Put it all in or leave it all out?

[Ghost]

I had a very long discussion with a friend a forthnight ago, and it was one of these discussions that leave you thinking, thinking, thinking.

We are both making a game. He, being a fully learned programmer who has his own little firm, uses C++ to make a sort of Diablo remake (the original diablo, not D2) with Jagged Alliance style, turn based combat system.
I, being someone who was never willing to learn a full-fledged programming language, use AGS to make an adventure game. Now we both talked about the time it takes to come up with a plot, plan a game structure, build up graphics, write dialogue and all, and while we sat there with a big mug of coffee and some lukewarm paella I realised, very surprised, that I have a lot of "wasted time" on my shedule.

The day I started to use AGS and the day I decided to make "Daemons In The Attic" are merely two weeks apart. I read about AGS on the "GIGA Games" homepage, downloaded version 2.3something and fiddled around with it for a while, then I dug up the first old game I ever made (with Clik&Play, shame on me), and that was this game about a student who got lost in a haunted house and had to puzzle her way out.

From then on I spent a lot of time learning a lot of things. Animation, for example, and creating pixel art. I am no mean artist, I mean, I can do a lot of good stuff with pencil and marker, but now I had to do it on the PC. While trying out different styles I also wrote a new story for the game, and then, when I finally had a demo put on the forums, people were very kind and tried it out and said it was actually very good.

This was a big surprise for me, and I reviewed my drafts and scripts and story versions and puzzle notes and thought, hey, if people like the demo, which doesn't really give away too much of the story and all, some thought must go into the rest of the game. Plus, as AGS became better and better, more features turned up I clearly wanted to use. When I started I was so proud to see that I could have cut scenes. Now I wonder how to implement a puzzle with colour slides that use some of the more recent AGS commands.

This was when the "dead time" started. For a few weeks or so I didn't work on the game at all. Then, when I came back to it, it looked not too good to me, and I started to refine the graphics, switched game resolution and colour depth, and thought I might as well go all the way and make DITA the damn best thing I ever made. That was almost a year ago. In this time I have done not very much that I could show someone, but I definitely made good character graphics, better rooms graphics, a nicer interface. I even got some friends together to tape some speech, but I really wasn't too happy with the result. In short, I collected stuff, and now have a lot of resources to chose from and to put together.

My friend said it often happens that inexperienced programmers wish to make "the perfect first game" and fail. He said a game can easily become something like Donnie Darkos's invisible friend "Frank": Menacing even though you know he does good deeds, frightening even though he acts friendly in his own way. "You want a game that is really perfect and earns you fame, fortune, everything", he said, "but then it looms. It makes you afraid, and you stop working at it and are very sad about it."

I disagreed on the basic term that he is a programmer who has to come up with results. I am a freelancer, and apart from the people here at the forums hardly anyone knows I AM making a game, so I can very well take all the time that I need. Who cares if I think twice about a plot turn or not at all?

My friend then said he sometimes wondered if I thought at all- in his oppinion making a solid game in short time was better because that allowed people to play this game, throw constructive criticism at you, and you could then refine your ideas in Part 2. He pointed out that this was why he liked his game system so much; it could easily be added to.

About three in the morning we quit.

But it left me wondering if I really overdid it- and this is why I put this lengthy text on the forums. Some games here are short games with very few rooms, some are very long games, and most of the stuff I see here is very good. And some games you hear announced, and follow the threads with anticipation, and then suddenly a couple of month are over without any news.
Clearly some of you must've felt this "loneliness of the long distance runner", this feeling that you're out of breath, that you demand too much of yourself, that Frank starts grinning at you with skeleton teeth and you really don't know if you'll ever finish the thing you started...
How did you deal with it, or how are you dealing with it? And is it better to let everything go into a game or leave as much as possible out? Questions over questions. And Frank still looms.

[Ali]

I recognise that feeling. I'm nearing completion on my first game. It's very short but it's been a real challenge (particluarly finding time to work on it). The main reason I found it so difficult is that, like you, I was learning to use AGS as I went along.

I intended to make a very short an simple game, hoping to avoid attempting "the perfect game" syndrome, but because I didn't really plan it and don't take naturally to programming, the process dragged on and on.

In order to finish the game I opted to cut a whole sequence that I couldn't work out how to code. This meant I'd wasted hours of pixelling for images that I'd never use. Really, though, it has streamlined the game. Better to have an enjoyable and complete game than an abandoned work of art.

As a learning exercise this been useful though, and it's put me in a position where I have just about enough knowledge to consider attempting a short game in a short space of time. I suppose planning and scheduling is the key to producing a long game without losing motivation. I agree though, that producing something short and sparky might be more fun and more rewarding.

[Helm]

I apologize in advance for the rant ahead.

When I was 16 and 17 and I found out about ags I made two short-ish (back then though they where considered more towards medium length) games in the course of one year. We were using DOS roomedit back then. The process seemed very intuitive. On my free time, I started learning ags, and made a room or two a week, some weeks nothing, last few weeks a lot. I didn't actually realize it (the idea of a deadline doesn't exist when you're 17), but the games got done, and were put out there and were not very good. But I was 17 and the planning part of making games was minimal. It wasn't so much about 'artistic vision', it was about nostalgia, emulating what you remembered as being good, it was more about enjoyment of the process, realization of the specific steps you have to go through to make a game ... all around a simpler kind of deal than most of the AGS people nowdays expect from the games they make and the games they play. These were our 'hello, ags! Let's see what you can do' games, and that's fine. I assume most people go that way before they start something 'serious' and it's a good way to test your strength. Actually seeing the kind of projects new users start with, I guess my assumption is incorrect. But anyway, seriously, when you got an intro sequence right, the fadeins/outs to go as planned, an animated sequence synching up or you got a piece of scripting to work you were all "whoa this rocks!" and nothing could stop you. When you're on this stage with AGS, or any other game making thingie, you're pumped up and depending on what else you have to do with your life, you can finish simple games relatively easy. The problem is when such a project mutates into a more serious one.


You go 'Now I will make the best ags game ever.' And you get in a mindset different from the one explained above. You start thinking like what you feel is a more 'professional' manner, start planning proper, you get people to help you etc etc and then underway (or halfway, or almost-done-way) you realize you're underequipped to make 'the best ags game ever'. Or maybe other circumstances hold you from giving it your best. The problem here is, that since you started out (or got in the trip of it even on a mutated project) with a specific premise such as this, realizing that you're set for anything else than exactly that really dampens the spirits. The game becomes a burden, it's not shaping up as it should, eventually gets cancelled or whatnot. It's happened to a lot of people. I gave up for years.


Short games on the other hand, have a good thing or two about them: if they take a relatively short time to make, you don't have time to 'outgrow' the game. By definition, usually they're simple-to-do premises that can be serviced in a small amount of time. When you're making a long game that requires years of work, after a while, the first few rooms, the graphics everything seems to look not so good, not inspiring, half-assed etc. You're outgrowing the mentality that spawned the original impulse to make the game. Then you either make that part of your brain shut up ( presumably. Never been able to do it. Because you want to finish what you start, I guess?) and get on with it, or you go back and revamp significant portions of  the game (hell. Never know where to stop or if you should stop and it happens again and again), or you give up.

Ideally you're a mature individual with a crystalized idea of a game you want to make, and are prepared to put in the work required to finish it. Some people can do this again and again. But if you get tired, maybe you should look towards smaller, more humble in scope and intent projects.

[Bernie]

I've been making games for 5 years now. I have so many unfinished projects sitting on my harddrive that it's a shame. Some of them are joint efforts with Gustav, a friend of mine. We always aimed so high that the amount of work became too much for us to handle, and we quit. We did that to 4 or 5 promising projects.

A month ago or so, I started a solo project, my smallest one ever. No 12+ hour gameplay blockbuster, no story with endless twists and turns. Only a handful levels and enemies and re-used tilesets in some levels. Kinoko's 'Release Something'-Thread gave me the final prod to give this tiny-sized project a shot. It was the first time I've actually brought something to completion. People liked it despite the fact that it was really short. It's on Underdogs now, too. Makes me happy, that.

All this probably can be condenserized into the following conclusion:

The first game, no matter how long you've been trying to make games and how well you know your coding, should be very small. If you manage to finish it, you can make a slightly bigger project next time, and so on. That's how it seems to work for me.

It seems this has worked for others as well: Gustav made a small action puzzle game, then made a bigger game called Streambolt. The Herculean Effort guys made Apprentice, and then Apprentice 2. Hamish (an ex-member of the gamedev group I'm in) made Furry, a small platformer. Then Commando, a bigger platformer. It seems people's abilities shap up quite a bit with each finished game.

My game Hero Theorem (my current project, medium size) keeps progressing decently, and it's over the 50% mark now. I cut a lot of the game out (reducing the original size by a good 40%), yet I still like what it's becoming. Despite the fact that it's not one of the super-epics I used to dream of. I'd much rather make shorter games that'll be finished for sure than super-huge epics I grow tired of. When you're past the half, the end starts coming into sight. That feels good.

Ghost, I'd suggest you make it a smaller game for now. Maybe splitting up the story into two or three games would be possible? You could make each game better than the last, and maybe also take the feedback you'll recieve to heart. Either way, good luck with your project! ^^

[fivetrickpony]

Ironically, I think the best way to complete a game is to not get too hyped up about it. You should have passion and interest in your work definitely, but if you overdo it you could make it larger than it really is, and can be really discouraging whenever you hit a rough spot.

My first game (Stranger By Night) is actually pretty small by normal standards. I didn't want to set out to create a huge epic because there was a chance that I may lose interest and not continue, so I decided to make a small game with a limited number of rooms.  Making my first fully completed game was such an enjoyable experience that I'm now having a blast making the sequel, and already it's more than twice the size of the first game (and I'm not even done yet!)

So, really, my advice is to start small. You don't have to make a 50 MB game on your first try. Even if you have a short, simple game, it can be something you can be proud of.

[Pet Terry]

Wow. Some of Helm's thoughts felt so familiar. I've been working on a rather big project for almost three years now and I have revamped the project oh so many times. I have finally realised where that leads though and I've promised myself not to try too much anymore because then I won't ever get the game done. I've settled myself to my current plan, I am not going to redo all the graphics, rewrite the plot etc. anymore.

When I discovered the Windows version of Roomedit, I started working on a small game (A Winter Night, anyone remember?). I actually got the game done, it just lacked a couple of music tracks, but other than that it was all done. And then I made a stupid move and thought "I can do better graphics than these." and started working on better graphics. And uh, then I dropped the project because it didn't interest me anymore. But I got a lot of good practice and learned lot about AGS.

I agree, shorter games are more fun to make than long epic games. I've made a couple of silly MAGS games that aren't really that good, but were fun to make and gave me more experience on music, AGS, graphics etc. After finishing those games I was eager to work on my bigger project again. I am actually planning to make another short game soon, not because I want to amaze people with a good game, but because it's fun and I like doing it.

Ghost: I must say I enjoyed your demo when you released it, I was really looking forward to finished game. Maybe you could release it in chapters or something if you think the overall project is too big, or then just make the whole thing smaller. I'll still be looking forward to it, I have seen what you can do so I trust you.

[hedgefield]

My friend said it often happens that inexperienced programmers wish to make "the perfect first game" and fail. "You want a game that is really perfect and earns you fame, fortune, everything", he said, "but then it looms. It makes you afraid, and you stop working at it and are very sad about it."

I know exactly what you mean. When I started out I was really motivated, and it had a lot to do because everything was new. But once you're working on it for a while, things turn into routine, and it could become a drag creating room after room, like Helm said.

And ofcourse you get to know the community and you see other projects, that seem much better than yours. More original, better graphics, that sort of stuff. You start to improve on your game. Sure, it's good to take a step back and look at your game critically, but if you get stressed out and get discouraged you're doing something wrong.
I have moments like those, but then I think "Hey, this is my project. I like working on it. It's my first game, and look how cool it is already. I don't care if I get critical acclaim already, I want to do what I like, and what hopefully other people will appreciate aswell." It's all part of the learning process.

And that's when small, new ideas can get me excited again, even if it's just a funny animation. Usually, when I get an idea for the gameplay, I first see if I can implement it, then if it really adds something to the game. Ambitious features sound nice, but if they don't work well they're not worth putting in (yet) IMO. Moderation is a virtue.

I guess it has a lot to do with the payoff. You want your efforts to get you something, be it a finished game you're proud of, or good reviews from fellow gamers. If you work on a long project, you have to wait for the payoff, and you get distracted. You come up with another good game idea during an idle time, and you get all excited about that. I guess that's why I'm very thankful for the OROW2 contest, otherwise Sheet probably would've never been 'finished'.
Deadlines really aggrevate me, but atleast they eventually pay off.

[Ghost]

i didn't expect so many responses, and now i see that a lot of people have experienced similar situations. It may sound strange, but in a way that really is a help- maybe because a thing can stop looking frightening after having talked about it. and i think i can use some of the tips you gave.

[2ma2]

I've said this before and by golly I'll say this again. I don't think the point of amateur development should be to simulate the expectations of a commercial market. With that, I don't mean in any way that amateur should be "crappier" but simply tak advantage of the possebility of not needing to score many buyers. It's a bit like small press; it is often shorter, less slick and has it's moments of odd occurances, but it's unique, charming in it's personal execution and often highly enjoyable.

I myself have wandered that path of experiencing the posseibilities of AGS, and creating whilst enjoying the process. Then came the big project, and I work and work to achieve gameplay beyond your wildest expectations. Only to take one break too many, and now 2 years of work is doomed dead and lie on a disk somewhere.

There's another step too. You get to a point where you start question the very creation itself. Why do I make a game about this? Sheer entertainment? What do I wish to give the player, because a game is experiencing, no? I think many can feel this without reflecting on it. Somehow, the ideas just aint good enough. Not good enough to bother anyway...

[monkey0506]

Ever since I first found that people my age were making computer games (about 3 - 4 years ago (I was 13 - 14 at the time)) I knew that I was going to make a game.  I'd always had a fascination for computers.  And I knew that the first game I made would be a tribute to the Monkey Island series.  Little did I know at the time how much work this would entail.  That year I spent looking for a good game engine.  I passed AGS over a couple of times, but something about Roger and the default GUI disturbed me.

I even went as far as to ask LucasArts what engine to use...That was fun.  That was a LONG time ago.  Eventually I came around to AGS, and I gave in.  And on 23 July 2004 I started making my project.  It will be a feature-length game, as well as my first.  Reading the above, I realize that many would say making such a game as my first game is a mistake...or it will most likely never be finished.

That's understandable as 1 year in I still have yet to produce a playable demo.  However, I've been learning AGS during this year.  From the beginning.  It was the first computer programming I had ever done, and I assure those of you who don't know, I asked my fair share of n00b questions.

I suppose that the reason I know I will finish such a large project is that I am driven.  The same force that drove me to read Herman Toothrot's journal to the monkey in The Secret of Monkey Island more than 1000 times...the same force that drove me to continue seeking the answer to getting the key to the monkey head for nigh on 10 years...that same force is driving me to make this game.  I don't care how long it takes...I'm going to finish this project.

Also, one must take into consideration the amount of time spent on any given problem.  If a programmer spends weeks on end staring at the same snippet of code wondering what is wrong with it, every idea being proved the wrong answer...he will get tired of it.  He will grow weary of his project.  Personally if I can't figure it out within a couple of days, I tend to leave it alone for a couple of days.  Let it sit on my hard drive and think about the way it did me wrong.  Then...when I can look at the problem from a fresh point of view, I often find the answer lying right in my lap.

As a general suggestion, small projects would be better to start off with.  But there are those flukes in the system who by some cranial malfunction will remain devoted to finishing a project...as long as it takes.  In a way, I have, myself created a small project.  Palette Quest I wouldn't really consider a game, but it gave some of the forum members something to do for a few minutes at least.

In any case, the main thing to keep in mind is why you are doing the project.  Less than 1%* of all (completed) games made by amateurs are designed with the hopes of being the best game ever made with that (and/or any) engine.  More than 86%* of all amateur made games begin their lives as the hobby, or the entertainment, of their creators.  61%* of completed amateur games maintain this reason for existance.  If you aren't making the game for your own personal enjoyment or betterment (I'm sure there is a better word for that but...I can't think of it), then why are you making it?  47%* of all amateur game developer's deaths tie into the realization that they quit caring about the game they have spend years producing, as far back as the beginning of the project.  These pre-mature deaths also lead to an addition 3%* of amateur game developer deaths due to mourning of lost projects (in combination with the 7%* that die from dropped projects).  So...the best thing to do if you aren't in the game development world for the love of making games is to come clean, reprioritize your life, and finish your project.  Second to this would be to come clean about your true feelings, drop the project, and then move to the southern-most Russian ghetto you can find, changing your name, age, hair color, skin color, and number of teeth (possibly even substituting other people's teeth for your own to throw off the dental records).  If you opt for #2, you may also want to acquire large amounts of radioactive materials so as to mutate your DNA.

~Cheers

*73% of all statistics in the world are made up.