Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
MAKING GAMES IN LITTLE TIME
Posts
Pages:
1
calunio
View playlists
CloseGame Gale is coming, so I think this is a very pertinent topic.
I'd like to discuss differences between making a game within a restricted set of time, and making a game with no such constraints.
Designing a small project is not the same as designing a smaller version of a bigger project, obviously. A small project shouldn't be like a demo, or a teaser for something bigger. Most game concepts that work for big games wouldn't work for smaller ones. You can't make epic RPGs, long storylines, huge customized systems or graphics, or anything of the sort in, say, 2 weeks. Still, I don't think these should be excuses for making a game that is bad, unpolished, or something that doesn't feel complete.
There are many good games that were made in a short set of time, and they work because they're based on a concept that is appropriate for that kind of game. For example, the Blue Contestant was made in 2 weeks, it's an awesome game, and I think it wouldn't be essentially a different (or better) game if it was made in 2 months.
So, in your opinion, how should game design choices change when you're making a game in 2 weeks (considering genre, style, graphics, customization, story, everything)?
I'd like to discuss differences between making a game within a restricted set of time, and making a game with no such constraints.
Designing a small project is not the same as designing a smaller version of a bigger project, obviously. A small project shouldn't be like a demo, or a teaser for something bigger. Most game concepts that work for big games wouldn't work for smaller ones. You can't make epic RPGs, long storylines, huge customized systems or graphics, or anything of the sort in, say, 2 weeks. Still, I don't think these should be excuses for making a game that is bad, unpolished, or something that doesn't feel complete.
There are many good games that were made in a short set of time, and they work because they're based on a concept that is appropriate for that kind of game. For example, the Blue Contestant was made in 2 weeks, it's an awesome game, and I think it wouldn't be essentially a different (or better) game if it was made in 2 months.
So, in your opinion, how should game design choices change when you're making a game in 2 weeks (considering genre, style, graphics, customization, story, everything)?
Story
Take a cue from short story writing and start as close as possible to the climax/story resolution, and make heavy use of tropes for ease of communicating complex points to the player with little overhead.
Genre
Stick with a familiar genre so that you are efficient. Exploring new genres should probably be a longer, more involved process and doesn't suit a short contest.
That being said, a short contest has automatically lower expectations, so maybe it is the time to experiment!
Graphics
Hopefully you have resources at-the-ready!
Customization
Plan the game from start to finish in advance before even opening your editor of choice!
I made Generica in 10 days start to finish, but I didn't open RM2k3 until day 4.
Take a cue from short story writing and start as close as possible to the climax/story resolution, and make heavy use of tropes for ease of communicating complex points to the player with little overhead.
Genre
Stick with a familiar genre so that you are efficient. Exploring new genres should probably be a longer, more involved process and doesn't suit a short contest.
That being said, a short contest has automatically lower expectations, so maybe it is the time to experiment!
Graphics
Hopefully you have resources at-the-ready!
Customization
Plan the game from start to finish in advance before even opening your editor of choice!
I made Generica in 10 days start to finish, but I didn't open RM2k3 until day 4.
Shinan
4314
Preproduction is one of the keys. Spend a day or two to put down everything on paper. And when you're making the game (following that plan) don't stray from it. Even though you're coding away and finding a little cool thing on the side that would be lots of fun to add don't do it. Stick with the plan and you'll see the door at the end of the tunnel.
Another is to stick with something you know. If you know you don't have too much time don't start using a completely new program when the thing starts.
Of course sometimes you don't want to follow these things but instead just make your first game ever in a new program and starting out with no idea whatsoever and will finish with a great game. But I'd say that's an exception more than a rule.
Another is to stick with something you know. If you know you don't have too much time don't start using a completely new program when the thing starts.
Of course sometimes you don't want to follow these things but instead just make your first game ever in a new program and starting out with no idea whatsoever and will finish with a great game. But I'd say that's an exception more than a rule.
What Shinan said, eighty times over. Karsu and I will post more on this subject later, but really. Preproduction is absolutely vital.
We spent four days planning out - JUST planning - Visions & Voices.
We spent four days planning out - JUST planning - Visions & Voices.
Funny I just read the Game Gale thing directly before I saw this.
I've designed tons of clone games in as little as a day. NO graphics though, but I've designed a Zelda clone, Space Invaders, Tetris, Pacman, Pong, and the list goes on.
--- So, in your opinion, how should game design choices change when you're making a game in 2 weeks (considering genre, style, graphics, customization, story, everything)?
- genre: think Atari
- style: think no graphics
- graphics: think blocky
- customization: huh?
- story: have an idea that's been in your head for years and you've never written out
- everything: think simple, don't get bogged down
I've designed tons of clone games in as little as a day. NO graphics though, but I've designed a Zelda clone, Space Invaders, Tetris, Pacman, Pong, and the list goes on.
--- So, in your opinion, how should game design choices change when you're making a game in 2 weeks (considering genre, style, graphics, customization, story, everything)?
- genre: think Atari
- style: think no graphics
- graphics: think blocky
- customization: huh?
- story: have an idea that's been in your head for years and you've never written out
- everything: think simple, don't get bogged down
Dezz
1252
Haha it took me about a week to design the initial storyline and plot of Faith, and I still haven't finished.
What I do is write a whole book full of ideas to use in the game, and when I'm making it I take a look in the book.
There would be no chance of me making a game like Faith in 2 weeks AT ALL. Even with everyone on here participating. Too much planning and plotting on paper...
If you make a game in 2 weeks, expect it too be more buggy, less gameplay time, less storyline based and a worse game in general.
If you make a game in 2 weeks, you have less time to improve on it, and you don't get as much work done.
What I do is write a whole book full of ideas to use in the game, and when I'm making it I take a look in the book.
There would be no chance of me making a game like Faith in 2 weeks AT ALL. Even with everyone on here participating. Too much planning and plotting on paper...
If you make a game in 2 weeks, expect it too be more buggy, less gameplay time, less storyline based and a worse game in general.
If you make a game in 2 weeks, you have less time to improve on it, and you don't get as much work done.
post=138523
If you make a game in 2 weeks, expect it too be more buggy, less gameplay time, less storyline based and a worse game in general.
Don't agree with the underlined. And I think game gale entries will prove you wrong.
This game will prove you wrong.
catmitts
4862
i have it easy here since for short adventure games you basically just need a few rooms, a few puzzles, and some halfassed plot to tie them together (probably not exactly a good attitude for game design in general but we're talking short contest games here). This gives some leeway with the planning part, too.
Mostly I look at contest things or short games as an excuse to use a specific idea or style that doesn't really fit anywhere else. The New Adventures Of Billy The Kid basically came about because i'd stretched some green crepe paper over a foam platform (the same one used for the planet surface in Paul Moose, incidentally) and I was itching to build some kind of map on it. In the game there's actually a big medieval tower in the map screen that I put in when I thought it would look cool and just never really found a use for!
I guess the one thing I'd suggest for short games is not getting too precious about them. I'm not trying to encourage laziness or whatever here but it's really more of a chance to play around and have fun with ideas and the act of making something than it is to start that polished SuperGame you've been plotting. It's also easy to fall into a thing of "no wait this game is too good to waste on a contest!!", which is kind of a bad mindset because (a) if it really has potential then you can always revamp it at a later date and (b) it's easy to get caught up in the excitement of starting a new project and overlook the fact that the idea doesn't really go anywhere. I suspect full-length games are more a matter of painstakingly building and refining and mixing ideas, throwing out things that don't work, switching perspective and characters and tone around, and something you pulled out your ass for a two-week contest probably will not be solid enough for sustained work. Build the game quickly, get it out there, then take a long look at the result and decide which parts are worth scavenging. Contests are fun because of the initial burst of ideas and energy: enjoy that and just roll with it instead of trying to hoard it all.
Woah that was suprisingly long and nagging but okay!
Mostly I look at contest things or short games as an excuse to use a specific idea or style that doesn't really fit anywhere else. The New Adventures Of Billy The Kid basically came about because i'd stretched some green crepe paper over a foam platform (the same one used for the planet surface in Paul Moose, incidentally) and I was itching to build some kind of map on it. In the game there's actually a big medieval tower in the map screen that I put in when I thought it would look cool and just never really found a use for!
I guess the one thing I'd suggest for short games is not getting too precious about them. I'm not trying to encourage laziness or whatever here but it's really more of a chance to play around and have fun with ideas and the act of making something than it is to start that polished SuperGame you've been plotting. It's also easy to fall into a thing of "no wait this game is too good to waste on a contest!!", which is kind of a bad mindset because (a) if it really has potential then you can always revamp it at a later date and (b) it's easy to get caught up in the excitement of starting a new project and overlook the fact that the idea doesn't really go anywhere. I suspect full-length games are more a matter of painstakingly building and refining and mixing ideas, throwing out things that don't work, switching perspective and characters and tone around, and something you pulled out your ass for a two-week contest probably will not be solid enough for sustained work. Build the game quickly, get it out there, then take a long look at the result and decide which parts are worth scavenging. Contests are fun because of the initial burst of ideas and energy: enjoy that and just roll with it instead of trying to hoard it all.
Woah that was suprisingly long and nagging but okay!
post=138523
If you make a game in 2 weeks, expect it too be ... a worse game in general.
This is about as far from the truth as it gets. Avarice is a prime example of a unique and fantastic game made in a short amount of time. And I'm already loving some of the Game Gale entries I've tried.
It's like any creative endeavor. If you're feeling inspired enough, you can create great things in a very small timeframe.
I also completely disagree with catmitts on the following argument:
As I see it, it's quite the contrary. Of course games made without a time limit tend to be longer, and contest games will be shorter. But since you're forced to finish it within a time limit, it actually motivates you to work harder, and the fact that it's a CONTEST makes you want to put quality first place. If you're making a lengthy game for a long time, THEN you shouldn't be too precious about it, or you'll never finish it... and a lot of people have been through this experience. But if you can find a game idea that fits a 2 week contest, that matches a short game, you should make the idea compensate the fact that the game is short.
Like I said, and like narcodis just said, there are plenty of really great games that were made for short contests like this. And they're not "great considering it was made in 2 weeks", they're great period. I would never have imagined The Blue Contestant was made for a 2 week contest.
post=138535
I guess the one thing I'd suggest for short games is not getting too precious about them. I'm not trying to encourage laziness or whatever here but it's really more of a chance to play around and have fun with ideas and the act of making something than it is to start that polished SuperGame you've been plotting. (more more more). Contests are fun because of the initial burst of ideas and energy: enjoy that and just roll with it instead of trying to hoard it all.
As I see it, it's quite the contrary. Of course games made without a time limit tend to be longer, and contest games will be shorter. But since you're forced to finish it within a time limit, it actually motivates you to work harder, and the fact that it's a CONTEST makes you want to put quality first place. If you're making a lengthy game for a long time, THEN you shouldn't be too precious about it, or you'll never finish it... and a lot of people have been through this experience. But if you can find a game idea that fits a 2 week contest, that matches a short game, you should make the idea compensate the fact that the game is short.
Like I said, and like narcodis just said, there are plenty of really great games that were made for short contests like this. And they're not "great considering it was made in 2 weeks", they're great period. I would never have imagined The Blue Contestant was made for a 2 week contest.
Darken
3952
I don't have much to offer, but I thought this video was really cool and is very much related.
http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/4/14/oral-history-of-gaming-game-godfather-sid-meier-and-the-48-hour-game
It's interesting to observe how ideas change drastically even in the "on paper" stages because you can't be TOO ambitious or gimmicky.
http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/4/14/oral-history-of-gaming-game-godfather-sid-meier-and-the-48-hour-game
It's interesting to observe how ideas change drastically even in the "on paper" stages because you can't be TOO ambitious or gimmicky.
Pages:
1
