Playing vs. Making Games

[icycalm]

I have never seen the attraction in making games. I used to DM role-playing games, but even then, I wasn't so much making the game as directing/refereeing it, and even then, I would have much rather preferred being a normal player, if there was someone around whose DMing skills I respected.

So. If anyone reading this actually loves making games, perhaps you can try to explain to me what it is that you find fun about the whole exercise. To me it just seems slow and boring.

(As a side note, I can now demonstrate why, ultimately, objectively, playing games is more fun than making them (which also goes for playing games which you yourself have made). But I won't do it right now.)

[Archonus]

playing games is more fun than making them

Doesn't that go without saying? I mean, the word play is right in the sentence. Making a game is work. You might enjoy the work, but that isn't really the point of work, is it? It's to get something done, not to enjoy yourself. I would also say it is more fun to play a game someone else has made than one that you yourself made.

[mees]

I think some people might enjoy the challenge of writing code or drawing textures more fun than playing a videogame.

[peetee]

I'm a first-year college student trying to get a job in game design. What I'm interested in is exploring how to shape a play experience through rule sets and how those rules interact. Shaping experiences through rules is fascinating to me. I haven't made any games yet but that's where the main draw is.

I can't really speak for anyone on the programming side though. I'm speaking mainly from a design-oriented perspective. I actually ended up switching out of a computer science because it wasn't the direction I wanted to approach the industry in.

[Nervicide]

In my experience, making a game is slow and aggravating. There are always unexpected issues arising, in my case mostly regarding the technology/graphics engine used. Problems, like the inability to import models or textures correctly, always kept things fresh and annoying. Naturally, every time we got something right it felt very satisfying.

I never finished a project, but every time I played around in an alpha version I had way more fun than when I was modeling/mapping/skinning etc. Storming through a finished project would prove even more fun I imagine, since then I would also have a greater sense of accomplishment along with the actual playing of the game.

Just like peetee I cannot speak in the name of programmers, still, the situations can't be that far apart. It makes sense that an enemy-behavior programmer will enjoy putting his code to the test more than writing it.

[raphael]

I could have voted both. I voted "making" because fewer people will vote it.

I liked creating games back when games were made by one or two persons only. I don't feel like doing it anymore. The main attract has always been making games so you could play them. It came from the frustration of not finding games using the great ideas you had in mind.

Doing it alone made you the one and only master. And it made you see, experience and understand all the aspects of the thing (game design, programming, learning your computer's anatomy, machine code programming, code optimizing -which felt a little like playing turn based strategy game-, controls, graphics -and often building your own graphics tools-, animation, music, music programing and interface navigation).
It had all the fulfilling aspects of creation ... plus, ultimately, the goal and reward was play.

Truth is, most of the time, the game ended unfinished or crap. But it made you learn, think and kept you entertained for a few days or weeks. And at some point you still had to play, which was always fun.

It was very good back when games were not that evolved yet and you could do all the creation alone.

Today, if you dream a game, chances are it was already made 10 or 20 years ago, and you will be playing it for free in less than 10 minutes.

If you like videogames, you don't have to make them yourself anymore. There are thousands of extraordinarily good ones waiting for you to play.

[icycalm]

Another way to put the question is this:

If someone gave a game designer(/programmer/artist/whatever) one billion dollars, would they keep working on their current projects, or would they take off to Hawaii, buy a house on the beach, devote an entire room to an arcade and a cinema-style current-gen set up, and spend the rest of their lives surfing and playing only the best games ever made on their bitching setup?

The only other thing I can imagine such a person doing is paying a famous development team to make the game they want to play. But still, they wouldn't take part in development, outside of giving a few general guidelines at the start, because otherwise they would be spoiling the game for themselves.

[raphael]

I thought of this many times. And definitely, my answer was: go to Hawaii or pay others to make great games.

Still, in the second case, if they make the game you want to play and make it with your money, aren't you a key part of the process?

[icycalm]

You are missing the point. No one is going to be giving anyone one billion dollars. This is an extreme, unrealistic example, to illustrate the fact that I believe that people would rather be playing games than working on them.

[Nervicide]

It depends very much on a game designer's dedication to him being a game designer I guess...

A very dedicated and ambitious designer will strive to make better and better games no matter his social status. I am sure Sid Meyer could have retired since Civ1, he didn't... he pushed on. He didn't reach his goals yet, his goals as a designer, not a gamer.

If he wasn't this dedicated to his work I'm sure he would have chosen to simply play games.

Icy's "question" is actually "the ultimate test" to see if a game designer is... a game designer. If he would say yes to any of his proposals he would be ranked as a very dedicated gamer, he simply would not be a designer.

When a designer reaches his goal he reverts back to a simple gamer I reckon, so eventually everyone says "yes" to Icy's first proposal... the problem is at which point they say yes. How soon or how late in their career/lifetime.

[icycalm]

I am sure Sid Meyer could have retired since Civ1, he didn't... he pushed on.

lol. You are too young to know how money works. Let's ignore the above statement.

If he would say yes to any of his proposals

Which proposals?

[Nervicide]

I'm sorry, I didn't see your post, I was referring to your two proposals, to simply play... any game or to make a game with as little involvement as possible. I also edited my previous post AFTER you answered, sorry, I didn't think you would reply so fast. But you are of course correct, In the end everyone chooses playing over designing, it is merely a matter of time.

A designer would rather choose option2 first, to play a game made under his directives (as vague as they may be) and then, only after that whim was satisfied, he would choose option1. If he would simply pick option1, since he is not interested in design at all, just playing, he is really a hardcore gamer. So no honest to god game designer would choose option 1 from the beginning, since that would would mean he is a hoax, or a poser, call him what you wish.

A game designer must know the satisfaction in making a game and playing that very game, it is in his nature to want to know that. And since he dropped whatever project he was working on, naturally he must get this fix first.

[ganheddo]

I always loved to build stuff out of Lego bricks back then. Of course I also played with what I assembled, but nothing lastet long, and overall I spent more time building than playing. The only drawback was that I could only create static objects. Computers, on the other hand, allow me to not only come up with static data, but also with the processes that act on it. I like the feeling of power that this entails. Instead of merely utilizing predefined processes when playing a game, I'm able to make them. The freedom and expressive possibilities seem infinitely greater. I'm not restricted by anything but myself and the tools I use.

Figuring out the key abstractions and devising a model that conveys and communicates them most efficiently, has always been an interesting challenge to me.

Making a game is work. You might enjoy the work, but that isn't really the point of work, is it? It's to get something done, not to enjoy yourself.

What you see as tiring work might be an enjoyable challenge to someone else. That certain someone might not even think of it as "work".

I would also say it is more fun to play a game someone else has made than one that you yourself made.

That depends on if your enjoyment can be spoiled by your knowledge of the game. A simple puzzle might be trivial if you knew the answer, but can you ever know all the right choices in Go? The UFO/X-Com designer said something like that he knew the game was good, because he couldn't figure out a perfect strategy.

If your game gets complex enough, you can't predict every possibility, even in action games. And that isn't even a bad thing per se, because some of these unforseen behaviors may benefit the game's complexity (e.g. trick-jumping in Quake, combos in SF2).

[Kuzdu]

There are two things that in my experience most game designers get addicted to. Which one they like more usually says a lot about the types of games they like to make.

One is what Ganheddo is talking about, where you create a set of rules and when you set them in motion you get a complex and interesting system (if you've done your job well). The other thrill is watching other people play your game, seeing them work through the problems you've created.

In my opinion you need to enjoy both of these experiences to be a good game designer, and the game designers that last the longest do. I'm sure that there are a lot of designers that don't enjoy either of these things, but those are the ones that I think would really rather be playing games.

[Evo]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/03/18/all-aspects-the-derek-smart-aaw-interview/#more-9258

Here is an interview with a man that loves making games and does well enough to continue making games for years on end.

[wanderingknight]

So. If anyone reading this actually loves making games, perhaps you can try to explain to me what it is that you find fun about the whole exercise. To me it just seems slow and boring.

Videogames are probably the most complex genre of mass-consumption userspace software.

People who enjoy programming, such as me, and see solving problems as a challenge, will probably get more enjoyment out of coding up a game than other types of software.

I'm a professional programmer who unfortunately has to deal with "boring" software at work (read: enterprise-oriented middleware), so I keep a couple of side-projects with which I can enjoy myself, and also improve my professional skills while at it. I've thought many times about starting or contributing to a small videogame project, but I still lack a lot of experience in that particular area of programming (physics simulation and whatnot), so I've been reading a couple of books about it before diving into it headfirst.

I don't know whether I enjoy more programming or playing games. Sure, good videogames are extremely fun, but programming is not only my day-time job but also my passion. And I got my job because of that passion (I have no formal studies whatsoever on programming). Videogames, as fun as they can be, unfortunately haven't landed me any job yet (I could look for a videogame journalist position, lol).

[icycalm]

Why do you presume that anyone cares if videogames have landed you a job yet? Do you honestly think that the subject of this thread has anything to do with how you make money? Do you really believe that the world revolves around you?

Don't answer any of these questions. They are not real questions -- they are sarcastic ones. Just try to spend a few nanoseconds more thinking about what you are saying, next time you decide to post in this forum.

[wanderingknight]

Hmm, seems I made a mistake in trying to be funny with a stupid comment that really didn't add too much to my point.

Let me try again.

Ultimately, objectively, playing games is more fun than making them--that's true. However, as I said, videogames are also extremely complex--the most complex genre of desktop software--and programming being a field where the passionate (as probably are most indie game developers) are attracted towards complex problems, they probably get some sort of enjoyment out of solving such problems. That's why games are inherently interesting for most developers in the first place.

For a hobbyist game developer, yes, playing games is more fun than making them. But I'm sure there's also some extra enjoyment produced by the feeling of showing your creation to the world. For many programmers (if not most good programmers), reputation among their peers and bragging rights are a key part of their enjoyment as developers. Programming is a pretty competitive craft that's most of times not focused on money.

[Molloy]

I attempted to make a rebalance mod for Total Annihilation. It was relatively easy to do. Most of what I wanted to accomplish just demanded changing numbers. It was mostly motivated by me thinking that all the other mods were shit and a blind monkey could do a better job. I've started making a bit of music in the last year and the motivations are similar.

[lock]

For me the most enjoyable thing that I have from making games are:

1. Making the AI. Once you've programed the enemies moves and see them in action, you feel like you have created something... "alive". It's like your small child expresing your behavior through their actions.

2. Creating mathematical algorithms. In some ways maths can be like a puzzle game. You have some data and you have to play with them to get what you want. Sometimes creating a very simple but effective algorithm can be very satisfactory.

3. FX. Creating graphical effects. This is a very artistic process. You start with a basic simple graphical effect and then you spend some time modeling it until you get something interesting.

Also, making games involves a lot of challenges. In my case I've worked making mobile games and to make work a good game on a crapy device can be very satisfactoy.

About if making games is funnier than playing them... Well, as somebody said above, playing games is as the word says, a game. Making games is mainly a boring job, or in the best case a hobby, but never a game.

Although, since I make games, I found playing them less interesting.