Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2010
 
Ubisoft Q3 Sales Edge Down, As It Ramps Up Big Franchises
 
Analysts: EA On The Right Track At Last
 
Road To The IGF: Star Guard's Loren Scmidt [2]
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2010
 
arrow Television, Meet Games
 
arrow Two Halves, Together: Patrick Gilmore On Double Helix [1]
 
arrow The Road To Hell: The Creative Direction of Dante's Inferno [19]
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
February 9, 2010
 
Gameloft
Low Poly 3D Modeling / Texture Artist
 
Irrational Games
Level Builder
 
Rockstar North
AI Programmer
 
Irrational Games
Level Designer
 
Rockstar North
Graphics Programmer
 
Rockstar North
Systems Programmer
 
Rockstar North
Tools Programmer
 
Rockstar North
Physics Programmer
spacer
Blogs

  Democratization of Game Development and Home Construction
by Chris Melissinos on 07/24/09 11:55:00 am   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs
12 comments
Share RSS
 
 
  Posted 07/24/09 11:55:00 am
 

Ah yes, the game development world is chock full of tools that make it easier than ever before anyone, and I mean ANYONE, to start building the "Next Great Game(tm)". Pick a tech/framework: XNA, Flash, Unity, Scratch, Multiverse, Alice, BigWorld, Torque, Lightspeed, etc., go get some cheap models from TurboSquid or make some in GIMP or MS Paint, and off you go!  The list is endless.

While the industry rhetoric would have you believe that it was impossible to build games before all of these wonderful tools became available (which is, of course, total nonsense), the fact remains that there has never been a better time for anyone with an idea to grab a tool set, build a game and leverage one of the dozens of distribution points to get that game to market.  Steam, Kongregate and iPhone App Store here we come!  Publishers be damned!

Well, not so fast there Sparky.

While I do believe that we are currently in an era where a flood of new and exciting ideas can be explored, prototyped, and, yes, turned into full retail product through the use of these newer tools with whizbang interfaces, the reality is that creating games is still as difficult as it ever was.  "Bullshit!", you say. 

'I'm a smart guy or gal.  I have played Super Mario Brothers 3 so many times and KNOW I could have made it much better than Shiggy just by adding some guns.  And with all of these easy tools at my disposal, well, you just wait and see pal!"  Ok, ok, calm down there.

So let's look at another industry that has seen the democratization of creation: home construction.

I personally own three different kinds of electric saws, a 2 gallon air compressor, nail gun, two electric sanders, and so on.  I can call the local Home Depot (I mean, that's what professional home builders do, right?) and order a crap ton of lumber.  Get some inexpensive construction plans off the web and BANG!  I am in business.  After all, I'm a smart guy and can hammer a nail in just two swings.  Why should I pay a home builder for something I can do myself?

The tools are cheap, accessibility is immediate, information about construction is practically free.  That does not mean I possess the experience and design discipline to construct that home.  I would leave that to the people who do this, every day, for years on end. And, to be perfectly clear, I would never let my family enter a stick built home I made myself.

In the book "Outliers: The Story of Success" by Malcolm Gladwell, he examines why some individuals seem to be gifted from birth when it comes to particular knowledge or a skill set.  The reality is, of course, that we all start out the same but it is the path of action that results in some exceeding others. 

In fact, Gladwell has come to the conclusion that, basically, to reach the pinnacle of any particular profession or skill, it takes roughly 10,000 hours of repetition, practice and learning. 10,000 hours.

This timeline lines up quite well with many of the developers we hold in high regard.  Shigeru Miyamoto, Will Wright, Peter Molyneux, John Carmack, Mark Cerny; all of whom have been pursuing their craft of game design or programming for the majority of their lives. It is this length of experience, experimentation and creation that has allowed them to emerge as pillars of the industry.

So, please don't get me wrong.  I love that game development tools are more complete, robust and accessible than ever before.  I love that accessibility to tools are allowing new game design and experiences to emerge from some of the smallest and most unexpected of places. 

Just understand that access to tools that make some of the process easier does not mean that we will suddenly have more games we actually want to play.

 
 
Comments

Luis Guimarães
profile image
"Next Great Game(tm)"... GREAT, so why the analogy comes out to "homes" and not the "Next World Trade Center / Eiffel Tower"?

Chris Melissinos
profile image
Why? Homes can't be great as well? I fancy mine quite a bit you know ;)

Alexander Bruce
profile image
I must say, I am so glad that you turned your case around after the first 2 paragraphs, because this is something I really really dislike about all the hype about the next great tool, the next best platform to develop on, etc. even from the companies themselves. It's an analogy that can relate to even just specific parts of games development. I see the creation of a game as a whole much like the creation of an amazing piece of art. You can have all the same tools as a professional artist would use, you can have visions that exceed theirs, but if you flat out do not have the same practical experience that they have when it comes to actually drawing / painting / etc. you're either boned, or it will take you an extremely long period of time to get your art to the level that you want, by which stage you've put in the required learning anyway.

All the new tools are great and I'm not disagreeing with that, but I think it's a much stronger case of making the builders better, as opposed to letting anyone become a builder.

James Hofmann
profile image
I've seen this sentiment in all sorts of fields, and it doesn't ring true to me. Although you will certainly witness a "flood of crap" emerging from early efforts, a long-term case could be made for easier tools leading to better products, because by involving more people, communities grow stronger and push themselves to new heights of skill.

Which do you think will produce more results: the person who trains for 10,000 hours alone with no outside support, or the person who trains equally long, but can draw upon the knowledge of others when they get stuck?

Eric Scharf
profile image
"In fact, Gladwell has come to the conclusion that, basically, to reach the pinnacle of any particular profession or skill, it takes roughly 10,000 hours of repetition, practice and learning. 10,000 hours."

There is no reference to accomplishing all of this preparation for greatness "alone," with respect.

On the other hand, while we may all begin in the same immediate vacuum, almost everyone has a unique upbringing . . . provided by parents, foster parents, orphanage head masters, or, God forbid, mad scientists. Every one of those guardians (whether a brilliant and respectful human being or a miserable, unintelligent ogre) has a direct and lasting effect on your upbringing. I am nothing more than curious to see if Gladwell acknowledged this fact of life in his book.

In any event, if you get the opportunity to spend enough time in game development, you will witness both perspectives (from Chris and James) deliver success and failure.

One fact is common among both, however, and that is if you have made every attempt to achieve your game development plan, only to hit the wall with every single effort, and you absolutely refuse to ask for help, it will not matter if you are a one person army or someone with infinite resources upon which to call. You will suffer mightily and quite possibly fail.

The subject matter of this article, will always be viewed as an attack-of-sorts by some part of the audience, really is a healthy topic to discuss as often as possible by everyone in this industry - newbie, junior, and senior alike. Without such a regular discussion (occurring during all that free time between projects, of course), the greater game development community grows crusty, even, gasp, lazy.

People, ideally, know that you will achieve more over time through collaboration and that the best ideas can come from both the established and novice, at the most unpredictable of moments. People, ideally, also know, or learn, that easy-to-use development tools are only easy-to-use if you know how to use them. The "make game" button guarantees nothing to any developer if the concept that underpins the game is no good.

Interpretation, of course, continues to be everything.

Adam Bishop
profile image
Even if all of this technology fails to turn out more than a few really good games, I think it's also useful as part of a process of learning. Very few great bands are huge overnight successes. Instead, people who play instruments often start young, playing guitar in their bedroom or drums in their basement, and progress on their skills from there. Do you think the first song Bono ever wrote became a number one single? I doubt it. The fact that there's is so much technology available for people to make games without needing a job in the industry is going to be part of the process of people learning to make better games, just like writing a song with a simple F-G-C chord progression in your bedroom as a teenager is part of the process of learning to write better songs.

Louis Varilias
profile image
"I am nothing more than curious to see if Gladwell acknowledged this fact of life in his book."

The idea is more that the most successful individuals have been EXTREMELY dedicated to their craft. To me, it suggested that upbringing as not as important as one would think. Practice makes perfect in a very literal way. So regardless if you have the tools and the materials, you must spend time thinking on your own more than anything. It's important to remember that useful tools allow you to spend more time on the designing. This should increase the number of good games available.

Jose Ortiz
profile image
The analogy of house building seems out of place to me. I mean, if the house is not sound and built correctly people could get seriously hurt. If someone who is starting out fails to make a good game the only thing that might get hurt is an ego. You just get back up and start again. A luxury a home builder cannot afford.

Alexander Bruce
profile image
Yeah I think that's when breaking down analogies gets too far. Kind of like going "but what tool do people use that represents a jigsaw?", and not really the point of the article. It's just talking about the quality of the house and not going further.

Michael Rivera
profile image
While I agree with the basic premise of the blog post, I think making an analogy to painting or writing (or even film-making with the advent of youtube) is much more appropriate. Everyone has access to paint and a canvas, but in order to make something people are going consider beautiful you're going to need to know a lot about technique, form, color, etc. And that's just to make something that I might consider hanging on my wall. If you want me to actually PAY for your work the barriers are going to be even higher. In that regard, making a career for yourself in the video game industry isn't that much different than doing so with any other creative medium.

Mark DeLoura
profile image
Chris said, "Just understand that access to tools that make some of the process easier does not mean that we will suddenly have more games we actually want to play."

You're right, it doesn't mean that. However, if you look at the quantity and quality of games that have come out of the IGF in recent years, I think you might agree, it is highly correlational! And that's a great thing. :-)

Chris Melissinos
profile image
Mark, you hit it right on the head. The point of the blog post was, of course, to reinforce the point that easier tools doesn't mean that good game development is easier. And I think the rise in quality of the submissions to the IGF has more to do with accessability of information on the craft of game development coupled with increased exposure of the IGF itself. We see the same curve in the Java4K comp each year.

But hey, access to better tools and distribution increases the chances of finding new diamonds in the rough and that is exciting. We just have to be prepared for the signal to noise ratio being much higher.


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment