• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Getting a foot hold in game making fame? just an idea..

This topic is 5552 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Well some want to make elaborate games that compete against the high end games to get in but I don’t think that’s a good idea. I think you have to do something simple but great. A lot say they have good ideas but they can''t make something good out of something that doesn''t involve high end graphics and state of the art game play. If you can blow away the competition with a small game then you are decently a good designer and know how to do your research. I think people should make a puzzle game that is simple, addicting, fun, and meaningful if you can. It''s like you are fighting (your game idea) against someone (the game industry) and you have no weapon (just use your best design) and they have a weapon (new graphic engines, a lot of money, resources, and a big team, etc.). If your opponent needs weapons to beat you then we know who is better. Good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
good idea, but how about you first try to get a foothold in making games, and THEN try to get a foothold in game making fame?
clones can be great games, if done right. nobody will mind a good shoot ´em up or tetris clone. crawl, then walk, then fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That may be a good idea for some, but it certainly won''t work for me. I suck at game design. I''ve never come up with an idea that I could implement and that was really any fun, and I''ve tried very hard. On the other hand, I have a knack for coming up with algorithms, especially concerning graphics programming. What looks better on a portfolio - a heap of technically lowly and also no-fun games or a graphics engine + demos that show off experimental effects that you''ve come up with and successfully implemented.
I don''t think I''d do well as a professional game designer. Hey, I don''t think I''d make it to that position, but as a graphics programmer I might actually not make a fool of myself.
But for aspiring designers, yes, that possibly is a good idea.

- JQ
Full Speed Games. Are back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hase that’s what I basically meant and if you didn’t get it and said it the way you did then you are right since we meant the same thing.

Look at Tetris.
The Russian guy "Alexey Pajitnov" who made Tetris is better than the famous Nintendo designer "Sigeru Miyamoto" who made Mario, Zelda, etc.
Gameboy was a big hit because of Alexey Pajitnov''s Tetris and not Shigeru Miyamoto. If it wasn’t for Tetris the game boy would have went under for many reason.

On another note for how programmers to get in I don''t know of an easy way but one way it to make games for people that have a good idea if you can''t design.

Remember you don’t need million of dollars, many great artists, or a dozen programmers to enter the game industry. But to stay in the industry you have to keep on having good ideas than stay in like so many do by making bad games just to stay in. Make what you want and do it well and go for other things you are good at when you can’t do anymore where you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
better??!

I think you need to get a bit more real life and a little less preaching into your posts... please don´t take this the wrong way, but I´m getting the impression that you don´t have a hell of a lot of experience when it comes to the industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tetris may have kept the Game Boy afloat, but Shigeru Miyamoto was one of the greatest video game designers in the history of the industry. Even now, in his retirement, he''s contributing powerfully to the game design field, overseeing projects and advising teams to ensure that their games have to proper balance of fresh, innovative material and tried-and-true gameplay. I don''t hink there are many people who could contend with that.

On a more relevant note, game designing fame is less important than game designing success. A good idea, properly implemented, will produce a video game that many people will enjoy. That''s what makes a game designer good. Not every hero is a revolutionary. Money''s nice, but if it''s all you''re after, what do you do when you have it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read my post and links about why Miyamoto sucks. That’s my option and I gave full detail and links in what he says. The guy doesn''t even play much games or all, but maybe he evaluates which he said himself in the official Nintendo site.

Like I said I know my info, so don''t question me as if I am dead wrong. If you don’t know about it then what can I say but look it up.
And can we get back to the topic and if you want to talk about Miyamoto make another post and talk about it or look up what I said in GD in my older posts which maybe google can find the post.

take care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
just curious, warsong. how old are you and what do you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
just curious, warsong. how old are you and what do you do?


sorry to bring up a two day old topic but Warsong never answered the first AP''s question and I''d also like to know!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you know the phrase "success proves him right", right? success is not everything of course, but when you have success you´ve usually done at least something right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Warsong, I understand what you''re saying, but all those same arguments and observations can be made of guys like Thomas Edison and Shakespeare, as well. I''d like to point out that, while my momentary rant was followed by an on-topic contribution to the thread, yours, which criticized me for being off-topic, did not. *raspberry*

Back on-topic, just making an addictive puzzle game will not demonstrate your greatness as a game designer. If an innovator is going to reach great heights, he has to think about long-term goals. Take, umm... Shigeru Miyamoto, for example. Designing fairly simple games, and gradually building on previous ideas, his games developed evolutionarily. A series of sequels, each trying something new, but maintaining enough of the popular tenets of past games to be successful, served as a proving ground for innovation. "Okay, Zelda II sucked, and side-scrolling isn''t the way to go. Well, let''s keep what people liked, and replace the stuff they didn''t like with either stuff they liked from the first game or else new innovations."

If you make simplistic little apps, each one possessing MAYBE a single innovative idea, you''ll probably feel like, say, Thomas Edison, who, as he said it, conducted 1000 experiments on new battery designs in order to discover "One way to store electricity reliably and 999 ways not to." Better to go balls-out and try a hundred new ideas at once. Then you can go back and cull out the crappy ones while cultivating the good ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iron Chef, don''t take thing as if I was directly talking to you about the comment of getting off topic.

Also you said it well but let me show you how I see things.

As for the other thing yeah I get what you said but improving an idea and inventing an idea are different. Inventing ideas is what shows greatness and improving it is more like a clean up job since the person didn’t do the right thing the first time as if they are still learning. But some improvements come from the new technology but if it could have been done before it should have been.

Miyamoto is good, but I won’t say he is great. He can sure improve ideas, which is why Nintendo asks him to look over other thing but he also makes some ideas because he has the resources and the R&D to help him out. Its like if I have the back up of a rich guy to race I too would get a sports car, but if I have no one to help and no money then I have to make the best cardboard race car.
Being good is from the % not the #, meaning that I can make 10 #1 games and another makes 5 #1 game, who is better? The first reaction would be the one that has more but if you look further and see that the one who made 10 hits took him 1000 games to make 10 hits (10/100, but if the other made 5 out of 5 games (5/5) then who is better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warsong, your ideas go back on themselves. The % versus # thing ''which is better?'' is your personal opinion, not factual therefore the 5 #1, 10,000 numbers etc. don''t mean anything.

I get where you''re coming from, your way of putting it across makes no sense. And by the way, I think Miyamoto is pretty ace... Who is a good game designer is opinion, you can''t back it up with any fact -- perhaps review scores (gamerankings.com) might be a way? But then tetris''s designer can''t really be compared to Miyamoto that way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, this thread has really taken a turn toward philosophy. Now we''re trying to define "success", eh? Tall order. I haven''t given this much thought, but I''ll weigh in and we''ll see what everyone has to contribute.

I should start by pointing out that I disagree with all that "Success isn''t a goal, it''s a journey" crap. Success may not be a goal, but it is, as far as I can tell, synonymous with the act of achieving goals. So, I define success as the process of achieving goals.

Now, in response to your % vs. # assertion, I would suggest that no amount of failure can mitigate final success. If my goal is to shoot a bullseye with a bow and arrow, and I peg in on the first try, is my bullseye any more shot than the bullseye of the next guy, who needed two tries? How about the guy three lanes down, who''s been practicing every day for three months, and has fired thousands of arrows? Of course not. All three bullseyes have arrows in them. By my definition of success, we have all been successful once. By your definition of success, I am 100% successful, the guy next to me is 20% successful, and the guy down the way is 0.1% successful. Who, then, is the best archer?

I was very efficient, but a lot of my success was due to good fortune. I don''t really understand what made the arrow strike the bullseye, but I''m glad it did. The guy next to me Might have figured out a few things about how to aim his bow and correct for wind. The guy who''s been at it for months, though, has almost certainly developed a real understanding of how his bow, his arrows, and numerous other factors affect the point of impact, and can probably continue to hit that target in the immediate vicinity of the bullseye all day long. I, with my 100% success rate, am probably the worst archer at the archery range. My ignorance of the sport was cancelled out, in this case, by my own dumb luck. The guy with a 20% success rate is not much better off than I am, since he has only a rudimentary grasp of how to shoot a bow. The fellow down the way, the guy with a 0.1% success rate, is now so skilled that he can be precise, as well as accurate. He is the best archer, and, to bring this back to a measurement of "greatness", I would argue that he is the greatest archer.

How do I bring this archery metaphor back on-topic? How do I equate accuracy with a bow to success in publishing video games? It''s simple. The audiences that play video games are constantly shifting, their interests flow and coalesce like an oil slick. If areas of high interest are "bullseyes" of game design, then the job of a game designer is to produce a game that is targeted precisely at that point. The designer who makes a game that, by chance, lands in exactly the right time and place to be a smash hit has been successful. However, the designer that can clearly view the target audiences, and aim games precisely at the proper demographics, hitting points of peak interest time and time again has achieved a greatness that can hardly be matched by the man with the lucky shot. The master game designer can follow shifting trends, developing popular games easily, just as a master archer shoots fruits from a tree.

Regardless of talent, the development of any skill requires a huge amount of training, practice and study. To learn the bow, one must practice and practice. To learn to design games, one must practice and practice. A game designer will put out bad or mediocre games just as an archer strikes the outer rings of the bullseye, sometimes entirely missing the target. However, the "good shots" will come more frequently as the skill grows.

Now, that''s one game designer, in a vaccuum. If you want to look at other aspects, then you have to consider the impact they have on the field. The first guy to make a side-scrolling shoot-em-up was a great game designer. That innovation has structured game designe for decades. The first guy to use the first-person perspective gets his name on the wall, next to the first guy to let the player rescue a princess, and the guy who can up with the idea of a boss at the end of every level. These are great game designers, even though I don''t know their names.

So, in conclusion, success is achieving goals (in this case production of a good game) and greatness is measured by overall contribution to the world of gaming.

That was a big one. Did it make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to defend Miyamoto here....

If you are going to say that Alexey is better for making Gameboy popular, then I have to say that Donkey Kong and Super Mario Bros are the reasons why the video game industry became popular after Atari almost killed it for everyone.
Who is the better designer now?

And please don''t try to answer that. I don''t believe you can just say that one is better because he made a larger percentage of successes.

I believe that if you make a game that is fun (no small task), you will do well. Whether you attain fame or not shouldn''t be that important to you, but Sid Meier did well with some innovative titles, and he became famous.
I had fun playing Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros, Zelda, Dig Dug, Asteroids, Quake 3 Arena, Tetris, Total Annihilation, Starcraft etc.
To me, those games were fun. Some were more fun than others, but some were more appropriate than others to play (if I am in school, I want to sneak a quick game of Tetris, not think hard about the next puzzle in Zelda but if I have a few hours to kill at home, I might want to solve those puzzles rather than play mindlessly with Tetris).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chef I know what you mean, but that is not proper way to judge. You say it as if you count the times when the archeries trained when he was a 2 year old. Also many designers like Miyamoto are hitting and missing and aren't making less mistakes but more or the same which makes it a gamble. Making games also take a knack to make them than just experience, since many in the business with experience can only dream up of remakes but some do make good games. Also to say to take one shot at a target and retire I would agree that doesn’t determine the skill since they haven’t been tested of challenged fully since they didn’t pass the luck curve. You said it well and I said it well but it takes a bit of both to see get the answer.

Nintendo also make the industry go under just like Atari if it wasn’t for Sega so then you have to say again who is better? Nintendo didn’t have plans of making a 16 bit system and said their good enough but when Sega decided to make one they got in a panic. Nintendo acted in many ways like Atari.

Companies are mainly not out for the good of others but for a profit.

If someone gets a good foot hold in the industry they most likely forget where they came from. As the saying goes "power corrupts and absolute power cutups absolutely". Be good at your designs but give back by helping others and let others have a chance as well is an important thing.

[edited by - warsong on December 12, 2002 8:56:40 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement