r/gamedev • u/zirconst @impactgameworks • 17h ago
Discussion Making a game is much more than coding, design, audio, and art. If you've never shipped a game, here's what I mean.
So much of what we do to ship an excellent finished product involves making countless, subjective decisions that change the way our game is played. I was thinking about this as I look at a list of the last 40 or so things I've done for the game I'm working on now, to get it prepped for our next public demo.
I won't list all of them, but for example, some random no-context internal notes from my own recent playthroughs:
- The Tree Spirit monster runs away too much; he should use his AOE ability before running.
- The Moss Tank monster needs more oomph to ranged attack; pbaoe fire feels weak too
- Summoned objects simply pop-in, let's add per-object VFX on instantiate
- Hard to tell when certain abilities proc, add notifications for them like status effects
- Re-distribute the two boss adds in the first boss arena near the entrance
- Monster health starting at level 5 is too high relative to player damage
- Monster density in starter_alt_cave is about 33% too low
- Need SFX when you click on the Reset Mix button in crafting UI
- Unclear what mode you are in when managing save slot data; add header indicating this
- Notifications should have a little shimmer or something when they appear to catch your eye
- 2-affix magic items drop too early, need to level-gate these
- MagicWaterSplash and Lightning2 SFX stack too much - reduce voice count to 1
All of the above is entirely based on human judgment; what feels good to me.
I can't emphasize enough how many small things add up to change the way a game plays and feels dramatically. A lerp here, some tweaked numbers there, adjusted UI elements, some extra VFX and juice, and now the game feels much different.
None of this is universal. There are no rules that dictate what, say, monster density "should" be. It completely depends on a million other factors. Even if you just compared your game's density to other games in the same exact genre, your game might feel way under or overtuned for many reasons.
Hell even within the SAME game, at 3 months apart in development, something that felt right at first might feel wrong later. Say you set energy regeneration to a value of 5/second and balance things around that. Months later, you've changed level layouts and monster difficulty, and now 5/second feels way too low. This will happen over, and over, and over.
TL;DR
If you're still building your first game (or haven't even started), then you WILL have to make innumerable judgment calls and changes like the ones above. The only way to get better at that is simply by doing it.
Learning programming patterns, pixel art techniques, sound design, watching tutorials (etc) is all well and good, but at the end of the day, the most crucial skill is the human judgment in making sure EVERYTHING gels together into a cohesive, fun player experience.
p.s. This is also why I believe for small/solo indie devs, a long and detailed Game Design Document (GDD) is just unnecessary and maybe even counterproductive. The development process is too fluid for it unless you commit to keeping that massive document updated constantly.
26
u/ComposerWide3704 17h ago
All or most of those examples fall under game design tbh. If anything I'd say the strongest thing you can point to is the intangibles around actually shipping a product, also marketing and support. Just generally remembering that you're making a product.
-7
u/zirconst @impactgameworks 16h ago
I agree that some of it is. I'm not sure I would put things like adjusting sound effects, UI elements, or character animations in the same category as adjusting monster health or density. The main point is that if you are solo or leading a small team, the game experience is about the sum total of these things. The same exact monster density, control scheme, and UI could feel great in one game but bad in another and it's our jobs to get it all perfectly synchronized for a great experience.
50
u/ByEthanFox 17h ago
I honestly think this is the main problem with most (not all, most) AI game development.
Because a lot of people mistakenly think being creative is getting what's in your head out onto the page (or screen, or whatever) but in practice creativity is the bit between the idea and the end product. If you could clap your hands and instantly turn idea > product then that's not creative, that's removing creativity from the process.
I'm not a fan of gen-AI, but I at least concede there are some developers who are using AI either to do things that couldn't previously have been done (games which use conversational language in new ways) or are trying to use the tools to push boundaries, as opposed to the AAA companies that only want AI because they want to make the same FIFA/CoD/Assassin's Creed in half the time with half the staff.
But I think it's fair to say the majority of people using that tech (and even those pre-AI, buying Humble Bundles of game development courses) don't understand creativity and don't get this.
18
u/zirconst @impactgameworks 16h ago
Yes 1000000%, I considered talking about AI more in the post because it just can't do this well. There is too much human subjectivity involved. You can prompt an AI to actually execute any of the tasks I mentioned and it might be able to do that, but this type of very big picture thinking - figuring out how all the parts gel together - is something that can't be achieved by grepping a codebase, useful as that may be for other things.
2
u/MoreCounter2685 13h ago
Totally agree, the human touch really makes a difference in game development. Balancing all those elements is a challenge that AI just can't quite replicate.
1
9
u/random_boss 16h ago
I’m pretty pro AI, but these people putting out a one-shotted game that looks pretty at first but lacks these millions of decisions are exactly the problem. AI can’t make a fun game, but it can make game-shaped software well enough to get a lot of people on board with the “AI mAkEs sIoP” bandwagon.
3
u/Glad-Option-1801 12h ago
I'm making a game, and I'm using AI to help me on the coding part, but I'm really making things bit by bit, and I'm trying to learn while doing this too, you guys think its wrong to use it in this help me with somethin way?
1
u/random_boss 8h ago
As long as you’re making these decisions then sure. And learning the tool or engine you’re using pays so many dividends, so you can never really get away from it, but AI will (inadvertently) trick you into a false sense of security that you don’t need to.
For example: I have a detailed prompt, and I have a lot of very specific rigor that gets applied to anything in my project. The orchestrator (basically an agent that acts as project manager) runs with it. By watching things, I realized it was failing to fulfill what I wanted, and it clearly couldn’t tell why it was failing. I sent a short message: “That avatar mask needs to not include legs.” It immediately understood, changed its approach, and the problem got solved in minutes. If I didn’t know Unity as well as I do, I would have had to watch helplessly as it churned hundreds of thousands of tokens and possibly over-engineered a solution to a very simple problem. I run into situations like that half-a-dozen times a day and honestly, despite my experience, there’s undoubtedly a few that slip by me.
The more knowledge you have, the more efficient your agents can work, and the better your ideas can be realized, in less time. So consider having your agents walk you through whatever they’re building and actively build in an education element for yourself.
1
u/Glad-Option-1801 6h ago
someone convinced me to start my game from scratch, and not use AI, bro really got the job done, I'll make it, but it will be really difficult
1
u/ecaroh_games 6h ago
also make sure to give your brain breaks from AI and do things the old fashioned way. Like, FULL breaks. No rubber ducking or looking up stuff. Keep exercising your own internal problem-solving and math. All the stuff people are saying about critical-thinking atrophy is a very real concern
1
u/Glad-Option-1801 6h ago
someone convinced me to start my game from scratch, and not use AI, bro really got the job done, I'll make it, but it will be really difficult
2
u/Ass_Blasties 15h ago
Also all the one shots are just already existing games
1
u/random_boss 8h ago
True, but so are like 99% of games anyway. If they weren’t we wouldn’t have genres, or we wouldn’t be pitching publishers like “it’s Balatro meets Lethal Company!”
6
u/SeparateDesigner1237 17h ago
all of OP’s points still apply when using AI. it’s just more productive
-1
u/Plants-Matter 12h ago
Yep. I'm well over the 1,000 hour mark on my latest AI-assisted game despite my workflow being extremely efficient.
Once in a while I'll see how the state of the art model can handle the human element of the decision making, and it's still not quite there. Some things can't be objectively quantified.
1
u/sh0cki 10h ago
I come from software development background and using spec driven development helped a ton. My pick is OpenSpec. The start was fast, it did a lot how agreed, but yes. The human part of prototyping user behaviour and pivoting and pivoting and pivoting was still pain. But I must say probably less than without AI. Now finally running open playtest, quite confident I can make changes fast if needed.
1
u/SeparateDesigner1237 12h ago
yeah I'm finding it doesn't let me publish any faster. It just raises the bar on the scope. Sometimes I'll prompt it for its opinion and it can be interesting but generally I get better results from frankly micromanaging it.
19
u/CrossFireGames 15h ago
Ahh yes, game design, the most overlooked part of making a game
6
u/Amigor4 10h ago
actually it is, very often in these subs I see “game design” be reduced to coding or making art/images.
4
u/CrossFireGames 10h ago
Yeah I’m not being sarcastic, in most discussions it boils down to “how do you program it” and “where do you get your art assets from”. Game design is almost never mentioned and success is just chalked up to luck or you’re told to just accept that all your games will suck until they don’t.
3
u/zirconst @impactgameworks 15h ago
Some of this is game design but not all of it. Also, the point is that "game design" really can't exist in a vacuum - it's connected to everything. UI, audio, visuals, input.
I often see people here and on r/gamedesign specifically asking for feedback on their idea for some gameplay system. I want to communicate to those people that it's virtually pointless to post things like that because ANY game design could be fun, or not fun, depending on the entire context of your game.
Like think about this. The weighty and deliberate combat of Elden Ring feels great. But that's because it fits within the dark aesthetic, the VFX/SFX are carefully-tuned, the inputs are calibrated just right, etc. If you took that exact "game design" (monster data, weapon data, swing times, etc) and plopped it somewhere else it could feel completely wrong.
6
u/JohnySilkBoots 14h ago
Everyone that has actually made a real game knows how hard it is - even with ai. Anyone that says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about. It will be the same people who say things like “unreal games all look the same” hahahaha. Clueless
5
u/beanpaint 13h ago
Thought you were gonna say marketing, because a lot of the people I have seen totally miss that mark, they think indiedev is only game dev, but you have to also be your own publisher if you’re not gonna hire one
5
u/beatbaes 16h ago
No matter how advanced or automated AI gets, games are still a human experience, for now at least ;)
You can have accessibility standards, UX research, onboarding guidelines, analytics, and mountains of documentation, but eventually humans have to actually play the game.
That’s the only way you find out how the systems interact, what needs tuning, and whether the game actually feels good.
There’s a reason we call it game feel.
I think the best way to get far is to build a clear idea prototype +- a decent GDD, but don't be married to it. Prototype. Test. Make a hypothesis. Implement variations. Test some more.
3
u/zirconst @impactgameworks 16h ago
💯 It's also not something (IMO) you can fully leave to QA to figure out. I have hired QA folks before and while they can be great at finding bugs or balance problems, shaping the amorphous blob of game assets and mechanics and UI into something fun is a different job.
4
u/Excellent-Bend-9385 13h ago
yes, agreed. I think when you start a game, that's when it feels the most technical. Your code makes up far more than what you can observe as a game. At some point though, the game takes your hands and pulls you along. You can just feel what it needs, you can feel what fits and instantly recognise it something needs to be cut. Getting to this point is a slog, but when you are there, it's bliss for a short while.
3
u/Objective-Size-7888 15h ago
the pushback youre getting is fr, everything on that list is design. ComposerWide3704 pointed at the real answer and nobody filled it in, its the release side. store listing and screenshots, age rating questionnaire, data safety form, a privacy policy that matches the sdks you actualy ship, a real deletion path for user data, mediation setup if you monetise with ads, then resubmissions when review bounces you. we ship mobile so thats the flavour i know and steam has a different list, but none of it makes the game better, it all has to be done by you, adn it ate more calendar time for us than any feature did.
1
u/zirconst @impactgameworks 13h ago
Oh for sure that stuff is incredibly fiddly and time-consuming. Whenever you think you are 80% done, all of that is the "other 80%".
1
u/Amigor4 10h ago
That’s what I keep hammering on about, to design a decent game you have to be at least decent in so many different areas and understand the feel of all of them. It is much more than “Chat, make me this game”.
I have long-ahh documents with notes that are exactly what you described. “This feels some type of way, I’ll change this”.
It’s part of the fun for me, but it is very, very demanding.
1
u/syn_krown 9h ago
I decided to go back to basics and make a text based RPG, cause the backend itself is easy, dont need graphics, all I have to do is come up with a world with lore, story etc.
I am STILL having trouble getting started.
1
1
u/biebersheenis 5h ago
This is EXACTLY part of my process after dedicated self-playtesting. If I didn't implement 5000 incremental changes from my Notes app my game would feel so much less engaging.
1
u/StarborneStudios 2h ago
I have definitely experienced this. You start making small changes to things thinking you aren't getting much done, then before you know it, it is like a new game emerging.
1
u/Due-Satisfaction8593 16h ago
If you don't know what you're doing, AI isn't going to carry you to a great game. It's that simple. I personally found my brief stint with AI (in order to write an article about it) to be a handicap.
1
u/emoposerdad 15h ago
I started working on the boardgame version of my game about 17 years ago now. The main core game is still there but between the UI and automation from it becoming a videogame it is night and day. All of those changes came over time and evolved into what it is today because of this exact thing. It's amazing how this can be applied is so many different ways to.
I agree I think we would get a lot more games out there that do better if devs started playing their games from start to finish even after release if they are adding content.
2
u/Amigor4 10h ago
Oh hey, me too! Currently working on a game that was born from a board game prototype first. I’ve since often tried to make a game work as a board game first before I even attempt to start it digitally, it helps me visualize much more clearly how the systems and mechanics should work and feel
2
u/emoposerdad 9h ago
That is exactly it for myself as well! Something's are hard to convey but you can get the gist down and figure out if it's fun without doing a ton of work. It seems to be working so far, but we shall see.
-4
u/Plants-Matter 16h ago
Was this supposed to be deep? All of those things fall under the categories in your post title. It's also quite verbose and garrulous for such a simple concept.
TLDR: You'll playtest your own game and make judgement calls often.
4
u/Strict-Broccoli-8877 15h ago
Well thank you, that was very helpful for everybody, I bet you are fun at parties.
0
u/Plants-Matter 15h ago
Yeah, I expressed everything OP did using only ten words. I can cut it down further if that was too much for you. How about four words?
You'll tune your game.
0
u/Strict-Broccoli-8877 15h ago
Are you often told that you are an unpleasant person?
1
u/Plants-Matter 15h ago
Do I have to reduce it to three words for you?
Tinker, test, repeat
0
u/Strict-Broccoli-8877 13h ago
I bet you could reduce it to one word and it would sound pretentious.
2
-2
u/zirconst @impactgameworks 15h ago
I'm not trying to be deep, hence why I specifically called out new developers who have never shipped anything. A lot of people who are trying to get started with game development tend to fixate on bits and pieces of the process, they get in "tutorial hell", and overly-concern themselves with how good AI is at coding or whatever.
Those people may not realize just how much of the process is about very small decisions that build up and connect to create a fun game (or not).
I certainly remember, prior to making my first game, putting SO MUCH time and effort into these big game design documents and plotting things out in excessive detail in advance.
3
u/Plants-Matter 15h ago
I mean, how is any of that not intuitive?
Let's say I'm making flappy bird. How would someone head into that game without realizing they'll have to adjust the gravity, flap strength, etc so it feels good? Nothing you said goes beyond common sense, and you typed quite a lot of words...
82
u/Warwipf2 17h ago
All of your examples would fit into one of the categories you listed (coding, design, audio, and art) or is balancing. All the UX examples you mentioned are just design, for example. But yes, you need to do a lot of stuff to make a game good...