So I'v been on the AGS forums now for a while (5 years give or take ) and I have still yet to make something half decent,
The problem is writing an original game, I was wondering if anyone else has been through this stage.
See Im a bit of a what I like to call "Lone Gamer" wanting to make a game by myself all the coding, art, music and puzzles but i never seem to be able to get past the initial first few days without being completely defeatist and rubbishing all my ideas, yet after all this time I still sit at my laptop threatening to create a masterpiece.
Things like Facebook and youtube tend to throw me clean off the scent of creativity.
Why cant I focus? why do I hate my own work?
God this feels like therapy now.
Still has anyone got tips on getting on with it ... or do I actually need a shrink
I feel you man. I'm also having the "my first game blues".
I would recommend joining events like MAGS and such, it really gets you motivated to work on your game.
If i could animate and code faster than I could click then id be fine, but I just get so stuck with searching for a comfortable style what looks pretty
I had a look at mags not long ago but i reckon i wouldnt finish fast enough
I had my own share of problems and mental blocks before I managed to create something I thought it is ok to show to others and worth investing time in.
For example, I've kept coming up with rough drafts of game concepts that I thought were really great (they're still waiting for me to get to them), yet I could right away estimate they were too complex and intricate for me to do them any sort of justice if they were my first time projects. Also, I was really scared for a while by the prospect of starting to code a game without having the actual game design planned in absolute detail - I was paranoid it would all fell apart during development.
For people with similar problems my advices are (in order of importance):
1) learn to compromise, to temper your ambitions, and to modify your approach if the current doesn't work out for you
2) start collaborating with someone who can be at least as passionate as you about the game you'll be doing
3) do a game for a MAGS, an OROW, or something else with a deadline (hint: it doesn't have to be the best game ever)
I feel the same way man, a BUNCH of unfinished projects. The problem with me is I get an awesome idea that I just can't develop into something a few hours long(a great premise which would work as a short game but I want to make medium to long sized games). Also I start by making a whole lot of characters which I never bother to animate other than the playable character.
I think my main problem is focusing more on the plot and the story than the graphics/code.
If you want to go for a longer, more complex story, it's a good idea to split the game into smaller, more managable parts that you can develop and release faster. That's what I did when my game story got too big to handle.
Also, for your first game either don't be too perfectionist in the parts you are less good at, or find someone who does these things for you. Otherwise you won't get anywhere. If you are not so good with programming, stick to the basic interactions and don't try to implement lots of fancy mini games. I for instance am not that good with graphics and each background takes ages. But I found a quite simple style that I'm comfortable with and that fits to the tone of the game. True, it doesn't hold a candle to many of the graphical masterpieces that are regularly released around here. But the graphics get the job done. And my game should have other strengths anyway that will hopefully offset these weaknesses.
So play to your strengths with your first game, that's the best advice I can give you. Take it with a grain of salt, since I haven't completed my first game yet. ;)
PS: Oh, and tell everyone you know that you are working on a game. That way you look like a complete dork if you don't pull through - gives you lots of extra motiviation! ;D
My advice for a first game would be "lower your expectations!". ;)
Seriously there are a few who can produce a great game first time but for many people (including me!) that's not going to happen. Therefore, from my own experience:
1. Start small. You may have a full length epic in your head but start with something small to get a feel for the whole of game creation from start to finish. You will virtually always improve from one game to the next so why waste your best ideas in your first game, which is very unlikely to be as good as any later games in many other ways? ;) Also this helps with the "first game blues", that stage in the process when you finally realise exactly how much work you're going to have to do on a longer game (surprises me every time!) and the lack of time you have to spend on it!
2. Accept it's not going to be a critically acclaimed masterpiece. It's similar to music, literature or films, there are very few people whose first finished creation is anywhere near the standard they are capable of. That doesn't mean you should just churn out complete rubbish, but you shouldn't necessarily worry about getting everything perfect for a first release.
3. Once you have started properly, mentally commit to releasing it however it turns out. No one will judge you too harshly for a first game unless they are an idiot. I started several projects over the years which I thought were all rubbish (and I wasn't wrong! ;)) and so gave up on them. When I finally did release a game it was nowhere near as good as my initial hopes, but just the fact of having released a game, the experience of the completion of the process, taught me way more than all the other 1/4 and 1/2 finished attempts previously. When I finally release another game (if I ever have the time that is!) I know it will be much better (even if not necessarily the bezt gaem evar!) than my first one, even from the rough drafts of second games I already have. And in fact I did get a few positive comments even for my first game which is very encouraging.
4. Mags/OROW/Progz' finish something could be a good plan just to get something out. You will feel much better about the whole games creation thing then!
As I say, this is just my opinion and my only released game isn't all that good, so factor that in while reading!
I hear you.
I've been around for 8 (eight) years, since I was 14 (fourteen) :), and even though I felt competent at that age I still haven't done much. Back in the day I had a lot of different ideas for games, and I never finished any of it, even the one roomed ones.
The problem is I've never gone too deep (or any sort of depth) into AGS scripting, and my enthusiasm was often choked by every day agenda.
My recommendation is to keep trying every once in a while :), you'll do it sometimes.
Currently I'm starting a new project that hopefully won't be too long and will be finished, and that is actually the main reason I'm back on these forums.
Right now, Gravity an I are gonna try a noir-styled fun-ness application. :)
Peace.
Another thing that's often mentioned but is worth reiterating: team up with someone else, especially if you're good at one thing but not so good at something else that the other person finds a breeze. That way you can concentrate on the easy stuff and leave the donkey work to the other person, except that they will think they are doing the easy stuff and you are doing the donkey work :) This is also very good for motivation and for getting a game finished, as if you feel like giving up on the game, they can help get you going again (and giving up would mean letting another person down too). Not only that but two heads are better than one for solving tricky problems like plot holes or coming up with original puzzles.
http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/art/snowflake.php
It's about writing books, but I can see how you can adapt it to game making.
I too find writing difficult. Here's what worked for me:
Write down a list of scenes, characters and puzzles that you can think up. Don't worry too much about consistency at this point. (Frasse actually started out as a collection of discarded ideas I had that didn't fit into the game I thought I was making.)
Once you have a bunch of things, you can start thinking about putting them together. It's easier to build from something than nothing. Or at least that's what I found. Now you can start making sense of things (and cut the things that don't make sense in the context of this game).
When things are starting to take shape, you can start implementing the game and put things together. This is where the fun really begins.
Quote from: paolo on Fri 21/05/2010 17:16:31
Another thing that's often mentioned but is worth reiterating: team up with someone else, especially if you're good at one thing but not so good at something else that the other person finds a breeze.
Finding someone to team up with isn't so easy, though.
Quote from: Intense Degree on Fri 21/05/2010 14:14:19
My advice for a first game would be "lower your expectations!". ;)
People often say that, so I have to add: Don't set the bar too low! Always aim for perfection, even if you know you won't be able to reach it. If you don't love your game, how can you expect anyone else to like it?
Five years? I match that and I've made NOTHING. :=
Same boat, here. All I have to show for the almost decade I've been lurking here on and off is a short movie based on a chat room conversation and a proof of concept for a minecart mini-game. Also some unfinished projects, and "valuable experience."
I find that I am okay at scripting, but that I tend to want to challenge myself, and quickly get in over my head. I also find myself getting worn out very quickly from spriting and especially animating. I have a tendency to think of overly huge, epic projects, and even when I think of something smaller, it invariably spirals out of control the longer it sits around in my head. The part of design that I am probably best at is writing, but even that gets difficult as I've tended to get more perfectionistic as time goes on (I took a creative writing course recently, which finally convinced me of the necessity of drafts and rewriting (overall, a very good thing), but it also made me care whether my stories have some sort of literary merit, so).
I'm convinced that I am perfectly capable of producing a game of at least passable quality in every area except music, which I have far too little experience with. I just get repeatedly overwhelmed, if not by my own ambition, then by the lack of structure in my planning process and the sheer volume of artwork involved. The end result is that I will get extremely motivated for a day or so--no more than a couple of weeks--and I'll get a few sprites done, or a chunk of code, and then I'll get burnt out and distracted, or more important things will come up, and I won't feel motivated to continue for some time.
Not that any of this is insurmountable, of course. Just showing solidarity with my fellow non-productives.
For a long time I've found collaboration an intriguing concept. I've tried collaborating before, on long term projects, and my experience is that people tend to get unreliable. Myself included. But while they were still going strong, those projects were a lot of fun, and easier to stay motivated on than solo projects. Until I am convinced of my own long term reliability, I don't want to work with anyone on a long term project, or involve anyone else in one of my own. With a short game, though, I think teaming with someone could be a really positive thing.
At the risk of treading a little close to recruit a team territory, I have a proposal:
What if a few of us people who haven't finished a real first game yet started from scratch on one this summer? Say mid June, when most people are out of school (at least in the US, dunno how it is other places, but we can flex for that). The goal would be to release a short to shorter-medium game of at least mostly decent quality before the end of the summer. If there is a lot of interest we could split off into groups of two to maybe four or five tops. Then we meet in a chat and brainstorm. Maybe enter MAGS or another competition, or just set our own deadline, depending on the scope of what we are trying for. Doesn't have to be a whole summer long, but that would be the absolute upper limit.
We come up with an idea that is small, but that everyone is happy with. Then we tally our strengths, weaknesses, and interests and divvy out the work (team management, coding, writing, art and animation, music, puzzle design) accordingly. If there is something nobody is good at, we find a way to work with it, or recruit someone else who can help us. Then we keep in touch. Weekly, twice weekly, bi-daily, or daily team meetings, depending on project length, and have individual team members collaborate with eachother in the interim, as needed.
Would anyone else be interested in something like this?
Even though I've only been here a little over a year, I'd join something like that!
Its a good idea Lyaer, I would probably join in with this ;D
Quote from: Lyaer on Sat 22/05/2010 00:57:00
What if a few of us people who haven't finished a real first game yet started from scratch on one this summer? Say mid June, when most people are out of school (at least in the US, dunno how it is other places, but we can flex for that). The goal would be to release a short to shorter-medium game of at least mostly decent quality before the end of the summer. If there is a lot of interest we could split off into groups of two to maybe four or five tops. Then we meet in a chat and brainstorm. Maybe enter MAGS or another competition, or just set our own deadline, depending on the scope of what we are trying for. Doesn't have to be a whole summer long, but that would be the absolute upper limit.
We come up with an idea that is small, but that everyone is happy with. Then we tally our strengths, weaknesses, and interests and divvy out the work (team management, coding, writing, art and animation, music, puzzle design) accordingly. If there is something nobody is good at, we find a way to work with it, or recruit someone else who can help us. Then we keep in touch. Weekly, twice weekly, bi-daily, or daily team meetings, depending on project length, and have individual team members collaborate with each other in the interim, as needed.
Would anyone else be interested in something like this?
This sounds very nice on paper, although I can't help but foresee it failing.
Literally everyone in a given team would have proven that they do not have the drive to see something through to the end (me included). This does not mean, of course that everyone will give up, but the chances are high that at least someone in every team will, which will wreak havoc with the rest of the team, causing delays and whatnot....
However, I think this has potential to work with smaller teams, shorter games, and shorter time-frames. Say 48-72 hours or so. This is a small enough length of time that aspects in one's real life can be accurately predicted, forces you to avoid 'epic' projects that bog us down, and puts you under enough time pressure to keep the ball rolling the whole way through the project. It is also small enough that we can have several rounds of this, one after the other.
A fast game-turnover also allows you to assess the abilities and drive of other members with less risk, and then you can have iteration with each round of the project, meaning the teams (and hopefully the games) get better and better.
Never had those. But I had the "made some games 90% sucked bad" blues. Listen SinSin, all you need to make sure about your game is that it is enjoyable. Took me long to learn that. So seriously, just focus on that. Length and other stuff are secondary factors. :D
Yeah, I have problems like - cyberpunkish game, with lots of adult themes, biotech enhancments, organ transfers, strip clubs, pantropy, blood drinking/vampirish, lots Bladerunnerish/Fifth element (redesigned an unesd design for cops from one of the BR documentaries) things about the actual world design etc. I got about 10 pages of text and sketches and some additional 3d modelling.
Then next 2 mistakes - thinking too big and starting from intro. I know it's amistake but I thoght that having something would have me thinking a bit. I needed a street shot from a crowded street food kiosk and a delivery truck(designed that one), rain and a move up of the camera to show how upon the old buildings (the enterances are old), new ultrahigh skyscrapers were built, also on the sides of some of the buildings are attached poles that hold two story trains (thought of that design as well). Camera would pan upwards or even better from the sky downwards a move in on a projection screen with news (also thought about 10-15 news that would scroll and narrate through the intro and thus be like an info dump for technologies that are used in the story (even like a tv in the apartment).
Buildings and veichles wouldn't be that hard (a lot of work, I would do them in 3d, not also cause it would be easier to animate but also cause I don't have a tablet yet and it would be much faster), problem would be people, that'll take at least like 10-20 humanoid models (started some in Makehuman, but still clothes and bones had to be inserted) with textures etc. Then I though of using the Google Sketchup thing where humans are basically cutouts but are always faced towards the camera.
And looking at this work for like a 20-30 secs of one animation just...well made me wanna throw up.
Generally I have some very basic ideas for a story, flesh out some images I'd like to input and then I havea hard time putting it together and I'm not eager to start if I don't know what I'm actually trying to do so it all lays as a bunch of pages in a notebook.
Quote from: Scarab on Sat 22/05/2010 09:56:55
This sounds very nice on paper, although I can't help but foresee it failing.
Literally everyone in a given team would have proven that they do not have the drive to see something through to the end (me included). This does not mean, of course that everyone will give up, but the chances are high that at least someone in every team will, which will wreak havoc with the rest of the team, causing delays and whatnot....
However, I think this has potential to work with smaller teams, shorter games, and shorter time-frames. Say 48-72 hours or so. This is a small enough length of time that aspects in one's real life can be accurately predicted, forces you to avoid 'epic' projects that bog us down, and puts you under enough time pressure to keep the ball rolling the whole way through the project. It is also small enough that we can have several rounds of this, one after the other.
A fast game-turnover also allows you to assess the abilities and drive of other members with less risk, and then you can have iteration with each round of the project, meaning the teams (and hopefully the games) get better and better.
Excellent points. So rather than a month-to-a-season scope (again with the impulse to make little things bigger, eheh) maybe something on the couple-days-to-a-week time scale would be more appropriate. With my own slowish work pace I would personally hesitate to join a project that lasted only two or three days (though I could probably be convinced to give it a try--it does help encourage the multiple rounds sort of thing), but I know the movie I made a few years back took me two weeks, so with a team, I don't think one week is unreasonably short at all.
It may help to outline contingencies during the planning stage to adjust for members who quit early or don't pull their weight, though we'd also want to make sure that people don't think "oh, I can quit whenever, it's cool." So as always that closeness of realism to defeatism is an issue.
An experiment like this may take a couple trials, and maybe it won't work, but even if one just team finishes a game, I'd say worth trying.
I have difficulty understanding that kind of advice. If finishing a game in a year is difficult, shouldn't it be even harder to finish one in a month?
I'm not saying it's bad advice. It's very common advice, not just here, but in pretty much any amateur game making forum, and it does obviously work for many people. I'm just not one of those people, so I (obviously) don't think it applies to everyone. To me, the answer to being unable to finish a game in a year is to let it take two years or more. Just keep at it, and eventually you'll get there.
I'm inclined to agree with you if we are talking about a game of any real length or quality. The idea though, as I see it, is to learn work for a deadline, structure projects around whatever limitations are present, set realistic goals, and get a feel for the overall shape of game design from beginning to end. The idea then is that the next time you make a game you will have a better idea of what you are doing, and thus even with a longer project, you will have a better probability of completion and a higher quality product. If you start small and work up, the theory is that a) you will get progressively better at making games, more comfortable with the process, and more disciplined when it comes to trudging through the rough patches until you are finally ready to tackle the kinds of ambitious projects you initially hoped to make or b) you will get progressively better at making games, more comfortable with the process, and more disciplined when it comes to trudging through the rough patches and eventually come to the conclusion that your original ideas were unrealistically huge and start working on high quality projects that are actually within your means. Either way, you benefit yourself and the community as a whole by releasing some great games that before were not forthcoming.
But if you can work a year on a game and make a substantial dent in the process with no significant signs of getting too burned out to continue, then you're right. Nothing wrong continuing for another year, or however long it takes you to finish. Lots of great games remain in development for a huge length of time.
I think the problem of most of the people who have posted in this thread is not so much that "I had this great idea for a game and I've been working on it steadily but it is taking longer than I thought it would" as "for whatever reason, the extent of my output before I get burned out by a project is far too small, especially when considered in the context of the scope of my ideas for the finished product." Though of course that may be projection on my part.
The current talk of projects on the days to a week scale has more to do with trusting eachother and ourselves on a group project than on the actual upper limit of time to be put into a first game.
Regarding the difficulty of long deadlines versus short ones: Short games shouldn't necessarily be harder, because the actual size of the games is being scaled to meet the deadline, and because the deadline is so short, it is somewhat easier to predict the actual amount of work that can be done in the available amount of time. Also with shorter deadlines, the probability of getting burned out midway through the process is much lower, because the end is always in sight. If you are trying to make a masterpiece, an epic, an otherwise ambitious project, or the same project you are already spending months on, though, then your right; that will be a lot harder with a shorter deadline.
Regarding the group projects: I think we should keep this mostly limited to people with some degree of experience who have none the less not completed the games that the hoped to. However my current gut feeling is that what we will end up with is a lot of passable coders and writers, but that many if not all teams will lack members with competence or speed with art and music. What do people think of the possibility of opening the event to newbies and/or veterans who have some skill in one or both of these areas? Should any feel inclined to join, that is.
Quote from: Trumgottist on Fri 21/05/2010 21:17:18
Write down a list of scenes, characters and puzzles that you can think up. Don't worry too much about consistency at this point. (Frasse actually started out as a collection of discarded ideas I had that didn't fit into the game I thought I was making.)
Once you have a bunch of things, you can start thinking about putting them together. It's easier to build from something than nothing. Or at least that's what I found. Now you can start making sense of things (and cut the things that don't make sense in the context of this game).
I think this is the best advice. Yes, I am aware while saying this that if you click on my profile you'll see the ever-condemning "I have not yet worked on any finished games" label that betrays us all, but my first game, if I really put my foot down could be done in a week.
When planning I brainstormed as Trumgottist suggested, weird elements I hadn't seen that I would like to use and explore. Then I thought about what exactly I wanted to do (which was a homage to insane object-oriented puzzles as I love them but they are going out of vogue) and introduced a restraint so it didn't go the way of my first 'full-length' project "Hell's Cafe and Accommodation" (to be made NEVER most likely) and that restraint was for the game to take place in just one room - largely for reasons of simplifying coding but also because drawing backgrounds is horribly difficult for me.
As it happens, I went on to break this restraint because as I wrote out my walkthrough of the puzzles (from which I nailed down what needed to be in each room, the characters and inventory items which I made an itemised list of) and ended up creating two more rooms, one for extra items and another for an all-dialogue 'show down' scene. To me this just demonstrates the strength of the restraint, however - other games I've made in my head have had 20 screens, multiple acts and cutscene close-ups and other unworkable things. Introducing two more rooms is such a small, manageable thing and with the restraint in mind I would only introduce them if I really, really felt I had to.
The reason it isn't finished yet? I've been distracted by coursework, I have been working on another project for a group online, and I want the finished game to have a ludicrous amount of dialogue. But as someone who's been tinkering with the engine since the days of Rob Blank and Drunk Island I feel I hit the jackpot with that formula, and if I wasn't a perfectionist with my small idea (like others in the thread I say this is no bad thing) I could probably release a version of the game this afternoon after a three hour's coding.
But, hey, I don't see any reason to rush things. ;)
I have so many stories I want to get out of my head, and so many games that never got beyond "a room and a character", because I felt that my art sucked.
So, I switched to different styles that were a bit less intensive. Once I stopped making adventures in AGS, I'm now able to get games finished within a couple of months, because all the tedious drawing is broken up by intellectual challenge of wondering how to make adventures behave like puzzle or landing games.
Of course, I intend to resume making adventures later on, but for now I'm using my non-adventures as a way to practice the art side that I need to improve on!
People still make games?!
Quotebut my first game, if I really put my foot down could be done in a week.
Then do it.
Thanks for all the replies folks (didnt expect a debate )
Gonna go along with trumgottists list of scenes idea then just tie all the loose ideas together. Had some good ones come up, now onto puzzle design ;D
I would suggest that you get your first game out of the way.
McCarthy has literally dozens of plot holes/mistakes but I learnt an awful lot from it's production.
Then in Hope I learnt more about refining the engine a little and coding a decent, bug-free game from a technical standpoint.
and then I tried to channel everything I'd learnt into Eternally Us, which I consider to be my first real game I guess.
McCarthy is not original, not particularly well drawn (although I was saved by the animator/spriter) and not particularly well coded but it was a very productive experience and I learnt alot.
I don't usually say this because I think we should aspire to be better than just "amateurs" but I suggest you really push through your first game and don't take any longer than a month (McCarthy took about 6 weeks but 2 of those were voice acting). just *finish something* and then reflect on it and aim to make your second game better.
It's far easier to improve than to make somethign awesome first time.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 26/05/2010 11:42:36
McCarthy has literally dozens of plot holes/mistakes but I learnt an awful lot from it's production.
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH DAMN IT CALIN!!!!
You did this in McCarthy ans well!!!
It's = It is!!!
I apologize for my grammar police rant. It's only because I care.
ha ha oh yea.
My defence is that I do *know* the difference.. it's just that I tend to type faster than I think.
im sorry if its offended ewe their :p
I realize that - "defense" is spelled with an s!
In his defence, defence is correct. Defense is an American English corruption of defence.
Time to discuss this with undertaker (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=40963.0)?
:P ;D
Oh, god.
Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Fri 28/05/2010 14:22:47
In his defence, defence is correct. Defense is an American English corruption of defence.
Yeah, it actually wasn't until I joined these forums that I realized (see? see that there?) that we in America have changed many words,
C-to-S, as in defense vs defence etc.
S-to-Z, as in realize vs realise etc.
I can't be one to judge but I'm happy for the 'corruptions' myself. :D
Quote from: Domithan on Fri 28/05/2010 20:38:22
Yeah, it actually wasn't until I joined these forums that I realized (see? see that there?) that we in America have changed many words,
C-to-S, as in defense vs defence etc.
S-to-Z, as in realize vs realise etc.
I can't be one to judge but I'm happy for the 'corruptions' myself. :D
And then there's your butchering of words containing 'ou'
YOU HAVE MUCH TO ANSWER FOR AMERICA
;)
Quote from: discordance on Fri 28/05/2010 20:39:30
Quote from: Domithan on Fri 28/05/2010 20:38:22
Yeah, it actually wasn't until I joined these forums that I realized (see? see that there?) that we in America have changed many words,
C-to-S, as in defense vs defence etc.
S-to-Z, as in realize vs realise etc.
I can't be one to judge but I'm happy for the 'corruptions' myself. :D
And then there's your butchering of words containing 'ou'
YOU HAVE MUCH TO ANSWER FOR AMERICA
;)
Hahah, right, but those were the ones I knew about before coming here.
Good luck Ant... my only advice for your first game would be this: Don't include animations, or at least, find a way to make them as minimal as possible. From experience this is the most time consuming (for us non-animators) and can also quite quickly lead to giving up. So finally realising that's what happens, my first "official" game doesn't feature any character animations at all. I chose to do it 1st person because it's so much easier and quicker. The one I'm working on now, which is full length, has a lot of animation which has been a real task to do - and it has certainly put me off working on it for weeks in a row. Of course, this could just be me, you may have no problems at all... Best of luck!
I don't think that there is much advise to be given except to have an idea that your exited to make. If you have that you will have an easier time doing the more demanding parts like animation.
I would like to add that if your feeling some first-game blues, just wait until that second game blues sets in, that's the one I'm currently enjoying.
Quote from: Darius Poyer on Sun 20/06/2010 13:41:11
I don't think that there is much advise to be given except to have an idea that your exited to make. If you have that you will have an easier time doing the more demanding parts like animation.
I would like to add that if your feeling some first-game blues, just wait until that second game blues sets in, that's the one I'm currently enjoying.
May I say that the worst blues are the "Making-a-single-game-for-so-long" blues.You just end up with huge amounts of time,and no sprinkle ideas. Something has come up for me, but nothing too solid. :(