Watch a game being made from scratch over a year

Comments

  • edited
    garethf said:
    For the same reason artists watch live streams of pro artists painting. Because you learn tremendous amounts watching how they approach it, where they begin and how they progress, how they tackle and fix problems, and hearing their explanations for their thought processes during the whole thing. This is a fairly common and valuable teaching technique. A lot of people are interested in, would even pay money for, seeing how theories and lessons are applied in practice within the context of a real project.
    Do you have any links to artists that have launched years-long projects with the same sort of appeal to nostalgia that's still focused on producing a commercial product? I see a lot of artists streaming as they work and perhaps choosing specific things to emphasise for their viewers, but my understanding was that this sort of longer-term, stripped-down authentic project in which an artist mixed their own oil paints, worked with egg tempera and constantly discussing how to model light would be relatively rare. Especially if the goal was still to produce a purchasable product - maybe all we're seeing there is the difference between games and produced visual art, I dunno.

    I think that there are different reasons to stream your work and that marketing awareness building and education might be better served in different ways in that setting.
    garethf said:
    Frankly, we're in the age of video streaming, and this kind of thing is only likely to become the norm as time goes on.
    I know. If I could stream, I would... There are loads of developers that stream, primarily as marketing awareness boosters. Among those are coders whose work is great to watch and learn from, people like Jamie Fristrom for example, but they're not selling their streams with the same "return to basics" angle. I think it's that emphasis that has gotten this particular project the reactions it's been getting - both positive and negative.
    Thanked by 1dammit
  • edited
    There's a clear advantage for Casey making a game this way. Presumably this way he can avoid the game's success being evaluated on its merits as a game, and rather have it evaluated based on his coding skills and his coding exposition.

    Assuming he's a much better coder than game designer, and enjoys coding more than game design, then that's a smart business move.
    Thanked by 2Tuism dammit
  • There's a clear advantage for Casey making a game this way. Presumably this way he can avoid the game's success being evaluated on its merits as a game, and rather have it evaluated based on his coding skills and his coding exposition.
    That is so utterly, totally obnoxious.

    So his motive isn't his STATED MOTIVE of creating educational material, it's to avoid his game being judged as a bad game? How very sneaky of him.

    Are you people so completely incapable of imagining that there is a real advantage to the exercise that you'll resort to conspiracy theories to explain his motive? He's doing it to trick people into paying for a shitty game?

    Are you for real?
    Thanked by 2AngryMoose mattbenic
  • edited
    (I thought that was a joke and took it only as such) (so as such I judged the statement on the merit of it being funny rather than being functional)
  • As a joke it's still SUPER bitchy dude.
  • garethf said:
    There's a clear advantage for Casey making a game this way. Presumably this way he can avoid the game's success being evaluated on its merits as a game, and rather have it evaluated based on his coding skills and his coding exposition.
    That is so utterly, totally obnoxious.

    So his motive isn't his STATED MOTIVE of creating educational material, it's to avoid his game being judged as a bad game? How very sneaky of him.

    Are you people so completely incapable of imagining that there is a real advantage to the exercise that you'll resort to conspiracy theories to explain his motive? He's doing it to trick people into paying for a shitty game?

    Are you for real?
    I don't think reacting this way is a good idea.

    @BlackShipsFilltheSky didn't say that anyone was tricking anyone else into paying for a shitty game. Just that there are advantages to framing a project with multiple success states: If people like one of them, then the whole thing is a success. If the educational angle is good, yay. If the game is good too, yay.

    It honestly isn't inventing conspiracy theories to evaluate the expectations that marketing creates around a project. We're all trying to get better at this. You can be as angry at you like at the idea of implying someone is trying to "trick" players, but please be angry at that straw man and not @BlackShipsFilltheSky.
    Thanked by 2EvanGreenwood dammit
  • edited
    So his motive isn't his STATED MOTIVE of creating educational material, it's to avoid his game being judged as a bad game? How very sneaky of him.
    Can't it be true that people have multiple motives when taking an action? I know when I try make decisions I try line up as many possible advantages to the course of action I'm taking as I can. Most often I want financial gain and personal interest (for myself and those around me) to line up, I rarely do one without the other.

    If he is aware of his financial incentive in making a game about educational material, does that mean that he doesn't genuinely want to teach? (that's rhetorical, obviously the one motive doesn't have to replace the other)
    Thanked by 1dammit
  • Thanks for the attempted justifications dudes, but no. Super, super obnoxious.

  • @garethf Are you upset with the phrasing of the post or the content?
  • I have explained it already.
  • Maybe all of us should spend less time bickering about what Casey is doing, and more time figuring out how we can also contribute to the wider practice of game development? Or is that just me?
    Thanked by 1AngryMoose
  • garethf said:
    Thanks for the attempted justifications dudes, but no. Super, super obnoxious.
    So you're not allowing that there might have been a misunderstanding? You'd rather defend being angry at someone than listen?

    That makes me sad... I don't think reacting this way is a good idea either.
  • You're right, that was arrogant of me.

    *Sheds a single tear at man's hubris while staring sadly out the window.*

  • garethf said:
    You're right, that was arrogant of me.

    *Sheds a single tear at man's hubris while staring sadly out the window.*
    This statement requires disambiguation.

    *Warning* Inferences drawn from it will be unreliable at best. *Warning*

    Suggested fix: Enable emotional markup. Sarcasm tags in particular.
  • edited
    garethf said:
    I have explained it already.
    I personally didn't think your explanation stood up to scrutiny. (see my response)

    But I guess you're saying "conversation over"
  • Conversation ends where bullshit begins.

    Taking someone who has explicitly stated that his goal is to share his experience and create quality educational material and hypothesizing that it's a clever business strategy to avoid his game being judged on its merits is SO eye-rollingly obnoxious that I'm not going to engage with you until you Own Your Shit.

    But you won't. Walls of text will instead be written trying to justify why that was actually just a reasonable analysis of the situation.

    So yeah. Discussion over.
  • edited
    garethf said:
    hypothesizing that it's a clever business strategy to avoid his game being judged on its merits
    I don't see that hypothesis anywhere in what @BlackShipsFilltheSky wrote. He didn't imply that the game is going to be bad, merely that the game matters less in that context. I don't think that's contentious. He certainly didn't imply that anything was being done to trick anyone, these are all assumptions you brought to the table.

    Continuing to stand by this straw man and use it to justify behaving poorly, especially as a means of casting reasonable posters as evil people who need to "Own Their Shit", is not a positive thing no matter which way you slice it. Perhaps you should step away from this until you're calmer.
  • You're right, of course, you're right. I've let my assumptions lead me to unjust conclusions and smeared the good name of an innocent man.

    *Sheds a single tear at man's hubris while staring sadly out the window.*
  • dislekcia said:
    garethf said:
    hypothesizing that it's a clever business strategy to avoid his game being judged on its merits
    I don't see that hypothesis anywhere in what @BlackShipsFilltheSky wrote.
    this way he can avoid the game's success being evaluated on its merits as a game
    image
  • edited
    dislekcia said:
    garethf said:
    hypothesizing that it's a clever business strategy to avoid his game being judged on its merits
    I don't see that hypothesis anywhere in what @BlackShipsFilltheSky wrote.
    this way he can avoid the game's success being evaluated on its merits as a game
    Can you point out how that implies the game is going to be bad? Or how it relies on tricking people into buying a bad game?

    Saying that something can be successful based on obvious skills present in the creation of it is not contentious. But you're right, I should have said that I'm addressing the conclusion, not that single statement - because the statement is true, like you pointed out. The issue I have is with continuing to conclude the same things from a different statement.

    Because Garethf's quoted statement is not the same as his original one of "So his motive isn't his STATED MOTIVE of creating educational material, it's to avoid his game being judged as a bad game? How very sneaky of him" - I didn't think calling out the moved goalposts there was a useful thing to do in the situation and simply treated the statement as a continuation of the original one. My bad.

    Either way, I don't see how saying what BSFtS said is bad, nor how it holds up the assumptions that it judges Casey's character.
  • edited
    @AngryMoose GarethF's hypothesis had quite a different implication to the one I wrote (and that's the context in which @Dislekcia was responding).

    GarethF appears to be assuming I said there was malice on the part of Casey, that he was being dishonest (or "sneaky" as GarethF termed it), which certainly isn't there in the original comment.

    @AngryMoose Are you upset about the comment for different reasons, or do you also think I implied that Casey was tricking people?
  • "Clever. If he does it that way, he can avoid having the game judged on its merits as a game."

    Do I really need to explain what a backhanded compliment is?
    Thanked by 1Eric
  • I'm closing this thread. It's turned into people vehemently defending their ability to attack others.
    Thanked by 1dammit
This discussion has been closed.