The " My First Game Blues"

[Charity]

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.

[Jared]

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.

[Technocrat]

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!

[Haddas]

People still make games?!

[Trumgottist]

People still make games?!

No.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

but my first game, if I really put my foot down could be done in a week.

Then do it.

[SinSin]

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 

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[LRH]

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.

[Calin Leafshade]

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

[NsMn]

I realize that - "defense" is spelled with an s!

[Kweepa]

In his defence, defence is correct. Defense is an American English corruption of defence.

[abstauber]

Time to discuss this with undertaker?

[Dualnames]

Oh, god.

[LRH]

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.

[discordance]

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.

And then there's your butchering of words containing 'ou'

YOU HAVE MUCH TO ANSWER FOR AMERICA

[LRH]

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.

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.

[m0ds]

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!

[Darius Poyer]

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.

[Dualnames]

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.