The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[PATV] Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 6, Ep. 21: So You Want to be an Indie
The Cone of Uncertainty: even with the best available information , the resources required for any software project, on day one, can be over- or under-estimated by as much as a factor of 4. This uncertainty will shrink as the project goes on, but will pretty much always be there until you actually drop your project.
Personally, I've found this to be why I always budget things for "2 weeks" - which means either "2 days" or "2 months".
I'd just like to add something to the last bit about "Mechanics trump content"- a lot of indie games have been using this to their advantage, by making a grouping of levels, and then passing out level editors or modding tools, and letting the community build more content for them. For example, Shadowrun Returns. The game comes with a bare bones campaign that takes you through this futuristic world, but the real meat of the game comes from the community campaigns that you can download and play. Even bigger games, like Mount & Blade, and even massive games like Team Fortress 2, are using the community to help them make content.
I'm not keen on an internship to 'break into Art in Video Game development'. I feel like if I do work, I should be repaid. I'm just pessimistic that'd be not taken on despite working very hard.
Indie game companies seem more accessible for waged work.
One note on the distribution bit... You toss up Stardock's logo next to Desura and I believe GamersGate (the slide flashed by fast!) as Steam alternatives. Turns out Stardock isn't in the distribution business anymore as they sold Impulse to GameStop back around 2011.
A well-established indie producer (Travis Worthington from Indie Board and Cards) had this to say about Indie Development:
I have always said this, if you are kickstarting your own design you are now a publisher. And being both a designer and publisher you have to do both, understand both worlds and be really good at them.
I feel this applies to any kind of indie company - realize that creating a indie company means you have to know and be great at producing and selling your work as well as being great at designing your work. To many people ignore/underestimate the work that goes into producing and selling because they only see the design/development part of the equation.
One avenue I've noticed for the independent game developer is the ability to make custom hardware. With thinks like the Ouya, GameStick and other things like the Raspberry Pi, Dingoo, Open Pandora and GCW Zero, the market for smaller hardware producers is growing and becoming a more doable option.
This has the obvious cons of having to design and manufacture hardware which will likely be expensive thanks to low production runs. There's also the problems with open source, hence why the excitement over the Ouya didn't last long enough for the product to reach stores. Developing hardware takes time and resources away from developing games. It is a riskier proposition that can leave you with a garage filled with unsold units.
However, nothing helps your product get noticed quite like it being exclusive on your own personal hardware. Compare that to putting yet another app on the Android market. Designing for your own, specific hardware allows the game development to take full advantage of your hardware's abilities instead of having to code for a broad range of hardware. Look at some of the later Atari 2600 games that used hardware designed to play Combat and that's it. I recommend the homebrew titles Space Rocks and Pac-Man 4K. Squeezing every last ounce of ability from hardware, pushing it to the limit, is also where some of the best games come from. We don't get that anymore.
Maybe I'm a romantic, but looking at some of these indie hardware systems coming out, I can't help but think the time is ripe for something like this to elbow it's way into the market. Nintendo has been placing it's bets on gimmicks and re-using ideas that worked before, including re-releasing the same games over and over again. Mario is quite stale these days. Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft have been fighting over the military shooter market with crap like Gears of War, Halo, Call of Dookie. Most of their games have pretensions toward realism and maturity. Someone else could move in and expand the market in other directions. Such as making games that are fun to play.
A small start-up will usually not have a chance, but the industry has stagnated and is afraid to experiment. It's much like how the film industry was by the early 70's until Star Wars came along and reminded us that movies can also be fun. Video games are ripe for their own Star Wars. Something to come along and just change everything. And then the founder will make some shitty prequels and ruin everyone's childhoods.
As an indie developer, this is all so true. And I've broken a good number of those rules. I have a counter argument for this idea that you should start out making a tiny unambitious turd and hope it does ok enough to keep you afloat. I've heard A LOT of fail stories about indies who puttered out after making a series of small mediocre games. Now there are also a lot of fail stories about the "over ambitious project". But its those 1 off over ambitious magnum opus projects that anyone actually cares about. FEZ, Jamestown, Bastion, The Legend of Grimrock, and Dust an Elysian Tale are all first time games that have been well received. Now there are instances of developers who have a long history of games before their big break out such as Notch, Team Meat, Jonathan Blow, Tribute, and so forth. But no one ever cared about any of their games before their big breakout and I'm not sure any of their little games made an impact on their big projects success. With the exception of McMillen most of those guys made it big when they finally sat down and tried to make that big epic game that was such a risk.
@Deacon Cole
I'm fairly certain developing a piece of hardware takes a pretty separate skillset than making games. If someone is working on games but would rather make hardware..they'd probably just make hardware. It does open up chances for hardware indies and software indies to team up for those "exclusives", though.
@RapidKitten
But most indies shouldn't try to be making these huge Bastion-like hits, because they don't have to in order to be successful. If they make games that consistently make back the money they cost with enough for salaries and even bonuses left over, they're doing great. Maybe someday they will try for that magnum opus--but if they set their personal bar as high as the heavy hitters, they're just going to be disappointed. No one may have cared about Team Meat's games before Meat Boy, but I bet Team Meat cared, because those games gave them the money, contacts, and skills they needed to make the game everyone's heard of.
RatherDashing89: "I'm fairly certain developing a piece of hardware takes a pretty separate skillset than making games."
Indeed, but they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive skill sets. Back in the day, the hardware would be developed along with the first title to make sure the hardware could do what you need and the software was developed to be sure it would run properly on the hardware.
Problem with being exclusively a hardware designer is that video game hardware needs to last about five years to be viable in the market,... currently.
New smart phones come out every year, but those are smart phones. Gaming is, at best, a secondary function for those devices. Gaming is kind of a lower level product for electronics. Or it's more like a DVD or music player. The device should last five years before you need to buy Full Metal Jacket or the White Album again. (and this is kind of a bad comparison since movies and music are slowly but surely going all digital, which is an even bigger change in the market and industry)
I'm getting a little bit beyond the scope of this discussion. Point is, I keep seeing independent hardware popping up. Most of it runs Android, like the Ouya or was designed as an emulator device, like the GCW Zero, which runs a version of LinUX, which is what Android is. i can't help but think that something could really succeed if it offered something a bit more than playing twenty year old arcade or console games or allowed you to play Angry Birds on your massive fuck off living room TV. Something that didn't take that open source bait like Ouya did and is now waiting for a developer to make an exclusive killer app for it and hopefully not port it to regular Android right away. And hopefully something that doesn't hinge on the legally "iffy" practice of downloading ROMs.
I'm blue skying here. Maybe the Ouya will gather more speed. The GCW Zero does have some original games being developed for it, but not many. I would like to see a hardware system that is built from the ground up, including it's game library. That innovates to deal with the changing market and the evolving consumer attitude toward media. Because we're not getting that from the big 3. Nintendo bet on 3D and replicating the DS as a living room console. Sony killed the first viable gaming smartphone for the PSP mark II, essentially, and the less said about Microsoft the better.
I seem to have a handheld bias. That may be either unfortunate or the way things are going.
I may also be overstating my case, but think this is an option that few explore because it's just easier to develop for someone else's machine. It just seems to me that electronics have increased in power and come down in price where it's possible now for developers to not have to do that. It's a more viable option than it had been in the past.
Google the Meggy Jr RGB. It's an electronics kit you have to assemble yourself. It was originally designed by the guy as a project to do with his kids to show them what he does for a living. I find that extremely cool.
As someone who has wanted to make a game for years, I feel like the hardest part is settling on a realistic idea and actually getting a small team together. I'm good at programming and have even made a few engines but am absolutely trash at digital art, and I'm overly ambitious in that I want to make an amazing game immediately and have issues limiting myself to a realistic scope that is small enough to actually finish a project.
I know it's possible to make a good game alone, but it really feels like it is a lot harder than having connections to people that make up for talents you lack, which can be pretty hard to make.
Looks like we're hitting all the marks perfectly without even thinking about it. Great advice though as it really hits home and resonates with our goals.
One thing that irks me is the use of "mechanics" when you mean "mechanisms" (unless you're talking about physical interactions). I know it is common game terminology to say "game mechanics," but we should almost always be saying "game mechanisms." I'm probably one of the only people this irritates, but it is a pretty big movement to reclaim the proper use of the word in the board game scene. Long live mechanism!
Of course the audience will judge the quality of your game by how much they like you as a person, so be sure to budget in a course in public relations too.
@Stexe
Actually, the term "mechanics" comes from the "mechanics / dynamics / aesthetics framework" paper, it's the standard convention as far as I know. From where did you come up with the term "mechanisms" in the scope of video game discussion?
0
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
Rule Zero:
The public will eventually come to hate you.
Learn to hate them first.
Now Playing:
Celeste [Switch] - She'll be wrestling with inner demons when she comes...
Final Fantasy XII: The Zodiac Age [Switch] - Sit down and watch our game play itself
So, you want to be a writer? Please do this one it's a weird one to handle. I mean, I feel like this one's a lot of just doing it; having the volition, determination, and the ambition to just go fucking do it.
I sense current gaming news stupidity in your comment thar.
No, that's a blatant lie. The audience will, as a whole, usually not do that. They care about game quality period, and as long as that big ego or toxic behavior doesn't seep into the game itself most people, Jane and Joe gamer who don't really read up on things or spend too much time on Tumblr having opinions, don't care. ( Employers on the other hand....)
However, if you are the sort of person who wants to make a game but doesn't want to be in the spotlight, (maybe you can't stand it on a cellular level and maybe you're just a jerk and you're self aware enough to know to keep others away), then get a spokesman. For the love of all that is holy, stay off of Twitter. Leave the mingling to somebody else. It might be slower going, but at least you won't make a fool of yourself and hurt your career/social standing.
This episode was a little heavy on the "making money= success" aspect.
Yes that's how you become a "professional" indie.
But honestly i think that's a naive and doomed mentality to have.
Generally Indie gaming is about making something you personally want to play, and if you can do that, your a successes. and that's a hell of a lot harder than it sounds.
In that respects is unique compared to other forms of art. witch worth comes strictly from the audience and its notoriety.
Where was this episode a year ago when we were setting up an indie company?
We agree with all of this because we have learnt all these lessons the hard way.
One thing I will add to this. Don't be afraid to do work for hire as a company especially early on and if you don't have enough money to self fund. It may suck, and it may slow down the time you spend on making games, but making games at a slower rate and not having to worry as much about money sure beats starving.
I'm pretty sure the game at 4:31 is "To The Moon", a gloriously poignant story about fulfilling a dying mans wish and examining where that wish came from. Seriously, buy it, it's on Steam.
@RabidKitten You're confusing 'Simple' with 'unambitious'. He's talking about mechanics here. There are tons of simple mechanics that are not unambitious or a pile of meh. How simple are the mechanics of Missile Command?
And as for the teams that had unsuccessful projects before their big breaks, the video states that the first project will be mostly about learning. Do you think they could have made their successful projects without first learning from the mistakes of their unsuccessful ones? It is unlikely.
A great episode. Even if you're not a game developer you can still learn from this. For example, things WILL happen in life that will require more money than you have allocated. I tried to budget my income once and there was always one thing or another unexpected that cost a few hundred dollars (or more). Eventually I had to put $500 into my personal budget for emergencies.
@noreshadow Money = success if you're starting an indie games studio with the intent of having it be your full-time job. You do also have the ability to just make a game as a side-project while you have a stable income from other sources, but that's not what most people are thinking about when they say "I want to be an indie game developer"
So, about this terrible terrible community, that (a) either loves or despises games (1 or 5 star rankings) and (b) feels entitled to free triple-a-quality games, and if the game / app does anything wrong totaly bashes it to pieces.
For example: I took a week off work to make a small android game and paid $25 for a google play dev account and most of the reviews I get are like telling me off that my free app includes ads instead of being greatful that they get the stuff for free. It's not like I made money off the app. On the contrary, including the registration fee I lost some money, since I only made like $15 from the ads so far.
Excuse me, but when you said "mechanics trump content," did you actually mean "aesthetics?" When I think of mechanics, I think of games where you do a thing and it makes things happen. The jumping in Super Meat Boy, or the block-pushing in Limbo. But are the mechanics really the focus of those games? I'd argue that, no, Super Meat Boy was about wincing and laughing as your guy slides down a wall into a meat grinder. Limbo is about being alone and vulnerable in a big scary dark world. The mechanics are just sort of there. They're barebones, functional, and they only exist to push theme, narrative, and mood.
A "five minute web game that touches us deeply" usually isn't a powerhouse of mechanics. In fact, half the time, they're these arty minimalist things like "One Chance" where the mechanics are stripped down to the bare bones. The kind of games where aesthetics ARE the game... if you're lucky, maybe there's be an occasional meaningful choice to make, but clicking one of two buttons isn't really a mechanic. Aesthetics-Of-Play-- what the player imagines they are doing in the game and their emotional reasons for experiencing it-- take center stage.
There are some really solid retro action games out there, but they're not what people usually think of when they hear "indie game." I'd also argue that there are enough twin-stick shooters and tower defense games out there already that, without a solid emotional hook, YOUR next mechanics-driven game will be dead in the water.
This episode was a little heavy on the "making money= success" aspect.
Yes that's how you become a "professional" indie.
But honestly i think that's a naive and doomed mentality to have.
Generally Indie gaming is about making something you personally want to play, and if you can do that, your a successes. and that's a hell of a lot harder than it sounds.
In that respects is unique compared to other forms of art. witch worth comes strictly from the audience and its notoriety.
They're not talking about making boatloads of money. They are talking about it being a viable way to support yourself. Making a treasure is a great pursuit, but eating is your first priority. Once you get to where your game feeds you, then you can work on really making treasures.
Slightly off-topic:
I was surprised that the choice of music at the end was a Touhou remix.
Although I guess it ties in with the whole indie developed theme of the episode.
I am in the process of developing a prototype TCG so this week's episode really resonated with me. It was surprising (and still is) just how much time I spend working on things that don't involve developing the game. And I am still practically having anxiety attacks about figuring out how to market such a thing so that it gets any attention. And then there is the fact that we understand this game probably won't make much money, at least not for a while. We are planning on doing a kickstarter to offset dev costs but that's a similar marketing nightmare to the one we'll face when we try to release the game. (we are all twenty somethings who are bringing scraps to the table when it comes to money....no big or even small budgets here, more like microscopic)
Ultimately I'd say my friends and I are making the game we are because we love making games, and specifically we love the concept we are working on. I guess my question is (since scope and scale were brought up in the video) are there certain kinds of games that just don't make sense to make as a first game? (genres, styles, etc... understanding that you already mentioned not aiming for AAA games or a plethora of content) Is designing an actual (not virtual) tcg a terrible idea?
@twilightdusk Heh, that's actually what I had in mind: I'd work some job somewhere and make something on the side. It may take several years, but I'll be patient.
I was actually inspired by how Mega Man II was made: Capcom didn't want to make another Mega Man game, but the team from the first one said they'd make it in their free time without pay. So as they worked on other games for Capcom during the day, at night they made Mega Man II for fun. They eventually finished it, and the rest is history. They were indeed full-time game developers, but not to make Mega Man.
(Mega Man Legends 3 was set to be a repeat of that, but sadly, the Capcom heads of 2013 vetoed them working at night to make it.)
I disagree with rule #4 (Mechanics Trump Content). I'm sure a lot of people will think this is heresy, but not every game needs to have amazing mechanics. For example, Dear Esther. Or Thirty Flights of Loving. Or Proteus. Not that the mechanics aren't incredibly well-done and thoughtful, but those games are entirely content. Which is great, because those game are complete stars at the exact thing they set out to do, which is to present really well-polished content. Not hours of it, but just enough. Maybe the rule should be Quality over Quantity, or Focus Trumps Sprawl, or Play to Your Strengths, but I have to completely disagree with Mechanics Trump Content.
I disagree with rule #4 (Mechanics Trump Content). I'm sure a lot of people will think this is heresy, but not every game needs to have amazing mechanics. For example, Dear Esther. Or Thirty Flights of Loving. Or Proteus. Not that the mechanics aren't incredibly well-done and thoughtful, but those games are entirely content. Which is great, because those game are complete stars at the exact thing they set out to do, which is to present really well-polished content. Not hours of it, but just enough. Maybe the rule should be Quality over Quantity, or Focus Trumps Sprawl, or Play to Your Strengths, but I have to completely disagree with Mechanics Trump Content.
I was about to say something along the lines of... "definitions are getting jumbled up here," but I ~think~ you started to say what I was going to say. But your example doesn't line up with that... so what I believe Daniel meant was that the thing the player will be doing needs to be the aspect with the most time and attention given it, because whatever that thing is, it doesn't matter how long the player is doing it. Like he said, a good indie game can even be a 5 minute web game or whatever. By "content" I believe he meant "amount of stuff". By mechanics I believe he meant "the stuff you already have". So it's more important to make sure that whatever you already have, or whatever you're starting with (which is, or at least should be, your base mechanics) should take much precedence and priority over just making a bunch of stuff, like levels, with mediocre mechanics/gameplay.
Like I said, maybe that's what you meant to say, but I just wanted to clarify/say it anyway.
[PATV] Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 6, Ep. 21: So You Want to be an Indie
Posts
Personally, I've found this to be why I always budget things for "2 weeks" - which means either "2 days" or "2 months".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_of_Uncertainty
I'm not keen on an internship to 'break into Art in Video Game development'. I feel like if I do work, I should be repaid. I'm just pessimistic that'd be not taken on despite working very hard.
Indie game companies seem more accessible for waged work.
I have always said this, if you are kickstarting your own design you are now a publisher. And being both a designer and publisher you have to do both, understand both worlds and be really good at them.
I feel this applies to any kind of indie company - realize that creating a indie company means you have to know and be great at producing and selling your work as well as being great at designing your work. To many people ignore/underestimate the work that goes into producing and selling because they only see the design/development part of the equation.
@LunarPeter
This has the obvious cons of having to design and manufacture hardware which will likely be expensive thanks to low production runs. There's also the problems with open source, hence why the excitement over the Ouya didn't last long enough for the product to reach stores. Developing hardware takes time and resources away from developing games. It is a riskier proposition that can leave you with a garage filled with unsold units.
However, nothing helps your product get noticed quite like it being exclusive on your own personal hardware. Compare that to putting yet another app on the Android market. Designing for your own, specific hardware allows the game development to take full advantage of your hardware's abilities instead of having to code for a broad range of hardware. Look at some of the later Atari 2600 games that used hardware designed to play Combat and that's it. I recommend the homebrew titles Space Rocks and Pac-Man 4K. Squeezing every last ounce of ability from hardware, pushing it to the limit, is also where some of the best games come from. We don't get that anymore.
Maybe I'm a romantic, but looking at some of these indie hardware systems coming out, I can't help but think the time is ripe for something like this to elbow it's way into the market. Nintendo has been placing it's bets on gimmicks and re-using ideas that worked before, including re-releasing the same games over and over again. Mario is quite stale these days. Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft have been fighting over the military shooter market with crap like Gears of War, Halo, Call of Dookie. Most of their games have pretensions toward realism and maturity. Someone else could move in and expand the market in other directions. Such as making games that are fun to play.
A small start-up will usually not have a chance, but the industry has stagnated and is afraid to experiment. It's much like how the film industry was by the early 70's until Star Wars came along and reminded us that movies can also be fun. Video games are ripe for their own Star Wars. Something to come along and just change everything. And then the founder will make some shitty prequels and ruin everyone's childhoods.
I think that'll be awesome.
I'm fairly certain developing a piece of hardware takes a pretty separate skillset than making games. If someone is working on games but would rather make hardware..they'd probably just make hardware. It does open up chances for hardware indies and software indies to team up for those "exclusives", though.
@RapidKitten
But most indies shouldn't try to be making these huge Bastion-like hits, because they don't have to in order to be successful. If they make games that consistently make back the money they cost with enough for salaries and even bonuses left over, they're doing great. Maybe someday they will try for that magnum opus--but if they set their personal bar as high as the heavy hitters, they're just going to be disappointed. No one may have cared about Team Meat's games before Meat Boy, but I bet Team Meat cared, because those games gave them the money, contacts, and skills they needed to make the game everyone's heard of.
Indeed, but they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive skill sets. Back in the day, the hardware would be developed along with the first title to make sure the hardware could do what you need and the software was developed to be sure it would run properly on the hardware.
Problem with being exclusively a hardware designer is that video game hardware needs to last about five years to be viable in the market,... currently.
New smart phones come out every year, but those are smart phones. Gaming is, at best, a secondary function for those devices. Gaming is kind of a lower level product for electronics. Or it's more like a DVD or music player. The device should last five years before you need to buy Full Metal Jacket or the White Album again. (and this is kind of a bad comparison since movies and music are slowly but surely going all digital, which is an even bigger change in the market and industry)
I'm getting a little bit beyond the scope of this discussion. Point is, I keep seeing independent hardware popping up. Most of it runs Android, like the Ouya or was designed as an emulator device, like the GCW Zero, which runs a version of LinUX, which is what Android is. i can't help but think that something could really succeed if it offered something a bit more than playing twenty year old arcade or console games or allowed you to play Angry Birds on your massive fuck off living room TV. Something that didn't take that open source bait like Ouya did and is now waiting for a developer to make an exclusive killer app for it and hopefully not port it to regular Android right away. And hopefully something that doesn't hinge on the legally "iffy" practice of downloading ROMs.
I'm blue skying here. Maybe the Ouya will gather more speed. The GCW Zero does have some original games being developed for it, but not many. I would like to see a hardware system that is built from the ground up, including it's game library. That innovates to deal with the changing market and the evolving consumer attitude toward media. Because we're not getting that from the big 3. Nintendo bet on 3D and replicating the DS as a living room console. Sony killed the first viable gaming smartphone for the PSP mark II, essentially, and the less said about Microsoft the better.
I seem to have a handheld bias. That may be either unfortunate or the way things are going.
I may also be overstating my case, but think this is an option that few explore because it's just easier to develop for someone else's machine. It just seems to me that electronics have increased in power and come down in price where it's possible now for developers to not have to do that. It's a more viable option than it had been in the past.
Google the Meggy Jr RGB. It's an electronics kit you have to assemble yourself. It was originally designed by the guy as a project to do with his kids to show them what he does for a living. I find that extremely cool.
I know it's possible to make a good game alone, but it really feels like it is a lot harder than having connections to people that make up for talents you lack, which can be pretty hard to make.
One thing that irks me is the use of "mechanics" when you mean "mechanisms" (unless you're talking about physical interactions). I know it is common game terminology to say "game mechanics," but we should almost always be saying "game mechanisms." I'm probably one of the only people this irritates, but it is a pretty big movement to reclaim the proper use of the word in the board game scene. Long live mechanism!
Actually, the term "mechanics" comes from the "mechanics / dynamics / aesthetics framework" paper, it's the standard convention as far as I know. From where did you come up with the term "mechanisms" in the scope of video game discussion?
The public will eventually come to hate you.
Learn to hate them first.
Celeste [Switch] - She'll be wrestling with inner demons when she comes...
Final Fantasy XII: The Zodiac Age [Switch] - Sit down and watch our game play itself
I sense current gaming news stupidity in your comment thar.
No, that's a blatant lie. The audience will, as a whole, usually not do that. They care about game quality period, and as long as that big ego or toxic behavior doesn't seep into the game itself most people, Jane and Joe gamer who don't really read up on things or spend too much time on Tumblr having opinions, don't care. ( Employers on the other hand....)
However, if you are the sort of person who wants to make a game but doesn't want to be in the spotlight, (maybe you can't stand it on a cellular level and maybe you're just a jerk and you're self aware enough to know to keep others away), then get a spokesman. For the love of all that is holy, stay off of Twitter. Leave the mingling to somebody else. It might be slower going, but at least you won't make a fool of yourself and hurt your career/social standing.
Yes that's how you become a "professional" indie.
But honestly i think that's a naive and doomed mentality to have.
Generally Indie gaming is about making something you personally want to play, and if you can do that, your a successes. and that's a hell of a lot harder than it sounds.
In that respects is unique compared to other forms of art. witch worth comes strictly from the audience and its notoriety.
We agree with all of this because we have learnt all these lessons the hard way.
One thing I will add to this. Don't be afraid to do work for hire as a company especially early on and if you don't have enough money to self fund. It may suck, and it may slow down the time you spend on making games, but making games at a slower rate and not having to worry as much about money sure beats starving.
http://freebirdgames.com/ Their website too
And as for the teams that had unsuccessful projects before their big breaks, the video states that the first project will be mostly about learning. Do you think they could have made their successful projects without first learning from the mistakes of their unsuccessful ones? It is unlikely.
So, about this terrible terrible community, that (a) either loves or despises games (1 or 5 star rankings) and (b) feels entitled to free triple-a-quality games, and if the game / app does anything wrong totaly bashes it to pieces.
For example: I took a week off work to make a small android game and paid $25 for a google play dev account and most of the reviews I get are like telling me off that my free app includes ads instead of being greatful that they get the stuff for free. It's not like I made money off the app. On the contrary, including the registration fee I lost some money, since I only made like $15 from the ads so far.
A "five minute web game that touches us deeply" usually isn't a powerhouse of mechanics. In fact, half the time, they're these arty minimalist things like "One Chance" where the mechanics are stripped down to the bare bones. The kind of games where aesthetics ARE the game... if you're lucky, maybe there's be an occasional meaningful choice to make, but clicking one of two buttons isn't really a mechanic. Aesthetics-Of-Play-- what the player imagines they are doing in the game and their emotional reasons for experiencing it-- take center stage.
There are some really solid retro action games out there, but they're not what people usually think of when they hear "indie game." I'd also argue that there are enough twin-stick shooters and tower defense games out there already that, without a solid emotional hook, YOUR next mechanics-driven game will be dead in the water.
They're not talking about making boatloads of money. They are talking about it being a viable way to support yourself. Making a treasure is a great pursuit, but eating is your first priority. Once you get to where your game feeds you, then you can work on really making treasures.
I was surprised that the choice of music at the end was a Touhou remix.
Although I guess it ties in with the whole indie developed theme of the episode.
Ultimately I'd say my friends and I are making the game we are because we love making games, and specifically we love the concept we are working on. I guess my question is (since scope and scale were brought up in the video) are there certain kinds of games that just don't make sense to make as a first game? (genres, styles, etc... understanding that you already mentioned not aiming for AAA games or a plethora of content) Is designing an actual (not virtual) tcg a terrible idea?
-izzy
I forget the name of the new artist, but know that I think you're doin' a bang up job.
This one was LeeLee Scaldaferri. The other artist is Scott DeWitt, creator of Fanboys.
But yes, they both doin' a bang up job.
I was actually inspired by how Mega Man II was made: Capcom didn't want to make another Mega Man game, but the team from the first one said they'd make it in their free time without pay. So as they worked on other games for Capcom during the day, at night they made Mega Man II for fun. They eventually finished it, and the rest is history. They were indeed full-time game developers, but not to make Mega Man.
(Mega Man Legends 3 was set to be a repeat of that, but sadly, the Capcom heads of 2013 vetoed them working at night to make it.)
I was about to say something along the lines of... "definitions are getting jumbled up here," but I ~think~ you started to say what I was going to say. But your example doesn't line up with that... so what I believe Daniel meant was that the thing the player will be doing needs to be the aspect with the most time and attention given it, because whatever that thing is, it doesn't matter how long the player is doing it. Like he said, a good indie game can even be a 5 minute web game or whatever. By "content" I believe he meant "amount of stuff". By mechanics I believe he meant "the stuff you already have". So it's more important to make sure that whatever you already have, or whatever you're starting with (which is, or at least should be, your base mechanics) should take much precedence and priority over just making a bunch of stuff, like levels, with mediocre mechanics/gameplay.
Like I said, maybe that's what you meant to say, but I just wanted to clarify/say it anyway.
Touhou = Embodiment of Indie Devil