Discussion Solo developer and scale

I always heard that any solo dev should scale down own project scope and make some simple games not bigger than some generic platformie or something not bigger than "Snake" phone game.
Here we have "Manor Lords" and "Banished" two city builder looked like made by some bigger studio while only one person studio create them, from what i know those devs are from Poland.
Hmm, hard working than westerner or scale down the scope is the myth?

 

THe only way to know what you're capable of is to try a few projects and see.

 

A solo dev can certainly make something bigger than Snake.

That advice is common as a starting point. It isn"t saying to never make bigger things, it's saying to do small things first. Once you've made something small you can make things which are increasingly more ambitious.

You can also jump straight to the more ambitious stuff. It occasionally works out, but usually not. Until you've done things once you've no idea what to expect. Small projects won't teach you everything you need to know about big ones, but they're a great start.

 

Those advice come from people who have seen too many beginners come to the forum and say "I wanna make an MMORPG!".

What size of a project you should pursue depends on two main things if you ask me:

- Experience:
With experience you simply get more done in the same time. You chose the right architecture for a feature more often, thus avoiding redos and ideally you have also learned to write better maintainable code so that extending features and debugging later becomes easier/faster.

- Patience/Motivation:
Are you genuinely capable on working on one dream project for years? That's what more advanced single-dev games take (example: Geometry Dash by Robtop or Undertale by TobyFox)
Have you worked this long on something before? I like to compare that with learning to play a new instrument really well.
Also little tip for a semi-beginner: Take your estimated development time and quadrupel it!

Another thing to think of: One can do a large, feature rich game (like a Jump'n shoot with 20 weapons, various character motion sets and hundreds of levels) but also a smaller and more sophisciated game.
People call that "polished". That means impactful VFX and SFX, well thought story, balanced, perfect mechanics (getting a jump'n run to never feel janky is not as easy as it sounds), smooth and interesting menus, various hidden features that do not actually contribute to gameplay (e.g. I loved the long-term idle animations in Keen Commander).
That again depends on your personal preference and how much of a perfectionist you are.
A benefit of that polishing route is that if you get fully bored of the project, you can relatively soon end it and it and publish in a less polished way (unlike a feature-rich game which may be unplayable without most of its features done).

 

City Builders would require a pool of constructor components and various algorithms for constructing architectures and civil engineering features for the pool of objects. So though actually capable of massive complexity the underlying construction components amounts to a pool of meshes/prefabs that may or may not have procedural construction rules for it's type on it. A mapping component that has rules for laying out a city and an architecture component with rules for constructing a building of this or that type. So if you grok this simplicity and understand that the more pieces you have that can fit together with each other the more the combinations can exponentially give rise to complexity given a set of rules. Hence this type of project cn be well suited for a solo dev.

 

make a simple game then you'll know if it's too easy for you or not.

 

Dear Mr. Pasterski, Just a 2 cents. TL DR: Try. Only you will know, there is a high change (90%+) that it fails if making a bigger game (over years...). But, at least, if it does fail, you tried (once in your life -- despite all telling you not to), it's seen a crazy/foolish; yet, sometimes, you need a little bit of that; or else, not much would happen. It's still better/safer to go the safe way; one-step-at-a-time; with small (incremental gains) games to improve as dev and hopefully, much later, making a (more) solid product that, should?will? sell..

I too felt that way and was wondering; you hear it so often(ly) : ''start small...build..big'' and ''you have to walk before (learning to) run''; it's not possible to run before, even, (being capable of) walking. But, that's the thing...people learn at different speeds...quicker/slower. And thus, it's why You might be capable of doing it; while another might not; in the same time frame I mean. Some devs spend (an awful/too much) lot of time in specific parts of deving (specializing, to become specialist (in my case, am not specialist...just generalist, dev; ''jack of all trades...but master of none'' -- you could spend your LIFE in entirey to become good At Everything of game dev...a Masters, PhD...in everything and you would be 85 years old and not done...); oftenly, in very, stocastic way 1,2,3,4...like baby steps (one (baby step) at a time). And, it does work, they improve, know more and are ontheir way to make a bigger game. But, small games (of which I have absolutely nothing against...to practive/learn) generally are great for improving all these 'trades/tasks' of deving (art, music, code, designing, marketing, etc..). But, small games generally don't become 'big' (big hits -- financially speaking); but, they can be made quicker (small); so you can make many small/micro-games faster -- except, don't expect anything out of them -- but learning. Because, they don'T sell (if ever, if they do, it will be mcdonald's wage or less/ramen level). So then, later, you are more 'ready/complete(d)' to make 'that' big(ger) game..you dreamed of.
Like those examples you gave. Now this is, generally, what people give as advice (and it'S quite good, it does make sense and protects you from a much/hasty failure down the line 'blindly jumping in this and OverScoping So Much' if you do start a big project - from the very start with less knowledge). If we overscope and do Feature Creep...(I suffer of this) we end up never finishing the project (years later); and that's worse, then Finishing Something, one day.

I think it's a basically a gamble...and you will have limits (whether liked or not); so we kind of have to live with them/make do/make 'around them'...or find ways to circumvent them. I think the largest quality of game dev is problem solving...cause tons of problems; if you have a solution (no matter if very crude) -- despite your lacking/limits - in the end, it's what matters (more)...than you knowing Perfectly how to make this game, in (its) every facettes.

As another user said (BIGTIMEMASTER), in the end, the most important is finishin the game, making it 'happen'..that'S hard, many devs never finish their game/it just 'hangs'...unfinished project; and that's what it is 'experimental project'..risky. Who would risk in such 'experiment' over such long time (years). It's major gamble.

Bigger game, bigger risk...but also, if it -does- succeed, bigger return. Because, in general, the market is more towards bigger-sized/large-scoped games; that does not mean a small(er) indie game can't hit big..just look at Stardew Valley, Braid, Bright Memory, Return of Obra Dinn, etc..etc...there are some (but still very few in the grand scheme of thinhs...there are 15,000 other solo devs whom their game...see almost no return/success). Oftenly, because the scope is just too small and the polish/quality is not there; it's all about the Execution of the game.
You can make a very boring/generic-like game....that we ahve seen before...but it will sell Strongly; because it'S familiar and the Execution is Stellar.

I'm not saying do that, I'm saying it demonstrates, like AAA games, that you don't need to reinvent the wheel or find something ULTRA original or unique..you NEED to execute it Well. Very well. And that's' the polish/scope/quality of it.
People are so Spoiled today, they expect the Moon and AAA quality - right off of the bat...for FREE; F2P games...
So yeah, that does not look good for you if your game looks ultra basic and put in 48 hour 'game jam'...weekedn.
And, just the look of it, makes people tihnk : ''Ok...this game is not worth my money...there are 1 milion games asking me my money...I can't....I will go to games that are worth my money''. I.e. the big budget productions (AAA) that give this polish. Now, it's not just about, polish...it's why indie games find success; because they Innovate and AAAs can't innnovate too much (too risky/too much money on the line 'For risking'; hence, safe product, safe ROI return).

It's all risk. Business risk (resources/capabilities vs risk(s) taking). And, it's also, why game dev tell you to make a small game --- to 'fail fast'; in order to mitigate the 'damage/Loss' (of resources/time/money..etc) from making it; a smaller game, means less resources need, means less loss; for, there is less (resources/gambled/risked) to begin with.

In my point of view (2 cents), you want to make a dream game, bigger, sooner, even your first, nothing stops you. You will have to learn/grind through it...because as others said, a bigger game is a different nut to crack...than a smaller one. And it's why, many devs make Many small games...but sometimes it can stop there/stagnate to that...I saw this...I'm like ''When will they take it upone themselves to make That bigger game?''...it seems it could take Years because they take that Big step. IT's understandable we want to make sure - we are Really ready - because
Big Gamble/Big Risk(s)/Big Possibility of Resources Loss (when your dream game...failing down the line/years later).

Thanks for reading,
Just a 2 cents,

PS: Hesitation is normal, we want to make the right move...one day, we have to take that move/make that happen, and all the risks it might incur; or else, you won't make that bigger game. With that said, it still better Overall to start small and build (up) knowledge/training in it....but don't do this forever. At some point, do it. Because, lief is too short.

 

It's worth noting that Banished was also in development for about 4 years and the person who made it had been coding for decades at that point.

 

More complex, or successful games are almost never made by some random after schooler dev.
Either it is Mincraft, Flappy Bird, Dwarf Fortress, or Manor Lords, or From the Depths (at least first few years of deving).
One in common thing across such developers, are commitment, years of experience in either game development, software development in the industry, or mix of such. That also comes with solid background in various fields. From social, via technical, to engineering.

Hence that is why, new and young devs as discussed here, are usually advised to start small.
It is about to proving them self, not to us, if they can make something. Really anything. Anything at all, before even committing to the next step of their dev time.

 

Lots of people mention the required experience to pull it off which is on point but most of the known solo devs with relatively big games have also sacrificed a lot to achieve the success they have. Scale comes at the cost of time and there's only so many hours in a day.

People like ConcernedApe put everything they had in their games, all their time at the cost of relationships, mental health and earning potentional for a small chance that it will pay off in the end. And for a very tiny percentage of developers it does pay off, the rest of the 90-95+% developers just quit gamedev, work for other people or transition into hobby dev when real life knocks at the door.

Going for some magnum opus multiyear project as your first game is just about the worst thing you can do. No one does Manor Lords or Banished without experience and without sacrifice, albeit systematic sandboxes of this kind likely have shorter dev cycles than most other types of games solo devs are known to pursue. Perhaps some parallels can be drawn with roguelites which is another solo dev friendly genre.

 

Definitely start small and release small games to get more experience. There are lots of things new developers don't know that they don't know. Every small game you release will help fill in those gaps. You will become better at making, releasing, and promoting games. With each success, aim slightly larger with the next project. Eventually, larger projects will be more possible.

An experienced solo game developer can make an amazing game. But don't expect to do that on your very first try. Success is nearly never an overnight success. Success is usually the result of many years of intense practice.