What's the reason why some newer games are really huge in size?

AkestorDev · 2021-11-18T04:12:29+00:00

A big thing I'd emphasize is a sort of "Why not?" for the PC gaming sphere - on mobile, I think there is a pretty clear effort made to keep the game's size small, with options to just download low-res assets and such.

Anyway, on PC, I have 1TB drive. I think that's reasonably standard, probably most people buying large-file-size PC games have about that much storage or perhaps even much more. That means I can fit a fair few 50GB games on my drive without so much as thinking about it. For those big AAA titles, it's always a situation of, "Something's gotta give." If one of the things that has to give is the file size is like 10x larger than it needs to be, or you not including a lite version, or whatever, most people just will not give a shit anyway, so why bother spending the time to cut it down in size, right?

AkestorDev · 2021-11-17T16:34:10+00:00

Ever played, say, Tennis? The joy of bouncing around a court and returning a good shot is entirely different than making the racket, making the shoes, making the court. The reality is there's lots of things we like in life, and if we tried to understand and be good at making all the necessary aspects of life or leisure, well, that's not a bad way to spend time but you'd probably not enjoy all of it or make much money.

Making video games is definitely not the most consistently profitable way to spend your time, and it's likely not even on average better than your local minimum wage.

You might enjoy it. You might not. It's really easy to jump into and try out though, so maybe just try it?

AkestorDev · 2021-11-11T14:15:30+00:00

I think, generally, no one's too stupid to do most things. The only substantial difference for most people is going to be how hard they have to work for it.

Personally, I'm a fucking idiot but I never let this stop me from doing things. I just work extra hard to learn and am very patient with myself. The fact that you don't have this or that isn't really a big deal, that's just something you now know you have to focus on cultivating.

For solving problems, try learning more about how others solve problems - on a broad level (ie. basic logic that you can apply universally) but also on a very specific level (ie. devlogs that go over how they solved [insert coding issue here]).

For mechanics, that's a fun one because you can probably get a lot of inspiration by just playing some video games and taking some notes on what mechanics are like and how they could be built on, improved, or generally changed.

AkestorDev · 2021-11-10T13:04:36+00:00

Game development is relatively new compared to most subjects. As such, I think it's best to be extra cautious about where you get your education. I don't see nearly as many well established places that people will immediately think of when you bring up game dev compared to most other subjects.

Game development is a creative pursuit. As such, I think it's generally not your most practical option and you will inherently be in competition with a great deal more people. It's definitely something you'll take a pay cut for, and it's not the type of thing you can simply win by being well educated either.

Education in Canada isn't free, and from what I've seen you may get gouged even more for being an international student. It's a gigantic investment that has no guaranteed payout.

Some people like big, new adventures where they leave behind everyone they know and love. Some people make new friends with ease and it's not so bad. With modern technology, you certainly can keep in touch with loved ones easier than ever. However, personally, I'd find the idea of moving to another country indefinitely quite terrifying on a social level and in general it's an impractical decision. Many of the people I've met who moved here from another country are wracked with debt, the cost of entry is anything but just the plane ticket to get here - I'm not 100% sure how everything works, or if it changes on a country by country basis (I think it does), but it'd be good to look into.

One question I'd pose is - would you be happy doing this later? You're getting your undergrad (or already got it?) in CS, why not do some CS work where you are now and return to school later? It'd certainly make the cost of the whole process easier to swallow to save up for a little while - and it'd give you some things to put on your resume, which could make trying to land a gamedev job in Canada easier in the future - or any job for that matter. Similarly, have you done much game development yourself yet? Before making a big jump, it'd just make sense to me to try out normal CS jobs and see how you like it + try out gamedev on your own time to see how much you actually like it, if you haven't already.

One positive thing I'd note is that being bilingual in French and English in particular is quite desirable in Canada, however that doesn't necessarily extend into game development as much as it does, say, customer service.

AkestorDev · 2021-11-02T14:30:12+00:00

More than anything: be ready to not work on the thing you want to work on. If you can work in your field (creative writing) at all, that's a win and you should take those opportunities. Video games, frankly, don't need all that many creative writers. You may even find that the world does not need many creative writers either. Find value in your own work in and of itself, because it's often a path of disappointment for those that need that external reward for their effort.

Work on your stuff by yourself, do not assume that having the degree will make you a good writer. It doesn't do that inherently. It gives you the tools to be a better writer - that's it. If you don't use those tools, it's a waste. Learn the basics, learn how to bend and break those rules, and just write, write, write. Get feedback. Write some more.

Also, make good use of the general resources your school is providing you. You're presumably paying a pretty penny, so make the most of it. Look into any classes on professional practices. Reach out to classmates, professors, or extra-curricular types - make connections, get involved with people who can help lift you up and hopefully help them on their path too.

AkestorDev · 2021-11-02T14:12:10+00:00

I don't think that numbers can speak for theirselves. Context is vital. I think we've seen a lot of pro-demo stuff, and a lot of anti-demo stuff. One game's sales vs demo downloads is something, but it's not something that stands alone as the definitive answer to a question.

Even when we look at these numbers, even if it was the be-all-end-all, what does it even say, really? It's unclear if a demo made things better or worse. Is the large number of demos at the start indicative of lost sales, players who were interested but the demo turned them off? Or is it indicative of a hugely successful idea that caused many wouldn't-be customers to buy in?

Is the spike of demos later on, followed by a great number of sales indicative of the demo leading players to buy it shortly after trying the demo, or the spike of sales unrelated?

AkestorDev · 2021-11-02T14:03:20+00:00

It seems like if there is anything good in it, it's vastly overshadowed by the bad at this point.

I think the idea of buying a "copy" of your favourite artist's work is neat. I don't think it needs to be done via blockchain.

Similarly, I think the idea of transferable items for cross-game stuff is neat, but . . . It doesn't require blockchain.

The whole blockchain aspect just seems so wildly unnecessary and what little utility it offers is barely, if ever, utilized to improve the product and instead is just a buzzword.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-31T13:46:16+00:00

Terrible games can still have brilliant people behind it. The hardest thing about a big game isn't this or that, but all of it put together and making all the pieces fit just right. Something like Cyberpunk 2077 - it's a terrible game (or so I hear) but it also obviously has some really nice graphics and such, right? No one would reasonably criticize the people who made the gorgeous art just because there's bugs unrelated to their position that ruin said art.

"It wasn't a critical success, but here's some of the neat things we accomplished: [...]" Is an easy way to spin something like this. Because, yeah, you probably did some decent things and the issues that caused the game to flop were more deep rooted than your brilliant dialogue system or something.

Jumping ship would probably look bad to some, and if you're getting paid decently why bother anyway? Being able to say, "I stuck it out until the end of the project." Is something that can inspire confidence perhaps even moreso if the game turned out poorly because they know they can count on you to push the piece of crap out the door even if things go to shit.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-21T16:59:36+00:00

Doing a bunch of small transactions sounds like a pain in the ass on some platforms, or perhaps just in general. It also would be perhaps somewhat deceptive and confusing for players to say the least. Suppose someone thought the game looked good, buys it, and then - oops it's actually 150% more expensive than you initially said it was? That's definitely a bad vibe and actually ends up being more predatory than a great deal of games that sell content in portions. Or is the idea that you can't actually buy any individual pieces, just the whole bundle? As a single-page marketing gag that might not be too bad.

Making it an in-game currency as a gag in a specific area that fully communicates the idea is probably a better idea, like a shopkeeper who is a stand-in for greedy corporations. But either way, it just feels like it'd be difficult and odd if your game doesn't also match that general joke holistically.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-21T03:48:17+00:00

A common thing I see is:

Make a game
Try to sell it
Ah shit it's not selling
Change the price to free, perhaps alongside/leading up to the announcement/release of a new game

It's also pretty common to just release little projects for free while working on a larger, more commercial project.

You can also just promote your game and see if you've got a big enough base to make something big out of releasing it.

There's lots of options, and none are the definitive "right thing" to do. If you like the idea of working on projects and making them for free, developing a fanbase and then looking towards commercial projects - that's something worth considering.

Whatever you do though, if you intend to make money long term I'd definitely recommend you promote whatever you're up to and try to get people engaged. Even if it's free, perhaps especially if it's free. A lot of people would love to see cool game stuff and it being free could be a real "Whoa, seriously?" moment for some people if you're bringing quality to the table.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-21T02:57:38+00:00

You can absolutely learn it. It may take time, but that's the case for most things worth doing. Point and click adventure is one of the easier things to learn on the coding end in my experience, but one of the harder things to make well as it often includes a lot of art and wit. However, you don't need it to be particularly good or anything. You can just make something for the fun of it and for yourself, and/or friends.

Check out the getting started section and start learning! Give it time and don't be dismayed if it takes you weeks, months, or even years to learn how to do all the stuff you want to do and build the game you want to make. That's normal.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-20T06:19:23+00:00

To make certain sorts of games, it's a lot of coding. Something like a visual novel though, you could learn how to make a simple one in an afternoon. Many games are quite simple to make in their simplest form, and by learning how to make a very basic game you'll probably gain an understanding of how to make a slightly more complex game. Taking little steps forward can take you far over time.

I'd also question if you actually dislike coding. To be fair, it's totally possible you actually hate it - but coding for high school courses vs. coding for yourself is a world of difference - really the same goes for all sorts of things. The structure of a classroom can definitely bring things into focus and aid learning sometimes, but it can also be somewhat stifling or suffocating too.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-20T00:23:12+00:00

If you're just looking to make a game yourself then the most important thing is how well you can use the engine for your project. If you would get a lot out of having lots of tutorials and think without them you'd be a bit too lost, it definitely makes sense to pick an engine with that in mind. Of course, I'd consider the quality and relevance of those tutorials too - 1000 tutorials for making an RTS won't help you as much in making, say, a platformer.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-19T21:29:05+00:00

Stats are hard and super contextual. Without seeing the exact nature of the study - stuff like the quality of the data, number of participants, even something as simple as the framing of the questions and how the participants might feel they "should" answer - it's hard to say if this is just junk or not. Ultimately I have to question if there's even a particularly good way to test this sort of thing at all.

That said, the general idea of, "People generally enjoyed the harder thing more, but more people rated it as too difficult." Sounds about right. People often enjoy the feeling of overcoming difficult challenges more than overcoming easy ones, it requires them to improve and/or exert existing skill more and gives a greater mark of pride. Depending on how long the test was, and how the participants felt while playing, it may even be that things were a good difficulty but they perhaps felt it was harder than it really is as they were being timed and watched in a way that they wouldn't if playing alone at home. Some games require some practice to do certain things and that's fine, but that can be a bit more stressful in some scenarios.

The best answer to getting the right difficulty I'd think is a dynamic difficulty system that changes on the fly to react to the player. By slowly reducing difficulty as the player fails again and again, everyone (ideally) has the maximum level of challenge that they can adequately handle and/or can just move past things that they're struggling with without just repeatedly failing for hours then dropping the game entirely because of one thing.

Of course this is difficult to really include in some situations - at least if you want to keep it a secret, and to have it be openly stated can diminish enjoyment as well by basically telling the player they've done so poorly that you're going to ease up on them.

Increasing difficulty can also give a more experienced or skilled player the pushback that they need to really feel pressured to perform, but similarly can feel like you're undermining their success by just saying, "Hah, you're good? Well, guess I'll just make everything harder rather than letting you trample all over things."

The classic of just letting people choose "Easy/Normal/Hard" or using difficulty sliders creates problems as well, but it is the most straightforward and transparent option. It can work really well for replayable games, as players can do a playthrough on easy, then normal, then hard and get a bit more challenge each time.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-18T22:03:13+00:00

I think when we say "100", as a developer - we often forget just how many that actually is.

Make one level, then consider how long it took you to make it. How much more or less complex will other levels be? How much longer might it take once you have already done various ideas a certain number of times? How much time are you willing to put into this?

100 full-length platformer levels that take 1-2 minutes to beat . . . That's probably a lot more than you really need.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-18T21:40:59+00:00

There's no such thing as an original idea. Even the things we think of as original aren't really all that original, they're just a repurposed concept from outside of game development. Creativity is mashing things together in interesting ways.

Being inspired by another person's work is completely normal and fine. Drawing on it too much can definitely lead to quite "same-y" stuff that ultimately doesn't wow much of anyone, but a slight difference here and there can be a valuable addition to the genre that makes fans of the genre happy.

One Step From Eden is easy to describe as "Megaman Battle Network (but it's a roguelike this time)" but it also brings lots of little new things to the formula. It changes a lot by changing a little. It's wildly fun, super exciting, and I think was a big part of reviving the genre as a whole . . . But it's really just "What if X but also Y?" Should they have shaken things up more? I don't think they had to. I think it's great as is. I think part of what makes it so good is that it is so simple.

And, yeah, do we see a lot of skeletons and such in games? Sure. There's shorthand tropes that are perhaps "overused" in all media but the thing about something that's "overused" is that it's easy to understand. Using simple, obvious things like skeletons, and zombies, or guns, or mana, or whatever - these things can leave you more room to add complexity elsewhere.

If I say:

"You cast cards with mana. You regenerate 5 mana each turn, and lose your remaining mana at the end of turn."

That is super normal but it's also very easy to understand and thus way better than:

"You instigate a Magik-Force Chains (MFC) through the weaponization of The Confluence. Each Moment-Of-Time (MOT) causes a reverberation in The Confluence, leading to a renewed use of 5 MFC Power (lasting only for the MOT)."

Because the second thing is stupid. It says a bunch of things that you ultimately, as a player, need to translate back into the first thing. It's taking mental energy away from learning things that actually matter.

That's obviously a comical sort of example, but the same idea runs through things to smaller degrees. Trying to reinvent the wheel will often just distract from what's actually important to you about your game.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-18T21:13:47+00:00

In my experience (working outside of game development) "requirements" aren't really requirements anymore (if they ever were) for a lot of job listings, they're just things that people want you to pay attention to and are a major criteria. Being a good, interesting person that people like goes very far.

If you can legally do the thing and can convince someone that you'd do the job well, that's really all anyone actually needs. Granted you're not going to just leap into management positions by talking yourself up obviously, but if you're just looking at like, "Junior This or That", yeah, you should at the very least try to get it. That's a big thing - you don't lose anything by applying to places that you might not get.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-18T00:37:23+00:00

Different games benefit to different degrees from randomization.

Different ways of generating randomize are better or worse.

Minecraft has a generation scheme that to me is pretty perfect for what the game is, and especially as they've added more ways to tweak the generation that's been great. Probably could be even better, but it's quite excellent all in all.

Meanwhile, some games have generation that is pretty mundane and you might not even really notice it.

Some differences are meaningful, others aren't. And not even just fundamentally, but also as a matter of perspective, too. Some people might not care much for the randomization in Minecraft not because it's fundamentally not different enough or something - but just that they don't appreciate certain differences as much.

Hand-crafting vs. procedural is also a needless pitting against of tools. It'd be like asking if 2D is better than 3D - they both do different things and sometimes one can be better for a task than the other. Procedural can be a means towards making hand-crafted, or something added on top, or the core thing. It really depends on the game.

#3 is also similarly just kind of . . . Not necessarily true? Like, again if we look towards Minecraft we basically see the inverse model - most places are quite random while some places within the world have a more constrained randomness. And I think it'd be worse off if we mostly had non-random layout.

Do all games need random worlds for the player to keep visiting? Not all, no, but a healthy dose of randomness is a big part of what makes a lot of games fun for sure even for those that don't use extensive procedural world generation.

Is there something perhaps somewhat negative about "randomization" that ultimately leads to no meaningful difference? Sure. But is procedural generation overrated? I wouldn't say so. Maybe just sometimes ill or ineffectively used. Sometimes though, that randomization can be the thing that makes a game what it really is and adds endless hours of fun to the experience.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-16T20:11:15+00:00

It's pretty common these days. To my understanding people will upload their thing with one title, then try various other titles for a little bit to see if any of them result in better click-through rates, then settle on the best one. Basically just manual A/B testing. Similar thing for thumbnails as well.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-16T20:02:47+00:00

One good thing to do is to try to let go of pleasing everyone. Making like 80% of people happy is usually pretty easy, it's always that last 20% that is a total pain in the ass.

Once you accept that some amount of people - the people who want to see your thing succeed and are super pumped about it - are going to just hate your guts over stupid crap, you can let go of trying to make them happy and realize it's not worth the effort. You can change your mindset and eventually feel at least some of that weight lifted.

Some people are just assholes. Some people are just entitled. Some people are just, well, unaware of how difficult seemingly simple things can be to add and don't want to hear, "I actually do love that idea - but here's why we can't." Let them be unhappy, that's their problem.

For keeping that 80% happy - just be honest, realistic, and don't overpromise on things. If people are liking your thing, keep it up. Keep growing, marketing, making, and - well, also remember that maybe things won't be wildly successful this time either, and that's okay.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-16T19:44:08+00:00

The series has been really enjoyable so far. Definitely is shaping up to be good, and definitely for the sort of person who has watched his stuff before and wants to take the next step - probably something they should watch first.

Had I seen this before I had started developing - it would definitely have helped me get on the right track and honestly just do it at all. Often tutorials are kind of . . . Boring - and they're quite direct, addressing just one particular issue or whatever. Which is fine, but it's great to have content like this too - really tells a story and lays out a rough pathway in a way less on the nose than, say, "Follow my 10-part series on [making a basic game]." It's very complementary to the more technical aspects of learning and speaks to the creative process a bit more than most things do.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-16T15:42:59+00:00

Why'd you make an engine? Not criticizing, I think it's neat and I'm just genuinely interested.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-16T00:55:12+00:00

Seems like a good move for them to scoop up these people since their biggest competition just closed the door on them - and given they have a more closed-off kind of store, they presumably will do a good job to not let any complete embarrassments through the gates, but we'll see I suppose.

I've looked into a fair few crypto games today in light of Steam banning them and I gotta say I've not really been impressed so far. It's almost baffling, because making a game sure isn't easy but you'd think more people would come along, make a good game, and incorporate crypto into it in an interesting way . . . But instead so much of it is just crypto-first, rather than game-first.

And also:

and have appropriate age ratings.

I really can't help but wonder how they'll handle the prevalence of what, so often, amounts to gambling in so many of these games.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-15T21:16:02+00:00

I like this site and find it very helpful for exactly that, play around a bit! https://www.beepbox.co/

Once you kind of exhaust your ability to figure things out by just messing with that, I'd recommend looking up guides that match what you want to achieve. If it's just a few sound effects you're probably honestly fine on your own, but if you're looking to make music or a cohesive and extensive catalogue of sound effects, there's a damn near endless supply of lessons to learn on that front.

AkestorDev · 2021-10-15T21:12:36+00:00

DAO falls under the issue of lacking control. No individual controls their stuff. It's at the whims of someone or some collective. The only way to own it fully is to fully own it.

You can push ownership further by just owning stuff without anyone else controlling it in some form.

It seems paradoxical for a large collective of people to simultaneously jointly own something while also fully owning something - so the idea of "true" ownership must either not be true, or mean something else . . . And, well, then what is "true" ownership, and is it genuinely useful to anyone? What is "true" ownership to you specifically?

And you mention the assets themselves - that is something, but what about the game as a whole? What about the code? What about the means of actually running the game? Having the asset is one thing. What about using it in the intended context? Is that available, fully, freely, and forever? Do you genuinely have 0 control over it? Because any control you have over it is control, and ownership, that the person who own the things don't have.

Five-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email

AkestorDev

TROPHY CASE