Search Unity

  1. Welcome to the Unity Forums! Please take the time to read our Code of Conduct to familiarize yourself with the forum rules and how to post constructively.

The answer to every 'Can it be done?' and 'I've lost my way' post.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Gigiwoo, Jun 3, 2013.

  1. GarBenjamin

    GarBenjamin

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,441
    Yeah definitely is work here. When I say polished here for this game I am referring to the controls, the menus, the game play, structure of the game. The speed the player and enemies move, the story tid bits, etc. All of the things that take iterations of playtesting and tweaking. Not the visual stuff.

    They really couldn't have added visual flair because then it would have taken a step toward coming across as being "just another game" like so many other games. Like if I imagine all of these objects animated that would look like the devs were taking the game seriously and wanted gamers to take it seriously which is completely the opposite of what the game is about.
     
  2. JohnnyA

    JohnnyA

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Posts:
    5,023
    This is where I don't think Super Wagon Adventure did much though, there were some really awkward control and difficulty moments in the walkthroughs I saw, and it could be that they perfectly tweaked these to be just the right amount of difficulty, or they didn't.

    The game lends itself to being unpolished: if you don't get a nice weapon for the buffalo its really hard, but who cares if players die, next time around they will get the good weapon and it wont be hard.

    Similarly with the story snippets its mostly just a literal description of what happens, sometimes its amusing, but I can't see people labouring over it.

    And all this is fine, it fits the game (as do the lo-fi graphics), but to me good does not imply polished.

    EDIT: Of course there is obviously some polish here... its consistent, nice menus, etc... I just don't think its 10:1 kind of polish.
     
    theANMATOR2b and GarBenjamin like this.
  3. sb944

    sb944

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Posts:
    40
    Yes, there is actually a real problem here, and there is nothing you can really do about it. For all the reasons above, the 12 week idea is a good one, but as mentioned very recently in this thread, the game is likely to lack polish and/or content after only 12 weeks. But by releasing it like this, aren't you realstically burning any chance of a 5 star review? And if the average rating only gets say 2.4/5, doesn't that make it more difficult if we do decide to keep building it to a proper polished game later, given a lot of people will be scared off by the rating then?
     
  4. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    To quote Rami - "A good design isn't when you can't add things anymore. A good design is when you can't take anything away anymore, without it breaking." Words of wisdom -- 4:44 rule for the win!

    Gigi
     
    zenGarden and Martin_H like this.
  5. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    Bam! That right there is the seeds of wisdom being watered. Here's to hoping your tree grows tall, has strong roots, and bears juicy fruit.

    Gigi
     
    CarterG81 likes this.
  6. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    What stops you from building a good product in 12 weeks? The core gameplay should be done in 2 weeks - the rest is polish. Plenty of time to make something cool.

    Gigi
     
  7. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    Time generally, not sure about 2D but in 3D it's difficult to make anything beyond generic in that time frame. It just ends up another boring game in an ocean of other boring games. I can't think of an example off top of my head where a team of one or two has made a 3D game in 12 weeks worth playing..

    There's a couple of issues, one being stuck in the prototype zone. Where you can't see the wood through the tree's, meaning that the prototype that should work on paper doesn't translate into real world applicable decent ideas. One of the biggest challenges is trying to have practical idea's that are beyond copy paste of real world components, even in an art sense. For e.g. I've had many cool mesh idea's in art and when you've built the rest of the scene it looks like a fish out of water, like the colour contrast / contours / shape / design / lighting / uniformity / depth just doesn't sit right. There's a lot of trial through error.

    It can take a lot of time to form proper interactions with art / AI / VFX / general atmosphere / interaction etc. The trick is not to quit before the concept organically starts to grow into an actual game (which must admit, I've done one too many times)..

    AAA / AA struggle this all the time, what seems a good idea on paper ends up being another boring generic game coated in a fancy artwork frock (on some occasions not even that). Sometimes you have to go back to the drawing board..

    There's always infintesimal exceptions of course..

    It ultimately comes down to one simple question, what are you doing this for? If it's just for your own entertainment, none of this is applicable and none of it matters. If it's for others to enjoy then you need to put the time in to avoid mediocrity and there's nothing worse than a mediocre game.

    Let's take the original Dragon Age vs. Dragon Age Inquisition, from sound / graphics / AI / animations / UI / game length statistically DAI is superior. Although as an experience it's mediocre, control mechanics were mainly button bashing, the upgrade systems generally worthless, the story wasn't engaging, the quest system repetitive and even as a massive RPG fan I struggled to get through it.

    As opposed to it's technically inferior predecessor, which is a much smaller game etc. although didn't suffer anywhere near the amount of design flaws and it's a great game. Point being, it doesn't have to be a complex game, it doesn't have to be an original game, it doesn't even need fancy graphics etc. it just can't be mediocre and trying to get a game from mediocre to good takes a lot of time.
     
    theANMATOR2b and Martin_H like this.
  8. Aiursrage2k

    Aiursrage2k

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    4,835
    Rami also spent over 2 years polishing on wasteland kings (which they prototyped in 3 days). And thats a big ass indie team. I dont think you can make enough intresting content: gameplay, enemies, levels etc within such a short time period (12 weeks) I think youd end up with a very bland game
    https://vlambeer.itch.io/wasteland-kings

    Im thinking of something like Geometry wars 3 Adventure mode, or
    Assault Android Cactus
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2016
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  9. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,278
    What's wrong with "generic"? A couple of friends of mine made a game in "a couple of months" that was earning about a grand a day last week. It was "generic" in some ways, but that in no way stopped it from being good.
     
  10. nipoco

    nipoco

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Posts:
    2,008
    Link?
     
    theANMATOR2b and MV10 like this.
  11. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    There's a fair bit of difference between generic as a whole and "generic in some ways". Which every game within a genre share's some generic components, it can't be avoided.. Generic cookie cutter games just tend to get lost in the ether with good reason..

    I'd like to see a link too..
     
    theANMATOR2b and Martin_H like this.
  12. gian-reto-alig

    gian-reto-alig

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Posts:
    756
    How long has it been on the market?

    If it makes a grand a day during its initial release spike, that is far from impressive. Also, how many guys are "a couple of friends"?

    if every guy gets 200 bucks a day for a month, that is nothing to sneeze at. But it is just about 1-2 monthly salaries. If they worked 3 months on that, its not even really "break even".


    So yeah, sure, you can get lucky with a 'generic' game and make some money. In general though, the other guys are right.
    If you are not able to make your game shine and aim above the mass of mediocricity in the market today, don't bother. Seldom worth your time.

    And a 'generic game' is the definition of mediocre. Sure, a generic game can be technically very good. Can have beatiful art, and all. But to earn that 'generic' badge, it at least must be quite similar to many that came before it... in the worst case its a copy-pasta clone.
    How many 'generic' games does the games market demand, especially when the stock art market starts adapting to meet the 'generic' needs, thus more and more 'generic' games get pushed out because they become so easy to make?
    How many military FPS, or Zombie shooter does Steam need?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2016
    theANMATOR2b, MV10 and Deleted User like this.
  13. ToshoDaimos

    ToshoDaimos

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Posts:
    678
    "Generic" is not the same as "mediocre". "Generic" means that something is not unique in its design. "Mediocre" means that something is of average quality. Most indies make unique but still mediocre games. That's because they try to stand out by being different rather than by being better (in production values).
     
  14. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,278
    This. Their game was fairly generic, but it is also very well made.

    Here, "couple" = 2.

    A few months, and yes, I'm well aware of the business realities.

    This is the point. Their game is well made, polished, addictive, of reasonable length, and commercially quite successful even though they made it in a short time span.
     
  15. ErisCaffee

    ErisCaffee

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    Posts:
    127
    Well you're making me want to play it. Don't hold back on the name now.
     
    sb944 likes this.
  16. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    Semantics, generic usually equates to "mediocre" whichever way you spin it.. If this a justification to release more shovelware then have at it, but logic dicatates the quicker / easier it is to make the game the more saturated that segment will become.

    Due to saturation it becomes "generic" and mediocre by default, as @gian-reto-alig says.. There's only so may zombie FPS games one can play before loosing interest and from a commercial dev's perspective, money..

    I never said being original doesn't equate mediocre either.. Although I never really see anything "different", it's just someone making mistakes other dev's already have in an "attempt" to be different.
     
    CarterG81 and gian-reto-alig like this.
  17. gian-reto-alig

    gian-reto-alig

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Posts:
    756
    You know what a wellmade, but generic game biggest flaw usually is?

    It is competing with too much other similar, just as or even more wellmade games already in the market.

    If your game is wellmade, but directly competes with even better games.... it is mediocre. Because the bar in the market it is competing in is just set so high.


    So yes, "Generic" =/= "Mediocre".... but when I hear generic, and its not an AAA title, I default to thinking the game will also be mediocre. Because no matter how well made an Indie military FPS is, if it is "generic", which means to me virtually indistinguishable of all the other "generic" military FPSes out there, including some very high profile AAA ones with production values hard to beat for an Indie title, it will never be more than a mediocre title compared to others that are so similar in gameplay, visual style and sound design.

    Soooo.... either your friends "generic" game is not so generic at all, having some unique gameplay element or visual styling that let it stand out... or your friends were able to compete with the AAA competition in the genre of their choice with some kind of Indie production value miracle. Or they compete in a field were only lone wolves dare to compete in.

    If neither of that is true, baring you giving us a title, Steam store page or some vids, I will just assume they produced a mediocre generic game and lucked out on finding some people ready to spend money on it. Maybe they undercut the competition in price. But a lower price does not make a mediocre game any better.

    Some youngsters might play a free snoozefest for hours because they have nothing better to do with their time (yet). For an adult, with disposable income, but very limited free time, the quality of the expierience is way more important than the price to pay for it. Which is exactly WHY Indie games tend to struggle against AAA competition irrelevant of their pricing, unless they bring something new to the table the AAA games do not dare to do (yet).
    In the Age of mad game discounts during Steam sales, buying an inferior game because of a lower price point has become somewhat out of fashion I would dare to say.



    And just to be sure we understand the same when talking about mediocre. Mediocre does not mean "a bad game"... in a market were there is so much saturation that a game getting a 75% or 7/10 rating often gets a pass by players that trust the rating, and have no other incentive like a particular brand or predecessor game that makes them buy the game nonetheless, "Mediocre" (meaning a 50% or 5/10 game) gets close to meaning "unplayable" to many people.
    But that isn't the meaning of the word.
    If there is ANYTHING that makes a "mediocre" badge even worse than a "bad game" badge, its the fact that a particularly bad game still has a defining feature to stand out of the sea of lookalikes and clones. It is so bad many might play it just to see its awefulness with their own eyes.
    A mediocre game does not even deserve to be played for that reason by the standarts of many players. Its just a waste of time.


    Now given it has been in the market for some months and still makes 1000 bucks per day for 2 people, that is a respectable figure.
    I would guess the "generic" game you fail to describe in detail is not so generic at all. But if it is, congrats to the guys squeezing out more reward from a generic Indie title than they should have reasonable expected to get from it.


    Being "better in production values" is only an option open to an Indie competing in a genre where no AAA studio has ventured yet (or has been abandoned by them some time ago).

    Trying to compete with a generic military shooter against the likes of CoD and similar AAA titles based on production values is suicide, at least if you want to make money with it.


    The fact that most games are mediocre... well, that is just a statistical truth. Only one game can take the #1 spot. Only so many games can crowd the top ranks until the ones slightly lower in these ranks become the "top of the mediocre crop", so to speak.
    Like everything, game quality will follow a natural bell curve, with only a few high flyers at the top, and only few really bad games at the bottom. Most games will crowd somewhere in the middle, the territory of the dreaded "mediocre games".
    You can fight that the hard way as an Indie, trying to increase your production values with innovative new approaches to build quality content on a shoestring budget... or you can fight it the smart way by trying to make your game so unique it is no longer in direct competition to the games from bigger studios.
    You are the bigger fish in the pond in comparison, and there are fewer fishes in the pond (even IF the pond is smaller in total)... your chances to win the game dev lottery thusly is higher, even if the Jackpot is smaller.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2016
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  18. MV10

    MV10

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Posts:
    1,889
    Surely you aren't going to just throw that out there and not give us a link?
     
    Aiursrage2k likes this.
  19. sb944

    sb944

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Posts:
    40
    We aren't trying to win someones brain here, we are trying to win their heart.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  20. gian-reto-alig

    gian-reto-alig

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Posts:
    756
    And by that you mean... what exactly?
     
  21. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,373
    Anyway, there is a hidden variable that is never talk about, flair, it's the magic sauce you cannot emulate, copy or turn into a formula, you either have it or not. Flair is what can turn a game with just colored square into a touching story, flair isn't about production values it's about being spot on. Flair is always trumping effort, and that make people who make effort really mad, it look random and without a cause. Flair is unfair.
     
    theANMATOR2b and Martin_H like this.
  22. ErisCaffee

    ErisCaffee

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    Posts:
    127
    Brains give you mad-cow disease, but hearts are rich in iron and protein.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  23. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,278
    Decision making is typically driven more by emotion than by objective or rational processes.
     
    AndrewGrayGames, Kiwasi and Martin_H like this.
  24. sb944

    sb944

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Posts:
    40
    I have failed, but my failure is not too bad, I couldn't get it working by the end of November, but I am getting very close, so just need a 1 week extension I think. 13 weeks would still be great, will report back in a week.
     
    Farelle, Martin_H and angrypenguin like this.
  25. sb944

    sb944

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Posts:
    40
    Haha, can I edit the above post, not 1 week.... 1 MONTH! To my defence, I knew end of November was important, because December is extremely busy and it was worse this year than ever. But I'm here now. I have released something, as a beta, but I've released something!

    It's Aussie Rules Grass Roots, which I figured would be a slightly different take on things rather than trying to make a fake alternate league to Australias AFL, this is supposed to simulate the small time. I had a vision in mind, kind of got there, but kind of not what I expected either. So much happened in the last few months, there were really easy wins, then there were excrutiating bugs that are still somewhat just patched over.

    Here is a link to the beta, will also look at IOS, then have a break for a bit:
    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cinchai.afl
     
    Gigiwoo and CarterG81 like this.
  26. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    I can.

    Dungeon Defenders, an incredibly popular 3D game, was made in only 4 weeks by Trendy Entertainment (an apparently horrible, nasty place to work) and it was absolutely worth playing after those 4 weeks.

    Now before you claim "Dungeon Defence isn't Dungeon Defenders!", just don't.
    I played Dungeon Defence after these 4 weeks too, and it was the same game as Dungeon Defenders.
    And it was fun.

    Dungeon Defence
    dd1-2.jpg



    Dungeon Defenders
    DD1.png

    When Dungeon Defence became Dungeon Defenders - a process that took 1 year & 8 months - it wasn't the core gameplay that changed. It was the addition of an enormous amount of content (for context, a single level in Dungeon Defenders 2 takes them a ridiculous amount of time to complete), as well as them adding in additional features, GUI redesign, and probably balance testing. Among other things. I'm sure the graphics were polished too, maybe even iterated over entirely.

    But the point is that even 3D games (as all games) don't take long to make; they take long to polish. Supposedly.
     
    neoshaman likes this.
  27. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    Although that isn't to say everyone believes (does) rapid prototyping or quick development.

    I myself must be doing something very wrong, because I've worked over 4 full work months on my project & am still setting up the gameplay. (Multiplayer alone took 25% of that development time. A full work month = four 40h work weeks).

    time so far.png

    However I have a very important concept, which is one of the biggest reasons I got into game development: I want to do things right. When I do something that will certainly be a part of the game no matter what (or if I accidentally include it as if that were true) then I work to make sure it's polished (at least somewhat) & free of bugs. If it is less vital to the game and may change, like the GUI, then I still try to document the bugs/features still needed. Plenty of testing & iteration on every game system.

    I figure that is why I am slower than most. Although I do have a hard time understanding how some people rapidly prototype games without literally creating a graphical shell by pretending to play systems that aren't actually implemented. Unless I am underestimating how rapid I will be able to prototype actual gameplay features. (Right now, all of this has been non-gameplay components. World generation & world object creation with no life, no NPC's, and gameplay only interacting with static world objects & inventory items. So no "real gameplay" yet. Which is why there isn't much to prototype quickly.)

    Are everyone's "fast prototypes" like the 4 week Dungeon Defence game? That's verging on Beta (feature complete - no/little content).

    Also, does every fun game go through tons of prototypes for gameplay, or do some just build & only change / polish / add a few features?
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2017
  28. Farelle

    Farelle

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2015
    Posts:
    504
    I would say it depends alot on the scope of your game, if you make an mmorpg with terraforming, housebuilding etc. then you probably won't prototype the whole game as such, but rather prototype single pieces of your game (something I'm also doing) and then try to fit them together in a way that is fun.
    Whenever I hear people talking about rapid prototyping, I never see them talking about games like rpgs really, cause I guess "rapid" on a larger scale game, just doesn't feel so rapid anymore :p

    And then you talk about world generation and world object generation which could be seen as it's own projects tbh.
     
  29. Master-Frog

    Master-Frog

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2015
    Posts:
    2,302
    Maybe game not done.

    But you have made some of the most epic charts ever posted here.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  30. theANMATOR2b

    theANMATOR2b

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Posts:
    7,790
    As suggested rapid iterative prototyping is working at a component level of a mechanic instead of at the entire gameplay element.
    This also reflects my experience with system design for software. We would test and iterate little parts of the system and eventually work up to testing and iterating all the parts together. Each stage of testing always calling for reviews and modifications (iteration) until it feels and works as expected (feels right).

    I like to compare it to something like a character controller and animations. We wouldnt put a complete character together with all its extra animations, cloth, physics, rag doll, entre load out of weapons, blends and special abilities, and then start testing and iterating.
    Each one of these would be tested and iterated individually, incrementally adding to each part until the character is totally complete, feels great and responsive and all 'parts' are working together without problems.
     
    Socrates and CarterG81 like this.
  31. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    Ah, I understand the perspective more now, thanks.

    I guess I didn't fully get it because it's a bit of a different perspective than my own. I see its strengths, definitely, but I also see some weaknesses (and it explains why some developers remove certain features that would have worked fine in the final build; perhaps the feature didn't work out individually on its own). It also explains why a lot of games seem to get chopped down into the simplest pieces (which in the end make them very similar to one another).

    For video games, I'm not sure I like the approach for some (or most) features. At least for some of my ideas anyway. While I try to make sure each element of the design is fun all on its own (which I agree is always a great move), all the pieces together form a unique whole that can only be tested if you have all the features there. Which once it's all together, you can test by adding/removing each feature to see how the whole changes. A lot of features are just not very good on their own, and when they're made to be good they often change quite a lot or get removed entirely. (Oh no, their intricate crafting system is now ultra-simplified! Nooo!")

    But I see the strength in saving time. The more features that end up being removed, the more time you 'wasted' putting them in the whole before play-testing the whole. I just wouldn't want to miss out on features that seem not-so-great on their own but may really complement the whole.

    I've also seen entire game designs, including some of the most core elements, completely change because the developers thought the individual features weren't all that great on their own. To the point where the game ends up betraying their original base, and then failing. (More common in my experience with MMO's, but that's mostly what I followed for almost two decades.) Although that's more along the lines of "Not staying true to the vision." more than it is chipping away at features to perfect them. (But I bet the latter is what they use to rationalize the former.)

    Likewise, I've seen games that have absolutely no design structure. Dwarf Fortress is a great example. It's a game where the developer just adds features. After deciding to implement it, no care of how it will effect the whole, a lot of trouble working through fixing the whole when the new feature messes it up, but in the end the DF community loves it. It eventually becomes a game that changes constantly with endless feature adds & gamers who enjoy seeing how they can use the ever-changing system to their advantage. I guess that would be the opposite of rapid prototyping new features. "Just add it, because I want to." which surprisingly works too.
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  32. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    edit: I hope this isn't a derail. I don't really remember the original point of the OP, or how this thread has changed over the months/years of convo.

    I also see another weakness of rapid prototyping each component independently to refine it: You may end up wasting a lot of time refining a feature that is important, but isn't very important to the whole. If your game would play/feel the same with an intricate crafting system as it would an ultra-simple one, then refining the crafting component independently before putting it in the whole could be a big waste of time if it turned out crafting isn't that big of a deal in the game.

    Probably not a great example. Perhaps a better one is a more "Fun" (complex) physics system for the player object or items. You could feel the need to make it "better" because it's too simple / not good enough, then when everything is combined you realize that despite combat, movement, NPC & world interaction, you could have gotten away with a really simple setup for the player. That really really cool feature turns out to never really get used in actual gameplay, because of all those other features.

    The less experience in gamedev, the harder it would be to really know what exactly you need going forward. So I can see rapid prototyping being a lot better for more seasoned veterans who have an insightful idea for what is needed/minimal than for clueless amateurs who may end up redesigning all the systems anyway.

    My best example I think, both in favor of rapid prototyping or against it, is Bethesda games having unique physics on every single item. So every individual Apple has its own physics component. Dump out of basket, and they scatter everywhere in a realistic way. Other games don't have this. When I think about it, I think "What a waste of devtime." However that's one of the biggest draws to Bethseda games. It's really awesome. It's immersive. And it's one of the many reasons why they haven't updated their horrible engine even though they desperately need to. Other games just don't do that; probably BECAUSE it sounds like a useless feature. Testing it in the whole, you'd find it to BE a useless feature. It has nothing to do with any other component. But if you tested it individually, maybe you'd find it to be "really awesome" and so you DON'T see it as useless. Then you keep it in even though it tests as useless when acting alongside the whole. It's just a great feature all by itself.
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  33. Steve-Tack

    Steve-Tack

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Posts:
    1,240
    I read something in a game design book about game balance, and how it's just one of the many things you have to decide if you want to have. While a lot of games (especially multiplayer games) benefit from a high degree of balance, other games can actually benefit and be fun by intentionally being unbalanced.

    So you have the Blizzard thing of constantly buffing and nerfing characters and abilities so that there's no one obvious choice that everyone converges on. It makes sense, since eventually that becomes boring.

    On the flip side, you have Skyrim, which you can actually "break" and have your character laughably overpowered. It does become boring if you just keep playing in OP mode, but it's kind of interesting that it's possible.

    Sounds like Dwarf Fortress solves the issue nicely by just constantly changing things up. I'm sure it's fun to discover how to become OP until the next patch. Actually, even Diablo III is like that to some degree. There are typically some kind of OP combinations players can discover until the next patch.
     
    CarterG81 likes this.
  34. Tusk_

    Tusk_

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Posts:
    205
    This is the first time I am using any engine or doing any kind of programming, I am just learning 2D graphic design aswell, sometimes I feel like giving up however when I go back to the Unity Manual its so well written and brilliantly covered I gain all the hope in the world once more.

    The C# programming is tough making games is so hard. Hardest thing I ever did in my life was making this metal slug clone I am on a journey on but I will not stop I am too addicted. LOL since I am OCD I am obsessive about finishing my game so I end up working on it 14 hours a day everyday now.
     
    CarterG81 likes this.
  35. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    edit: Great post btw, all around.

    hehe yea, I don't think balance is a concept DF cares about AT ALL ;)

    I honestly don't even know how much I care about balance. Even in competitive games, I really like the elements when one player is grossly overpowered compared to the others.

    Team Limits to Automatic Weapons & Snipers in Red Orchestra compared to Riflemen.
    Commanders in Natural Selection.
    Vehicles in Battlefield.
    The Tank in Left4Dead.

    I really really really really enjoy those components of games. I think I enjoy a lack of balance more than I do balance. As long as it remains competitive, I don't mind unbalanced. (It's okay for 5 guys on my team to have to take down their 1, as long as we CAN do it & we're doing well enough as a whole that our team can still win if we try hard enough.)

    And I know for a fact many gamers enjoy turning on God Mode in all kinds of singleplayer games.

    It's all very interesting... So +1 for the quote "Balance is a thing you have to decide if you want to have or not." I couldn't agree more, and really encourage people trying to Balance purposeful Unbalanced, which is much easier than Balancing everything perfectly (which literally no one seems capable of doing. Not even RIOT, who does such an incredible job balancing 134 champions almost to a T. Blizzard does well too, but IMO not as great as many believe. Paladins in MMO's have always been pretty damn OP no matter what game it is.)
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2017
  36. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    That is absolutely FANTASTIC!

    It's great to hear that despite the incredible difficult, you are sticking with it. That you are working 14 hours a day everyday, is just awesome. I did this for many many years. I eventually got burned out (semi-permanently) where I could no longer do extremely long days (I used to do 12-18 a day, everyday, for years... now I can only do 0-12 a day, most often 0-4). I only WISH I could do like you. That is just awesome. Way to go! :D

    Motivation is key. Keep it up! You sound like you're doing absolutely FANTASTIC! And if you have OCD / Obsesiveness, then it's great to finally get some positive out of it, hehe :) Use that to your advantage! Many of us will be jelly :p
     
    theANMATOR2b, Tusk_ and Martin_H like this.
  37. JohnnyA

    JohnnyA

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Posts:
    5,023
  38. Tusk_

    Tusk_

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Posts:
    205
    I started out considering making a game solely for money. Then it turned into an addiction the thing about me is I have no self control, not self control on food or anything, which is why when I was younger and I started smoking I went to smoking 2 packs a day within just 1 year. So I quit smoking after 5 years and never touched another cig since, I tried quitting video games because at times I used to play Heroes of Newerth for 16 hours a day I deleted it after 5000 hours of playtime and I made the developer ban my account at my request. Same thing happened with CS GO played for 1700 hours then luckily Steam implemented a game remove feature that permanently removes the game so I removed it.

    Started developing a metal slug clone with the aim for money alone then it went to being something about producing high quality despite being just 1 person, went from a dream of making money to an obsession to create the best looking game a solo developer ever made after I saw the work others have done in the indie community. I think now I have finally put my addictive nature to good use, wish I had done this sooner. Its as much fun as I had playing video games as I do making one which is probably a rare thing. Luckily for me my OCD and Addictive nature went into something that is pretty useful.

    For whatever reason I never have the need to take a break I could go constant all day at this. I heard others saying they need to take breaks etc
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2017
    CarterG81 and Martin_H like this.
  39. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,373
    Well then start looking at art creation too lol
     
  40. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    That is really, really, really awesome!

    I am very happy for you :)
    Such an awesome thing to hear.
     
  41. Tusk_

    Tusk_

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Posts:
    205
    not gonna lie but you sure are a jolly person. I don't think I have ever met a nice person like you lol
     
    CarterG81 likes this.
  42. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    Well thank you, ho ho ho, and I hope you have a Happy New Year!

    giphy.gif
     
    Gigiwoo, GarBenjamin and Martin_H like this.
  43. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    Congratulations on the first step of your game development journey. Take a break. Learn from your successes and failures. Then, go again. Try; improve; and repeat.

    Gigi
     
    CarterG81 and Martin_H like this.
  44. czkczm

    czkczm

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Posts:
    2
    Hi Gigi:) After reading so many awesome stories only I can do now is take the challenge - see you in 12 weeks.
     
    Gigiwoo, GarBenjamin and Martin_H like this.
  45. MidcoreStudios

    MidcoreStudios

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Posts:
    3
    Not sure if this is still being followed, but I accept, and i'll see you in 12 weeks
     
    Gigiwoo, GarBenjamin, czkczm and 2 others like this.
  46. StarlingSoftworksInteractive

    StarlingSoftworksInteractive

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2017
    Posts:
    20
    Hey Gigi, just letting you know that I accept your challenge and see you in 12 weeks
     
    Gigiwoo, czkczm and GarBenjamin like this.
  47. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    Good luck on your journeys to try, improve, repeat. See you soon :).
    Gigi
     
    czkczm and CarterG81 like this.
  48. StarlingSoftworksInteractive

    StarlingSoftworksInteractive

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2017
    Posts:
    20
    Hey guys, this like my second or third week into this challenge and the progress is going well, had a few people testing the game and gave me points that i would have never thought of. I haven't release it to Google Play yet but i planning to release it soon after it contains most of the core mechanics for feedback. it is still in Pre-Alpha stage.
     
    Gigiwoo, CarterG81 and GarBenjamin like this.
  49. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    Congrats! Keep up the good work my friend! :D This is such a fantastic challenge. @Gigiwoo is one of the best people in gamedev society. I just love that positivity :cool:
     
    Gigiwoo, theANMATOR2b and Martin_H like this.
  50. Vanyai_Pal

    Vanyai_Pal

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2016
    Posts:
    1
    Gigiwoo likes this.