4 ms·
I think this applies to a very specific class of games. When people mention games I tend to this of three very distinct types: Nano Game - something that a sin
by droz 16y ago
I think this applies to a very specific class of games. When people mention games I tend to this of three very distinct types:
Nano Game - something that a single individual put together over the course of a couple weekends. It works, it's fun to play, it may not be pretty to look at, but it will get played again and again then ignored. E.g., Gridwars, Mine Sweeper
Micro Game - maybe two people working together. It is polished took a couple of months to put together. It works, it's fun to play and it is girl next door pretty. It will get played until the sun burns up. E.g., anything that you'll find in the 10$ bargain bin when it first gets released
Macro Game - a group of people working together. It took a couple of years to put together. It is flawless, it's got a marketing campaign behind it and chances are it's going to get played by professional gamers and make a lot of people a lot of money. E.g., Starcraft, GTA, Quake
Nano games are < 10k, micro games are less than 100k and macro games anything more than 100k.
I would argue that the vast majority of games fall into the nano and micro camps. They may never get any traction, but nonetheless they are out there en mass. Because of that, it doesn't make any sense to me to say that it takes 100k to build a game without saying what type of game.
- andywood 16y agoI like this, but I think it needs one more category between Micro and Macro. There are many games that are polished, and take a few people tons of work, but aren't big-budget blockbusters. E.g. Braid, Cave Story, Minecraft, Super Meat Boy - basically the darlings of the indie movement. These often take way more than a couple of months, but are a far cry from the likes of GTA.