Do you have to be a gamer to develop games...?

edited in Questions and Answers
I'm not an avid gamer at all. In fact, as I child of the eighties, I have seen it all, done it all, and these days I find most games tedious and not worth my time any more - and I can go on for hours why. Buy I sure do love creating them - or at least the process of creating up to the point right before they become actual games and only levels etc need to be created to finish the project. I don't really care if they are played at all and now I have a whole "drawer" full of unfinished games just lying there gathering dust, most on technologies that won't even compile properly anymore (yes you XNA!).

I'd like to hear some comments on this? Am I the only one that feels this way?

Comments

  • Do you have to be a reader to write books?

    Do you have to be a viewer to make movies?

    I think the issue is more with the term "gamer" having specific societal meanings. No, you don't have to be a rabid fantasy and sci-fi nut to write books. No, you don't have to be a film critic that's seen every single film ever made to make your own films. Gamer means the wrong thing.

    That said, are you sure you're making games? If they're not getting played, are they games at all? Not trying to be funny, just asking when something stops being a concept or a prototype or a *thing* and becomes a game? I don't know if that has an answer.
  • dislekcia said:
    If they're not getting played, are they games at all?
    That could be the million dollar question... and also; does it have to be a game...? and whose game is it in the end? Maybe the development process has become my own variation of a challenging game that I enjoy to play, and start from the very beginning over and over again.
  • I'd have to agree with @dislekcia here, the term gamer has certain connotations, also maybe the idea of making a game has too broad a definition.

    I feel that while you don't have to make a game which appeals to a massive audience (Niche games are awesome!). It is always good to have a plethora of gaming knowledge from which to draw inspiration from.

    So do you have to be a gamer to make games? No.

    Do you have to be a hardcore gamer to make good games? Probably not.

    Do you have to at least have a large knowledge of gaming subject matter and an understanding of game mechanics and concepts in order to make an excellent game? Yes, definitely.

    Also Finding other games tedious is a good thing :) It means you can make less tedious games and a boat load of money in the process ;) Provided you follow your project through and truly make something which is a better experience for players.
  • Shit I hope not. Im a terrible gamer! But I do enjoy them. I tend to play on easy, just to enjoy the experience itself.

    I watch lots of Lets Plays when I dont manage to finish the games.
  • The pre-conception of what a gamer is is really what's at question here, it seems. What is a gamer? If you play any games, you're a gamer. If you can read any words, you're a reader. Or literate. Are we talking about game literacy or game hardcore participation?

    I think it's impossible to want to make games when you don't enjoy playing it, to any degree. Hardcore gamers are seldom game creators, by the way. We know this, too.
  • On finding most games tedious: There's a game jam that runs every so often called "Fuck this jam" - the point of which is to create a game in a genre that you hate. The idea is that because you hate the genre you are likely to innovate and perhaps turn it on its head.

    Unfortunately not much brilliance has come out of that jam because many participants seem to think the point is to make a parody of the genre you chose. "How can I make fun of it?" rather than "How can I make it better?"
  • I think I'm in the same.

    I don't consider myself a serious gamer. I do play some games casually, at most 5-10 hours a week, which is nothing compared to most serious gamers I know. I get bored very easily if a game doesn't do much to engage my imagination, and tend to avoid games without a serious creative component and replay value.

    That said, I do read a lot of game reviews, even for games I've got no intention of ever playing, and I often have some Let's Play series playing on my second screen while I'm at work.
  • You have to be a gamer to make games...at the very least you should be playing your own game :)

    I agree with the notion that gamer is too much of a catch all phrase in this instance. I don't think you need to be a "hardcore" gamer to be a game maker. But I'm pretty sure that you won't be a very successful game developer if you've never played a game.

    In my case I do play a lot of games. I do it to see what I can learn from them mostly, but sometimes there is one that will drag me into the game so much that I can't put it down until it's finished. Sort of like picking up a great book and reading it from start to finish without even taking a bath(or is it just me that does this :P).

    I rarely read reviews, unless it's a game I don't really intend to play but still want to know more or less what it's about. I like watching let's plays, but more as a form of abnegation rather than anything productive.
  • IMO, No, I don't think so. If you have something that motivates you enough to actually produce what could be called a *game, isn't that enough?
    It probably makes sense to be good at chess to make the next chess, but maybe someone who doesn't quite want to be a *gamer will make something that will be enjoyed by others who don't consider themselves *gamers.

    Personally, I have very little time to play games, so I'm probably becoming a more rubbish gamer day by day. Time is such a scant resource these days that games have to be really something for me to feel like playing. It's hard to find a game with the depth, challenge and reward of actually making a game...
    the point of which is to create a game in a genre that you hate.
    That sounded completely brilliant!

    *terms, interpret as desired and with a sprinkle of NaCl.
  • @farsicon I think it is a wonderful thing to have "unfinished" projects. Most of us do. It is not a failure. Please don't underestimate their value. An unfinished project can always be revived. XNA might be dead, but MonoGame now lives. I have converted most of my XNA "experiments" to MonoGame and Windows 8 with very little effort. With Xamarin it even ports to Android and iOS. So future-proofing is not the issue.

    I think that it is OK to have unfinished projects. Not a bad thing. It's part of the creative process I guess. I think of it as projects awaiting further inspiration. It is sad that most of our projects never see the light of day though. But they somehow do manifest in future projects subconsciously, which is a very good thing. PS: I also suffer the same suspension of belief syndrome when it comes to modern games. I long for the days of discovering a game that is truly new and unique and it becomes an obsession for a few days at least. Maybe our industry has become saturated? Maybe it's a post-traumatic syndrome of sorts when it comes to gaming? Or maybe time just numbs ones senses - like an old drug addict? :-)
  • Been thinking about the original question a little today. To come at it a different way, I think you need to be curious to make games. If you're not at least curious enough to really enjoy coming up with questions, you're not going to make many interesting games.

    That said, I think there's also a worry if all your unfinished projects are stalled because of technical reasons. That's a big red flag for me personally - back when I was thinking about games badly, things were always getting sidelined because I was looking for a new system to get me out of a problem I was having. That's almost directly where the "maximum sarcasm" doctrine comes from.
  • So far, at least, it has never come down to tech limitations - there's always some kind of workaround, especially with the more low level "coding" oriented languages like directx/opengl/xna. My comment was a throwaway because of the crap that has to be installed additionally to get xna working, and how every update used to break old code - so getting those to run now would be a major pain in the a$$ :P

    I agree on being curious, though, as well as having the urge to just make something. There is immense satisfaction for me in the act of making. A few years ago, when I had a bit more time on my hands, also used to make model ships (the proper kits that took months to complete), and once I completed them I just gave them away to people without even thinking twice about it.

    I think this is just the way I am, and it impacts my game dev as well... I do feel a bit different about my last 2 projects though - having started a partnership with someone that can take over the non-challenging parts of game dev at some point does help. And also, joining here has given me a whole new perspective - the Project X thread will be the annals of this journey :)
Sign In or Register to comment.