How much can 1 person really do in game development?

This is my first post here so I apologize if its in the wrong section.

So I've just officially finished my first full fledged game which I made for the iOS platform (not made in unity, but cocos2d). It was a 1 man project with me doing everything from programming to art (except sound, had to hire out for that), and after countless hours, 8 months of work, and multiple considerations of bashing my head in with a hammer, I've realized that trying to be a 1 man army and create a really great quality game is hard.

So for my next game which is going to be done in Unity3d I think I am going to collaborate (and depending on if my first game is successful, just pay for the work upfront), but my question is,

How much can 1 person do in developing a game in your experience?

My goal eventually is to have some kind of job in professional game development but I haven't chosen a path (or figured out if its profitable, I make decent money right now and may never be able to make this much working in game dev.).

Can one person have his hand in all parts of development or are you asking for trouble by trying to be a jack of all trades?

 

If you're a one man army, stick to 2d development. 3d always adds a level of complexity on every project that more often than not isn't even needed to create fun gameplay.

 

Personally, I "can" do every aspect of it. Doesn't mean I "should" do every aspect though. I'm only ok-ish in the music aspect, same for 3d and animation, I'm mainly a programmer. But, that said, there are many people that do just fine on their own. To be honest, I could easily see a single person make something like battlefield 1943 on their own, especially in unity. It's not all that hard from a programming standpoint. (I already have a destructible objects script that works for things like walls, almost exactly like they have in the battlefield series) The hardest point would be the graphics, so if you have the rest done, you can easily outsource that, and fairly cheap.

I'd say it'd only take a few months to recreate something like bf 1943, as a regular person doing it as a side project. (a few hours a day) Sounds crazy, I know, but if you do it right, look at how much EA made off of bf 1943 and bc2. They are practically the same game even. Even making it a free to play game would make it amazing, and could probably make a lot of money that way. (Could even do similar to ea and sell extra maps and gametypes on top of that.) I think it's very possible for one person to do everything in game development.

^_^ Just don't let your spirits get you down.

 

from zero like me to infinity like John Carmack

 

I'm in a similar boat. Jack of all trades, master of none. I really enjoy doing many different things though. Right now I'm working on a project individually that involves web development, video production, music production, 2d graphics, 3d graphics, 3d character animation, programming, etc. I love it! Although, I know that some of those areas I'm better at than others.

I think it's difficult to be a Jack of all trades these days. Specialized teams can certainly get much more done, faster, and with better quality. If you don't have the money to hire all of those folks though, you have to make due with your own skills.

My game plan. I'll do as much as I can on my own for now, and hopefully be able to outsource more of the work, in the areas that I'm weaker, to specialized individuals in the future. I think that having at least basic knowledge in many areas of production can help me manage projects with larger groups in the future.

If you want steady work though, I'd say focus on a single skill and specialize in it.

 

I find that it's fun and useful to know something about and dabble in all areas, including programming, audio, graphics, etc. However, the longer I've worked in interactive software (15 years), the greater respect I have for the truly talented artists, designers, and programmers I've worked with. Each of those specialties has very unique skills and talents, and good people in each area will far exceed the abilities of most of us who have dabbled in it all.

If you have a lot of time and a small project, then doing it all yourself can be very satisfying and give you the maximum control. But if the project has any appreciable scope, and you are trying to ratchet up the quality in any area, then finding people who are better than you at whatever specialty is essential. But it's not much help to hire people with lower skills than yours unless you just need the work done faster or can have it done more cheaply that way.

EDIT: And I should say that Unity does facilitate doing it all in terms of basic workflow and skills needed to do game production. If any tool can help you get there by yourself, I think Unity is it. Like any other tool, it's largely limited by your skill and experience.

 

When attempting anything, timeEspected^timeExpected. "Oh yeah, won't take more than a few minutes to code" - famous last words.


As for a single man team - depends what you're doing. I'm making a zombie survival in the 1800s with procedural terrain / towns / buildings. Right now I can't think of a single thing I can't do, but you will need a lot of time.

 

That's what I do. I outsource what I'm not good at and stick to what I enjoy and am good at.

Models - generic models that would appear in any game and are not necessary to be custom, can be purchased or found free. Examples of this would possibly be street signs, some furniture, plants (you can get these from Unity's demos or Arteria)...depends on your needs. The custom ones like perhaps your own weaponry, some buildings, vehicles that may be specific to your game can be made by you (if modeling is your thing). I have some resources for commercial, if you're interested.

Scripts - If you know how to script, then don't rewrite what's already been written. There are plenty of script snippets about, so use them (if the author's permit and give credit where it is due). If you're learning, then rewriting can help the learning process.

 

Minecraft was made by 1 person. Dwarf Fortress was made by 1 person. Love (the mmo) was developed by 1 person. Gratuitous Space Battles was done by one person.

Those are the famous ones, there are loads more and they're all brilliant, granted some of them hired out and Notch just started up a studio but you get the point, it's hard work and unless you're a hermit/recluse/have terrible BO most people will want to work with a good team with complementary skills to make the end product greater than the sum of its parts.

Just saying, it's definitely doable and there are certainly benefits to working alone but it's a lot harder and will take longer.

 

Mostly its going to be your art assets soaking up all your time. Choosing a wise game style can make 3D possible. Sometimes, 3D can be quicker than 2D to develop (think stylised)

 

I would say that a one man team could get a lot done. I have spent the last seven years studying game design so I have become a jack of all trades, doing textures, modeling, coding, soundfx you name it I have tried to become proficient in it(to which I think I have gotten most aspects down well). Only thing I can't do well is write a story and create music. I hope to slowly piece together a full game project but the key is I have learned to not expect to make the next big spanning fully awesome game of the future. I am focusing now on core mechanics and basically fun factor for my first release which could be anywhere from 1 year to 5 years down the road depending on how much time I have. Also, I am not too concerned about graphics, going to go with a stylized design to give it a timeless look. Something like TF2 where the art is so original, no matter how many new shaders, bump mapping or tessellation techniques are created it will still look great. So long as you plan something that is feasible you can do, I would say anyone could use Unity and make a full game. They just have to work within their capabilities and skill-sets.

 

Well, Battlefield 1943 isn't a super top of the line game, and all of the buildings are reused over and over except for the lighthouse in the one level. Only difference is terrain, so I still stand by that it wouldn't take that long for a one person jack of all trades to do it in a few months. There really isn't all that much to the game model wise, it doesn't have advanced graphics really (nothing unity can't handle), and from a programming standpoint there is only 3 main things, movement, decals, damage, and win events. Movement is fairly simple and should only take a few hours per type (walk/run, tank, jeep, plane) so all the movement is a week or so. Guns are all the same in the programming world, just with tweaked variables. I wouldn't think a basic decal system like 1943 has (where they fade over time and disappear entirely in the distance) would be all that hard, and damage is just onTriggerEnter events attached to the bullets.

I'd say graphics would be the most time consuming thing, but if you only have the 10 or so buildings, 4 or so vehicles, and 5 or so character models per class, I would say it wouldn't take more then a couple weeks. That leaves just sound, which, is something that most people would have to outsource, unless they happen to have a bunch of guns, tanks, etc. to go recording with.

So, I do proclaim at only a few hours a day, with a semi-decent amount of skill, a jack of all trades could easily create a game exactly like 1943 in only a few months easily, if they actually worked on it. Of course, I do say all this never having attempted anything like it yet, but from what I've seen from many people with different game engines, you'd be amazed how much you can do in a little bit of time.

 

And that's the problem. Go attempt it, then come back in a few months and tell us how far you've actually gotten. There's a reason why BF1943 took an entire team of people more than a few months to create, and it's not because they weren't using Unity. You're just imagining the broad strokes and overlooking all the details, which is where probably 95% of development time actually goes.

--Eric

 

My fault, i read: "...and it's not because they were using Unity..."

 

Absolutely

I personally chosed 3D over 2D for my fighting game because I knew that :
- 2D would require as much different drawings than there are frames per second (approximately, and for a quality game)
- 2D would set the fps in stone, which would mean no performance scalability
- 2D would require a perfect perspective unification between all the assets, to avoid perception artifacts
- etc ..


I tried to do some level in 2D :

http://forum.unity3d.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5295&d=1285463078

But it took a lot of time to adjust visuals between elements.

So I took a chance to redo this level in full 3D :

http://forum.unity3d.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8317&d=1285463201

And it just took one week to create, compared to 2 in 2D (considering I wanted to produce a highly detailed environment).

Same for char animation, I once started a 2D fighting game project in my teen period, and it was so long to draw a single move, without making it choppy or unrealistic.
Plus in 3D you have much more control on your char movements, you can test things, view it, rework it in seconds by dragging a controller, etc ...

For example in these 2 kicks, I had to rework them 4 times to make them really appealing and realistic, by playing with foot controllers, body inertia, etc (picture below is 2 times before final state) :

http://forum.unity3d.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8977&d=1285463225

Doing the same amount of work in 2D would have taken ages, and tears of "oh no all this hours of work for ending wiping it again !" ..

It's interesting to see that whenever people ask me if all the game is in 3D and I say yes, 90% ask me if it wouldn't have been less work to make it 2D It seems to be a common misconception. Of course 3D is much more mathematical work (I had to code tons of custom controllers, scripts, physic simulators in cinema 4D to make it realistic), but overall the time you spend in 2D on drawing, redrawing, re-redrawing your frames over and over, in 3D you spend it in building a totally re-usable "puppet", making it more and more easy and fast to animate.

Plus the pleasure I have to draw in 2D is preserved with 3D texture work


edit : sorry, edited the big pictures to URLs, didn't want to hijack the thread.

 

Well one example of a one person game is minecraft (though I think he hired out textures and sound) - but the simpler graphic style allowed this. I know I keep trying to start projects using ZBrush and C4D (always have to buy my sounds though), and even though that pipeline works well, it's just basically impossible to make a game with everything. Probably why so many indie games have basic graphics; it's the only way to realistically get things done.

(Of course of ZBrush ever adds seamless auto-rigging for external apps, then I might have a shot lol)

 

The `Love` procedurally generated game is all done by one guy, it's pretty cool.

I think if you plan to go it alone you have to start thinking about how to be the most efficient you can be, how to `optimize yourself` and your approach and the type of game you plan to create. For example you might consider creating a procedurally generated game, or portions of it, in order to save time and produce more content.

 

I think Unity is a good choice of engine if you want to do it alone. Especially for 3D since a technical artist can pick up Unity and code a game that he probably wouldn't be able to in a lower level game dev environment. I managed to throw a fairly decent 2d in 3D platformer together in about 3 weeks having never coded before. The one stumbling block that I had trouble with was climbing ladders.

Even though I got the game up and running well, I still brought in a more experienced coder to clean up my code and optimize some areas at the end. I can see an individual producing games on their own so long as they don't get too ambitious. I probably wouldn't want to go further than a fairly ambitions arcade game more suitable for phones than fancy current gen graphics for modern desktops. Mostly down to wanting to limit myself in the rendering department. Next gen assets take too long and game dev is too risky to put too many eggs in one big basket.

 

Just a thought: Now that the Xbox 360 and PS3 are around since many years and they practically define the least common denominator, it doesn't make a lot of sense talking of next gen anymore. More as Unity isn't able to deal with what would be possible with current gen as well.

 

Doing a polished game solo is pretty tough, but really depends on your skillset.

I think 3 people is a good number to get the majority of an Indie project done, 1 Coder and 2 Artists.

I don't mind doing mine alone, but I was supposed to be working on it with a couple friends (Coder + Artist) - they started off with enthusiasm but never contributed *anything*. I have industry experience as Lead 3D Artist/TA so it'll work, but the code or graphics won't be as nice as they could have been!

Next gen AAA still requires a decent sized team (probably 5-10 minimum) due to the amount of content you need to create, within a reasonable time scale. Expectations have also risen, so all studios are having to squeeze a lot more out of the same hardware.

 

One person games are possible, but you have to select the right genre. I have worked on games with more than 100 people in the team. I would not attempt the same type of thing with 1 person.

I have just done an arcade game on my own, and plan to do a pboard game / puzzle next. I would have got others involved if finances allowed, but I am happy with the broadening of my skills caused by taking on tasks outside my normal design area.

Some games will be very art-heavy, while others code-heavy. You may want to select the game based on the skills you have. Although above all you should be doing a game you want to do. The more enthusiasm you have for the project, the more likely you are to see it through to the end.

 

I probably should have been more specific in the topic about what kind of game my next one will be, but its going to be a fairly unique 'pikmin' like RTS. I hope to keep the scope of the project fairly limited so I don't attempt something that never gets finished, and I'm a pretty poor 3d modeler/animator so I'm sure that once I build a working prototype with crappy or downloaded models I will need to get someone working with me to give the game more polish.

However while experimenting with the camera system that I will need in the game over the last day, I am realizing that my knowledge of math this complex is really limited (did pre-calc in highscool then never took math in college). Does anyone have any suggestions for books that deal with math thats related to 3d games?

 

Well what kind of camera system are you looking to complete? There are numerous tricks you can do that can simulate complex math.

Say you want a basic camera that can zoom in and out on the player and pan around the player in a circle, You can attach a camera to an invisible sphere attached to the players center. The camera would need a script to always be the radius of the sphere distance from the center. Then when you want to zoom in, you just scale the sphere smaller, and for larger you just scale it bigger. The camera script should read the spheres size and half it to get the radius and automatically update it. If you want to pan just rotate the spheres local x/y/z axis. Then all you have to worry about is using the spheres scaling property and adding degrees to x/y/z to rotate the camera. Hope that inspires some creative solutions to your problem.

 

The PC is getting better much faster than gaming platforms will. For instance, PC's now have the ability to play games, videos etc in 3D, can use motion sensors if somebody actually made one, and have increasingly better graphics. When ever the topic "next gen" comes up, it is almost always about some new super graphics card or some new game that takes advantage of that super fancy graphics card.

Basically the xbox 360 and ps3 are computers with a special operating system, and like all computers they go out of date very fast.

 

Minecraft

 

Turns out I was making it much harder than it was. Using some of the Transform functions with the vector that the camera is pointing in I was able to easily accomplish this without any math. I still feel like a lot of complex math is going to be required as I have never done a project in full 3d before.

 

@Racer Delux
It's not exactly that the PC is evolving faster. It's more that the evolutionary steps are smaller and so more reflect the current state of technology. Beside of that consoles are planned more in the long term, they also need to be affordable.

 

I think that Unity takes care of most of that complicated math for you, unless you are making an RPG with all sorts of complicated stats and level up formulas. If you have any questions please post them and I am sure you will find many of us here will be glad to help with any troubles or help with ideas or work arounds. Don't get discouraged, Unity does simplify things greatly for the user! It is the most user friendly game engine I have ever used. Also, don't be afraid to just sit down and read the docs. They are full of great information and are an easy read as well. That's how I started to learn Unity was just sitting down and reading the docs to figure out how everything worked and interacted in the program.

 

...That depends on the person in question's skill set.

Now, that said. A good way to gain team members is by making an effective prototype. Prove you're passionate, and most importantly that you get things done. Little yahoos who have an idea for, "THE BESTEST GAEM EVAR!" are a dime a dozen. Developers who create something are a bit rarer. Artists who have mastered gaming are rare. Others may or may not be expecting an artist, but everyone agrees you better at least be a developer.

I would be tempted to say my most recent project, Zombies vs. Knights is a 1-person endeavor, but the truth is that I had a ton of help. My art skills are negligible, so redcap helped with terrain tiles, and Jay Adams helped with the game's logo. I created and textured the 3D models (which was a small education in itself), turned around and wrote all the code, and made the GUI pieces, then turned around and did all the music and sound effects. I've had a small army of testers involved, from teenagers to seasoned professionals, too. I'm in the process of tidying everything up now, which includes re-keying animations and making a more effective tutorial before my planned Dec. 10-15 release window.

All that is to reword something Montolio DeBrouchee said to Drizzt Do'Urden,, and is in my opinion the ultimate verdict on your original question: "Any game developer's strength is his wisdom. You may walk alone, but you always know where friends are to be found." Think on that.

 

@taumel

Very true, if the xbox had the same components of a high end gaming computer, you would have to fork over 1 - 2k.

 

I hope the lone-wolf studio approach is viable! That's what I'm doing
For my day job I'm an animator at a game studio, so I understand the resources poured into these things. However, I also have years experience scripting programming, and have been chewing on an idea for years. The biggest thing is to manage scope, and settle in for the long haul. Having worked on shipped titles with teams as large as a couple hundred, it is hard to believe 1 person can do it all, but I know it's possible. In the end it's gonna come down to YOU...

 

I can....Wow,haha~~

 

Unity is PERFECT if you don't wanna join those big-time companies like Sony or Nintendo, and if you don't feel like banging your head against the wall when you confuse yourself trying to learn game engine code. I switched to Unity after trying Microsoft's C++ software, and I DID end up banging my head against the wall! With Unity, I've gotten the FARTHEST into developing a 3D game than I've EVER been! Easy-to-use GUI, excellent programming languages, everything! Try Unity! It is the PERFECT game engine for people who don't want to bang their heads against the wall!