Can you Byonders out there tell me the steps to making a original game. By this I mean like how to come up with good themes and game play and what not. I want to make an original game (pvp,rpg,pve). But I cant think of any ideas. So please comment the steps you take or what ever insane ritual you guys do to come up with an idea.
| |
Useless comment: Lol red, you even motivated me with your last paragraph.
| |
Personally I go by brainstorming something that seems like a cool idea.
Basically I don't worry about whether it can be done, I just list off everything in rapid fire order that comes to me. Swords,Guns?Aliens? etc. If that's what comes out, I write it down. From there you flesh it out, give it substance. Back story? or not... meaning? or does it not mean anything at all- is the game driven by the gameplay, the story or both? From there I go into making it a reality. And that means deciding on the scope of the project by sitting down and looking at where you will get your basics - the graphics, the sounds and sound effects. As well as how much you are willing/able to do- should you have to do it on your own. That's the biggest hurdles. Personally it's about your style. Are you into creating innovation? Innovation can just be a new twist on something good, or a different way to do something the last guy did. | |
Hm. I'm an odd one, but I'll offer up how it goes for me as well. Personally, I'm very set in only working on one project at a time, and once I'm more experienced I might do two at a time; however this doesn't stop me from getting ideas.
Every now and then I'll be playing something, or talking about something, and a little idea will pop into my head and get me thinking; sometimes this results in a game concept. I've been working on a project for some months now, occasionally taking a couple days break to rest or work on something small for practice, curiosity, and to refresh myself; so guess what? Concepts have been building up and I now have at least 6 or so in my head. It all starts with that one little idea, then I spend a couple hours thinking and adding to it, and then I spend up to a day or two just thinking and talking about it. Every now and then I'll think about it, or have a day where I discuss it a little with a friend, and being that I have a good memory this gradually forms a stable concept that I can later polish and turn into a proper plan for a game. Each one also has at least one thing seting it apart from other games, in my opinion at least, and each concept focuses on something I enjoy and thus has a hint of passion in it. A sense of attachment, in a way. All of this may sound odd, hard to reproduce, or like a bunch of crap I'll never use but its not. I can and will use it, because I don't stress or rush myself, and by doing it this way each project becomes something I care about, enjoy, and a part of me as a gamer and designer. So, if you can manage the same no stress effect, it may serve you well. | |
Thank you all for your replies and tips they all helped and I have started to come up with a idea. ( I cant take all credit since Southendboi pitched in some things.) I will give an announcement on what my game and all that is about *if* I actually attempt to make it. But you guys know me and mostly every other Byonder we announce a game and it never comes. So Ill probably wait till its at a playable state.
| |
It is easier to come up with small ideas than big ones :D
What I mean goes right in line with the "start small" adage. If you want to create an rpg, you might get lost by dreaming up world maps, skill trees, and elaborate/epic storylines. Instead try to start by focusing on the most basic and fundamental pieces of the game. For example, most rpgs involve combat with Ai opponents. Before you start brainstorming all the different weapon types or abilities that players might use against monsters (and monsters against them), I suggest brainstorming the general mechanics of fighting. Whether it is real-time or turn based, it should be fun to fight basic monsters with a basic weapon. Of course you want difficulty to increase as you play, with better equipment to match, but if whacking slimes with a club offers no excitement then people aren't going to bother getting further in the game. One of my favorite examples of this is Casual Quest. Despite the fact that there are many classes and enemies, the general workings of the game are incredibly simple. You spawn on a board with a bunch of monsters and you must slay them all. That's it! The first couple of rounds as the adventurer are not nearly as hectic and involved as later rounds with a group of different tier 2 or 3 classes, but they are still fun. Also, try to keep your user interface clean and easy to understand. This is an issue for big-name professional games as well as indie/hobbyist games. Don't let the addition of features take away from a player's ability to jump right into the game. When I start up a BYOND game and see 6 different tabs in the info panel all with an array of verbs in the ugly default scheme, I'm immediately skeptical of the game. If you can make simple buttons and menus for all game actions and put them right on the map screen, do it! If you can't fit all that...reconsider which features are really necessary. One of the most revolutionary and successful games of all time was Doom and it's sequel Doom 2. If you haven't played it (blasphemy!), it's a pretty straightforward shoot-em-up. You explore levels, shooting demons on the way, finding keys to get to the exit. In the planning stages, however, Doom was going to include a lot more features. They wanted to have an inventory system, cutscenes, different characters to play, wounds that you have to bandage, mission objectives, and so on. But once they started developing the game, iD software realized that those things were just going to slow down the action and distract the player from blasting zombies. So they took it all out! That doesn't mean you should strip every feature of your game. Just be critical of how things flow, especially for a new player. Can they join your game and start playing after taking a few seconds to look at the controls? Or, do they have to go through a lengthy tutorial to do even the most basic game actions? Try to make your game complex because of the things that happen in the game, not because of the difficulty of using the interface. P.S. if you do have a tutorial, it should be just as fun as the actual game! | |
Magicsofa wrote:
It is easier to come up with small ideas than big ones :D I wrote this because I find your first line very annoying. Encouraging people to be happy with little ideas which in the long run won't help them isn't doing them a favor. It's brings them into your bubble of distorted reality where big ideas aren't for normal people, in other words the greatness you seek is unobtainable so don't even try. Your philosophy right now can be compared very much to a similar one I've heard before and I often use. It's about building a wall. Your current idea is that you don't set out to build the biggest, baddest wall. You lay a brick everyday as perfectly as a brick can be laid and soon you have a wall. This philosophy has a grand error. That is, how do you know you need to build a wall? Someone had to have the idea to build one. The same is for a game. You have to start by thinking big and then you cut off what doesn't need to be there. As you can see the truth lies somewhat in between. On one hand you need to build the mental capacity to think beyond your means and beyond what you think is possible. Then you need the rationality to take from your scheme what is achievable. P.S Never ever use Casual Quest as a representation of success, especially next to any Doom game. Haha. | |
Red Hall Dev wrote:
Neo Rapes Everything wrote: I think he mean't it as his reply/comment is useless. | |
Red Hall Dev wrote:
I wrote this because I find your first line very annoying. Encouraging people to be happy with little ideas which in the long run won't help them isn't doing them a favor. It's brings them into your bubble of distorted reality where big ideas aren't for normal people, in other words the greatness you seek is unobtainable so don't even try. This is an exaggeration of what I said. Did I say that big ideas are impossible to come up with? No...I said they were difficult. Furthermore, just because a game is based on a "small idea" doesn't mean that it isn't a great game, or that it lacks exciting and substantial gameplay. I'd rather see new programmers create a pong game that doesn't suck than yet-another mmorpg that sucks and will never be finished anyway. After you have made something simple, you can try for something a bit more complex. Your philosophy right now can be compared very much to a similar one I've heard before and I often use. It's about building a wall. Your current idea is that you don't set out to build the biggest, baddest wall. You lay a brick everyday as perfectly as a brick can be laid and soon you have a wall. This was your idea, not mine. Again, you are exaggerating. I said nothing about perfection, I said your game should be fun. It doesn't matter how big or small the game is. If it's not fun at all, what was the point in writing it? Perhaps a programming exercise, but still...if you are trying to program a game, you might as well start by making fun games instead of trying to learn that later :D This philosophy has a grand error. That is, how do you know you need to build a wall? Someone had to have the idea to build one. The same is for a game. You have to start by thinking big and then you cut off what doesn't need to be there. I wrote this because I find these lines very confusing. Yeah...I suppose most people probably thought "I should make a game" before they tried it. Why does that mean you have to start by thinking big? Why does that mean you have to cut off all the fail-ideas you had in the middle of development instead of practice not coming up with fail-ideas? Why do you then contradict yourself by saying "truth lies somewhat in between?" I thought I HAD to start by thinking big and cutting-out rather than thinking small and adding-in!? On one hand you need to build the mental capacity to think beyond your means and beyond what you think is possible. Then you need the rationality to take from your scheme what is achievable. A runner who begins their running career by joining a marathon doesn't sound like someone with "mental capacity." Sounds like they are a complete fool, and sure to collapse if they somehow have the willpower to push their body so far beyond what it is capable of. Similarly, a programmer who -begins- by trying to create some masterpiece is sure to fail. If your scheme is the biggest, baddest game in history, then yeah...you should have the rationality to take what is achievable - nothing - from your scheme. P.S Never ever use Casual Quest as a representation of success, especially next to any Doom game. Haha. And finally...you read your own idea into my text again! I didn't say Casual Quest was a representation of success. I said it was an example of a game where the first few levels, involving no special abilities or weapons, can still be fun. This is BYOND...the biggest game here, space station 13 (which I never play) has two to three hundred players on average. That's not a lot compared to commercial games, but it's quite a lot for BYOND. I think since I can actually join a CQ server with more than zero players, it is a relatively successful game. Definitely more successful than the many games which don't have any players in the following 50 pages. As for Doom...I was referring only to the original Doom games from the 90s. I hated doom 3...I think it's a great example of how developers can get so caught up in high-end graphics, bells and whistles, and bigger spectacles, that they forget about making it fun. Was it relatively fun? Sure, if I weren't such a fanboy maybe I would have more fun with it. But nobody is talking about doom 3 as some groundbreaker anymore, they have moved on. iD software, one of the most successful game companies ever, thought pretty damn big and it was just another competing top-of-the-line FPS, which they now have to try to one-up with doom 4. When iD was planning Doom they already had a ground-breaker FPS under their belt, Wolfenstein 3d. They had also released a crapload of commander keen games, and so on. They didn't start with Doom, they started with Dangerous Dave. | |
NNAAAAHH wrote:
You could take the Dariuc Approach and ask others for ideas Meh. Asking for ideas isn't really the same thing as coming up with an idea for making a game. In that instance I had a concept already made , programmed and nearly complete. I was simply trying to brainstorm in a constructive way in order to add more depth to the game. Not really the same thing. Aside from that, when you stare at and scrutinize something for long enough, you miss small details or simple things. It's easier to remove yourself from it, or see how others view it- and go from there. I think two different goals,( the OP and mine). Aside from all that, you just seem really bitter that you didn't read the rules. Not my problem. The contest was structured and designed to promote originality by limiting ideas that other people had already put forth, your idea that it was "rigged" was and still is pretty stupid in my opinion. But it's just that- my opinion. I'd also like to say if you have a problem with me- just don't respond to anything I say. Thanks :) | |
I'm still confident in what I said and as far as I can tell your argument is basically "But I didn't say that."
There's a difference between exaggeration and extrapolation. You're not seeing that when you say things, it also means other things. Propositions have conclusions. You can't just blindly throw out pieces of philosophy like: "It is easier to come up with small ideas than big ones :D" Without exposing a way of thinking. I disagree with your way of thinking and I'm confident you're wrong about designing games. From what I've read your philosophy is make small fun games and don't think to much about them. Completely failing to realize your own self contradiction that Doom one of the most successful games of all time started by a massive dump of ideas and then realizing they didn't need a lot of the U.I stuff because it was getting in the way. Remember I said. As you can see the truth lies somewhat in between. Basically that in itself completely trumps your marathon idea as well and you wrote it yourself so I won't delve into that. Oh yeah and it's true they started with Dangerous Dave but what game ultimately secured them as a pop culture icon? Yeah.. You're just backtracking and contradicting yourself. | |
I didn't say it was good or bad, nor did I insult you in my posting. The contest, as I stated in that post, where the discussion should've stayed, held no interest to me in winning. And, indeed, you did not support any form of orriginality, as I pointed out where infact many ideas from one of the lead placers at the time had gotten his ideas, to which you did nothing but continue to award points.
-Back to the topic- Asking for someone to help you with ideas is NOT a horrible thing. Infact, one of they keys in game developement is taking ideas from others(not literaly, of course). | |
NNAAAAHH wrote:
I didn't say it was good or bad, nor did I insult you in my posting. The contest, as I stated in that post, where the discussion should've stayed, held no interest to me in winning. If you say so. If you're bringing it up now after months- just makes it seem like you were kinda mad about it. It's also the way you said it- asking someone for an opinion or starting up group brain storming isn't anyone's "approach". I personally have no problem saying what needs to be said, I think you on the other hand just want to save face and not seem like an ass I suspect. But it's whatever. | |
Red Hall Dev wrote:
From what I've read your philosophy is make small fun games and don't think to much about them. Well you read incorrectly, and I tried to elaborate on what I really meant but you still refuse it. I'll say it one last time, in a single sentence even. Here it is, My Philosophy (tm): Focus on small projects until you develop the skills necessary to complete bigger projects. Completely failing to realize your own self contradiction that Doom one of the most successful games of all time started by a massive dump of ideas and then realizing they didn't need a lot of the U.I stuff because it was getting in the way. Nope. They were a well established team. As you can see here: http://i.imgur.com/sCu2i.png They were not thinking beyond what they thought was possible. Carmack had already made 3d engines before...this was another improvement, which was within the confines of computing power in those days, and which he knew he could accomplish. All the ideas about having inventory and cutscenes and whatnot, those were not beyond their means or what they thought was possible. They could have implemented all of those things. But once they began developing and testing the game, they realized some of the features were unnecessary and decided to focus on relatively basic aspects: cool levels, interesting battles, scary atmosphere, and fast pacing. That's a much different scenario than one or two new programmers coming up with ideas. I've certainly done it - I've embarked on that fateful quest to make a Byond RPG, probably five or six times now. Each time I learned something, but I also struggled. After putting a certain amount of work in, I would lose steam and run into things that I didn't have a clue how to accomplish. I tried to implement things, using other people's code, that I didn't really understand. Eventually, I gave up and started on something new. On the other hand, and especially more recently, I've also thought of less ambitious projects, and come much closer to an actual game. They weren't perfect, and I haven't released any of them, because I am very self-critical. Still, if I am to release a game (which I plan to do soon) I better not get completely crazy with my dream MMORPG concept. Trust me, I have lists of skills and game mechanics and fictional plant species and possible status effects. One day I will say "I'm ready" and I'll go for it. But in the meantime, even while I write down my ideas for that monster project, I'm going to make an effort to fully execute smaller projects in order to learn more about DM and game design and have something to show for it. | |
Look we'll have to agree to disagree because we both know we're right and I've already explained my point twice.
| |
Fair enough...
| |
A great deal of people come to the conclusion they should make games because they play a lot of them, and really enjoy them. This is a great starting point as it gives you a basic idea of a game's constituents but it doesn't come close to the actual content available to you or even the bare minimum content you need to make something which is enjoyable. Remember that you're not making games for big corporations. The same rules don't apply to you, however a lot of the techniques (not all) will apply to games you make.
Also I won't deny that it takes a certain type of character to make games. This isn't to say people who are having trouble making games should go home. That's the first part of the person's character. Writing games and designing them is something you do not just because you want to but because you know you have to, because there is something very deep and undeniable within your mind which you have to get out. I often see the greatest games as a desperate attempt by it's founders to communicate.
You'll be successful in game development as when no one has to give you a dime to do what you do. You just wake up in the morning and you know what you have to do, the idea is coming and you have to get it out.