|
|
Post by keldryn on Aug 3, 2017 17:52:21 GMT
I think that the key for individual or small-team indies is to keep the scope of the game focused and limited (in comparison to an AAA game).
The content creation is what will ultimately derail your game development if you allow the scope to get out of hand. It's better to have a 10 hour game where everything is polished and thoughtfully designed than be able to boast of having 50 or 100 hours of play time where most of that time is a dull and repetitive experience. Sure, I can generate a large terrain in Gaia that looks pretty spectacular, and it only takes me a couple of hours. But what looked spectacular the first 5 minutes I wandered around it in the game engine doesn't hold up to a more thorough examination.
I recall one developer telling me that his world designer said that he should be able to build the 20 cities for their open-world RPG in about a month, because he could use Ocatave3D to build them. He (the developer I was talking to) also figured that he could create the whole game world map using Gaia within that same period of time. Then they'd be mostly done with world creation and could get on to working on the gameplay. I tried really hard not to laugh at him.
Many new indie devs ask me for help or advice (which is weird to me, as I don't have a huge amount of industry experience), and the first thing I tell them is to reduce their scope. The reduce it again. Probably reduce it a couple more times after that, too. It's pretty hard to go wrong in reducing the scope of your project (as an individual or small team indie).
|
|
|
|
Post by shadex on Aug 18, 2017 7:43:14 GMT
I think that the key for individual or small-team indies is to keep the scope of the game focused and limited (in comparison to an AAA game). The content creation is what will ultimately derail your game development if you allow the scope to get out of hand. It's better to have a 10 hour game where everything is polished and thoughtfully designed than be able to boast of having 50 or 100 hours of play time where most of that time is a dull and repetitive experience. Sure, I can generate a large terrain in Gaia that looks pretty spectacular, and it only takes me a couple of hours. But what looked spectacular the first 5 minutes I wandered around it in the game engine doesn't hold up to a more thorough examination. I recall one developer telling me that his world designer said that he should be able to build the 20 cities for their open-world RPG in about a month, because he could use Ocatave3D to build them. He (the developer I was talking to) also figured that he could create the whole game world map using Gaia within that same period of time. Then they'd be mostly done with world creation and could get on to working on the gameplay. I tried really hard not to laugh at him. Many new indie devs ask me for help or advice (which is weird to me, as I don't have a huge amount of industry experience), and the first thing I tell them is to reduce their scope. The reduce it again. Probably reduce it a couple more times after that, too. It's pretty hard to go wrong in reducing the scope of your project (as an individual or small team indie). While i agree that reducing scope is typically wise advice, I don't think content creation is what causes failure. If that was the case, you could very easily buy your way out. We all heard of the teams that spend 10k on assets and never release a game, but we often hear the guy's who have a simple concept, make a great demo, and still never finish, even when the scope seems small. I think what causes failure more often then not, is a complete lack of understanding or disregard for the post demo, post proof of concept stage. For instance, i could buy an arena, some animations, particle effects, and 3d models of swords all ready to go, and all great quality. So i put together my demo. When we get to that point, we all say "ok i got a game now". At this point most people had thought at this point they would be ready to go on steam or there game is getting very close. Thing is, your running at 20fps, the animations feel wonky. the AI doesn't always respond, and there are a few nasty bugs that shut down gameplay. Thing is, IMHO this is where 1 of 3 things happen. They release the game on steam, it gets low to zero sales because no one has advertised it, and lets be honest, it's crap. The second is they quit, where the third is the idea that if they just finish fixing the animations and optimize they should be good to go. Except when they do that, though they get closer, it still doesn't feel right. So now you feel like your spinning your wheels, so people start getting frustrated and some quit. All this time they keep thinking if they refine this one portion, everything will be good to go. Then they realize that they have a crappy UI, AI, quests don't always work, play testers start finding more bugs, and what they thought was a well oiled game that was ready to be released 6 months ago, will take another 4 months to fix the bugs, UI, AI and quest systems. Now they are a year past deadline and feel the project is a pit. Those that made games before know the demo/proof of concept is like 5-10% of the work. Those that don't think it's 50% of the work. If that team realized at the demo stage that there would be another year of work, they wouldn't feel it's hopeless. I say this, because i think people hear the wrong thing with the "reduce scope" line. They think less models, less playable area, a few less features will suddenly will make the game achievable. Thing is, to add all those things they wanted may of tacked on a month or 2 at most, and it's knowledge they already have. Most of the small things like scene loading system, optimization, render paths, proper animation transitions, bug fixing, code stability and optimization, scene optimization, occlusion, UI layout , Splash screens, Decent dialog, and everything else that either is missing or has a place holder, are often missing or having place holders because they lack the knowledge or ability to make them in a timely fashion. This is why you get artisticly beautiful games that feel like crap and crash, and super stable games that feel good and have tons of cool stuff, but are ugly and look very much like they came from the 1990's. You have to first understand the scope before you can reduce it. |
|
|
|
Post by G 4 greatness on Aug 18, 2017 16:43:09 GMT
HYPE!!!
some pyschological concept that indies should learn. no-mans sky was hyped up so much that a lotta pips wanted it. one should create hype for a least 8 months before release. make your project a secret that you reveal in stages up to the final release . hook your audience...thats means what is your target audience. Dont make a game for everyone target a specific community.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2017 11:52:34 GMT
I personally have not released a game yet, so if I'm saying anything wrong (in a advice kind of way), please let me know  • I think as long as you have a good scope (big or small), and great marketing, and make sure to work on your game, you'll do fine. • When your making a certain genre, make UI and possibly controls as easy as possible to understand. People just tend to leave in a complicated game (don't know what to do, UI too complicated). • Don't make knock-off games, it's real easy to now a days, you won't get anywhere profit wise imo. • make sure your game is stable before release. It really helps that consumers don't report bugs immediately after release. • don't stop, especially if you already started hype/marketing. Think of Unity as your different type of paintbrushes, the canvas as your game, and th consumers as who you are giving the painting too. Make it as much fun for you and the consumers as much as possible Cheers!! NuclearRasberry |
|
