6 ms·

Yes, the game market is often hard. But I find this author's attitude fatalistic and weird. (Also I agree that the numbers do not add up). He seems to think th

by jblow 9y ago

Yes, the game market is often hard. But I find this author's attitude fatalistic and weird. (Also I agree that the numbers do not add up). He seems to think that "rolling the dice" is the primary thing going on, and that he can't influence this substantially by any amount of development skill, proper tactics, and so forth. I wonder if this kind of mindset is a side-effect of modern-day political correctness -- that if you succeed, it is 100% due to your good fortune (combined privilege and luck) and not because you did anything special to get there. The upside of such an attitude is that we recognize luck and recognize that people who failed did not necessarily fail through fault of their own. One major downside is that we feel a lack of agency, and this lack of agency is almost certain to drastically decrease the chances of future success. Be careful what you believe, because it matters. For my part, I think talent and skill and grit are huge factors in success, so if I want to succeed at something, I am able to formulate some kind of a plan. I don't feel that I am "just rolling the dice", even when luck is involved (which it is all the time, in everything).

yannyu 9y ago
I don't think most people think all success is 100% luck, but many people do find issue with those who consider themselves self-made without any consideration for privilege and luck. It feels like you're setting up a strawman here of people who believe that all success is unearned. The author only said that there are those who work as hard as he does and are as smart as him and yet don't succeed. How else would you rationalize situations where you find your peers failing and you succeeding, even though you might consider yourselves equals in ability and tenacity? Or do you simply consider yourself above and beyond and attribute all your success to that?
- jblow 9y ago
  Have you seen A Dark Room? It's text. He ported a text game, that someone else had already designed and implemented, to iOS. This is not a huge amount of work compared to what most game development people do, and is not particularly challenging compared to what people are doing with 3D graphics, etc. I am pointing this out not to be mean, but to respond to your point: "those who work as hard as he does and are as smart as him". What he did for A Dark Room was something pretty much any iOS programmer can do, and in those conditions it's natural not to expect to be noticed in a crowded market. i.e. he evidently did not do anything noticeably smarter or work noticeably harder than anyone else. This doesn't mean he can't do smarter and bigger things, just that a port of ADR is not that, and neither were his other descriptions of projects he did in the meantime (for example, look at the screenshots for Mildly Interesting RTS). I think when this is the limit of what one is attempting, one has no right to complain that people aren't buying one's stuff (and should not be surprised at that either!)
  - amirrajan 9y ago
    Mildly Interesting RTS looks pretty good to be honest. Have you downloaded it? It's surprisingly a lot of fun. Solid review score too. Oh and totally give A Dark Room a shot. You may find it pretty okay. PS: I'm totally gonna frame this comment thread. I'm big fan Braid and The Witness. You? Not so much :-)
    - jblow 9y ago
      It’s unfortunate you had to take this ad hominem.
    - nimblegorilla 9y ago
      MIRTS is actually an incredibly shallow take on RTS. I remember playing an extremely similar game back in 2007 and I also remember thinking that game was extremely similar to design docs that I had seen people blogging about a few years earlier. MIRTS is something I'd expect from a weekend programming jam. It's a minimal effort and it's not surprising that it did minimally well in the marketplace.
  - jng 9y ago
    MIRTS is an incredibly deep take in distilling the essence of RTS. The spartan look is instrumental to that. I don't think you get it. I only played ADR for a few minutes, so I didn't discover its depth, but the reason it became so popular on the app store is that it was able to create a compelling experience with the least amount of resources, a creative tour de force if you ask me. The mainstream audience wants flashy things, and these games are probably never going to catch on there, but not for a lack of value, work, or depth.
SeanBoocock 9y ago
I didn't draw the same conclusion from the article regarding whether the author thought, or the article implies, that "rolling the dice" is the primary element of success. The author emphasizes the sorts of elements you highlighted - formulating a long term and reasonable plan; demonstrable talent; grit and perseverance - not as necessary (or sufficient) conditions to success but rather necessary conditions to have a chance at success. As you know more than most, game development isn't a linear path from ideation to release, and good games from smart people who worked hard on them often find little success. You can increase your chance at success with experience and talent, but games are an entertainment medium and sometimes your creation just doesn't resonate - or increasingly rise above the noise of the platform marketplaces - with enough people to be a sustainable career. I've worked at AAA studios and am now at an independent game developer. I've sometimes thought of doing something even smaller, an indie effort akin to the author's or something of the scope of what you did with Braid. I found this article aspirational and affirming, validating the idea of taking a chance on something that is meaningful to you despite the (long in the case of the mobile app store) odds.
- amirrajan 9y ago
  >not as necessary (or sufficient) conditions to success but rather necessary conditions to have a chance at success. Exactly this.
taway_1212 9y ago
Even if you do your best, you won't know if it's enough until you actually try. That's why, from a practical standpoint, it's indistinguishable from a gamble.
abandonliberty 9y ago
I agree with you. Beliefs, grit, talent, skill are all factors in success. But we run into huge issues of post rationalization, survivorship bias, and the human tendency to attribute success to our actions and failures to circumstances (which incidentally is a practice that reduces depression). Uwe Boll's grit created a bunch of awful movies and 3 failed kickstarters - he's much more successful at owning a restaurant! The challenging question is where to focus your efforts. Listening to survivors to the detriment of understanding your current situation and needs can be a trap.

by jblow 9y ago

yannyu 9y ago

I don't think most people think all success is 100% luck, but many people do find issue with those who consider themselves self-made without any consideration for privilege and luck. It feels like you're setting up a strawman here of people who believe that all success is unearned. The author only said that there are those who work as hard as he does and are as smart as him and yet don't succeed. How else would you rationalize situations where you find your peers failing and you succeeding, even though you might consider yourselves equals in ability and tenacity? Or do you simply consider yourself above and beyond and attribute all your success to that?

jblow 9y ago
Have you seen A Dark Room? It's text. He ported a text game, that someone else had already designed and implemented, to iOS. This is not a huge amount of work compared to what most game development people do, and is not particularly challenging compared to what people are doing with 3D graphics, etc. I am pointing this out not to be mean, but to respond to your point: "those who work as hard as he does and are as smart as him". What he did for A Dark Room was something pretty much any iOS programmer can do, and in those conditions it's natural not to expect to be noticed in a crowded market. i.e. he evidently did not do anything noticeably smarter or work noticeably harder than anyone else. This doesn't mean he can't do smarter and bigger things, just that a port of ADR is not that, and neither were his other descriptions of projects he did in the meantime (for example, look at the screenshots for Mildly Interesting RTS). I think when this is the limit of what one is attempting, one has no right to complain that people aren't buying one's stuff (and should not be surprised at that either!)
- amirrajan 9y ago
  Mildly Interesting RTS looks pretty good to be honest. Have you downloaded it? It's surprisingly a lot of fun. Solid review score too. Oh and totally give A Dark Room a shot. You may find it pretty okay. PS: I'm totally gonna frame this comment thread. I'm big fan Braid and The Witness. You? Not so much :-)
  - jblow 9y ago
    It’s unfortunate you had to take this ad hominem.
  - nimblegorilla 9y ago
    MIRTS is actually an incredibly shallow take on RTS. I remember playing an extremely similar game back in 2007 and I also remember thinking that game was extremely similar to design docs that I had seen people blogging about a few years earlier. MIRTS is something I'd expect from a weekend programming jam. It's a minimal effort and it's not surprising that it did minimally well in the marketplace.
- jng 9y ago
  MIRTS is an incredibly deep take in distilling the essence of RTS. The spartan look is instrumental to that. I don't think you get it. I only played ADR for a few minutes, so I didn't discover its depth, but the reason it became so popular on the app store is that it was able to create a compelling experience with the least amount of resources, a creative tour de force if you ask me. The mainstream audience wants flashy things, and these games are probably never going to catch on there, but not for a lack of value, work, or depth.

SeanBoocock 9y ago

I didn't draw the same conclusion from the article regarding whether the author thought, or the article implies, that "rolling the dice" is the primary element of success. The author emphasizes the sorts of elements you highlighted - formulating a long term and reasonable plan; demonstrable talent; grit and perseverance - not as necessary (or sufficient) conditions to success but rather necessary conditions to have a chance at success. As you know more than most, game development isn't a linear path from ideation to release, and good games from smart people who worked hard on them often find little success. You can increase your chance at success with experience and talent, but games are an entertainment medium and sometimes your creation just doesn't resonate - or increasingly rise above the noise of the platform marketplaces - with enough people to be a sustainable career. I've worked at AAA studios and am now at an independent game developer. I've sometimes thought of doing something even smaller, an indie effort akin to the author's or something of the scope of what you did with Braid. I found this article aspirational and affirming, validating the idea of taking a chance on something that is meaningful to you despite the (long in the case of the mobile app store) odds.

amirrajan 9y ago
>not as necessary (or sufficient) conditions to success but rather necessary conditions to have a chance at success. Exactly this.

taway_1212 9y ago

Even if you do your best, you won't know if it's enough until you actually try. That's why, from a practical standpoint, it's indistinguishable from a gamble.

abandonliberty 9y ago

I agree with you. Beliefs, grit, talent, skill are all factors in success. But we run into huge issues of post rationalization, survivorship bias, and the human tendency to attribute success to our actions and failures to circumstances (which incidentally is a practice that reduces depression). Uwe Boll's grit created a bunch of awful movies and 3 failed kickstarters - he's much more successful at owning a restaurant! The challenging question is where to focus your efforts. Listening to survivors to the detriment of understanding your current situation and needs can be a trap.