I don’t think anyone would claim the actual game design is much easier (and the marketing is probably more difficult now).
I’ve had an idea for a strategy game I’ve wanted to make for years, but a big reason I haven’t started it has been how much tuning of the mechanics I will need to do, and a distrust of my attention span being able to slog through that process. However the game I have planned, while doable by one person, is a much larger scale than some of the most famous and influential indie games
No business feature in my 15 year career has ever come close to the complexity of shaders, trig, and physics!
In the end whether I ship it to market or not I will always have the satisfaction that I literally achieved my childhood dream and, if I recall correctly, fame or riches was never part of that equation.
Yeah, it's wild how even simple-ish video games can put to shame reams and reams of "enterprise-y day job" code in terms of complexity and demands on you as a programmer. I love it (:
Aside: I wish DMs were a thing on this site; you should let me know your game if/when you make it public!
* Those who miss my own self-mocking should feel free to consult "Catullus 16" in lieu of submitting their critical commentary on my comment
Perhaps you're interpreting a general statement that means different things to different people through your own context and missing a bit of what they mean. It's easy to do something as a career and discount the non-career people doing it, but everyone has their own reasons do to things, and sometimes it's not external.
If we replace "games" with "art", then we get people saying "easy to make art". I'm sure professional artists trying to support themselves think similarly to you, that it's hard, and I'm sure it is. But they may not be talking about art the same way you are talking about art.
Making art for yourself can be fun, and relaxing, and even liberating. Making games for yourself can be too. In this context it can be very "easy", because you're only looking to please yourself. It's no less "real", it's just for a different purpose in some cases. They aren't adding noise, they're talking about a slightly different thing, but it's also an important thing, and also important for the other, professional context as well.
Do you really think professional game makers and art makers are making their profession better by telling laypeople that no, what they're doing is not the same at all and what you do is hard so they shouldn't relate their own experiences? Won't your profession be better served by instead of discounting their views discussing the differences of when it's done personally or as a hobby and when done for general consumption? Aren't many of these people the professionals of tomorrow, or maybe not, and you're helping some people realize they'd rather keep it personal and a hobby?
You have no idea how much harder I can be on the developer when I have a direct line to talk shit in his head
Making games is easy. Making a living making games is incredibly hard. Substitute "art", "music", "fiction", etc for "games".
As the article says, making stuff that satisfies your creative itch and also appeals to a mass market is like getting hit by lightning twice.
But as you say, this needn't be a discouragement for people who really want to try it. Because it's mostly luck whether your creative itch aligns with what people want to buy, so there's no harm in trying your luck.
For the rest of us, it's either the long meaningless slog of creating stuff we're not interested in creating but people are interested in buying, or of doing something completely different to make money while keeping the creative hobby.
It’s difficult to make good games. It’s difficult to make fun games. It’s difficult to make complex games.
But it’s easy to simply make games.
People make games in 48 hours. People make games with pencil and paper. People make games probably no one ever plays.
If a game is difficult to make, it’s because you have made it difficult: You’ve given in to scope creep. You’ve chosen an ambitious idea well beyond your abilities. You have complicated multiplayer network code where it’s hard to keep clients in sync. You’re writing everything from scratch…
But overall, if you can stick to something simple, manageable, and well within your ability to execute, you will realize it’s easy to make games.
Like writing a novel. You can do NanoWrimo and bash it out.
But it is incredibly hard to write a good, entertaining and successful novel.
Music and drawing or painting is similar.
They're clearly right about their point. You can make a shitty game in one sitting using today's tools; I've done so a bunch of times. My games all suck but they are games with art, music, sound, and gameplay that people can play and enjoy briefly. You are also clearly right that making good games is hard, and indeed getting harder. The quality bar for a AAA game is insanely high in 2023. I don't see these as being incompatible points, and I'm not sure the anger I sense in your post is warranted--was it necessary to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a dilletante and that their posts are noise?
I'm skeptical but would be happy to be proven wrong. What are some games you've made that satisfy:
1. Made and published in one sitting
2. Have legally sourced assets and code
3. Have people who don't know you personally that have indicated enjoyment of it
If this is a regular occurrence for you, I'm curious about the level of experience that got you to this point.
http://electroly.com/games/parry1.html
Source code: https://github.com/electroly/games/blob/main/carts/parry1.p8
You can see it's not a very good or sophisticated game but it was done quickly and we had some fun on Twitch playing it. PICO-8 makes it easy to write tiny games. It's not so much about my skill but about the availability of streamlined indie game-making tools. There are other "fantasy console" products like PICO-8, and tools like GameMaker and RPG Maker target modern systems.
When I was a kid, my older brother could reproduce any game he saw. He saw Tetris and he built it. I described a Mario game (well before Super Mario) and he built it. He wrote a text adventure. Later he learned proper programming and stopped making games. I don't think he can do it any more, but at that time, it seemed to be easy for him.
Of course games changed a lot since the early 1980s. But on the other hand, to make a game without all these modern frameworks and game engines, also adds an additional barrier that he easily overcame.
Too bad that the toolsets and skills available for games aren't pushed further into the computer ecosystem.
I think a linux desktop with UI elements from even a moderately basic game could be a better integration between humans and their work.
For example, most games have settings with options and keybindings right at the very start of your interaction with the system. At any point, you can get in and tweak them if they aren't efficient enough for you.
You can also adjust sound and display settings.
Additionally, most games have a sort of "soft start" to help you learn the user interface, and navigate through the game world. Games have to attract the player and get them up to speed.
It would be very cool to promote these sorts of things up in a desktop UI.
The worst part about that phenomenon in online fora is the scores of equally oblivious people itching to click that reply link and confidently back up the first ignorant comment with their equally uninformed suppositions presented as fact. I wonder how they'd react if Joe from sales interrupted them at every meeting confidently declaring that they were doing their jobs wrong, "backing it up" with assumptions and misgivings that any developer could instantly identify? I wonder how they'd react if after calling him out, he justified it by saying he should know because he's worked with developers for years?
That is why designers don't contribute to open source projects.
>If you feel what I feel you don't make excuses about "luck."
one of my favorite quotes:
“Luck Is What Happens When Preparation Meets Opportunity" - Roman philosopher Seneca
And I think it bridges both people's feelings on the term. Yes, to some extent you do need to just be in the right place at the right time. Or create that right place/time yourself (which I argue is harder than even making a game). But your own quality of work and talent will be a factor in if you are "lucky". A genius who never leaves their home or never communicates will never get lucky, but someone hard working with a plan to get themselves out there will create multiple portions of luck. Which of course contrasts to the rich but lazy heir who will have opporttunities out the nose but almost no genuine interest in them.
>You can choose to make something beautiful, to hone your craft, to stir a feeling. What could be better than that?!
based on this website, making 300k at Apple or something.
Personally, I'm in the trenches and making games is _hard_! Sure we have faster computers and better tooling. We also have _much_ higher expectations... Still, it's incredible to make games. I'm so lucky to work on them each day.
If you feel what I feel you don't make excuses about "luck." What the hell is luck? Of course "success" is out of your control... But you control what you make. You can choose to make something beautiful, to hone your craft, to stir a feeling. What could be better than that?!