How long does it take to make a game?
I could be annoying and say 'depends on the game'.
But that's not what you want to know, now, is it?
I finished Death Giver in 2 hours...
and most of that time was spent placing objects in levels and drawing the main menu!
You can see it being made here.
2 hours.
If you're watching this video then you probably have an interest in making games yourself.
How long have you been trying for?
How many have you finished?
And why is that number so small?
I hope this video will help to convince you to make a game SO SMALL and simple that you
cannot fail.
Even if it's painfully boring for you to make such a basic thing, you'll still have the
willpower and determination to get it done simply out of sheer brute force.
It's not about making a rubbish game.
It's about completing one!
It's an opportunity to learn all about the stages of game development that you don't
normally reach.
You'll learn to pace yourself and how to put a realistic end-date on different parts of
game development.
You'll witness that beautiful final stage where you can playtest it and iron out bugs,
knowing that everything you do now is only improving on an already-finished project!
How many times have you played a game, only to spot an obvious glitch and to think 'if
I made this game I wouldn't have made these mistakes'?
Well, now's your chance!
And what's more, it might only be a basic game but you'll probably learn more from that
than a hundred hours of working on a portion of a much larger project.
This could indeed be the most productive 2 hours of your life.
You'll thank me later.
Every game is like an iceberg.
Imagine that gamers are like people sailing past on boats.
They fail to realise that even the smallest of games has had a lot of work and effort
put into it.
Even the simplest ones have deep foundations underneath the surface.
For every hour that they think has gone into one, the reality is probably 10 times more
than that.
How long will that dream project that you're working on take you?
A couple of months?
Turn that number into years.
Doesn't look so appealing now, does it.
My old Atari STOS Basic manual used the quote 'fools rush where angels fear to tread' and
I still stubbornly dislike it out of principle, even though there's meaning to be had from
interpreting it.
But it used to make me ANGRY.
I'm not interested in making simple little games.
I want to make the next big thing!
Who are they to say otherwise?
I have rights.
And in a way it's true.
Why would you invest years into stuff you don't like in order to reach what you do?
Well, look at it another way- I wasted years trying to make complex stuff because it was
too hard for me to complete, or I learned so much whilst making it that it was better
to start again with a greater understanding.
I'd learn just as much from working on smaller projects, only the knowledge would be more
relevant AND would include the later stages of game design as well, such as pacing yourself
towards the end and searching for bugs in the final release.
As well as that, I would also have gained valuable feedback from others once it had
been released to the world.
These things are all SO important and will influence the choices you make when you embark
on your next project.
All too many people are like me, half-finishing most of their stuff or designing it in a vacuum,
oblivious to the reality that awaits their creation upon its release into the overpopulated
ocean of games.
Looking back at how I learned, it's a miracle that I got anything completed!
I suspect that most people who adopt the same approach run out of steam long before their
first release.
And it's because of this that I've developed a disliking to people who call themselves
'game developers' when they have no finished projects to show for it.
Perhaps they'll have a few tech demos or at best, a half-finished engine.
I don't doubt their knowledge of the early stages of game design, but I'd take any feedback
they give me about my finished releases with a pinch of salt.
You people know who you are.
You have an unbalanced knowledge and as a result will likely invest your time into the
wrong things.
Those fancy graphical effects you thought acted as armour-plating against bad reviews
may ultimately be the thing that weighs your product down.
Nimble, simpler flash games may be more responsive and enjoyable than your complex, lumbering
wreck of a creation.
And when the storm of negative reviews arrive, will you ride with it or stubbornly battle
against it until it tears you apart?
You probably won't get this process right first time.
Your games won't necessarily sell themselves.
This is why it's so important to get into the good habit of completing and releasing
your games.
You must remain in tune with the rest of the world, with what they want and what they think
of both you and your creations.
Don't assume that everybody else is wrong and that you're right.
The numbers don't go in your favour even if you think you're making the game for yourself...
because the chances are that in working so closely with your project, you miss obvious
flaws that others can easily spot from afar.
A lot of game development is about marketing it in the right way, making people aware of
what it is and isn't, and most importantly, making it easy to understand the first time
somebody tries it.
I suggest your MUM.
She's probably an excellent playtester since she has a limited understanding of how games
work.
Watch her closely as she plays it and see what happens.
Imagine that everybody who downloads your game is like her.
Then realise that you need to make your game more fool-proof.
Not that your Mum's a fool.
Well, maybe she is.
I wouldn't know.
But yeah, this realisation about fool-proofing your games took me years to realise.
Death Giver was a turning point for me and without it I wouldn't have made the far superior
(but still surprisingly basic!) sequel.
Sequels are magical things.
You get some kind of incredible motivation once you've completed the first game.
You know how to make it.
You know how to make something BETTER than it.
You even know roughly how long it will take to complete it.
All of these things only make your next project easier to do.
This is why I urge you to throw whatever complicated thing you're working on right now aside and
to instead make a game in 2 hours.
It'll be done before you go to bed tonight!
What's one more day in the grand scale of things?
But here's the hard part.
Once you've made it, you need to release it.
You HAVE to.
You must show the world that you've finished a project.
If it's bad, perhaps that will motivate you to make a better one!
Once you've treaded the path from start to finish once, the second time is easier.
Best to make the mistakes now with a project you don't really care about too much.
It doesn't matter if you know you could do better.
EVERYBODY can do better than the best game they've released.
I have half-finished projects that are a thousand times better than the stuff I've released.
But they're not really better because they were never finished.
They're worth nothing.
This upsets me.
When people want to make their own games I would LOVE to show them something I could
be proud of and yet I've never finished anything that meets that standard.
You can see the look on their face.
They look at the game, their smile drops and they say something like 'oh...
I was expecting something more...
advanced'.
More ADVANCED.
Always more advanced.
Worse still, if they have any respect for you then they'll instead assume that it's
the game development tool that's at fault.
It's not hard to do.
There are dozens - literally dozens - of people out there who are happy to tell people to
instead jump straight to C++ and to learn how 'to make games properly'.
It's not fair.
All of the big blockbusters are made using that method.
How could my finished efforts possibly compete?
And it makes me angry that people who code somehow deem themselves superior, even if
they themselves never finish anything with it.
It makes me question if these people have even used programs like Construct or Fusion
2.5 or if they're simply assuming it's a drag and drop tool where you only choose the backdrops
and weapon types and the game maker does the rest for you.
It's not like that.
There may be pre-made sprites and in-built movement types but you can- and will- make
your own once you've picked up the basics.
Most limitations can be avoided by using a different strategy or custom plugin.
I actually find this sort of puzzle solving to be among the most rewarding.
I'd rather be a pro at a basic program than a noob with an advanced one.
Game makers such as Fusion 2.5 DO have lower limits than C++ does.
I'm not denying that... but I seriously doubt that anybody has ever reached them.
They're capable of far more than those basic platformers and shooters that you see made
with them and anybody who says otherwise either hasn't tried them or is John Carmack.
It's a shame that anybody who embarks on more complicated game projects with the basic tools
almost never finishes them for the reasons outlined in this video.
I for one am happy to stand up and to admit that with the games that I want to make, I'm
the limiting factor.
But here's the bombshell.
Had I used C++ instead of Klik n Play, I would have achieved even less!
I would have embarked on the same journey, it would have just taken a lot longer to make
the same mistakes.
Back to the original question: how long does it take to make a game?
Depends on what you make it on.
I've seen 24-hour game making competitions where a group of 3 will produce a game that
I could have done in 2 hours.
I've seen people with ambition who try to assemble a dream team to make their games
for them.
And I've seen plenty of bad games made, using proper programming languages and with klik
products.
I've always wanted to make my own games and have always put a great deal of value on having
the freedom to make them the way I want to.
I would lose this with a larger project where I would have to work with other people.
Because of this, programs such as Fusion, Game Maker and Construct offer the best compromise
between power and speed and maximise what I can hope to make on my own, given any feasible
timespan.
I have chosen to use Fusion 2.5.
Not because it's the best but because I have grown up with the series and put a great deal
of value on the knowledge that I've learned thus far.
I wouldn't want to start again and don't feel that I need to.
Rant over.