• Advertisement

The best first game engine to try as a beginner

Recommended Posts


GameMaker. It has a great drag and drop workflow, easy to understand concepts. Unlike many of the other drag and drop engines it supports programming, allowing the engine to make all sorts of games.

GameMaker is design to be as easy as possible and even without a tutorial you could make a game with it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

For 2d gdevelop or construct2 is best 

For 3d unity with uscript is best

First you learn 2d then you go to 3d game so you your can easily understand how the game and game engines are work

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, masskonfuzion said:

@TobyTheRandom I don't mean to sound rude (and conciseness is generally a good thing), but this question, as stated, is too vague to be useful. 

First off, what kind of "beginner" are you referring to? Beginning game designer? Artist? Gameplay programmer? Musician? Some/All of the above, or perhaps something not mentioned above? What are your goals? Are you more of a tinkerer/coder, or would you prefer to use a drag-and-drop can workflow? 2D or 3D? Are you trying to make mobile games, PC, console? Etc. A bit more context would help.

And then, even after we have more context, the "what's the best engine..." type of question tends to just open the floodgates for a holy war of Unity vs Unreal vs hand-write-your-own-engine vs some other choice. There is no "right answer" to a question like this. But at least with more knowledge of what you want to do, we can point you towards tools that will help you accomplish your goals.

Well said. I've seen far too many new game developers just run around in circles because of these x vs x arguments, which really makes it difficult for the person to make a choice without thinking "Am I really using the best tool?". I really wish the general direction set for new people is to just take a tool that fits your basic requirements, don't pay attention to anything else out there until you've made a few games and require something different because of limitations. It's far more important to make good games, than to use a tool because x number of people call it the best. The "best" can be subjective, and if it's really the "best" because of technology and the features provided, a new game developer isn't going to be even able to utilize those features, so why bother at such an early stage.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can any of you be my mentor (if you are indeed a professional game developer). To be honest, I just started my journey in this industry of game development. My goals are; I want to improve my coding skills because I have little to no experiences of coding (I know some basics of python syntax), I want to make simple 2d platformer with a drag and drop game engine (but with a little bit coding to hone my coding skills) and I also want to improve my artistic skill.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TobyTheRandom said:

Can any of you be my mentor (if you are indeed a professional game developer).

I recommend using this website as your mentor, it's filled with professionals from all parts of the game development industry.

A good place to start is here: 


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TobyTheRandom said:

Can any of you be my mentor (if you are indeed a professional game developer). To be honest, I just started my journey in this industry of game development. My goals are; I want to improve my coding skills because I have little to no experiences of coding (I know some basics of python syntax), I want to make simple 2d platformer with a drag and drop game engine (but with a little bit coding to hone my coding skills) and I also want to improve my artistic skill.


I'm just going to throw this out there because what you're requesting is a bit much at this stage. I can only speak for myself, but anyone that is at a "professional level" most likely will not provide mentor services for free, and you're looking at a pretty hefty hourly rate for 1-on-1 training. If you're at a level where you're only looking at using drag and drop editors for a simple 2D platformer, having a professional game developer assist would be considered overkill. You would be better off just picking up GameMaker Studio 2, and going through YouTube and tutorials.

Many of us have devoted well over a decade of time to develop skills of the craft, and I'm sure a lot of us are more than happy to help answer specific questions regarding problems you're running into. Once you're ready to dive into programming code, pick up a good book, learn all the basic concepts and start crafting. There is no substitute for time and hands on experience when it comes to programming. You will also find a lot of resources online made by professionals, and very experienced programmers.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gamemaker Studio 2.  It can do everything you want it to for 2d games.  It has a built in level editor and now with studio version two has a built in tile map editor.  It compiles code so you won't have to worry as much in regards to performance being bad.  Basically its very beginner friendly.  Since you know some python syntax Godot would also be an option.  It doesn't use python but describes its scripting language as python like.  Though I think gamemaker likely has more tutorials available on the internet.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally enjoying screwing around with Clickteam Fusion 2.5. Someone on this forum told me about it and I fell in love ever since. You can make a great 2D game in about a month with enough practice. I believe the "Five Nights at Freddies" games were made using it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to hit me up if you choose unity.  2D in unity is amazing these days and there is only little bits of coding that is manageable for beginiers.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Toby.

As you have little experience of programming and already introduced to Python, I would have this following "game plan" ( no pun intended )...

First, focus your efforts on learning Python and programming in general.   It really is the most important skill you can develop, as you can then move onto two things; "PyGame" and a GUI( "Graphical User Interface ) toolkit, of which there are more than one to choose from.

PyGame will be what your game will be using to put graphics on screen, take control of user input( keyboard, gamepads etc. ) and sound/music.

A GUI api( "application programming interface" ) will allow you to develop applications seperate of your game, for which you can develop tools such as sprite editors, level editors or even your own scripting language which can be used in the running game.


For now, I would stick with Python as you are already familiar with it and the community support out there is massive.   A 2D platformer is still quite an involved project - even for a beginner.  Scale back just a bit, to say Tetris or Space Invaders - something simple that involves just a single screen.

On a final note, I recommend "Python for the absolute beginner" by Michael Dawson, as its audience is beginners, but also does this with example games.  These range from text-based applications to an Asteroids clone.   Game Maker is another option, but it still requires some coding skill so you might as well go the proper programming route for now.  That said, I found it to be a LOT of fun to use, which is probably more important than being a "part of the industry".

Now, go forth Toby, and have fun!  ^_^

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no 'best' game engine, sorry to break that news to you, and others in this post that think there is.

There are however, a lot of very user friendly engines that give you a fighting chance in making a game that will teach you the bare (very bare) basics of making a game.

I would not focus on what the "best" game engine is, game engine are not "cookie cutter" software applications.

Your focus should be on what YOU feel the best game engine for making YOUR video games is, and to do that, you need to do some homework and explore most of them and try to create SOMETHING.

My 2 cents.


Edited by Daniel Ricci

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started with Craftstuido, which is availale for free. It is a little bit clunky at times, but you can create 2 and 3D games. The cool thing about it is that it has an build in model editor, texture editor, map editor and animation creator. So everything is there for you to use. Although you cannot create AAA games with it, its a great software for learning game development. You can use lua or visual coding (you code with blocks, which makes it easy to learn). Try it out: https://sparklinlabs.itch.io/craftstudio

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Toby

Although this is not any quick nor easy answer - my vague response is "It depends", or more specifically in this context it depends on how comfortable you feel with programming or design or whatever your chosen discipline is. Also, I'm not sure what kind of learning+working style suits you.

The best thing is, compared to when I was starting out, there are a number of game engines available for free for educational and hobby purposes. What I would recommend is downloading and experimenting with several, including the suggestions above, following some tutorials and also just playing around with each one and see what feels "right" to you. A year or so down the line I'd recommend experimenting again as your ability grows.

It may be a long process but you will learn a lot, not just about the pluses and minuses of the different engines and tools but also about yourself in respect to what "just works" for you.

Good luck!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well first off try to learn a coding language like java

Starter Java Guide - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJHs2t7c8S6yNTcfZgRkiCA/videos

but another coding language and engine is gml/game maker you will have either buy it for $40 or use an old steam install link (you can find it online just look something up like, steam game maker 1.4 install link) it's new user friendly and has some great games like undertale and could create games/clones like mario, zelda and even pokemon for the advanced(very advanced)

If you would enjoy to start a little more advanced you can use unreal engine 4, you can find youtube tutorials with basic stuff some series have over 50 videos and the creators of the engine have tutorials some good games made in it are some of the nbas i believe, outlast and the escapist.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Similar Content

    • By evanofsky
      The more you know about a given topic, the more you realize that no one knows anything.
      For some reason (why God, why?) my topic of choice is game development. Everyone in that field agrees: don't add networked multiplayer to an existing game, you drunken clown.
      Well, I did it anyway because I hate myself. Somehow it turned out great. None of us know anything.
      Problem #1: assets
      My first question was: how do I tell a client to use such-and-such mesh to render an object? Serialize the whole mesh? Nah, they already have it on disk. Send its filename? Nah, that's inefficient and insecure. Okay, just a string identifier then?
      Fortunately, before I had time to implement any of my own terrible ideas, I watched a talk from Mike Acton where he mentions the danger of "lazy decision-making". One of his points was: strings let you lazily ignore decisions until runtime, when it's too late to fix.
      If I rename a texture, I don't want to get a bug report from a player with a screenshot like this:

      I had never thought about how powerful and complex strings are. Half the field of computer science deals with strings and what they can do. They usually require a heap allocation, or something even more complex like ropes and interning. I usually don't bother to limit their length, so a single string expands the possibility space to infinity, destroying whatever limited ability I had to predict runtime behavior.
      And here I am using these complex beasts to identify objects. Heck, I've even used strings to access object properties. What madness!
      Long story short, I cultivated a firm conviction to avoid strings where possible. I wrote a pre-processor that outputs header files like this at build time:
      namespace Asset { namespace Mesh { const int count = 3; const AssetID player = 0; const AssetID enemy = 1; const AssetID projectile = 2; } } So I can reference meshes like this:
      renderer->mesh = Asset::Mesh::player; If I rename a mesh, the compiler makes it my problem instead of some poor player's problem. That's good!
      The bad news is, I still have to interact with the file system, which requires the use of strings. The good news is the pre-processor can save the day.
      const char* Asset::Mesh::filenames[] = { "assets/player.msh", "assets/enemy.msh", "assets/projectile.msh", 0, }; With all this in place, I can easily send assets across the network. They're just numbers! I can even verify them.
      if (mesh < 0 || mesh >= Asset::Mesh::count) net_error(); // just what are you trying to pull, buddy? Problem #2: object references
      My next question was: how do I tell a client to please move/delete/frobnicate "that one object from before, you know the one". Once again, I was lucky enough to hear from smart people before I could shoot myself in the foot.
      From the start, I knew I needed a bunch of lists of different kinds of objects, like this:
      Array<Turret> Turret::list; Array<Projectile> Projectile::list; Array<Avatar> Avatar::list; Let's say I want to reference the first object in the Avatar list, even without networking, just on our local machine. My first idea is to just use a pointer:
      Avatar* avatar; avatar = &Avatar::list[0]; This introduces a ton of non-obvious problems. First, I'm compiling for a 64 bit architecture, which means that pointer takes up 8 whole bytes of memory, even though most of it is probably zeroes. And memory is the number one performance bottleneck in games.
      Second, if I add enough objects to the array, it will get reallocated to a different place in memory, and the pointer will point to garbage.
      Okay, fine. I'll use an ID instead.
      template<typename Type> struct Ref { short id; inline Type* ref() { return &Type::list[id]; } // overloaded "=" operator omitted }; Ref<Avatar> avatar = &Avatar::list[0]; avatar.ref()->frobnicate(); Second problem: if I remove that Avatar from the list, some other Avatar will get moved into its place without me knowing. The program will continue, blissfully and silently screwing things up, until some player sends a bug report that the game is "acting weird". I much prefer the program to explode instantly so I at least get a crash dump with a line number.
      Okay, fine. Instead of actually removing the avatar, I'll put a revision number on it:
      struct Avatar { short revision; }; template<typename Type> struct Ref { short id; short revision; inline Type* ref() { Type* t = &Type::list[id]; return t->revision == revision ? t : nullptr; } }; Instead of actually deleting the avatar, I'll mark it dead and increment the revision number. Now anything trying to access it will give a null pointer exception. And serializing a reference across the network is just a matter of sending two easily verifiable numbers.
      Problem #3: delta compression
      If I had to cut this article down to one line, it would just be a link to Glenn Fiedler's blog.
      Which by the way is here: gafferongames.com
      As I set out to implement my own version of Glenn's netcode, I read this article, which details one of the biggest challenges of multiplayer games. Namely, if you just blast the entire world state across the network 60 times a second, you could gobble up 17 mbps of bandwidth. Per client.
      Delta compression is one of the best ways to cut down bandwidth usage. If a client already knows where an object is, and it hasn't moved, then I don't need to send its position again.
      This can be tricky to get right.

      The first part is the trickiest: does the client really know where the object is? Just because I sent the position doesn't mean the client actually received it. The client might send an acknowledgement back that says "hey I received packet #218, but that was 0.5 seconds ago and I haven't gotten anything since."
      So to send a new packet to that client, I have to remember what the world looked like when I sent out packet #218, and delta compress the new packet against that. Another client might have received everything up to packet #224, so I can delta compress the new packet differently for them. Point is, we need to store a whole bunch of separate copies of the entire world.
      Someone on Reddit asked "isn't that a huge memory hog"?
      No, it is not.
      Actually I store 255 world copies in memory. All in a single giant array. Not only that, but each copy has enough room for the maximum number of objects (2048) even if only 2 objects are active.
      If you store an object's state as a position and orientation, that's 7 floats. 3 for XYZ coordinates and 4 for a quaternion. Each float takes 4 bytes. My game supports up to 2048 objects. 7 floats * 4 bytes * 2048 objects * 255 copies = ...
      14 MB. That's like, half of one texture these days.
      I can see myself writing this system five years ago in C#. I would start off immediately worried about memory usage, just like that Redditor, without stopping to think about the actual data involved. I would write some unnecessary, crazy fancy, bug-ridden compression system.
      Taking a second to stop and think about actual data like this is called Data-Oriented Design. When I talk to people about DOD, many immediately say, "Woah, that's really low-level. I guess you want to wring out every last bit of performance. I don't have time for that. Anyway, my code runs fine." Let's break down the assumptions in this statement.
      Assumption 1: "That's really low-level".
      Look, I multiplied four numbers together. It's not rocket science.
      Assumption 2: "You sacrifice readability and simplicity for performance."
      Let's picture two different solutions to this netcode problem. For clarity, let's pretend we only need 3 world copies, each containing up to 2 objects.
      Here's the solution I just described. Everything is statically allocated in the .bss segment. It never moves around. Everything is the same size. No pointers at all.

      Here's the idiomatic C# solution. Everything is scattered randomly throughout the heap. Things can get reallocated or moved right in the middle of a frame. The array is jagged. 64-bit pointers all over the place.

      Which is simpler?
      The second diagram is actually far from exhaustive. C#-land is a lot more complex in reality. Check the comments and you'll probably find someone correcting me about how C# actually works.
      But that's my point. With my solution, I can easily construct a "good enough" mental model to understand what's actually happening on the machine. I've barely scratched the surface with the C# solution. I have no idea how it will behave at runtime.
      Assumption 3: "Performance is the only reason you would code like this."
      To me, performance is a nice side benefit of data-oriented design. The main benefit is clarity of thought. Five years ago, when I sat down to solve a problem, my first thought was not about the problem itself, but how to shoehorn it into classes and interfaces.
      I witnessed this analysis paralysis first-hand at a game jam recently. My friend got stuck designing a grid for a 2048-like game. He couldn't figure out if each number was an object, or if each grid cell was an object, or both. I said, "the grid is an array of numbers. Each operation is a function that mutates the grid." Suddenly everything became crystal clear to him.
      Assumption 4: "My code runs fine".
      Again, performance is not the main concern, but it's important. The whole world switched from Firefox to Chrome because of it.
      Try this experiment: open up calc.exe. Now copy a 100 MB file from one folder to another.

      I don't know what calc.exe is doing during that 300ms eternity, but you can draw your own conclusions from my two minutes of research: calc.exe actually launches a process called Calculator.exe, and one of the command line arguments is called "-ServerName".
      Does calc.exe "run fine"? Did throwing a server in simplify things at all, or is it just slower and more complex?
      I don't want to get side-tracked. The point is, I want to think about the actual problem and the data involved, not about classes and interfaces. Most of the arguments against this mindset amount to "it's different than what I know".
      Problem #4: lag
      I now hand-wave us through to the part of the story where the netcode is somewhat operational.
      Right off the bat I ran into problems dealing with network lag. Games need to respond to players immediately, even if it takes 150ms to get a packet from the server. Projectiles were particularly useless under laggy network conditions. They were impossible to aim.
      I decided to re-use those 14 MB of world copies. When the server receives a command to fire a projectile, it steps the world back 150ms to the way the world appeared to the player when they hit the fire button. Then it simulates the projectile and steps the world forward until it's up to date with the present. That's where it creates the projectile.
      I ended up having the client create a fake projectile immediately, then as soon as it hears back from the server that the projectile was created, it deletes the fake and replaces it with the real thing. If all goes well, they should be in the same place due to the server's timey-wimey magic.
      Here it is in action. The fake projectile appears immediately but goes right through the wall. The server receives the message and fast-forwards the projectile straight to the part where it hits the wall. 150ms later the client gets the packet and sees the impact particle effect.

      The problem with netcode is, each mechanic requires a different approach to lag compensation. For example, my game has an "active armor" ability. If players react quick enough, they can reflect damage back at enemies.

      This breaks down in high lag scenarios. By the time the player sees the projectile hitting their character, the server has already registered the hit 100ms ago. The packet just hasn't made it to the client yet. This means you have to anticipate incoming damage and react long before it hits. Notice in the gif above how early I had to hit the button.
      To correct this, the server implements something I call "damage buffering". Instead of applying damage instantly, the server puts the damage into a buffer for 100ms, or whatever the round-trip time is to the client. At the end of that time, it either applies the damage, or if the player reacted, reflects it back.
      Here it is in action. You can see the 200ms delay between the projectile hitting me and the damage actually being applied.

      Here's another example. In my game, players can launch themselves at enemies. Enemies die instantly to perfect shots, but they deflect glancing blows and send you flying like this:

      Which direction should the player bounce? The client has to simulate the bounce before the server knows about it. The server and client need to agree which direction to bounce or they'll get out of sync, and they have no time to communicate beforehand.
      At first I tried quantizing the collision vector so that there were only six possible directions. This made it more likely that the client and server would choose the same direction, but it didn't guarantee anything.
      Finally I implemented another buffer system. Both client and server, when they detect a hit, enter a "buffer" state where the player sits and waits for the remote host to confirm the hit. To minimize jankiness, the server always defers to the client as to which direction to bounce. If the client never acknowledges the hit, the server acts like nothing happened and continues the player on their original course, fast-forwarding them to make up for the time they sat still waiting for confirmation.
      Problem #5: jitter
      My server sends out packets 60 times per second. What about players whose computers run faster than that? They'll see jittery animation.
      Interpolation is the industry-standard solution. Instead of immediately applying position data received from the server, you buffer it a little bit, then you blend smoothly between whatever data that you have.
      In my previous attempt at networked multiplayer, I tried to have each object keep track of its position data and smooth itself out. I ended up getting confused and it never worked well.
      This time, since I could already easily store the entire world state in a struct, I was able to write just two functions to make it work. One function takes two world states and blends them together. Another function takes a world state and applies it to the game.
      How big should the buffer delay be? I originally used a constant until I watched a video from the Overwatch devs where they mention adaptive interpolation delay. The buffer delay should smooth out not only the framerate from the server, but also any variance in packet delivery time.
      This was an easy win. Clients start out with a short interpolation delay, and any time they're missing a packet to interpolate toward, they increase their "lag score". Once it crosses a certain threshold, they tell the server to switch them to a higher interpolation delay.
      Of course, automated systems like this often act against the user's wishes, so it's important to add switches and knobs to the algorithm!

      Problem #6: joining servers mid-match
      Wait, I already have a way to serialize the entire game state. What's the hold up?
      Turns out, it takes more than one packet to serialize a fresh game state from scratch. And each packet may take multiple attempts to make it to the client. It may take a few hundred milliseconds to get the full state, and as we've seen already, that's an eternity. If the game is already in progress, that's enough time to send 20 packets' worth of new messages, which the client is not ready to process because it hasn't loaded yet.
      The solution is—you guessed it—another buffer.
      I changed the messaging system to support two separate streams of messages in the same packet. The first stream contains the map data, which is processed as soon as it comes in.
      The second stream is just the usual fire-hose of game messages that come in while the client is loading. The client buffers these messages until it's done loading, then processes them all until it's caught up.
      Problem #7: cross-cutting concerns
      This next part may be the most controversial.
      Remember that bit of gamedev wisdom from the beginning? "don't add networked multiplayer to an existing game"?
      Well, most of the netcode in this game is literally tacked on. It lives in its own 5000-line source file. It reaches into the game, pokes stuff into memory, and the game renders it.
      Just listen a second before stoning me. Is it better to group all network code in one place, or spread it out inside each game object?
      I think both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. In fact, I use both approaches in different parts of the game, for various reasons human and technical.
      But some design paradigms (*cough* OOP) leave no room for you to make this decision. Of course you put the netcode inside the object! Its data is private, so you'll have to write an interface to access it anyway. Might as well put all the smarts in there too.
      I'm not saying you should write netcode like I do; only that this approach has worked for me so far. Read the code and judge for yourself.
      There is an objectively optimal approach for each use case, although people may disagree on which one it is. You should be free to choose based on actual constraints rather than arbitrary ones set forth by some paradigm.
      Thanks for reading. DECEIVER is launching on Kickstarter soon. Sign up to play the demo here!
    • By Bokchee 88
      I am animator by hand, and i am doing game animation for at least 8 years so far. During the last 2 years, i came with a idea for game and maybe some day, i want to start indie game company. As i am thinking to start game company, i am also thinking what kind of value i can give to the company. For example, am experience in animation,sales(I was selling web development services, before i jumped to gaming), bit of rigging- just not for production, i am learning on the side as well. The rest of the gaming production, like modeling, concept art, texturing, i am total noob or to say better, i am no near interest to do modeling for example, don't have such a patience to do it. But before characters and things are made for animating, what the hell i am would do?
      Also, what is the ideal size of the founding team of a game company? Positions to be filled mostly are, Concept artist, Modeler/Texture artist, programmer, animator-rigger. And later would need more people to join, like more animators, programmers, sound, fx,etc.
      And lastly, do i need to have something,like a prototype, to show people and get them interest, or should i ask someone i know, for skill that i lack, for example, Modeling would be great, texturing and rigging, and to start all together from scratch?  
    • By nick1

      I have limited programming experience in C++, but have always had a passion for games.  Where do I start?  I have a rough idea of the type of game I want to develop and am ready to commit the time necessary to learn new languages.  Are mobile games too difficult to begin with? Should I begin learning the basics of keyboard controls before attempting touch screens?  I would appreciate any input or advice!
    • By khawk
      Dene Carter, Managing Directory @ Fluttermind LLC (@fluttermind)
      From Indie to Fable and Back. 30 Years of Wisdom.
      Started writing games in 1984 when he was 14 years old. What has he done in 33 years?
      Druid - Commodore 64 Original Dungeon Keeper core team Fable franchise and more Indie through AAA.
      "I am an idiot" - first learned in 1984, and every year after.
      Rockman - made $7500 for 2 weeks of work. Figured he could make 26 games a year, or $438k in today's money.
      Takeaway: Really stupid at 14.
      Even in 1980's, developer only got 12-14% royalties.
      (Side note: Dene is fun to listen to. Recommend this on the Vault when it goes online.)

      You are not your players.
      Made a black and white game on a Spectrum, which was color. Did it because he was poor. Problem is his audience were not poor, and had color TV's. Reviews were not nice. Players see things completely different to you. Do not forget that your players have not seen the game as much as you. Avoid difficulty/complexity-creep. The real world has distractions and beer - they don't care about your game as much as you do. Test your mobile game on the toilet - that's what your real players do. Fundamentally, players live inside their own brains, not yours. Those you ignore will ignore you in return. Design for your players' minds, not for you. Generalizing is Really useful
      "An expert who is too narrow has difficulty colaborationg" - Valve Employee Manual Did a lot of things over the course of his career. Everyone did everything in the 1980's and 1990's. Most developers generalized. Developing a broad skill-set aids communication. Large teams require collaboration and clear communication. Knowledge breeds respect (never say 'JUST'). 'Just' suggests a task is easy. It might not be. Ignorance is an energy. Don't forget you are human. You are designed to adapt and can do anything if you put your mind to it. Be a human. Learn a skill outside your area. Programmer learn how to 3D model. Artist learn how to code. Learn music, theater. Think of yourself as an artist. Rapid Team Growth is Dangerous
      "If your team can eat more than two pizzas, it's too large." Werner Vogels, Amazon VP/CTO Early Fable - 3 developers. Communication very easy. Later Fable, team grew bigger. At 12 people rumor mill started to develop. Can't have everyone in every meeting at same time. Pockets and cliques develop. Fred Brooks. Communication paths don't grow linearly. Team communication grows exponentially. [n * (n-1)] / 2 8 people on team, 28 connections. Ringelmann Effect - "Larger groups lead to less motivation & coordination & productivity." Decreased motivation - larger group, start to feel like a cog in the machine. Decreased coordination - communication pathways explode. Suggestion: Increase identifiability. Make sure everyone knows everyone's contribution. Most of all: think before growing your team. Blandness Has Its Uses
      Pursuit of excellence can be wasteful. Sounds counterintuitive. Blandness helps disguise repetition. Think reusing assets. Players notice the patterns. When asking for something to be made, communicate the context of assets - how will they be seen or heard? Often find they need to be bland. Prototypes Can Be Misleading
      Experiential games are difficult to prototype. More useful for mechanical games. Fable only came together at the very end - threw away at least one entire combat system. Looking back, it wasn't polished not necessarily bad. Bland prototypes are better than ugly ones for experiential. Keep prototype completely separate. Define prototypes success criteria. Art Style is More Important Than You Think
      Curate rather than create Style can hide the fact you can't draw. Restrict complexity. Style is marketing. Unique style tells players there may be something unique about your game. Streamline Your Process
      What is your iteration cost? Recognize your cost to try something and learn from it. Making your life easier is real work. Resist self-sabotage. (context of making tools) Closing Thoughts
      Don't let technology dictate your game's core promise. Static screenshots have to look good, too. No 1 pixel lines. Don't worry about the things people don't ever get to see. Don't panic if your game sucks - fix it. Editor thought: Really enjoyed this talk. Dene is a fun speaker, and his advice was raw, real world advice for anyone aspiring to make it in game development.
    • By bakchoi
      This is the 1st game we built by Cocos Creator! We need your feedback about this game on:
      Is this game fun?  How is the graphic performance (laggy?) How can we improve the game? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/color-block-game/id1347502739?ls=1&mt=8
      Thank you =)

      App Preview - Color Block - 886x1920.mp4
  • Advertisement