Why Game Developers Should Finish What They Start

Michael writes "Too often, hobbyists and open source programmers take on game projects that they can't hope to finish. Freshmeat is rife with games from developers who have bitten off more than they can chew. So I drafted an article which takes a look at the major roadblocks to successfully completing open source and hobbyist game projects."

Comments

It's my own time so I'll do what I want

[Chris_Jefferson]

As an amateur game developer, I can tell you I've got more half-written games around than I can count :)

The reason why people give up is quite simple.. it's fairly easy to get a 80% complete game, and see what it's like. The last 20% however takes 50x longer to do, is really quite boring, and by that point I've had a new idea for a "greatest project ever!", and have decided to go and write that instead :)

One problem with games that other programs don't have so much is that most games (with the except of fairly free-form RPGs like nethack) is that most people will only play them once or twice, so if you write a game and release a 70% complete version, then 4 months later release a 80% complete version, very few people will re-download and re-play the new version, which is one reason people find it so hard to motivate themselves to finish them, and not just go and write something else.

Now pardon me while I try to get and think of another great idea for a new game and start to write that one!

Re:It's my own time so I'll do what I want

[Corngood]

A friend of mine helped me out writing a little game/demo. He wrote me a schedule and harassed me on a semi-daily basis. I never finish my hobby projects, but he was so much help that I actually made a pretty good demo, which helped get me my first game industry job.

If you can get people interested, even if they aren't actually contributing to the project, they can be a big motivator.

The title is just plain wrong

[BoxedFlame]

The article is about HOW to finish a game, not WHY.

Games by learning - or by fun

[tod_miller]

I agree with Pitfall one, three is a bit suspect.

Opensource isn't just a one man band. The best games would have >1 developer to lend a hand.

Don't encourage rash, hacky programming tendancies to push quantity of quality.

Of course, fleshing out mist of your game can be a good way of making you want to complete it.

My advice: Get other people to help with graphics. Go to a site like www.deviantart.com and post a message saying pixel help / 3d help needed for xyz game, AFTER you have an engine that can showcase their work.

Looking good isn't a crime!

There are some rgeat freeware games around, and top down shooters using mouse look are excellent, and they usually have some funky particle FX.

As game development is simplified through libraries, we may see more amateur games, and more skill, pressuring commercial games sales.

CounterStrike for instance, if this used an open source, free beer 3d engine, then the 'best game' would have been open source and free beer.

OK quake 1 is open source now for ages, I am not sure what this means for counterstrike source code?

Valve obv. have license for thier commercial exploits of the game.

Modification of games is also prevelant, making open source games modifiable, even using md2 model files etc, would greatly increase thier adoption.

Top ten open source, free games?

Software Design

[Nyhm]

In defense of good software design, there is something to be said for system components that are not inter-dependent. Good design means there is some hope of debugging the system. Achieving this should not take a "bleary-eyed programmer" all night to do it. If this is the case, your software design phase failed.

Oh, wait, there is no mention of software design in this article...

I keep forgetting that game development is not about producing good software, but about efficiently pipelining your artistic assets. This misconception transcends this little article. For example, Game Developer Magazine is a worthwhile publication, but should really be called Game Artist Magazine.

I can probably own that to an extent...

[StressGuy]

I don't write games though, I've written software for assisting me as a structural engineer. However, my main motivation for writing it is generally to educate myself on some of the underlying theories and techniques. I figure that, computers are rock-stupid. Therefore, if you can explain it to a computer, you must have a pretty good understanding of it yourself. I've got more than a few half-written projects that I stopped as soon as I grasped the underlying concepts I was seeking to understand.

While I've never released any of these projects, I suspect that this may be a similar situation with some of the game designers. I.e., the game is mearly a means to an end. If the true goal of the game is accomplished before the game is finished, there is less motivation to finish the game.

Nature of the beast

[llefler]

This really isn't a problem with game developers. It's not even unique to open source. Even with commercial development, a lot of projects are started but never completed. Some never make it off of the developers' systems because business requirements change. Some projects make it into production 'incomplete', with the intention of going back and adding features, but it never happens.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. Some projects begin to test a theory that never pans out. Those projects feed into the next iteration that makes it a little further. And some projects are so ill concieved that they never deserve to see the light of day anyway.

You can look at it as R&D, or as the electronic version of Darwinism.

What makes games get finished

[Doctor Cat]

I've been saying it for over 20 years now. There's a minority of Developers Who Actually Finish Anything Ever, and a majority of people who Only Start Things But Never Finish Things.

If a project is to have a chance of becoming finished, it needs at least one person involved who is rabidly determined that it will get done, no matter what, no matter how long it takes. This person needs to have the will to take back responsibility/control from anyone who's not getting some part of it done, and the ability to either do all those parts of the project themself, or to find someone else who will do them. If you have a person with pit-bull like persistence and determination on a project, it is decently likely to get done. If you don't, it's hard to finish unless you're doing something pretty easy.