Tips for innovative games?

[paulhuxt]

Tired of the "cloning stuff" on this forum (but not tired of this forum ;-)), I wanted to share some tips I personnally use (or strive to use) for focusing towards creating original/innovative games.

Do you have such tips?

Here are mine:

1- Exam your life: what to you do, what do you like outside the game area? Photography? Gardening? Cooking? Car mechanics? Linear algebra? Try to find something fresh and new for the game industry.

2- inoculate some thing or concept you never seen in any game. It's OK if you know that it's featured in some game but you don't know exactly how. Try to bring first your own thoughts, then exam the existing game afterwards and compare (if you are curious, or if you want to position your game in reference to this game). Except extreme coincidence.. your interpretation should be different.

3- When you have a game idea, or a part/element of a game idea, write it down in a dedicaded document. Some ideas may be uncomplete, not working, or not funny... Sometimes (at least once per year), read it or show it to designer colleagues or to friend/relatives: solutions or new ideas may emerge from discussion.

4- learn how to use a rapid prototyping tool. For example Flash for 2D game, Virtools for 3D game. The goal is not technological magnificence, but rapidity. Or use paper and plastic figures.

5- use rapid prototyping: tune your core concept and/or gameplay with a rapid prototyping tool. Consider producing the game (from scratch) only if this prototype gets approbation by your testers.

6- If your prototype is "really good", keep the concept secret and aim at producing. It it's good, publish it online, and expect something will get out of this (being played for free by internet audience). If it's bad, try another one prototype ;-) Rapid prototyping should be easy (and hopefully funny).


And my last one, one "don't":
7- don't mind about "skin" or "theme" in this game design phase. The game should be fun and interesting with simple figures like squares, disks, or stickmen..
.
.
.


I KNOW there are lots of lists or "roadmaps" like this in the game-design-litterature-or-expertise-stuff (or even in the scientific discovery area)...

My point is: What tip do YOU really use...? (if, of course, you accept sharing ;-))

[Artinum]

I rather like playing a game called "Devil's Advocate" (a mental game, not a software one before you look!) in which I take a typical idea and reverse it to see if it works.

I'm not the only one to try this - Grand Theft Auto started out as a game in which you played a cop chasing criminals. When that didn't seem to work, Rockstar tried reversing the roles. Similarly Lemmings started as a demo in which hordes of little men marched along the screen and into a variety of deathtraps.

I wonder what else could produce results? How about a match-three game where the idea is to prevent matches? Perhaps matching colours breed?

Or how about a platformer where, instead of guiding a little man through a fortress of laser turrets and guards, you control the fortress? Hmm, now that I think about it, that's basically the premise for Dungeon Keeper...

[svero]

For my part, if attempting to conceive of a new original game design, I try to think first of the basic elements that I want the design to have... Those can be subtle gameplay elements, or even higher level things controls. A small list might be something like...

- Goal is to eliminate or pick up all the items on the screen
- Force the player to make choices and take risks to win.. if they're eliminating they're at risk, if not they're able to get away or save time

.. and could contain 2-10 fun gameplay elements.

And then once I have a notion of what gameplay elements I want to have I start toying with ideas and trying to think of mechanics that incorporate all those elements together in a unique way. The above list could have led maybe to pacman or jumpman or mahjongg even, so it's pretty wide open, but that should let you persue new designs while retaining a sense or general direction with regards to how the game will be fun for the player once the mechanic is conceived.

[princec]

I tend to start with some basic game idea like "move left and right and shoot stuff" and then iterate through the process of: how do I make that fun? Add some feature. Rinse, repeat. I'm doing it now with the next game - I've not written a line of code but I'm already itching to play it because it sounds like so much fun already :D

Cas :)

[PoV]

Or how about a platformer where, instead of guiding a little man through a fortress of laser turrets and guards, you control the fortress? Hmm, now that I think about it, that's basically the premise for Dungeon Keeper...
Or a variation (http://www.sykhronics.com/syk/recent/sheep_full.gif) of the idea here (http://www.sykhronics.com/syk/files/sheepstrike4.zip).

Ludum Dare (http://www.ludumdare.com), a 48 hour game making competition has been our little secret for innovative game design for a while. It has a number of factors working in it's favor. A vague theme such as "Construction/Destruction", as seen in the SheepStrike demonstration game above. Heavy time constraints, i.e. 2 days, which can do wonders for inspiring something. When you're in the zone, you cut corners and everything just to get a game done, which is the whole goal of rapid prototyping. And the best part, if the game is junk, you only wasted 2 days on it, and can throw it away.

Before the compo, there is a big list of themes to be voted on to decide the final theme. Several of the entrants even tend to take our themes, and make games outside the compo based on them. Even other compo's have borrowed themes from LD. Taking the themes, and simply trying to design a game around them can be quite inspiring. If anyone's interested, I found an old list of themes in Google Cache (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:7zRH3Alw2jgJ:ludumdare.com/forums/viewtopic.php%3Fmode%3Dviewtopic%26topic%3D213%26f orum%3D1%26start%3D50+ludumdare+%22one+button%22+% 22audio+interface%22&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a). Some are obviously silly, but there are the odd solid one.

[Artinum]

I've got lots of ideas, me. Sometimes they keep me awake at nights or distract me at work and I have to write them down in order to get some peace and quiet.

Another way to create new ideas is to crossbreed existing ones. My first published review at Bytten was for a bizarre game called Basegolf - a combination of two very different sports. Another example was the bizarre "PacDoom II" - the title explains all, I think.

[soniCron]

My best ideas come out of the blue, and when I least expect. As with any creative venture, it's best to keep a pen and paper handy for when that brilliant idea strikes. After a little while, you start to become attuned to your inner monologue, and you may realize you have more good ideas than you previously thought. And when you've built up a solid library of ideas, many of those will then merge to create even better ideas. Nothing can replace my pen and paper as my best source of original gameplay mechanics.

[Christian]

To be innovative i try to start thinking not in other games but in emotions, then i try to see how to make the player feel those emotions.
Also i try to see what actions result in the emotions i am aiming, or vice versa, i see action that people do and see the emotional reaction to it.
I try to see what people like, for example, some people like to cut their hair, what are the emotions they feel from their hair?, pride, self steem, happyness of owning something, and how do i translate this action to a game?... having an avatar for the player, so the player can have a notion of "owning" things, to make the player feel pride the game must have a system of rating the "superiority" of the haircut, maybe including a beauty contest, self steem can be obtained by recognizing the originality or personality of the player and doing the oposite of insulting, complimenting the player. Well, in short, analizing how the emotions that an action conveys can be reproduced on a game.

This way you dont worry about other games, or cloning features of other games, you can obtain different feelings, emotions, styles for new games doing this.

[Savant]

To be innovative i try to start thinking not in other games but in emotions, then i try to see how to make the player feel those emotions.
Huh, that's a cool way to go about it. Hadn't considered that...

[electronicStar]

Similarly to christian I don't think in game mechanics but in storyline, and what the characters are actually doing.I think there is a great potential for finding new gameplay there:
I first imagine the story and think about what the characters are supposed to be doing at each particular time. Then I try to translate it in the game with simple but original concepts. This way you can get ideas for new activities to abuse, rather than the standard "collect coins/kill robots/match colors" paradigms.
Now I have only completed a handful of games (and commercially released none) so my advice is to be taken with a grain of salt of course:D

[JoshuaSmyth]

I read an interview with sid meir just a couple of days ago and he said that how he comes up with the idea for his next game is to think about it in terms of topic first, rather than genre which is what alot of developers seem to do, they want to make an rpg, or an rts, or a match-3 casual game.

What sid did was think, I was to make a game about trains. How could I make a game based around trains? And railroad tycoon was spawned, likewise he wanted to make a game about the american civilwar and gettysburg resulted.

I've found that ideas seem to flow more easily if you pick a topic and then investigate a game mechanic/genre rather than going for a genre then to a topic. This is still a realitively new concept to me and I haven't explored it in its entirety but at least a couple of new ideas for games came my way.

[Christian]

You should go read Chris Crawford writings, they are anti-cloning, pro innovation, here http://www.erasmatazz.com/Library.html , and his first and second book too.
His ways of designing and Sid meyers ones are alike in that term.
I also design like this too, for example now im designing a game about adventure, but in the broader sense of adventure, the theme is fantasy, but you get to be in many kinds of adventures not only battles with monsters, but treasure hunt, competitions, love adventures, races, etc.

[tolik]

I get a lot of inspiration from classic games (research), prototyping of sub-genre engines in Flash (development) and deep mind-mapping of genres (analysis).

When developing, I'm taking photos of things in real-life and always thinking - that would be great to apply to the game, but it would be far too innovative to be casual. I'll leave that for a sequel ;)

I wonder if anyone have tried to create a list of his favorite pre-96 PC games?
It might give you some serious inspiration. Remember what you've played, remember what you've liked, which genres and games have died since then.

[Anthony Flack]

"Innovative" is a pretty strong word, and not something I'd claim for myself, but this is how I generally develop my ideas (nb: most of these ideas exist only in my head for now!)

The initial idea comes randomly, out of a daydream or something. This just happens every now and again. It's generally quite a visual idea - with colours, and most importantly, speed and motion being visualised, in that vague, minds-eye sort of way. No sense in forcing these ideas - I usually get ten more new ones in the time it take to make one, anyway.

If it's a compelling idea, it will stick around in my head for months or years, occasionally booting itself up and running in my imagination. As it plays out, little details will stick to it like lint. Tiny things that I notice as I go through life will fill in the details of the game idea.

I also play a lot of games - most of them not for very long, since I don't have time at the moment; but I have a pretty large collection of console games now and I guess I have played many thousands all counted. I try to play all the games that are considered "important" or "revolutionary", although for now I have concentrated on only the Dreamcast and earlier. I think the earlier games are more interesting as you see a wider range of ideas tried out - the failures are just as informative as the successes. And I will pick up little ideas from these games too, and they will stick to my lint-ball game idea. The idea could be in any detail - for example, in Cletus Clay my inspiration for the way the cursor moves comes from GT4, and the control method for manipulating boxes came from Ico. The game is nothing like either of these, of course - but in each case a tiny detail from the game I was playing filled in a tiny hole in the game I was creating.

Finally, prototype! I don't do this! And I goddamn well should - it saves you work in the long run, no doubt about it; and the game will be better for it. Everyone knows they could do a better job the second time around, so it makes sense to let that second time be the finished game. I think it also leads to bolder, more unified design, and it lets you plan your project better. I'm a born-again prototyper...

[paulhuxt]

Thanks for all these suggestions !!
Links mentioned above are pretty impressive in term of content, too..

tolik: i'm sorry I didn't play pre-96 pc-games so much.. ;-)

An observation: I work with talented people who played many, many games almost from the begining of history ;-) While this experience is extremely useful for tuning our games, and finding solution to our design problem, I noticed that it sometimes plays a silent, subconscious attraction role, in fact "restricting" the creative scope... That looks pretty normal and not uncommon in any human activity, ... but...that's why innovation appears to me as an "effort", not only "against" the videogame field, but also "against" the designer himself.

These "Tips" may be a way make this effort explicit, more conscious, or shareable with fellow designers..

There is another thing I realized while reading Anthony's reply: prototyping is good, but the "natural flow" between "prototyping" (provided you do it) and "producing the whole stuff" may not be so straightforward... specially if your game is "big":

I remember of a Mark Cerny conference (audio file, on gamasutra, can't find the link now, gama seems down) were he recommended to achieve a "pre-production" step, before "real" production.
That definitely sounded very, very wise.

[berserker]

And my last one, one "don't":
7- don't mind about "skin" or "theme" in this game design phase. The game should be fun and interesting with simple figures like squares, disks, or stickmen..


I can't agree with that. Cool effects can really pull the game out of mediocrity.
When I started working on Clash'N Slash and put together a basic demo it wasn't very fun, but when I've started to add some special effects, flashes, explosive barrels and stuff, I was started to have real fun playing my own game. Same thing with Jewel of Atlantis. When I've did a rough quick version I felt it was a mediocre match-3 puzzler. Then I've added loads of special effects, explosions, breakable architecture and in the end I've spent a lot of time playing my own game and having lots of fun.

IMO, visual execution of the game is extremely important and can pull the game out if done right.

[GeekNProud]

berserker: I think the point is that you should focus on gameplay before graphics rather than the other way around. The way I understood it, paulhuxt is only suggesting that you use those simple figures to test out a solid user interface ("in the game design phase"). Adding visual effects would come later. If I'm wrong somebody tell me.

[Anthony Flack]

Yes, audio-visual stimuli can add enormously to the fun and appeal of a game. Therefore, if your game is fun with just silent squares and stickmen, it's probably going to be fantastic.

If you're anything like me, I imagine your game would change enormously between the prototyping and the final product. But I also think prototyping should give you a chance to catch some nasty problems early on, give you a better idea of how to structure your final program, and hopefully save you time in the long run. Plus, if the prototype is good fun, you should be pretty safe.

I say this as someone who didn't prototype, and ended up having to throw out and change a lot of stuff that a prototype probably would have caught.

[Edtharan]

Don't worry that an idea you have would not produce interesting gameplay. When ever you think of a mechanic, put it down on paper (or whatever is your favourite medim) and file it. These are not game ideas but mechanic ideas and story ideas, essentially what you put together to make a game idea.

Keep a list of these ideas and occsionally review it. I find that reviewing it an random order helps to generate new ideas. Use stochastic resonance to help generate ideas (this is why I think creative people favour messy desks :rolleyes: :D ).

[Bmc]

here is a nice little article on innovation in game design

http://lostgarden.com/2005/04/practical-definition-of-innovation-in.html

[Edtharan]

Interesting article.

One question though: Why do people think that the "Story" must be imposed on the player. In games like the Sims (and the Sim City Series) they player is free to compleatly invent their own story. There is no story imposed on the player. The base setting is (in the sims it is "There is these people in a house...").

One of my hobbies is a Game Master for a roleplaying group. I have learnt that controling a plot (called railroading), will very quickly discourage players. It takes away the fealing of imersion in the game and make them loose contact with the emotional content of the game.

The alternative is to give players more control over the story, and let the world evolve according to the player's actions. Naturaly the player should not have unlimited control as that is the other end of the scale and also give the player a dissassociation with the content of the game (it makes them feel they are just preforming tasks rather than playing a game).

There is a lot of room for innovation in the grounds between these two extremes of story. How someone plays a game is just as important as what they do in it.

[paulhuxt]

One question though: Why do people think that the "Story" must be imposed on the player.
.

I guess that for most game the "core mechanic" is not at the story level, but at the gameplay level. Then, the story is like graphics and sounds: it's a way to connect the player emotionally with the gameplay. A litteray media, although it may not be necessarily conveyed with written text.

The similarity with cinema probably compelled game designer to claim distant positions about story.

However, an interesting trend of game design is to research about "story mechanics": i-e a system in which the gameplay is just about the story, and the story is the (main) gameplay, although it can be coupled with physical action mechanics (moving, fighting, etc..). Not 100% storytelling then.
Such systems allow different story evolutions (and eventually different ends). The story is modified by the player actions in meaningful ways...

I've no specific link but you may find more on the net: french designer David Cage (Nomad Soul) is a proponent of this trend.

[electronicStar]

Interesting article.

One question though: Why do people think that the "Story" must be imposed on the player. In games like the Sims (and the Sim City Series) they player is free to compleatly invent their own story. There is no story imposed on the player. The base setting is (in the sims it is "There is these people in a house...").

One of my hobbies is a Game Master for a roleplaying group. I have learnt that controling a plot (called railroading), will very quickly discourage players. It takes away the fealing of imersion in the game and make them loose contact with the emotional content of the game.

The alternative is to give players more control over the story, and let the world evolve according to the player's actions. Naturaly the player should not have unlimited control as that is the other end of the scale and also give the player a dissassociation with the content of the game (it makes them feel they are just preforming tasks rather than playing a game).

There is a lot of room for innovation in the grounds between these two extremes of story. How someone plays a game is just as important as what they do in it. IMHO There is a world of differences between free form PnP RPGs (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/) and videogames.
These RPG are ,above everything, a social experience, whereas downloadable videogames are most of the time a private leisure. Unless you do your game social (i.e. networked) it will be impossible to make an interesting freeform videogame, for the same reasons it is practically impossible to make an interesting solo RPG with random tables and creation methods.
One example of such a freeform videogame, could be second world.
This type of games , although interesting isn't interesting for the solo/small team indie develloper for several reasons: requires too much time in investment and support, not very rentable, the player isn't captivated as fast as he is in a casual puzzle and therefore buying incentive is not the same,etc,etc...
In order to make money in this business, it is necesary to exploit, not the creative imagination of the player:), but rather his worse instincts, his compulsive and maniacal tendencies (see diablo and WOW gameplays), to have him hooked and unable to leave the computer.
The type of games you are describing are too healthy to have rentability:mad:
The SIMS (and all the tamagotchi-likes (nintendogs)) can be considered as exceptions...but is there really a creative process involved for the player? I'm not sure, maybe they are more some sort of hyper casual puzzle games where the aim is to try the different combinations of clothing/coupling/housing, etc...

[Chozabu]

I can't agree with that. Cool effects can really pull the game out of mediocrity.
When I started working on Clash'N Slash and put together a basic demo it wasn't very fun, but when I've started to add some special effects, flashes, explosive barrels and stuff, I was started to have real fun playing my own game. Same thing with Jewel of Atlantis. When I've did a rough quick version I felt it was a mediocre match-3 puzzler. Then I've added loads of special effects, explosions, breakable architecture and in the end I've spent a lot of time playing my own game and having lots of fun.

IMO, visual execution of the game is extremely important and can pull the game out if done right.

If your game is is medocore with just squares and stickmen, good graphics can make it a good game.
If your game is is good with just squares and stickmen, good graphics will make it a *great* game!

[Edtharan]

These RPG are ,above everything, a social experience, whereas downloadable videogames are most of the time a private leisure. Unless you do your game social (i.e. networked) it will be impossible to make an interesting freeform videogame, for the same reasons it is practically impossible to make an interesting solo RPG with random tables and creation methods.
True to a certain extent. It woudl be almost imposable to fame a truely freeform CRPG. But there have been freeer form CRPGs made (many years ago when computers were not as powerful). The game "Sword Of The Samurai" (SotS) Is one example. In this game you can choose how you interact with the other NPCs. And how you react to event in the world. How you do these then feeds back and generates more events (with some randomness).

A game like this could be done much easier today with the larger array of tools and techniques (and better graphics). ANd SotS shows that it is posable.

[cliffski]

IMHO There is a world of differences between free form PnP RPGs (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/) and videogames.
These RPG are ,above everything, a social experience, whereas downloadable videogames are most of the time a private leisure. Unless you do your game social (i.e. networked) it will be impossible to make an interesting freeform videogame, for the same reasons it is practically impossible to make an interesting solo RPG with random tables and creation methods.
One example of such a freeform videogame, could be second world.
This type of games , although interesting isn't interesting for the solo/small team indie develloper for several reasons: requires too much time in investment and support, not very rentable, the player isn't captivated as fast as he is in a casual puzzle and therefore buying incentive is not the same,etc,etc...
In order to make money in this business, it is necesary to exploit, not the creative imagination of the player:), but rather his worse instincts, his compulsive and maniacal tendencies (see diablo and WOW gameplays), to have him hooked and unable to leave the computer.
The type of games you are describing are too healthy to have rentability:mad:
The SIMS (and all the tamagotchi-likes (nintendogs)) can be considered as exceptions...but is there really a creative process involved for the player? I'm not sure, maybe they are more some sort of hyper casual puzzle games where the aim is to try the different combinations of clothing/coupling/housing, etc...

Very interesting. I'm doing a freeform life sim at the moment, which has no story as such. It is very difficult to design, and there is this big 'elephant in the room' which is the thought 'whats the point?', which is very scary. However, I do believe that the success of games like sim city and the sims shows that there is a market for a totally aimless game, sold as a 'toybox' as long as the toiys are suitably interesting.

[MikeRozak]

Edtharan wrote:

Interesting article.

One question though: Why do people think that the "Story" must be imposed on the player. In games like the Sims (and the Sim City Series) they player is free to compleatly invent their own story. There is no story imposed on the player. The base setting is (in the sims it is "There is these people in a house...").


Towards the end of http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/GUT.htm are some reasons why stories are useful.


1. As Richard Bartle pointed out in Designing Virtual Worlds, backstory is used to describe the world and its physics to players, almost as an alternative to documentation... "Player characters are automatically resurrected because they're special servants of the Gods...".


2. Backstory and narration are used to introduce the quest and explain why the sub-games must be completed, and in what order. "You have to go kill a troll and then collect a bag of cherries" will have players scratching their heads, but "You have to collect special cherries that can only be found in the valley of Whyern. Unfortunately, an evil troll relishes them too, and guards them voraciously," is more compelling.


3. Story and narration can be used to internalise the quest's goal. Which is more compelling? "An old and frail lady hobbles up to you with her walking stick. In a creaking voice, she begs you to fetch her a bag of cherries from the distant valley, a walk she cannot possibly make." vs. "An obese knight, who has never seen better days, interrupts your conversation with the old lady and demands that you get him a bag of cherries immediately... or else.". (I wonder if trolls like to eat obese knights?) See Sympathetic goals.


4. In turn, story and narration can be used to unify all all the game's quests into a large story/quest arc. "You must complete these 50 quests to win" is less compelling than "The evil overlord killed your father and holds your sister captive. To defeat the evil overlord and rescue your sister, you must find the sword of knowing, armour of vaulting, and lyre of gold... which ultimately involves completing these 50 quests."


5. Backstory and narration can provide clues to how to solve the quest.


6. Story can be used as a reward for completing a quest... although it makes for a fairly weak reward. If a game only uses story as a reward then the game degenerates into a story whose progress is halted until the player solves a series of unrelated puzzles (quests), a particularly common problem in adventure games.

[Edtharan]

Towards the end of http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/GUT.htm are some reasons why stories are useful.
I agree that stories can be useful, but how they are used in many game are quite bad. they resemble more the problem in point 6:
If a game only uses story as a reward then the game degenerates into a story whose progress is halted until the player solves a series of unrelated puzzles (quests), a particularly common problem in adventure games.

Backstory and narration are used to introduce the quest and explain why the sub-games must be completed, and in what order.
Back story is good and I have no real problem with it.

4. In turn, story and narration can be used to unify all all the game's quests into a large story/quest arc. "You must complete these 50 quests to win" is less compelling than "The evil overlord killed your father and holds your sister captive. To defeat the evil overlord and rescue your sister, you must find the sword of knowing, armour of vaulting, and lyre of gold... which ultimately involves completing these 50 quests."
This is where the problem is bad. What if the player found a way to by pass some of these quests (even on their first play through)? Then having to slog through all the quests that you could have bypassed reduces the fun. If you have a good story designer this is not so bad, but not every designer is a Shakespeare.

So yes, this point looks good on paper, but not nessesarily in practice.

[soniCron]

they resemble more the problem in point 6: If a game only uses story as a reward then the game degenerates into a story whose progress is halted until the player solves a series of unrelated puzzles (quests), a particularly common problem in adventure games. But that assertion is fundamentally flawed. With existing gameplay conventions this may be true, but it certainly doesn't have to be that way. Look at Dragon's Lair or Space Ace for excellent examples of story as the driving force. Even the Shenmue series nails it, if you're able to tolerate the lack of action.

[Edtharan]

But that assertion is fundamentally flawed. With existing gameplay conventions this may be true, but it certainly doesn't have to be that way. Look at Dragon's Lair or Space Ace for excellent examples of story as the driving force.
Ahh, but Dragon's Lair and Space Ace didn't claim to be an RPG. The genra (interactive movie) suited the format of a story driven game.

[Artinum]

Some games are all about the story - why else would people play through Monkey Island? Similarly with the Final Fantasy games - though that may be for the pleasure of finishing them. They eat up a lot of one's lifetime.

Games with no story whatsoever are often small - there's no plot to most card games, for instance. You need a tiny bit of a plot for any real involvement - even if that bit of plot is something as simple as "shoot all the aliens before they land" (Space Invaders). Somehow "shoot all the blocks before they reach the bottom of the screen" lacks involvement.

There needs to be some backstory to a game with the scope of an RPG. Just don't go mad with it - there's no need to invent your own languages and describe how the Twelve Elder Gods created the world. That's a lot of reading and all it does is hold you back from the game itself.

As for making the story part of the game - this is entering the realms of interactive fiction. This is very hard to do, which is why most non-adventure games don't do it! You can have your entire plot outside the game (intro sequence, perhaps, or just the manual) or you can have the plot pop up in a controlled fashion - say, mission briefings or a succession of quests. In order to create a more interactive story you need to add another string to your bow and become a programmer/artist/musician/businessman/WRITER. And writing is a lot tougher than many people think.