It seems everyone these days is make games with the words "epic" or "massive" in the description, but why? Some of the best games I''ve played are small games that focus of replayability and gameplay. They tend to have minimal stories and graphics, but included dynamic gameplay that takes only a few hours to playthrough and are openened enough to allow you to keep playing. So why arn''t more of the people in this forum working on small games? Its alot easier to finish a small game, since they have minal expensies and you learn alot more from finishing one then working on an epic that never gets 10% done. It also allows you to get your name out there and maybe even alittle money from selling it. Oh and just to clarifiy by a small game I''m not suggesting you go out and make a clone of your favorite atari game. There are plenty of untapped ideas for small games and there is defently a market for them since none of the Major labels are making them. ----------------------------------------------------- "Fate and Destiny only give you the opportunity the rest you have to do on your own." Current Design project: Ambitions Slave

two word exactly define the problem, why not more small game???
AMBITION SLAVE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

quote:Original post by SiCrane

quote:Original post by TechnoGoth
So why arn''t more of the people in this forum working on small games?

This being the game design forum, my hunch is that you''re getting a biased sample space. If you were working on a small game, you''d have fewer reasons to post in a game design forum, wouldn''t you?

And fewer people would want to post their ideas for a small game because it would be very easy for other people to make, as opposed to the huge ideas usually discussed here.

quote:Original post by SiCrane
This being the game design forum, my hunch is that you''re getting a biased sample space. If you were working on a small game, you''d have fewer reasons to post in a game design forum, wouldn''t you?

Exactly! I am certainly not against small games, and they are much easier to finish. They also teach you more in terms of design, coding and even marketing. But in my experience here there''s a certain amount of visionary buy-in that you have to have before people will respond to your game idea.

Every time you whittle down the concept it seems harder to get the discussion going. Large visions inspire. I think that people like thinking big. Big concepts create juicy, interesting problems, and working out the problems, even only for theoretical purposes, is fun.

I myself have a claustrophobia problem when it comes to smaller games, btw. I''ve finished a few designs that were set-piece, one-screen affairs and began to feel too confined. Playing open-ended games has infected me with wanderlust, I guess.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

People shouldn''t be worried about their ideas stolen, heres my reason why.

1)Everyone here belives that their ideas are the greatest ever.
2)Even if someone steals your basic idea, that doesn''t mean the impementation will be the same. In fact they will more then likly be completely diffrent.
3) Years from now people will remember the best developed concept not who first released the concept.


Whether the idea is for a big or small game without proper feedback in the design phase, the idea can''t properly be developed.

-----------------------------------------------------
"Fate and Destiny only give you the opportunity the rest you have to do on your own."
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave

I''m trying to make my first complete 3D very cool with original added ideas Breakout Clone!

I must agree with the effectiveness of small games.
Wario Ware for GBA (and more recently for Gamecube) does very well here. =)