UNITY'S PROFILE

author=skaiano
Ah dang, I was looking to make a sort of video involving the last demo, I only just finished the recording the other day! Ah well, in any case I really liked it so far and am willing to try this one out as well!

O_O Oh wow! :D I'd still love to see it! I had gotten a lot of feedback on the writing needing expanding, so that's what this new one addresses.

author=urano23
Downloading, I will give you my thoguhts later :)

Thanks! I'm looking forward to hearing what you think! ^_^

I personally like making a game without a world map and everything is connected directly. Reminds me of Earthbound and how much fun it was to explore that world.

That said, even though it may be overused, the world map is a tool, and a useful one for making your world seem bigger than it is. If a game is meant to be world-spanning, I'm not sure I'd accuse the designer of being lazy for including a world map, more that its a necessary evil.

While you want your game to feel polished and well designed, I think you can still do that with a world map. You mentioned Chrono Trigger: Now here's a game that actually has you navigate some towns on the world map rather than going into a big city map all the time. You go directly to stores and buildings from the world map in some cases. Yet I wouldn't accuse Chrono Trigger of being lazy, instead they're merely making their world map work for them and putting the time and resources in other areas.

Haha, glad to hear it!

You're still cool in my book, Addit! And I'm looking forward to seeing the winner ^_^

author=thatbennyguy
Good answers, unity. Very down-to-earth.

Thanks. :D

author=thatbennyguy
This brings up another question in my mind, and it's something that is more practical and less theoretical than the other questions: to what point should you say that a piece of art is done? Whether it be an entire game, or a tiny sprite, or a game mechanic. To what degree of near-perfection should you stop and say that it is good enough? Is it relative to the amount of time that a person would spend on it, or the value that the developer/player places in that element?

It's more a feeling in my case. It's trying to look at the element objectively and say "does this work for my game?" It's very gut-based, and thus I have to rely on feedback for when I fail to measure it. I'll think a sprite looks good, and then players will say "the colors look flat" or "the hair doesn't move right." Then I have to gauge if the players' perspective is correct, and then go back and polish the element that was lacking. I have a lot of flaws, so I'm grateful to be in a community where people can pick up on them.

What part of creating a game, or anything else, makes you happy? Is it the process of creating, or the enjoyment of the finished product? If it is a combination of the two, where on the sliding scale are you? And is there a place on the sliding scale where a person would find ultimate happiness from developing? Can you, as a person, choose your place on that scale via your mind?

A lot of the process isn't purely fun, but its all about goalposts. Trying to make a sprite look right is painstaking and annoying. Seeing the sprite move around correctly is the goalpost, and seeing it pulled off makes me happy and recharges my urge to keep going. Making the boss battle is fun but tedious. When the challenge feels just right and the boss and his minions are unleashing attacks the way you want, that's another goalpost that grants happiness for me.

On the bigger scale, there's the big goalposts. I felt extremely accomplished and happy to release a demo, even though there was a lot that was lacking in it (most of which I needed pointed out to me ^^;;) but it felt good because all the little things I did over and over added up to something.

And I guess that "doing what you want to do" is both admirable and sane. Good reply.

Thanks very much! I like these sorts of discussions, even though they are difficult.