Hey all, I'm new here. I've been programming since I can remember, first text based adventures in basic, through pascal with cool VGA hacks (ah, the good old days), to c++ with allegro and now Ogre as my main graphics API. As a programmer/designer, I'm pretty sound. My only trouble is that I'm having a hard time finishing a project, and I've realised this is because I've set unrealistic goals. So now, throwing my grandiose schemes onto the backburner, I've decided to plan and implement a fairly basic (programming-wise and art-wise) game, an arcade space shooter. I was hoping somebody here with experience might be able to clue me in a little about a few things, so that I don't end up wasting all my time all over again. The following is a list of goals I'd like to stick to, very basic I know, but I feel that I need a concrete set of achievable goals, I've just never done this level of planning before (typical program-first, ask questions later mentality!), so I've probably missed a few things. Here goes: 1: Find suitable platform 2: Finish design document 3: Find suitable programming language 4: Find suitable API’s 5: Program engine 6: Test engine 7: Build game using mock art and sounds then test 8: Add graphics content 9: Add sound content 10: Add music content 11: Test 12: Release I figure that theres no point doing #2 before I know what platform I will develop for. I've always developed for PC so I'm not sure what kind of constraints other systems may impose on the design. Then, I need to get the tools to implement the design, testing the software afterwards, before adding the game content (missions, cut scenes if applicable), then once I have a working mock up of how the finished game would play (albiet with programmer art and music), I could employ some art and sound talent to fill in the audio visual content. Whats missing in this picture? What do I have to do from here to make it as an indie developer? I have the skills, I have the ambition, I just need to know what to do from here... Thanks in advance!
Assuming you're comfortable with c++ I would recommend not programming a game engine. There are plenty of very good choices available. There's PTK, Torque2D, and the Popcap developer framework. The popcap framework is robust and tested since it was used for their games. Don't waste time reinventing the wheel. In your place I'd use that or something like it. If you'd rather not use C++ then you might consider looking at BlitzMax. Then.. assuming you want to sell whatever it is... I'd recommend taking a good look at the market and deciding what you want to make and how it will work as a marketing decision first. A space shooter is fine.. but what kind of space shooter? How will it control? Where will you sell it? What other shooters are there and how do they appear to be selling? etc... Lastly you might carefully consider the style of your game. Is there a way you can get the artwork finished without hiring a professional artist? Is there a style that would lend itself to cheaper easier art but would still look professional? For instance.. suppose you loved to model things with matchsticks. You might make a spaceshooter with matchstick model ships. Or you might have some photoshop plugins that let you make blobby shapes really easy that look cool. Then you might consider making a game with lots of blobs. Try and make all these decisions ahead of time to reduce all the work and effort you'll have to put in. It will all contribute to helping you finish the project. Creating a full game with placeholder art is possible, but for many people that's difficult and not very motivating. Everything you create looks bad. It's not much of a reward for hard work. - S
Cheers for the heads up and the speedy reply, I'll take a look at those frameworks (added to my to - do list). Maybe my problem was as you say, re-inventing the wheel rather than doing the least amount of programming possible (and lets face it - programming is the tedious side of game development). I'm not too bad at art (so I'm told), and I can write decent music (so I'm told), possibly good enough to pass off as pro-am or semi-professional, but I thought having some outside help would be beneficial, or is it actually still possible for the one-man-band approach to succeed in this age of cutting edge hundred strong teams of graphics and sound artists? Incidentally, the game is a top down space shooter similar to star control melee, but with a few twists I'm not sure I should mention in public in case someone steals my precious idea - so I'm a bit paranoid. The style I would be looking for is cartoony but not to the point of cel-shading everything. In the ideal world I would have all the ships, bases, etc realtime 3D, but a more realistic approach at this stage would be to stick with sprites. I just want to get this thing finished. I'm going to check out those frameworks you mentioned, thanks again!
I think it's still possible. I do a lot of artwork and music for my games. I do get outside help though. But I think it would be possible to design a game that I could implement on my own that would still be relatively competitive.
Regarding "is-it-possible": when you browse through this forum (as I did) you will soon realize that there're hundred different opinions about this subject. What does this mean? Well, you have to prove it to yourself! It's definitly difficult, but definitly possible (as there're are successful one-man indies out there), it just depends on what your are willing to give. Personally, I haven't made my mind yet whether the typical indie path is the right one for me. Regarding stealing your idea: I'd never be anxious about ideas. You can be sure someone already had it before you. Instead, you have the chance to get valuable feedback when you share it. Ideas are nothing, it's what you make out of them, especially when it comes to games.
At the beginning of each project (games or otherwise), I would encourage you to try to look at your entire plan and attack it from every angle: -Will it sell? Is it competitive? Will it be fun? Will people really play it? -Is it feasible to develop? If so, in which language/platform? With what peripheral technologies and features? -Who will my team be? Will they get the job done right? Are they reliable? What happens if I lose them for any reason -- will the project crumble? (This is often referred to as the "Hit by a bus" test.) -What are the risks? What's the worst-case scenario? Are you really okay accepting that worst-case scenario if/when it becomes a reality? -What will this project offer your future? -What happens when everything takes 3 times as much time and money and heartache as it should? (have no doubt, it will...) Only when I finally found a project that seemed to stand up to all of these (and many more) questions did I start working on it. As I work on LOL, I 'try on' ideas for other projects, doing my best to build a comprehensive plan, and then tear each one down and show why it won't work. When I finally find another idea that stands up to this extreme scrutiny, then that's what I'll work on next. I probably 'try on' 10 ides, with about 4 or 5 of them getting to the basically-completed design doc stage, before I find that 1 gem of a project that's worth doing and just seems to stand up no matter how brutally I attack it. In the meantime, I'm getting better at making good designs, and better about project management solutions that will help make that one true gem a reality. If you're not painfully honest with yourself up front, you will soon find yourself in the midst of a bad or infeasible project that you don't even want to, or *shouldn't* want to, finish... That's my method, anyway, for what it's worth. =) -Hiro_Antagonist
personally I never bother with design documents, I just wing it. And I did all the code and 90% of the art for my games myself. Its not that hard. So yes, it can be done. People get very hungup on design documents, but in practice, even in games costing $8 million, they usually end up being just big doorstops that nobody reads. Thats my experience, YMMV.
That's heartening to hear. I've never done a serious design doc in my life, so it's reassuring to see a pro who doesn't believe in them I just get an idea, knock off a quick prototype, jot down the key features I want in the game, and then pretty much go with my gut from there.
One of the reasons is because designs and plans usually become outdated during the project. The design document tried to design everything so it will be easy to just implement, but during the course of development, things changed enough that the design doesn't apply anymore. This isn't just related to game development either. All software development suffers from this problem. Iterative development, or as they say in the vernacular, "winging it", means that you get immediate feedback. If you try to implement something, you may find that it isn't as fun as it may have sounded on paper. So you tweak it. Or you redo it. But whatever you're doing, you are leaving the original design behind. Black and White originally involved giant Titan-like humanoids. They finished up with animals instead. This isn't to say that you shouldn't have some design. While you may come up with something interesting just by hacking away, making a game to sell involves a bit more thought. Just don't restrict what your game can do in order to follow the specs.
The design document isn't meant to be a guide that is written up front and never changes. It's supposed to change as the game evolves. It's meant to be an accurate reflection, at any moment in time, of where the game is heading. If the game's heading changes, then so does the document. The game is done when the implementation and document agree. That's how you know you are done. Or, you could just wing it.
Personally I think the design document is misunderstood by most developers. The primary use of design docs is to coordinate the efforts of large teams. It's really not generally that useful in the small group or single developer scenario. There may be exceptions like laying out all the percentage rules for a role playing fight system etc..
Thanks for the heartening replys guys, yes I'm not a big fan of design documents either, I suppose their place is in a large team where keeping 60 or so people focussed on one goal is more difficult than in a smaller development environment, where I suppose winging it- or extreme programming is more practical. --edit-- what svero just said --edit-- Regarding the theft of idea thing, you're right, its a silly thing to get paranoid about, nothing is new under the sun so they say, so here goes: Its a mission based variant of asteroids, with a top down perspective. The player can move in all directions using a flight system similar to star control's melee, and can earn credits during the mission by destroying asteroids, killing space pirates and completing the mission on time. There will be a basic linear plot unfolding as the missions are completed, however the basic structure of the game is fly from point a to point b within the specified time, with hazards and time restrictions becoming tougher as the game progresses. The player can spend credits to customise various aspects of their ship such as shields, generators, primary and secondary weapons, and auxiliary devices. I know the game sounds simple, but with the right balance of skill and brute firepower, it could turn out to be one of those fun games you'd spend a spare 5 minutes on now and again. I'm not sure which platform it would best suit, probably a a handheld device, perhaps PC if PC players still play these sorts of games. Most PC players I know are after the whiz-bang latest effects and super-memory-hungry games like HL2 and Doom 3. Then again, those sorts of games aren't suitable for children under 15...
Alex, I hope you won`t get pissed, but I already am developing a PC shareware game very similar to yours. Basically, I took the same basic gameplay ingredients and mixed them a bit differently, but the bullet points are the same. I just hope you don`t think it`s a very original idea ! Because it`s not ! Technically, the idea is very old. What`s worth is making it look modern in 3D graphics. At least that`s what I`m trying to do.
No I didn't think it was an original idea - why would I get pissed??? I was just gonna spruce it up a little, perhaps with some modern 3D graphics. Why am I sensing a trend? Arg! I hope you won't get pissed if I decide to develop it anyway, just as a simple first project. I know its something I'd be able to complete. Its not something I'd want to do in competition with other people, but of course I will try and sell it. Maybe if I develop it for a niche platform, for some of those fancy mobile phone things the kids have these days, perhaps then it might go somewhere but I feel like I'd be stumbling around in the dark if I take that option.
Personally I'd stay away from the whole rotate and thrust style of gameplay. Gravitar is one of my old favorite games but I wouldnt make it in todays market. Controls are just too hard for most people.
I think you have a point there - most people are used to pointing in the direction they are going... And still, rotate and thrust adds a lot of depth to gameplay, its a skill that needs mastering but when you finally master it, its a lot more enjoyable than point and go type movement. Solar winds was a fun game, it just seemed odd that a spaceship would drive like a car! Admittedly I've seen people try to play star control and give up after about 5 minutes because they can't get the controls. Do you think an in-between method would work, where the player can turn the ship and it will automatically correct its course, sliding into the new directon rather than changing its course instantly? I suppose there could be a choice in the menu like "Controls: Arcade / Space". Then people can play whatever style suits them.
Alex : I`m looking forward to seeing your version very much. New ideas always help. Personally, I wouldn`t go into mobile arena. From business stanpoint, it`s only about licenses today. But you could get some sales this way, that`s for sure. Yes, it wouldn`t be a very big problem to add an option of basic/simulation mode, but what about levels ? It`s gonna change the gameplay quite a lot IMO. This would mean you`d have to make the levels playable also by easy method and that means crippling some levels (e.g. a level with some kind of barriers).
hehe, jesus, talk about dumbing games down for the masses If they can't even twist their minds around rotating and thrust then I weep for the future of humanity On this note I really disliked zap! with it's crap 'just move in the direction I press' controls requiring no skill. Really sucked the life out of it. The fact that they had an option to swap doesn't help, in fact it's a total cop out. If the game design isn't strong enough to choose a control method then it should be rethought, because you can't have some players disadvantaged.
To throw in my own 2 cheap cents: I wouldn't do that, especially not since this is your first project. You said it already: the first most important point is to finish your game. I'd recommend to make your game therefore as small and concise as possible. Have one idea and execute it well, you will enjoy your ride much more. I wouldn't pay much attention to "what the market wants" either. I wouldn't compromise my core idea, because that's the reason you start the thing anyway, isn't it? IMHO nobody has a formular for how to make a successful game, really not, that's the reason we see only sequel after sequel. As indies, it's better to stand out than adjust to "market strategy". The more you create your very own game the better. Of course, it still has to be fun!
I've decided to stick with what I know for the time being, but the market is forever moving into new technologies, and I don't wanna be one of those old guys who mopes around in front of a dusty antique "pen-tee-um" (a name that evokes chortles from the grand children "Pen Tee UMMMMM!"), still creating primitive Pee Cee games. Whatever they are. I am shuddering at the concept. The gameplay would be affected somewhat, in fact I think it would be harder in Arcade mode since theres no way of sliding to avoid one obstacle while turning to face an enemy or ready yourself to avoid another obstacle. But then, some people's attention spans are probably too short to deal with the whole "looking one way, moving another, WTF" paradox. I will play around with it a little, see whether it works to have both options, or whether one will have to go. The only barrier I think would be the time limit, or at least its a less drastic option than designing whole new sets of levels for different modes. Of course! But EA makes successful games! Although I think their "formula" is to re-package and ship out amidst a wave of hype to con as many people as possible that its the next big thing before people realise they just spent quater of a weeks earnings on the same game they got last year, but this time its MORE so. Damn, with EA's budget I would have been making some kick ass games by now! Damn! Lemmings 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10... Only I'd call them Thunder Rats, The CLAW of DOOM, Eve of the CRUSHER, Nuclear Suicide Lemming Fist 4! But I jest.