Reaction to "No, you can't make video games!" Gama blog piece
1. Read No, You Can't Make Video Games
2. Tell us what you think. Are his points good? Are they weak? Why?
2. Tell us what you think. Are his points good? Are they weak? Why?
Comments
I still really dislike the article. Everyone is bad when they start at some thing. Even now I can look back on some code I wrote a year a go and go "WTF was I thinking." Humans continually learn and grow. And discouraging people to make game is the opposite of what we need.
The alchemy of crafting video games should certainly not be an old boys club. It falls into line with the myth that AAA games are the industry when there is so much more out there. A sibling of a friend of mine makes games that only him and his friends play. It is form of communication to them: a sharing of ideas.
The notion that only certain people should be making game fall in line with the notion that only certain games should be made. Not all games are going to be Deus Ex. Much like not all writing need be novels, some writings are just forum posts or blogs.
<skip>
Having done some freelance in several different graphic design-related fields, I guess I'm in a similar position to the blogger, where I see really shitty graphic design going around a lot, and really poor expectations to go with it. I see people going through one-year certificate courses or less calling themselves "designers" putting lens flares all over the place; people who think they can make logos because they can click buttons, even though they haven't trained up their "art eyes"; and so on. And because I'm mindful of this stuff, I try to treat other fields with the respect that they deserve.
For example, while I'm somewhat competent at finding my way around script (heck, a degree in something "Computational" should imply that, right?), I won't go around calling myself a programmer, I'd never apply for a programmer position, and I certainly wouldn't ever pretend that anything I write is optimal or shippable (and if I did it'd be by sheer luck). If anything, I try to learn just enough programming that I can make my life easier as an artist (and make life easier for my art team), and make little games of my own (that aren't so hardcore that I have to eke out loads of performance. Just simple+fun). Similarly, when it comes to game design, while it's somewhat similar to art in that certain things do seem to be intuitive, I recognise that there's a massive body of thought and experience that goes into this stuff that makes me unprepared and incompetent to critique someone's game design. All I can suggest is what I find fun or not, based on a very personal experience, but until I've spent countless hours making countless games, I wouldn't dare call myself a "game designer", and I get quite frustrated with people who claim the title without seeming to respect the time and effort of people who [i]have put in the blood, sweat and tears to get there.
Sure, I believe anybody can be an artist/game designer/programmer/audio engineer/whatever if they really want to and are willing to put in the time. However, I don't think that it's meant for everyone, and that people are built differently, and derive pleasure from doing different jobs, and everyone has different priorities when it comes to how much time they can spend. And I understand the danger in making these kinds of things too 'common'. In the graphic design field "designer" means f-all these days. Rockstar designers like, say, Carson and Sagmeister are called graphic designers. The lowest tier minions in several commercial studios are called graphic designers. Their managers are called designers (even though they have zero graphic design experience). I think these titles should be earned.
I guess it's kind of the problem with these sort of "soft" skills. It's hard for someone to go around and say "I'm an astronaut" without having done some missions in space. It's easy for people to go around saying "I'm a designer" even though they don't have any skills whatsoever.
</skip>[/i]
Gosh, I wish I didn't have to write entire posts to get my thoughts in order before I actually got to saying what I want to say. :P
tl;dr: While I don't think any job should be elitist (except, maybe, life-and-death ones?), I do think people should be mindful of the effort it takes to get there. I feel it's pretty disrespectful and ignorant to just say, "I'm a designer!" and be a designer. (Even if Schell claims that. :D) I do think everyone should be welcome to make games if they want to. It's a hell of a lot easier to do that now than it ever was, and that's great! :) I just think we shouldn't belittle what professional game designers (and artists, musicians, etc.) do, and think that just because we have access to the same software we're can do what they do.
Sure, but would people who write forum posts call themselves "writers"? And if they did, wouldn't that be kind of a slap in the face of those who've been grinding away for years to get their books published? And is blog-like writing not what spawns stuff like Twilight? (Sidenote: I heard from a friend who checked the leaked first drafts of her books. They're almost exactly the same as the finals. There's, like, no editing or refinement there.)
In order to be come an employable programmer, or anything else, you must practise that skill. If I asked you what the first step to becoming an artist was you would tell me to draw.
Last night a commenter posted on Dev.Mag and asked how do you make games. I told them to download game maker and work through the tutorials. I sent them on their first step. The second step might be getting your programming/art/game design goggles but without the first step of making a game. You won't get to the point where you need to learn theory.
That is why I condemn the article. Since it discourages people from taking the first step to becoming a game designer.
I agree with the sentiment that one's first game will not achieve great financial success. And that people can simply believe that they are a game designer because they have an idea are wrong, I've written an article on that one before.
That's what both sides of this argument seems like to me. They both lack common sense.
I agree that making games shouldn't have to be an olympian sport that only the gods partake in.
But I also agree that making games shouldn't be "sold" as easy as 1, 2, 3.
What happened to the voice of reason in between? I'm sure they're there, but they're just not as loud, controversial and has as many hits as these two extreme views.
I say they're both traps :)
One of the common things I hear, in terms of making games is easy, is that it took Jon Blow a week to make the prototype for Braid. But it still took him three years to release the game.
That ties into the fact that the last 10% of a game is 90% of the work. If you want a game to sell you need that last 10%
But not all games are made with the intention of being sold. Some are just self expression. So there are game that are just 1, 2, 3 done.
So while making a game may be easy. Making a good game that will sell is hard.
The point where the article, and I believe many peoples views, break down is saying games are x. That it is immutable thing, but games are diverse. And more so than people.
You get games like A Song In the Void or The Path which are really weird and interesting experiences.
I feel that the author is seeking protectionism. That by people making more games he will lose the magic of the games he has worked on.
But the only way people will ever reach making their great game(s) is by making a lot of crap games until they make good games.
I don't believe that the works of Douglas Adams, Oscar Wilde, or William Shakespeare are diminished because Stephany Meier wrote Twilight, or an emo kid wrote a poem.
Much in the same way I don't believe Portal, Deus Ex, or Super Mario Brothers would be seen as less of a game because of Angry Birds, or the million games on iOS and Android that no one will ever play because they're crap.
I get the feeling that Aleksander missed a lot about what the video was actually about. The video was about STARTING to make games. he is in no way suggesting that you will start out creating the next AAA game or even a decent game for that matter. He is trying to emphasize the fact that it is easy to create games, and I believe it is. There could be all sorts of reasons why it is a bad game, but it would still be a game. Tic-Tac-Toe is a game. Also games like Magic the Gathering/Warhammer are games that require absolutely no technical skill of any kind to prototype(except maybe writing).
A few times in the article it is mentioned that "it might sound elitist", well frankly the article is elitist. And elitism does have it's place every now and then(rarely though), but it's hardly the attitude you want to assume when addressing would be game creators. It's like telling a 7 year old that they shouldn't bother trying to read because there are already so many people that can read better than them.
TL;DR I think that the article is addressing the wrong crowd and missed the intent/message of the video.
While I agree that there are rarely just two "sides" to something, I'm pretty damn certain that there are usually objective facts and underlying information that can be used to come up with a "correct" answer or stance on something, given some sort of goal to satisfy. The goal is important, because that's what lets you make measurements of each approach to satisfying that goal.
So, in the case of the original video: The goal is simply to have more good games. The logic to get there is simple: The more games a person creates, the better they get at it; The more people creating games, the more chance any single person will get good enough to create something magical; The fewer barriers in the way of getting people to make games, the more people can start trying.
I've been trying to figure out what the goal of the article actually is... It seems more about the writer's feelings than the goal of the original video, but if we use that, how does the article address the original goal? I'd argue it does so poorly, by essentially saying that more good games will only be made by people that are already making good games and thus other people who aren't good at making games shouldn't make any... While that's certainly got a grain of truth to it as a premise: Good game developers are likely to make more good games. It flies in the face of what we're seeing in the indie and hobbyist game development scenes right now. So I have to wonder about the factual awareness of the writer, at the very least.
The motivation for his post seems to be that: I couldn't do something so I am going to tell everyone else that it's impossible.
Which is honestly bullshit. I have taught dozens of people how to use Game Maker, and that was both with and without programming. And the first GM game I did was this really silly thing of clicking balls that moved randomly on the screen. It was one of the tutorial games, but I expanded on the initial concept so there were score detractors and so on. It was all really easy, and my mom played it for quite a bit when she inherited the computer I wrote on. So it's really not like making a game is hard. I was fucking 15 when I did that -.-
*goes to just in the pool to cool off*
Everybody makes jokes. But comedians try to tell jokes well. Everyone that makes jokes is not a comedian.
Everybody plays. Everybody at some point messes with the "rules" of their play. Holy shit, everybody makes games. But not everyone is a game designer.
-edit-
Here's a 5 minute version of Perrin's talk:
The first thing that gave me a wrong feeling was the following: Similar to many professions (sports/jobs/hobbies) it is important to have people "trying before buying" so to speak, it shouldnt be a thing of whether your famous-game-X is being flooded out of the market, it seems to me to be very counter intuitive, it is these failures that will push people to either strive to realising their dream of being in game dev/design, rather than moving into other fields, but this step is necessary, and it is definitely something that shouldnt be hinged on the first, second or any next prototype or "game" made. Sure, I agree in each of the mentioned mediums (movies, games, fanfiction writing) there are many failed attempts at good whatever-the-medium-offers, but I have followed many such projects that over time matured and became something that anyone would be proud of calling there own. Next thing I figure is this point, ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that the places pointed out (Newgrounds for instance) are so successful, it is probably safe to assume that the point is made from a personal view point. You may not want to play the game, Richard might not want to play the game, heck, I will even give you that the developer doesnt want to play the game (Ive made games I dont want to play anymore), the fact that the game was played, and in cases completed by players (in whatever you would quantify "complete" in a particular game) means someone, somewhere out there, wanted to play your game. No. From what I have found when talking to people, if you dont know a little bit about everything you will end up stuck in the end anyway. Theres no need to know everything 100%, but by experimenting yourself in the things you are weak with you will come to know what you need, what you dont need, and get a better grasp of what you will have to achieve in finishing your game.
Last point I also disagree with. Yes there are. No, there arent. Each respective part of a game design has rules, like if you are writing the story for the particular design, you need coherence, you need to follow certain rules, you need to be consistent (probably just saying coherence again, but whatever), and so on. Your design does not need to follow a rule. Who says platformers must go left to right, or right to left, or up? Who says because I have made an RPG that it needs to not be made in RPGMaker but rather in my own engine using 3D graphics and have a 10 person team writing a story for it? That is not making games or game design, that is (imo) a very negative image of the industry as a whole, it is kind of like saying "every game idea has been explored, why do we need another game?" or "you're making an RPG? It wont be as good as RPG-X, give up!" If this was how people did things everywhere nothing would ever get done.
I dont feel that the notes at the top are justified, much like when we discussed IGTM we (more or less) agreed there could have been a broader perspective, this article could have a much broader perspective too. It focusses on singular points rather than the video as an entirety (much like I did in my response), and therefore has ignored several important points raised that cover what (I think) was trying to be said, but instead ended up sounding pretentious and over-the-top. (As an example Perrin mentioned he isnt good at everything, but making games was still possible where the post ignores that and says without a team you are nothing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On to the comments on the post page itself. Everyone can defend their opinion, but I think there are several arguments that were shrugged off despite being valid and worthy of at least a decent considered response, Im not going to nitpick though, but will focus on major issues brought up that I have thoughts about.
One thing that is disagreeable immediately is that it seems like the best argument against making games (or designing them) in the discussions is that you dont have the knowledge. Meaning if you dont have the knowledge you cannot start making games. Which from the points above about starting out is kind of saying "unless you can already do art, coding, design, etc. you should never try making a game", or more simply "dont bother trying to learn" (or even "dont bother"). It kind of feels ironic in a way (I dont know if that is the best way to describe it?) because we live lives where you start knowing absolutely nothing, as you grow up you learn (and you are taught to do things), but by the logic Aleksander shouldn't have become a graphic designer (I think he is? Perhaps I got the wrong impression) because by his own logic, before he started, he did not know what a pencil was, or what paper was, a concept of a drawing did not exist, therefore he could not have been an artist. (This isnt a personal attack, rather just an argument against the tone of replies in this manner). A "Sam Driver" reiterates this exact thought very well. Taking this slightly further, the mention of it being aimed at aspiring professionals in the industry makes it seem like he sees every industry professional as some kind of super-genius that knows absolutely everything, while everyone else is unworthy of knowledge or experience (or to be in the industry at all for that matter).
The next big thing which hits me the wrong way is the fact that it mentions that saying anyone can do anything is false, and you should be discouraging people is not the kind of attitude that takes anything forward. There is nothing stopping you, me, or anyone else going and getting every book there is on quantum mechanics and studying it till we understand it, can solve problems to do with it, and more. The line is drawn too short from starting till reaching success in the message that came across.
I'll leave it there though (despite having more thoughts on specific responses).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Last thoughts are on replies here. The usual "it may be disjointed" applies still.
I agree that you can see bad design (subs with graphics design/art/writing/games) in their respective sharing places, but I feel it is mostly lack of evangelism of whatever you do for others that would cause this to be an issue, I wouldnt go and pay some kid who says he can use photoshop to do something because I have seen that professionals do amazing jobs, similarly if I couldn't show you I can write code you wouldn't ask me to write any for you. Saying people that arent as good as you are ruining the industry you are in (imo) is like saying that ice cream as a whole sucks, and is getting worse, because I dont like minty flavours but people keep making new ones.
I agree with @elya and @tuism about it being a double-edged sword (from both perspectives), but similarly there should be some middleground argument that goes as viral as this that (in a diplomatic manner) lays out the fact that you can make games while properly covering the difficulties.
I will leave it there for now (need to mull some thoughts around in my head if I continue this).
Making a big noise as sensible people preaching sensible things is probably one of the most difficult things ever.
Which is largely why these kind of extreme takes on matters make me raise my eyebrows and not that much more. While I would love to teach the world to sing, I'm not sure matching the world's screaming is how to go about it. End of the day? Make up your own mind, and live that decision.
Would be nice to teach the world to sing, though. If they wanna.
But for some artists or musicians who want to make games but don't have programming inclinations (or possibly even game design inclinations) I can see how that same advice could come off as useless, kind of subtly insulting and frustrating (especially as this advice is so common).
I'd imagine this is where Aleksander is coming from (and his argument he's being met by lot of hate from baffled programmer-designers. Even here).
If this is true then Richard Perrin's video isn't really meant for Aleksander or people like him who want to make games but should probably not follow the "You can make games" approach. I think these people get disproportionately little representation in the indie space, which must be frustrating (and as such Aleksander's argument seems a bit misplaced and an overcorrection and bitter).
Aleksander Adamkiewicz seems to be interpreting Richard Perrin's video as "Everyone can make good games" and there is definitely substance to that interpretation. Richard does suggest that everyone's voice needs to be heard, that through making games you will become good at making them, that "we must make the games we wish to play in the world", that the only thing holding you back is yourself.
And so Aleksander responded with an article trying to say "But not everyone is well suited to making games by themselves and saying otherwise is misleading and irresponsible". Which is fair I think, only that, for most people in Richard Perrin's audience, Richard's talk is just fine and they cannot see where Aleksander's frustration comes from.
What I'm taking out of this is that there is a lot of very optimistic programmer-designer-centric advice on making games out there, which doesn't suit everyone. And that I'd expect a small backlash, from more people who feel they have been misguided, in the future.
For myself I'm certainly starting to feel that just making games is the easy part. I have watched a lot of friends and colleagues struggle with turning games into something sustainable and I have watched many of these lose a lot of money and suffer. People get hurt making games when they aren't well equipped. I'd certainly feel Richard's advice was more useful (and responsible) if it better outlined the challenges involved in turning game making into something sustainable... even though that presumably wasn't Richard's goal (if that makes sense?).
(Aleksander does stress he isn't trying to discourage people from making games in his preface to the article, taking the title of his article literally is obviously missing the point. And he says he is motivated by wanting to improve the discourse, and that's fairly laudable. I'm not going to suggest he has other bizarre clandestine motives or call him an elitist or something nastier.)
I feel that the biggest problem with Aleksander's article is that he doesn't suggest an alternative to the advice that clearly failed him.
It's all well and good to say that there is indeed a point buried in what he wrote - there clearly is, I'd like to be able to reach even more people with game development tools, but we're not there yet (and for some reason people hate making boardgames) - but if the way he wrote that article is any indication of how he tried to make games, then no wonder it didn't work: Entitled expectations of incredible success with minimal effort rarely do.
Note that the original video is just about making games, not making a living. I would argue that they're related, given how I believe that making good games is the first step to doing that, but many other people would disagree with me and say that making a living requires a completely different mindset.
I'm certainly not defending his logic and his attacking Newgrounds and such. But neither am I going to call him names and claim that he is trying to sabotage amateur game development in an attempt to make the games he's made protected from something (as @Karuji did).
What I'm sensing is a bit of a programmer - artist divide (in terms of how Aleksander sees amateur game development). Recently I showed Bevis Nandrew's new mining game, and his response was: That looks like shit and I'd never play it. I did then explain it to him and he understood why I was playing it (but he still seemed skeptical). Bevis is an artist and that colors his opinions (he does personally like Nandrew and does own a copy of Desktop Dungeons... I'm not trying to suggest Bevis is anti-indie, he's just pro-visuals). Expecting Bevis to like all the things I like would be unreasonable.
I guess what I'm saying is: There are ways for an artist to get into game development, even as a hobby, and they're not necessarily the same as how a programmer-designer gets into game development. For one thing an artist might need a programmer to work with, which Richard Perrin's video is against (Richard is against forming teams). I was personally fortunate enough not to need help when I started I started making games, but I wouldn't assume that is true of everyone.
The first is that the comparison itself is broken: I could look at a drawing and easily exclaim "That sounds like crap, I would never watch that as an animation", but that wouldn't be a helpful or useful thing to do, no matter how true it might be and how valid the expectations of audio quality. Even without the difficulty of comparing across creative disciplines and personal opinions, I could look at the early phase of a drawing being worked on and say that all those construction lines look like crap and don't add to the final image, etc. The trick is to consider the context and the reason something has been made available, as you pointed out.
The second is that, unfortunately, while art and programming are often needed for a game to reach its full expression, they're not the thing that creates the game itself. Art without interaction is animation. Programming without interaction is banking. A game without interaction is nothing. Programming simply gets seen as being closer to game creation because it's easier to create interactive programs than it is to create interactive art or sound. That doesn't mean that an artist couldn't get into game design by using an interaction framework that's closer to their field of expertise - board or card game structures, perhaps? It's just that, as you say, people often assume that programming is the only way to game design when that's not actually true. In fact, I'd argue that often the specific structures of programming and the ways people learn it often go AGAINST what people need to understand in order to become game designers.
The third is that I think team formation is, as Perrin points out, toxic until you've actually struggled yourself. Not only does the struggling create a sense of appreciation for what someone else can do, but it also helps to create a track record of not giving up that's by far the most important thing in game development to my mind. Again, if you can't program, there are loads of options that don't need it but can still deliver a game at the end of the day... Plus I'm more inclined to work with artists that have a technical understanding of what I need as a developer, just like I know artists prefer working with a designer that can meaningfully comment on their art. So a bit of cross-skillset struggling certainly isn't the end of the world, and might be very good for prospective designers looking to find their feet and, eventually, teams. Because Perrin simply says you should START with a team, which I completely agree with.
Interestingly, the same guy has written a new post on his Gama blog, I'd like a better UI for both GM and Unity, tbh.
Just to clarify: I do interpret Perrin's talk as "You can become good at making games" or even "You can make games for a living". I don't thinking anyone sees just making any game as a valuable goal.
Aleksander frames the problem he has with being a loan game developer (and doing it all himself) as one of aptitude. Which like you point out is moot, because there are board game and other technically easy options. I suspect his problem is one of interest, in that, he isn't interested in acquiring certain skills. The same way I'm not interested in bookkeeping and find every moment thinking about it mentally excruciating.
Telling me that the only thing holding me back from being a bookkeeper is myself, and that all I need is belief (as @Karuji apparently might) is kind of insensitive and missing the point. I don't want to be good at bookkeeping despite bookkeeping's undeniable usefulness.
I'm also not saying I'd like to work with someone like Aleksander. Beyond his confrontational personality, a disinterest, or complete lack of aptitude, in game design makes him not particularly appealing as a colleague.
Most of the game artists I know didn't get into making games through making games themselves. I'd definitely first tell them to participate in things like TIGsource's collaborative challenges or even just participate at Polycount and do things like in game rendering for their posts. I honestly don't think I'd show them Perrin's talk if they asked me how I'd recommend getting into games (although if they did do it that way, and they do actually do their art well as well, I would be impressed).
Again: I don't disagree with Perrin, just that I don't think it's a catchall method. I would recommend it, and I do often recommend it, to any aspiring programmer or game designer. But despite this I'm posting because I think the reaction to Aleksander's post has mostly been "this works for me, why are you being such a negaton" and that doesn't help anyone in his position, and doesn't improve upon the discourse.
I share some of the sentiment that @Elyaradine express. I think the same thing happens in any artistic field (just think about Pop Idols or all the free fiction floating on the Internet). For me, determinism and desire properly includes a whole lot more than just making games (although that is certainly the most important one). You must also want to learn what makes games good, not just by tinkering with mechanics, but also playing other games, and reading about games and their history and their makers, and learning processes on different levels and becoming fluent with tools, and so on. I think many people try to find the minimal amount of effort required to make games or work on games professionally, and this frustrates me. (My pet-peeve is when aspiring game programmers ask whether they need mathematics to be a good game programmer. Of course you don't... but if you want to be a good programmer you would want all the sharpest tools in your toolkit, and math is certainly one!)
As for teams: cross-skillset struggling as @dislekcia points out is extremely valuable to appreciate the value of different skills (I think in Peopleware there is a suggestion for companies to have a day once a month where everyone does someone else's job for the day). But I think it can also initially make it harder to make a game. Even with the easiest tools, when you start out, there is a lot to learn (well, actually there is a lot to learn forever...), and limiting the scope may lower the hurdles. I find it extremely frustrating to make even placeholder art; I can imagine others feel the same. And the cross-skill appreciation and communication skills naturally rub off. The artists that I work with all learn a bit of programming lingo, and of the technical aspects of their work. Similarly, programmers learn to discuss lighting and layout with artists. (Of course, this assumes that you can find a team, which not always as easy. If you can't, then this is not a valid reason for not going ahead).
A further note is that developing team-working skills is crucial in game development: communicating across (and within) the various "divides" (art/programming/sound/game design/production), learning how to divide work, learning how to divide responsibility, learning how to make disparate ideas cohesive. I think the earlier you develop them the better.
But I totally disagree with the notion of getting a team to execute your ideas if you are not willing to get your hands dirty. Getting your ideas executed by others is an immense privilege, and is earned by lots of experience, or proven success. (Occasionally it can be bought, or gained with good people skills).
I totally disagree about his whole noise/dilution argument. I think it's wonderful that there are so much crap available, and that no matter how bad you are at anything, you can showcase it for anyone interested. I think a lot of people can have fun doing stuff today that was just impossible even just a decade or two ago. Yes, among this noise many ideas die a silent death, and it takes another set of skills to get your ideas really heard (just as it always has, in any form). But there is really no downside to more content. One of the delights of the internet is consuming content that you would never have been able to if everything was curated. But you don't have to: consumers can avoid noise and place their trust in the various filters (we have press, distributors, publishers, funders, commenters, ...). Whenever there is too much of something, there is always a business in separating the good from the bad (by whatever measure chosen).
Your lack a desire is not as a failed attempted. The fact that he wrote the blog means that he has either interest of desire. The alternative is that he did it to cause a ruckus and gain attention, which is what internet trolls do.
While the blog may be an attempt to improve discourse on the entry to making games. It in itself does improve how one may approach
I highly doubt you would find the book-keeping equivalent of Gamasutra and post an article entitled "No, You Can't Make Keep Books" (or what ever the appropriate equivalent title may be)
---
As an aside. The reason I felt that I should make this post was because I received notifications of you mentioning me in this thread.
I find it rather disconcerting that in those mentions my name has been used as a pejorative to other members of this forum. It is most disconcerting to find you talking about me as opposed to engaging me in discourse, and I would appreciate it if you refrain from doing it in the future.