/agdg/ - Amateur Game Development General

>>24842

I think one shouldn't really go for projects of epic sizes specially if they really need to make money off of it.

If I were a sole dev, I'd opt for smaller projects that I can do on my own.

Programming and sound would make the bulk of my time, while I would probably do reskins of free 3d models and 2d pixel arts.

story will have to get the minimum attention, so RPGs would be a no go, unless you can think of a creative way to simply make it all seem 'muh lore'.

I advice for any dev to go for big projects when they have some people working with/under them. For now, focus on making stable money that you can use to fund your bigger projects

>>24842

Learn 1 maybe 2 things

Programming and 3D modelling is my choice

Then outsource for the rest, get a job, a house share or live in your parents basement like the NEET you are to save money. realise what your limits are then build the game around those, can't make photorealistic character models? Your game's now an anime style game problem solved. Shit at animation? Make a game where everythings represented abstractly and put in deep quotes.

As a solo dev you need to be willing to compromise on what you dream about your game in order to realize it. You're going to have to get music or textures or models online, you may even have to commission them but at the end of the day even if the game ships and doesn't do well you'll now be eligible to apply for jobs with actual game companies because you'll have actually shipped something. Even if your first game flopped you'll be able to build up the resources and connections to try again, maybe as part of a team, maybe alone again. As they say, Mozarts first ever concerto was probably shit so why should your first game be any different. Even if the game itself wasn't any good, perhaps your 3D modelling or programming or music was good enough you can now work towards selling that to other aspiring devs.

Basically even if you flop as long as you push through the pain you''ll have come out as a grown person and might even have a new marketable skill.

Use creature for 2d anims, no 3d, 2d physics like box2dxna. Never write big components like a scripting engine. Then it's possible. Creativity is fucking hard, that's what makes it so worthwhile. Apart from that, avoid feature creep and make your 10 shitty first games.

>literally telling the computer what to do

>oh no I can't move a few vertices!

>worrying about shit that has nothing to do with vidya

>not just looping a catchy jingle you made on your keyboard or hiring a musician to do that shit for you

>wahh I'm a hipstershit who just wants to make shallow idea guy-tier games and have hipsters eat it up

>not testing your game as you make it

>not paying a few bux to have a banner of your game show up on a porn site

Look, OP, making anything is going to be hard, period. But when you start overplaying it like this and start complaining about the essentials that really just boil down to surface level, you're never going to get anything done. Which is why you'll always be an autistic NEET idea guy, and if you ever get a girlfriend you'll be cucked by a nigger for being so incompetent.

>>24842

>Anyone else thinks theres way too much stuff involved for a single developer to create a game?

Yes, which is why I'm focusing on being an artfag for now. Even my oldest, most fond games of yesteryear were still larger than a 1-man dev team. :/

Don't set yourself up for failure, OP. Focus on what you can do and enjoy with the limited time you've got.

I think learning art is the most difficult part.

You can learn programming in a very short time, and music in a reasonable time, but art takes a damn long time to get good at.

If you were an artist before you started, I think you'll have a certain kind of advantage as a 1MA.

Also no, I don't think there's "too much work" unless you're making some kind of fancy 3D game.

>>24842

>programming/scripting

Git gud in Unity or Unreal, take your pick. It's just a matter of opening up the program every other day or participating in a gamejam.

>art (3d models or 2d)

Turbosquid and Asset Store are your friends. You only need custom stuff for the main characters. Mixamo is nice, or you can hire someone straight out of Uni.

Don't know much about 2D, especially sprite artists. But for anime art, VNs are now a dime a dozen -- just look at the credits and try to hire the same artists.

>story

I thought writefags were the majority on chans wtf.

>sound/music

There's a glut of cheap musicians if you ask on any random gamedev forum, they're the first to want to work with you. Also the first to finish their task.

>game design

Participate in gamejams

>game testing

Who does that anymore. Release as an alpha but don't tell anyone.

>marketing

Just call your game "White Supremacist Simulator 2016" and rake in the shekels.

Being an indie dev is complicated, but you should get off your ass and master, at least, one of those skills. If your rough product is good, you may start a Kickstarter to outsource the rest.

>Master of Programming

Self-explanatory. You can release a demo with programmer/cheap art and people may pay for its development. With a few thousands (2 to 4) you can pay for some acceptable assets.

>Master of Art

Perhaps the easiest of them all, but instead of outsourcing, you need to find some programmer to join your team (because outsourcing programming IS nightmare). They are more common than you think, and they may be willing to work for a benefits split so you don't even need to make any initial investments.

Make some video mockups on how will it play and you are good to go.

>Master of Writing

Some guy on /agdg/ wrote a VN (and I mean writing, not ideafagging) and he managed to seduce some artists. After seducing the artist, you can seduce programmers.

Not as easy as being a master of graphics, but entirely doable.

>Master of Music

You are on your own here. As important as music is in a game, often even being more important than graphics or story, it's hard to sell a game on music alone.

>Master of Game Design

Game designers exist, but only in big teams. and it's often recommended that they at least understand the theory behind each of the aspects of making a game, because nobody enjoys a boss that's out of touch. Master something else, you lazy ideaguy.

>Game testing

Don't be a fag, this isn't hard at all.

>Master of Marketing

This is the art of making everything mentioned above sound better than what it is. It's nice to have it, but it's not necessary.

Maybe it would be interesting to make some guide to outsourcing, divided in quality tiers, where to search for possible employees and how much money would X unit of work (frames, songs, etc) cost.

>>24842

>story

Not actually a factor in most games. You can make a game entirely without a story so this shouldn't even be on your list if you are making a game on your own. You have to cut where you can, not where you want to.

>>24921

>With a few thousands (2 to 4) you can pay for some acceptable assets.

>investing 2k ON TOP OF ALL THE TIME YOU'RE SINKING IN IT

Just release the game with your "programmer art". If people like it you can always remake the whole game later, kickstarter or otherwise.

>Make some video mockups on how will it play and you are good to go.

I don't think any "artist-only" type has ever started a game project like this and ended up successful. Don't give people unrealistic dreams.

When you don't know what is technically feasible your video (3D animation?) will turn off anyone who actually knows his shit.

>>24921

>You are on your own here. As important as music is in a game, often even being more important than graphics or story, it's hard to sell a game on music alone.

It should be noted that this particular route becomes significantly easier if your intended game is a rhythm game.

>>25026

>investing 2k ON TOP OF ALL THE TIME YOU'RE SINKING IN IT

2k from your own pocket hurts. 2k from crowdfunding is absolutely nothing, which is what I was trying to explain. You just ignored the first part of the line.

A lot of decent-looking games get around 2k or 4k from Kickstarter, and said number could be much higher if you convince people that the game is pretty much finished and all you need is some money to hire an artist. There is an unsurprising amount of people that don't donate to crowdfunded projects because it is very probable it won't ever get finished.

>I don't think any "artist-only" type has ever started a game project like this and ended up successful. Don't give people unrealistic dreams.

>unrealistic

Remember Phonebloks? Given that IIRC it wasn't an actual crowdfunding project, but it got a lot of support, and it was made by a designer with absolutely no idea about engineering. I am pretty sure he would have gotten several thousands if he actually wanted to scam people.

>When you don't know what is technically feasible your video (3D animation?) will turn off anyone who actually knows his shit.

Exactly what happened with Phonebloks. Didn't stop people who knew jack shit from believing it.

Furthermore, this is a videogame and not a phone. Gamers are used to cinematic trailers, and if the trailer looks too good they will probably assume it's not how the final game will look, not to mention that if we are talking about 2D and not 3D, everything is possible nowadays. On top of that, it is extremely easy to find Unity devs that would be glad to collaborate with a good artist. It's not like programming a game in Unity is as hard as doing all the EE work required to build a modular phone, so it's easier to find volunteers.

Not to mention there are games that DO sell on art alone. Ayakashi Ghost Guild may be the game with the shittiest mechanics ever made, and is an all around boring, painful and unfair game (seriously, if you think games like Candy Crush are bad, you haven't tried this one. It's really bad, even among semi-idle non-tradeable card game button-clicking simulators). To top that, it crashes constantly and runs on one of those web app engines that caches pretty much nothing and you are forced to redownload all assets every time you boot the game (which means you will not be able to play if your data plan is too slow). However, it's one of Zynga's greatest cash cows, just because the cards look that good. You may argue that that's because Chinese and Korean people just like to play shitty ludomania-bait games, and you may be right, but they still have a solid western community willing to spend money on it, more than enough to completely amortise their initial programming costs which may as well be in the three digits range.

>but you aren't Zynga!

Zynga can spend some money on marketing. However, this game wasn't advertised. All publicity it got in the western market was from being one of the first games in the "newest top downloaded games" section for some weeks (which, judging by the looks of what you can find in that place, doesn't seem that difficult). You can achieve similar results by shilling your game on the right communities.

>>25097

You make some interesting points although I've never heard of your examples. Do you make mobile games for a living?

>>25025

Strongly depends on what you're throwing in the "story" bucket. If it's JUST narrative? Sure, you can get away with really thin narrative in games. But if there isn't any plot, meaning your game doesn't really start at a point and convince your player to get to another point, your player probably isn't going to be all that interested, and if you lack any interesting characters, even if they never speak a word, your player isn't going to get all that emotionally invested, and if you lack an interesting setting/flavor, you're going to have a hard time convincing people to play your game in the first place.

Do all those count as story, specifically? It's arguable. Either way, though, they need to be present if you want a successful game and creating them is a skill.

>>25100

>Sure, you can get away with really thin narrative in games.

No, you can "get away" with NO narrative in games. None whatsoever.

>your player probably isn't going to be all that interested

>what is pong

>what is pacman

>what is tetris

You must have been brainwashed by marketing into believing that "cinematic" trash is the core of video games. It's not. This:

>your player isn't going to get all that emotionally invested

is a literal tumblr tier concern. Do you also worry about "diversity" in games? What the fuck do emotions have to do with games? Games are fundamentally about using tools to win. Could be just one tool (for example only a jump button) or a whole bunch of tools (complex games like Quake MP).

"Emotional investment" being connected to "story" / "narrative" / "characters" makes sense for linear, passive media such as fiction books and movies. The idea that these non-gameplay features could be crucial for games (video or otherwise!) is fucking ridiculous.

>>24842

>>24842

>Being a single indie developer doesn't seem like a feasible way of living

Agreed. Which is why you should only do it our of love and passion.

>>24859

Using something like creature or spine is stupid, you have incredibly limited movement.

Let's say you want to make a monster spin 360 degrees and slash with his claws, good luck making that good with a bone system and such. The only solution is simply drawing a new frame, but it takes a lot of time.

>>25101

Two things:

One, you're going to what to read up on psychographics. You're making a very, very common chan mistake (well, everyone mistake, but it's a plague here and halfchan) of assuming everyone is you, plays games for the same reasons you do, and the way you see games are the only way anyone could possibly see them. They aren't, don't, and it isn't.

Second, the thrill of winning is an emotion. The relief of just escaping a dangerous situation is an emotion. The pride of having a fully equipped and leveled up character is an emotion. "Emotion" doesn't just mean sitting in a circle and talking about your feelings or getting mushy.

Take, for instance, Super Metroid. Would the game work if Samus was a tall rectangle, the common enemies little rectangles, the boss big rectangles, the pick ups little squares and so forth? Mechanically, sure. But would anyone love it like they do? Of course not. They fall in love with the feeling of mystery, isolation, and loneliness of the game. The feelings of being trap on a desolate planet with only themselves to rely on. They fall in love with the powers they find here and there, that slowly turns them from a scared, vulnerable character into the monster equipped for any challenge the planet can throw. Just think of the thrill of first of equipping the spin jump for the first time, your mind racing with possibility thinking of all those jumps and ledges you can now conquer. That's an emotional reaction. That's the reason why people love the game.

But if you want to get triggered by the word and throw it into the tumblr bucket like an angry, scared child, go for it. Make games filled with squares fighting other squares by shooting rectangles. See how far that gets you. See just how little people care.

>>25109

>assuming everyone is you, plays games for the same reasons you do, and the way you see games are the only way anyone could possibly see them.

I don't make this mistake, I'm well aware of casuals existing and driving 95% of the market, and I suspect you only committed to this angle because you have a boner for that term "psychographics".

>the thrill of winning is an emotion

>The relief of just escaping a dangerous situation

>having a fully equipped and leveled up

Note how none of these have anything to do with STORY. My whole argument was that story/narrative are not necessary, that they are optional features you can invest in but needn't.

And the same is true for your graphics example. Super Metroid would absolutely still work with a bunch of rectangles instead of character sprites, and people would still like it if they played it - the only problem would be getting them to play it in the first place.

So you've got the same damn game but noone wants to play it. I understand graphics being crucial because marketing is done with screenshots and videos. But why double down on that shit and invest the other half of the budget into STORY SHIT? Were you following the argument or did you just want to bring up psychographics?

>>25112

>Super Metroid would absolutely still work with a bunch of rectangles instead of character sprites, and people would still like it if they played it

I can't really agree on this one

You don't have to put a effort in writing long monologues for game to be captivating, but it needs some bare relatable minimum to immerse player. If you replace everything with triangles in Super Metroid, then it's "triangles firing triangles at triangles while getting better triangles", not "trying to escape zebes, fighting space pirates while upgrading your suit". I'm sure no one would give one about the first concept. When you play Wolfenstein 3D, you don't "collect pickups" or "score points", you "collect gold" and "kill nazis". You don't "lose credits", you die.

"Abstract" games are virtually non-existent today. Yes, there was tetris and pacman, but no one plays those anymore, currently they lie in the same cesspool with match 3 games as a toy to casually kill time.

>>25114

>zebes

>space pirates

Does anyone (aside from RPG lorefags) actually bother learning the names of video game enemies? Of course character design adds a little something to the experience but it's OPTIONAL.

>You don't "lose credits", you die.

But you don't die, you actually travel back in time. In some games you are literally just teleported, you don't even lose any progress, just your weapons usually. Death in video games is actually one of the least "immersive" mechanics. You're saying to represent relatable things in games. Well, "dying" and then coming back to life in a different place and time is not relatable at all. Off the top of my head I can't think of one game that even attempts to explain why the player travels back in time when he gets hurt.

>no one plays those anymore

Millions of people are playing tetris and similar minimalistic games on their smart phones right now. And not just since smartphones, remember how popular Snake was on early 2000s' mobile phones. We had nice looking 3D games on PC and consoles in the early 2000s yet noone scoffed at tetris or snake on their mobile phone. We have borderline-photorealism on PC now and even smartphones themselves can do 3D, yet nothing has changed. Abstract games will never die.

>a toy to casually kill time

Unlike non-abstract games such as the entire catalog of the various Gameboys, including your beloved Super Metroid. People only play those games when they feel inspired to properly appreciate the medium. LOL

You're out of the loop. You seem to think early, abstract games were only acceptable because there was nothing "better" around yet. But they are still around and very popular. Then you pretend non-abstract games serve some higher purpose, like people don't use modern shit games to kill time. Wrong again. Arkham, AC, COD, Skyrim, Fallout, all these big games are as relatable (which in your mind equals "immersion") as can be. They feature humanoid "characters" and they even tell silly, tryhard stories. And they are all played by teenagers to kill time. In a decade people will be playing them on their phones and they will also still play Tetris, Snake and Pacman.

>>25114

>currently they lie in the same cesspool with match 3 games as a toy to casually kill time.

Along with digital Chess and Checkers, I might add... Even the table top games have grown to be more complex, art and narrative filled. This is mirrored by the video game industry. In both cases what is possible in the medium has changed from simplistic and abstract to be less abstract and more immersive and engaging.

>>25126

> In a decade people will be playing them on their phones and they will also still play Tetris, Snake and Pacman.

Have a look at the numbers of those still playing Pacman vs the latest and greatest games... People will always enjoy the classics. I still fire up doom even though it has an abstract "story" (missing because it was supposed to have RPG elements and character selection that got cut in production).

> Millions of people are playing tetris and similar minimalistic games on their smart phones right now.

Filthy casuals will not cough up a dime for them either. They have far less value, culturally, than even Mario Brothers. Protip: Everyone has a phone, they need phones. Phones can now play games, but have shittiest interface. Thus the games people play on phones are the ones that work with the shitty user interface and appeal to the masses.

More people play Windows Solitaire than any mobile game. It's just what was there to waste the time. If you want to pretend that a Klondike Solitare card game is as great as even the crummiest pixel platformer today, then you're deluding yourself.

You don't judge an item by what the lowest common denominator accepts. "Oh look, deary! The peasants are all covered with Muck! Muck is the new fall fashion!"