4 ms·

This is kinda where I fall on this too. Lacking a lot of background on this and going off the post alone, it doesn’t sound like the author was “ahead of his tim

This is kinda where I fall on this too. Lacking a lot of background on this and going off the post alone, it doesn’t sound like the author was “ahead of his time” so much as he was in the wrong field. The point of a game is not algorithmic sophistication, it’s fun (to simplify in the extreme). If the game isn’t fun it doesn’t matter how fancy or impressive the logic powering it is. If you want to blaze new trails in modeling and computation, games are the wrong field to do it in as any advancement will tend to be overshadowed by whether or not the game itself is a good game. Sure there are enthusiasts that will be interested in internals, but fame in the realm of games comes with great game design, not algorithmic sophistication. It’s like an artist inventing a new shade of green and using it in his work in combination with other colors and complaining that no one acknowledges the sophisticated formulas he had to use to produce his special shade of green.

bogwog 6y ago
The worst critic of your game is yourself. Even if your game is insanely boring, if you spend enough time toiling away on it, tweaking it, playing testing, critically thinking about the complexities of it, etc, you'll grow extremely attached to it very quickly. I am automatically skeptical of anyone that tries to defend their art by referencing science, but in this case, as an indie developer with my own fair share of failures and lots of experience in development, I'm not just skeptical; I'm pretty confident that I know why this person failed, and why they'll continue to fail unless they change their thinking. Although I will say, in fairness to the author, that I have not read any of his books, seen his lectures, or played his games. So maybe he really is a genius game designer with ideas too advanced for any of us to appreciate. EDIT: okay now after reading another comment with more background information about the author, I feel like a dick for the tone I used here. But I'll leave the comment up anyways because, well, I feel like it's still useful advice (at least the first paragraph)

bogwog 6y ago

The worst critic of your game is yourself. Even if your game is insanely boring, if you spend enough time toiling away on it, tweaking it, playing testing, critically thinking about the complexities of it, etc, you'll grow extremely attached to it very quickly. I am automatically skeptical of anyone that tries to defend their art by referencing science, but in this case, as an indie developer with my own fair share of failures and lots of experience in development, I'm not just skeptical; I'm pretty confident that I know why this person failed, and why they'll continue to fail unless they change their thinking. Although I will say, in fairness to the author, that I have not read any of his books, seen his lectures, or played his games. So maybe he really is a genius game designer with ideas too advanced for any of us to appreciate. EDIT: okay now after reading another comment with more background information about the author, I feel like a dick for the tone I used here. But I'll leave the comment up anyways because, well, I feel like it's still useful advice (at least the first paragraph)