I remember from playtesting with friends that some things I thought were self -explanatory - they didn't get it. I learned that visual design needs to be TOO CLEAR
I've had the same problem with web development (my day job). Sometimes watching others testing my websites feels like the following video... ua-cam.com/video/cUbIkNUFs-4/v-deo.html
I’m going to add my 2 cents here, great channel BTW. Indie developer step process ( order specific): 1. Game loop idea solid 2. Art and sound 3. Trailer , Steam Page and Social media 4. Demo , testing Q and A 5. Online Festivals 6. Release or Early Access This is my opinion of a good strategy to release a game as a solo or indie crew
Fantastic advice Brandon. Of course I broke rule #1 and produced the art for my latest game first. I got away with it because I've written this type of game a few times before and I was very confident I'd get the game play working without much trouble.
I struggle with first two points. Building a discord community without a youtube channel is hard. A link to discord in the menu of my game with 14k plays brought exactly 0 person. And the people that are close to me are the one's I'm trying to impress, so I'm too aware to playtest too early because of the effect it may have on my motivation. Also, I've been using placeholders less and less as I tried to level up my games because it is so hard to make it feel good until you have those extra effects and sounds.
I want to make a game, I have this idea for it. I have sketched it, well thought out the levels but I got 0 confidence in getting it done. I mess up with let's say collisions and making it look good, and I just feel like giving up.
It will only hurt the game if you don't have a clear vision. If you have that, you get the feedback if your vision comes through or not - if people feel what you want them to feel or play how you want them to play etc. . Not having a defined vision is a problem on its own - but it's not really a problem with (early) feedback. So yea, I disagree.
@@johnleorid i think it's quite the opposite, if you have a clear vision, then the feedback is less useful. in a big company there is too many people working on a game, and communication is a challenge, this tends to mess things up in a way playtester can help. But if you have a clear vision, and you are working alone, what you will change with the feedback? it's only things YOU have messed up, and you should not mess things up. A lot of jobs don't allow you to mess up, like a doctor or a pilot... "oh something was obvious to me but not to players" -- it should be part of your job predict that. Play testing usually it's just a tool to fix your mistakes, but the focus on don't making mistakes tends to be more helpful. Also finding good play testers it's not an easy task. There are a lot of stories like... how changing the sound of a gun made player ramp about it being too strong... feedback is not accurate, you as a game dev is supposed to have more knowledge than the players. I used to work for Riot and i used to answer 300 players everyday, i dealt with more player feedback than most indie devs ever will. For most indie devs, releasing the game should be the priority... after you released the game you can take feedback from the actual players, especially if it's your first game. This "seek" for a master piece is a mistake, its better to fail faster and fail better. A lot of game devs get stuck and can't release a single game with years of game devlopment. Play testing CAN be good, but it will never destroy your game. That's my point. Think about, what is the worse can happen? If you publish the game it's not destroyed, but if you start spiral with the feedbacks and never finishes the game and quit the project... that destroys your game. "Done is better than well done"
For a while, I've been persistent on focusing on aspects of my project other than engine work itself. And I've been sorta hesitant on the feedback side of things as well. And this vid totally changes my perspective on those things. Thx 4 that! (^^)b
Thanks for this advice. As a counter to the argument for 'gameplay first, art after' the following GDC video about aesthetics-led game dev is really interesting. I wouldn't say it’s a good idea for all or even most games though! ua-cam.com/video/4m-_WTKd8rE/v-deo.html
Must have word like DESTROY in all caps and a giant RED word on the thumbnail to show that content is a MUST SEE!!! I mean, I get that you're just trying to game the algo/human psyche but it gets a thumbs down from me every time I see a content creator switch to this UA-cam playbook.
2:30 In my game; The InBetween. I had already established the game's art direction and story through a short comic, so that wasn' a huge issue for me. That's why I focused on the gameplay first(even if it meant my player character and NPCs were nothing more than purple and red blocks.) I used that same strategy for enemies, bosses and even the obstacles for platforming. It helps boost the dev process, but sometimes I think one also needs to occasionally work on the art from time to time instead of gameplay entirely first. From my point of view, I ended up handling all the programming for the Village area in my game, down to the 3 endings, and now I have to painstakingly animate all the characters. It should have been something I could do on the side, but noow that there's nothing else on my task list, I have no choice but to do it.🥲
I remember from playtesting with friends that some things I thought were self -explanatory - they didn't get it. I learned that visual design needs to be TOO CLEAR
I've had the same problem with web development (my day job). Sometimes watching others testing my websites feels like the following video... ua-cam.com/video/cUbIkNUFs-4/v-deo.html
I’m going to add my 2 cents here, great channel BTW.
Indie developer step process ( order specific):
1. Game loop idea solid
2. Art and sound
3. Trailer , Steam Page and Social media
4. Demo , testing Q and A
5. Online Festivals
6. Release or Early Access
This is my opinion of a good strategy to release a game as a solo or indie crew
I'm glad I found you early, I really want to see this channel blow up, and then say "Yeah, I've been here since they had about 1k subscribers".
Fantastic advice Brandon. Of course I broke rule #1 and produced the art for my latest game first. I got away with it because I've written this type of game a few times before and I was very confident I'd get the game play working without much trouble.
Great content and effort, yet again! :)
You seem to look happier and healthier good to see :)
I struggle with first two points. Building a discord community without a youtube channel is hard. A link to discord in the menu of my game with 14k plays brought exactly 0 person. And the people that are close to me are the one's I'm trying to impress, so I'm too aware to playtest too early because of the effect it may have on my motivation. Also, I've been using placeholders less and less as I tried to level up my games because it is so hard to make it feel good until you have those extra effects and sounds.
I want to make a game, I have this idea for it. I have sketched it, well thought out the levels but I got 0 confidence in getting it done. I mess up with let's say collisions and making it look good, and I just feel like giving up.
Good video, great effort
I think playtesters are overrated, and often hurt indie devs more than help.
It's good for big companies. But people are not ready for that debate xD
It will only hurt the game if you don't have a clear vision. If you have that, you get the feedback if your vision comes through or not - if people feel what you want them to feel or play how you want them to play etc. .
Not having a defined vision is a problem on its own - but it's not really a problem with (early) feedback. So yea, I disagree.
@@johnleorid i think it's quite the opposite, if you have a clear vision, then the feedback is less useful.
in a big company there is too many people working on a game, and communication is a challenge, this tends to mess things up in a way playtester can help.
But if you have a clear vision, and you are working alone, what you will change with the feedback? it's only things YOU have messed up, and you should not mess things up. A lot of jobs don't allow you to mess up, like a doctor or a pilot... "oh something was obvious to me but not to players" -- it should be part of your job predict that. Play testing usually it's just a tool to fix your mistakes, but the focus on don't making mistakes tends to be more helpful. Also finding good play testers it's not an easy task.
There are a lot of stories like... how changing the sound of a gun made player ramp about it being too strong... feedback is not accurate, you as a game dev is supposed to have more knowledge than the players. I used to work for Riot and i used to answer 300 players everyday, i dealt with more player feedback than most indie devs ever will.
For most indie devs, releasing the game should be the priority... after you released the game you can take feedback from the actual players, especially if it's your first game. This "seek" for a master piece is a mistake, its better to fail faster and fail better. A lot of game devs get stuck and can't release a single game with years of game devlopment.
Play testing CAN be good, but it will never destroy your game. That's my point. Think about, what is the worse can happen? If you publish the game it's not destroyed, but if you start spiral with the feedbacks and never finishes the game and quit the project... that destroys your game.
"Done is better than well done"
Exactly. People often want to tailor the experience exactly to their liking if they know they have the opportunity.
What is the reasoning behind that can you please explain thanks
For a while, I've been persistent on focusing on aspects of my project other than engine work itself. And I've been sorta hesitant on the feedback side of things as well. And this vid totally changes my perspective on those things. Thx 4 that! (^^)b
That's it, I'm subscribing!
Very helpful!
Thanks for this advice. As a counter to the argument for 'gameplay first, art after' the following GDC video about aesthetics-led game dev is really interesting. I wouldn't say it’s a good idea for all or even most games though! ua-cam.com/video/4m-_WTKd8rE/v-deo.html
Must have word like DESTROY in all caps and a giant RED word on the thumbnail to show that content is a MUST SEE!!!
I mean, I get that you're just trying to game the algo/human psyche but it gets a thumbs down from me every time I see a content creator switch to this UA-cam playbook.
First
2:30 In my game; The InBetween. I had already established the game's art direction and story through a short comic, so that wasn' a huge issue for me. That's why I focused on the gameplay first(even if it meant my player character and NPCs were nothing more than purple and red blocks.) I used that same strategy for enemies, bosses and even the obstacles for platforming. It helps boost the dev process, but sometimes I think one also needs to occasionally work on the art from time to time instead of gameplay entirely first. From my point of view, I ended up handling all the programming for the Village area in my game, down to the 3 endings, and now I have to painstakingly animate all the characters. It should have been something I could do on the side, but noow that there's nothing else on my task list, I have no choice but to do it.🥲
Thank you