spaceship interior and exterior as well as a lot of small assets).

 

I tend to spend a lot of time browsing artstation and my inspiration folder, and listening to soundtracks, to get into artist mode. For programming I meditate or listen to some classical music. But yeah it takes time for my head to make the shift.

 

And yet both were made by developers with a track record. Neither was a first game.

Dong Nguyen had been in the industry running his own studio for eight years before he released Flappy Bird. He'd released at least five different games before Flappy Bird.

Matt Hall had worked in the industry in various roles. Then he worked on his own for several years. He had number one titles on the App Store before the release of Crossy Road.

Andy Sum had about ten indie titles released before he worked on Crossy Road. I've hung out with the guy at various game dev events. He knows his stuff. He isn't some fresh out of highschool wannabe developer.

Are you sure? From memory Grinding Gears isn't much bigger then Hipster Whale. (Since they are both private companies, its hard to find definitive stats. If someone has better google fu then me, I'd be glad to be corrected).

We do ourselves a disfavor when we talk about mobile titles as being "low skill" and "exceptions to the rule". On close examination, this is never true.

 

Definitely agree they are not low skill at all. In terms of sheer effort though it's certainly more feasible than creating an openworld rpg for PC or something like that.

I think there's definitely a lot of misconception about the skill it takes to make a good little casual game, or creating minimalist art. It's like writing a very short story - it takes just as much skill if not more to make something conceptually complete in a smaller space, and mistakes are that much more obvious.

 

If you are doing it for money then yes you are deluded. Fact is most will never make a living at it. Same is true for startups, writing books, and movies.

If you do it for fun or job prospects then there is nothing wrong with it.

I think the asset store feeds this delusion by promoting assets for types of games that solo devs could never finish properly in a million years, like third person adventure games.

 

and here is a great speech about the dev industry, the main theme "nobody knows what the hell they are doing, and don't let anybody tell you you can't do it".

And many of these made their own assets.
If you are focused, and determined, you can do anything.
technology continues to make the impossible possible.
When I started 3d modeling in 2003, I never imagined there would be thousands of tutorials, many with hundreds of thousands of views, for a free (free!?) game engine that is used by dozens of AAA game companies.

I left 3d modeling in around 2007. When I got back in it last year... ...it was so much more fun, and all the impossibles were now possible.

 

See to me that Lost Soul Aside game is exactly what I'm talking about. You think thats a proper third person adventure game? I see a demo level with basic combat. To be a proper adventure game to compete with uncharted and Final Fantasy(which it looks like its copying) it needs about 10-50 unique environments. Tons of story, cut scenes. Players will want a combat system with many unique skills and animations. Great unique enemies etc etc etc.

I don't know tons about the game but they make it seem clear on google that sony is providing signifigant development assistance to bring the game to where it needs to be so that it can be released on playstation. He made a demo and got the investment of a major game studio now the real work begins.

 

Yep, try then flip turtle shell inside out
The thing is, many of given examples, requires full time commitment, or very long time commitment. Year to 3-4 years is not unusual. Not to mention, number of successful authors, came already from game industry backgrounds. Or at least with solid technical skills. But again, is not that it is impossible, yet is not that every random person can make some resealable, or at best successful game, even having access to assets. For analogy, just giving somebody notes, won't make person musician.

 

I ment more adjust which parts are seperated maybe seperate part of the mesh into separate objects etc,etc. This does not change UV maps.

To learn to become as good as triple A artists and then make triple A models for your project will add a few years to project

 

Some people break the rules, and then other people take notice. It's not bad to aspire, it's what they think about after they've started. I guess it's like 70% looking up to 10% and that's natural, some people are likely going to work very much more well than others especially alone. But like Anty said, those people probably did something creative before that and have likewise dedicated years to at the very least thinking differently. I messed with visual basic as a kid and wrote poetry and doodled then Java in HighSchool, then when I got older I started writing songs and stories. So most my life was already dedicated to making up worlds, and even then who's to say I'm more qualified than some Joe off the street? Nobody except myself.

 

you can clearly rebuild flappy bird in an hour following tutorial on youtube. but im still waiting for a build skyrim in an hour tutorial

 

You can, if you know what are you doing. Otherwise, it can take easily weeks, for someone unfamiliar.

 

Those are all good examples, and very inspiring. It IS entirely possible to pull this sort of thing off. But it is also true that all of those examples generally took their creators an incredible amount of time. All of those examples are also reminders of just how difficult game development is. All of them took multiple years to complete.

I do really like that quote. It is true that no one really knows what they're doing. We are all faking it till we make it, and throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. The only way to improve your chances of success are to simply keep trying, over and over.

 

A delusion that lasts only until your first released game perhaps. I think after that experience I quickly realized "holy sh*t this is hard". Still my favorite hobby though, and if I ever strike it rich it is #1 on my list of things to pursue.

No interest in really working for a studio, to me the point is pursuing my own ideas not someone elses. I get enough of that doing software development for a corporate already.