You are wrong. This advice of smaller games is indeed very important for a couple of reasons: 1 - videos games aren't just the sum of all its small features. There are a million ways of develop and implement the same things, and all of them may be right depending of the intended context and outcome. So when you make small games with that feature, it helps you understand more of it when you see players interacting with it, and their feedback. 2 - You will fail many times, so the goal is to fail faster so you can learn by doing It. Imagine you spent 3 whole years making a game and it fails because you released it in a bad date, or the title or art is not appealing? You could have learned this before with smt less time consuming. 3 - You will get much more valuable information, learning and make a much better game, if you understand the small variables that compose the bigger experience you are trying to make. How many times have you played a game that the idea was good on paper but the execution was off? Yeah, that happens because the devs understood what should be in It, but didn't have enough experience with the HOW There are many more other important reasons but this is enough to ilustrate the point.
Saying someone is wrong because their approach is different is not it, not everyone learns the same way. Most people probably look at smaller projects as time that could be spent on the passion project.
He didn't really advise against making small games. He just said you should make them in a smarter way. I actually found the video quite helpful for my own project. It made me realize I've been trying to make Final Fantasy 1 this whole time, when I should've been making Franken.
@@mrexeptionel9530 Because what works for one can be a complete clusterfuck for you. And you'll never know that until you start using this tool. It's easier to fix shit when you work on small project, rather than when you work on your "dream game".
@@AidanNieve actually I think it is bc I don't care if I am getting anywhere or not my approach is I am doing this thing, do I have an end goal? yes of course. but idc if I achieve it and that lets me work stress free. The only time I get frustrated is if I figure something out in 15 min that I couldn't get in 2 hours previously bc it feels anti climatic.
Agreed! The “smaller game” advice has its reach, I couldn't force myself to make a platformer with no flavor, I want to create something that I have fun playing with. Although thinking about interesting constraints requires a bit more work, it's worth it.
5:54 Yes, this is key: why would I make a game I wouldn't want to play? Aside from the motivation part, If I wouldn't play it, why would anyone else? That said, indeed scope management is key since there are only so many hours a person (or team) can put in game dev.
The issue new devs face is that the advectives used (small, smart) are not in a relationship to something known. What is small? One tenth of GTA5? Small for a AAA open world game. I personally do not like "start small" because it leads to the vast amount of small effortless little pieces of whatever steam is flooded with. And I'm also not a fan of chasing hypes in the hope of baiting steamers into playing. Okay, if you live in Venezuela in a ducked up economy and a few kids buying your shit for the lulz feeds your family, go for it. Do what works. For first world countries where the majority of indie games make far less money than working part time at McDonald's, it's not worth building games you don't care for. There's a saying: making your hobby into a job kills your hobby. If you kill your hobby, at least make it for a price and for the delusion of building a community by releasing a new throwaway game every 3 months. What is objectively true is: you won't be able to compete on scale. Choose something that will work on a budget.
Learn to make games with small prototypes. It's better to do one thing well than 20 things subpar. If your game is fun and feels good to play, it won't matter what it looks like. Ultrakill for reference. Your game doesn't have to be small. It's about how much time or money you want to invest in your game. Dwarf Fortress for reference. Whether it's 2D or 3D, you have to make or buy or pay someone to make the assets used in the game. Alot of people make the mistake of forgetting you need direction in your game. So if you're buying assets, you can lose the art direction for your game. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Don't overwhelm yourself by starting with too much.
The idea of games being an art form combines naturally with taking a core idea and making it new by adding something to it. That new thing is hard to estimate by definition, but without experience or knowledge the old stuff is hard to estimate too. In software in general estimation is hard, but games also have a lot of programming and assets that are there to make the game world more real like memory management, images in the background or ambient sounds. Players only notice these subconscious things when they fail, so part of moving from player to gamedev is learning to notice the things in the background. It's similar to painter being able experience a painting, but also noticing the brush strokes. When you really know what it takes to make a game, scheduling becomes easier as well as finding where and what to innovate. So basically I'm saying, become smarter to make smarter games. Whether you do that via courses, experiments, releasing multiple smaller games or something else is up to the gamedev, although there is very small theoretical chance that a small game becomes a hit, in practice innovation, quality and marketing matter and I think for those skill matters.
u literally explained me lol, i woudl create a great idea for a game, start creating the mc, side chars, and ideas for the maps, but then right after that i try to make the game i would make the main menu for the game and not know where to go after that and it overwhelms me i end up watching a whole bunch of videos then scrap the project. ahh its pain, and my ideas feel so good too. itss so hard to build up the motivation to just teach myself and make small games tho cuz its like theres no reason it feels like but im wasting time and i couldve been made a game i wanted to if i just had practiced. its a loop and i feel like im going insane!!!11!!!!!11!!!
Bro what's stopping you is anxiety. Instead of watching more game making videos (I know it helps relieving tension) do some grounding exercises and your mind will guide you to the next step.
What you could do is to plan everything the game need to have, then split the features into multiple layers, layer 1 contain the bare minimum you need (aka a prototype), layer 2 contain more features that are important, layer 3 for optional features .... etc, you should not work on a higher layer untill you finish the current one. This way you could stop at any stage and feel satisfied/rewarded while learning, the main 2 issues are Experience (your plan will suck if u got no experience, but thats a thing u will ear along the way) and Dicipline (dont start working on content or the new shiny feature until its thw right time, and this is a thing you should train for)
I've given the 'make small games' suggestion hundreds of times over the last few decades, but I think most people don't really get it... These are the real reasons why: 1) your first game likely won't be completed and if by some luck it is, it won't be fun to play. You should NOT monetize your first attempts at making a game. The market is saturated as it is, nobody wants your metaphorical stick figure drawings, and it just hurts consumer confidence and drives the price of games down for all games (game prices in the best of cases have not gone up for nearing three decades... and at worst are free to play). 2) you likely will write and rewrite the game by the time it is actually done, multiple times. That's the CORRECT thing to do, you should lean into this and this is where most of your learning will happen. There is lots to learn on your first finished game, and that's great... no need to rob yourself of those lessons by sinking your project with features that you're just too naive to see are impossible for you to achieve at your current skill. If you're building your dream game, what happens when you get half way and you hate it, not because the idea was garbage, but because you just don't have the skills to bring it to a level of quality that it deserves? and those are typically given, but easily the most IMPORTANT ONE is: 3) there is a difference between development and design. SURE you could add a bunch of FEATURES into a game (development, as in software development), but that doesn't make you even a slight bit better at DESIGNING fun games. You can have a swiss army knife with a thousand blades, but if not a single one of the blades is sharp, then it is just not worth anything let alone the time you wasted making it. INSTEAD... take a game like PONG or SNAKE... have a set amount of features (a ball hitting walls and a paddle), and GO MAKE THAT FUN. Add juice,... add some polish,... maybe add ONE NOVEL idea of concept to it... the base game is proven to be fun from a feature standpoint, and they can run on flip phones and are not complex in nature to build... take that foundation and really put a spit polish on it. This works out your game-DESIGN-muscles. As for why that is important: if you just get good at adding features and have no idea on what 'fun' actually is, then you'll waste years and years making something that has a lot of 'stuff' in it, but that isn't any fun. And of lessor importance: 4) it is a learning opportunity for project management, setting a budget of time, learning kanban, etc. If you've never made a game before, you can't possible know how to properly plan your science-based 100% dragon MMO... there just isn't a frame a reference to do so, so you just won't... and you'll just have a "I'll just add stuff as I go" type attitude.... and that's how you get lost in development hell for years and years. Feeling that pong actually takes a bit of work, and feeling each aspect of making that game and adding upgrades or items to it... you'll have a better understanding of what it takes to actually make games, and therefore plan to make games better in the future. 5) why put such high demand on yourself. game development is hard enough as it is... why put a looming due date on your head for a project that is wildly out of scope of your abilities. I mean, sure, gamers are the nicest people and they won't breathe down your neck with weekly "is it done yet" and "why is it taking so long" --- because they are too classy for that,... but even if they don't you'll do that to yourself, and you're far more mean when under that kind of stress than anyone else possible could be... you're counting the minutes between updates and feeling like a schmuck the whole time. It's high stress on a good day... it's like its your first time going to the gym and just racking up a bar with as much weight as it can hold... and I feel you, it would be nice for you to get there my dude and move that kind of weight, but if you go about it that way, you're just going to hurt yourself... being set back and injured for maybe for months or even years. WITH THAT SAID... that's just optimal, and depending on the person, shooting for that 'dream game' (and likely failing 99.999% of the time) and chasing that dream, is where the most amount of your learning happens... and that's okay too. I am the biggest sinner when it comes to that myself - and where I got my start, and I wasted a lot of time there. The suggestion that making pong is disheartening and makes you not want to try is a fair point, and might be true for some. However, if I had to do it over again, I would have started with small unreleased games, to really get the fundamentals down of design and project management, in order to ship more and more fun games.
I disagree with the video. Nobody is saying you have to make small games forever, just to make them when starting out. To fail fast and learn fast. To gain a community around your smaller games so that once you make a big one, it will have a smaller chance to fail. It's all about maximizing experience and income and minimising time and chance to fail. That is why everybody is repeating the same advice. Also, it will be much easier to find a publisher to make a big game if you actually release something. And if you want to self publish then your smaller games can fund the bigger one. Just my two cents.
I disagree with you. What advice do you have? Oh wait the same boring bull crap everyone else spills online. Why comment if you are gonna complain, gripe and mope about another opinion?
"Efficiency" often isn't truly very efficient. You're taking a "work harder, not smarter" approach, where his advice boils down to "work smarter, not harder".
Correct me if im wrong but doesn't the video sum up like this: "don't make small games... instead make few twists and turns and in the end you made small game"!? Like.... after all that "pick a game you like and scale it down with a twist" does really sound like a small game in the end anyway?
Yes and no, I do think that your games should be small in scope, but I wanted to focus a bit more on *how* to actually scale them down because most videos just tell you to make it small but not how. The script did end up being a bit more repetitive than I was hoping for tho 😅
I swear youtube always recommends stuff that I already learned along the way ! Great video though ! But one thing I feel you didn't cover is that you didn't mention is that one could look into just making a very good game framework , like making an fps controller that is really satisfying then making a weapon system , then make an expandable interactable objects system (using ie interfaces) and so on . In short , you should just improve ! And generally you will end up learning alot of programming concepts while doing game dev also imo.
While working on those things is a great way to expand your knowledge, it can be quite boring (especially for those who are not into CS), and many of those systems are already available especially if you use Unity or Unreal, so if it's your cup of tea it's a great option, but for many people it would probably feel too tedious :)
Ese acento... ¿es mesetario? I hope you succeed in making good games, be they smart or small or whatever else. The more good games there are out there, the better for all gamers.
I'm confused with your backward thinking. Less content is not small game, it's still big game with less content. Of course it's not fun and you'll be burned out before finishing anything to show. Small game means as little features as possible. Complete it and build next game that is expanding feature set. For example if your end goal is RPG game, then first goal could be Cookie Clicker. With that you'll learn how to interact with UI and you'll have basic leveling system. On top of that you'll have first published game. Next make a top down shooter where you'll get to make damage system and enemy AI. Publish second game. Now you have couple games under your belt, you are above the crowd and have great portfolio. If you want you can confidently get a game developer job and team to make bigger RPG game. Or continue by your self and now you have a library of code to create an RPG game.
... neither Cookie Clicker nor a top-down shooter would in any way help me learn to make a JRPG or CRPG. Those are too radically different to have any real value in time invested, should my end goal be an RPG game.
UI, damage and level ups are some of the easiest things to make... and like glitchygear said, those genres are not going to help you make any kind of RPG. The main thing you need to make is a combat system, piece by piece. Damage comes with that. Basic enemy AI next. You learn to improve that AI step by step to fit your needs. Level up systems are easy so that comes after you've finished combat. That's the core of an RPG done at a basic level.
I disagree. The advice "make small games" is not so that you as a game developer can release a bunch of games. It is advice so that you can learn how to make games. You can also be passionate about a small game you are making, it does not have to be a flavorless and dumb game just because it is small. There is also a point to be made about fundamentals and the parallel you drew to art and music in the beginning of the video. Everyone who has learned to draw or play music knows that you need to practice and an excellent way to practice is to practice on smaller things. If you know how to draw a human except for the hands it is simply better to just draw hands for a while in order to become a better artist. However, it is important to challenge yourself in your gamedev-journey or else you won't get better and part of this is to get better at game design or making smart games
I think more game devs need to play smaller games to learn how to scope a smaller game. A lot of people only play the biggest titles and it shows when they don't know how to scope down a concept
You are wrong. This advice of smaller games is indeed very important for a couple of reasons:
1 - videos games aren't just the sum of all its small features. There are a million ways of develop and implement the same things, and all of them may be right depending of the intended context and outcome.
So when you make small games with that feature, it helps you understand more of it when you see players interacting with it, and their feedback.
2 - You will fail many times, so the goal is to fail faster so you can learn by doing It. Imagine you spent 3 whole years making a game and it fails because you released it in a bad date, or the title or art is not appealing? You could have learned this before with smt less time consuming.
3 - You will get much more valuable information, learning and make a much better game, if you understand the small variables that compose the bigger experience you are trying to make. How many times have you played a game that the idea was good on paper but the execution was off? Yeah, that happens because the devs understood what should be in It, but didn't have enough experience with the HOW
There are many more other important reasons but this is enough to ilustrate the point.
I completely agree 👍
The way I see it, if there are tutorials tailored to each need, why waste time on smaller projects?
Saying someone is wrong because their approach is different is not it, not everyone learns the same way.
Most people probably look at smaller projects as time that could be spent on the passion project.
He didn't really advise against making small games. He just said you should make them in a smarter way. I actually found the video quite helpful for my own project. It made me realize I've been trying to make Final Fantasy 1 this whole time, when I should've been making Franken.
@@mrexeptionel9530 Because what works for one can be a complete clusterfuck for you. And you'll never know that until you start using this tool. It's easier to fix shit when you work on small project, rather than when you work on your "dream game".
Instructions unclear, just added an infinite upgrade tree
Happens to the best of us 😞
I think I am very lucky I actually just enjoy learning the game engine I am working with.
If that's the case then you are really lucky. I used to feel that way, but now if I'm not working towards a goal I feel like I'm not doing anything :/
@@AidanNieve actually I think it is bc I don't care if I am getting anywhere or not my approach is I am doing this thing, do I have an end goal? yes of course. but idc if I achieve it and that lets me work stress free. The only time I get frustrated is if I figure something out in 15 min that I couldn't get in 2 hours previously bc it feels anti climatic.
Agreed! The “smaller game” advice has its reach, I couldn't force myself to make a platformer with no flavor, I want to create something that I have fun playing with. Although thinking about interesting constraints requires a bit more work, it's worth it.
5:54 Yes, this is key: why would I make a game I wouldn't want to play? Aside from the motivation part, If I wouldn't play it, why would anyone else? That said, indeed scope management is key since there are only so many hours a person (or team) can put in game dev.
The issue new devs face is that the advectives used (small, smart) are not in a relationship to something known. What is small? One tenth of GTA5? Small for a AAA open world game. I personally do not like "start small" because it leads to the vast amount of small effortless little pieces of whatever steam is flooded with. And I'm also not a fan of chasing hypes in the hope of baiting steamers into playing.
Okay, if you live in Venezuela in a ducked up economy and a few kids buying your shit for the lulz feeds your family, go for it. Do what works.
For first world countries where the majority of indie games make far less money than working part time at McDonald's, it's not worth building games you don't care for. There's a saying: making your hobby into a job kills your hobby. If you kill your hobby, at least make it for a price and for the delusion of building a community by releasing a new throwaway game every 3 months.
What is objectively true is: you won't be able to compete on scale. Choose something that will work on a budget.
Learn to make games with small prototypes. It's better to do one thing well than 20 things subpar. If your game is fun and feels good to play, it won't matter what it looks like. Ultrakill for reference. Your game doesn't have to be small. It's about how much time or money you want to invest in your game. Dwarf Fortress for reference. Whether it's 2D or 3D, you have to make or buy or pay someone to make the assets used in the game. Alot of people make the mistake of forgetting you need direction in your game. So if you're buying assets, you can lose the art direction for your game. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Don't overwhelm yourself by starting with too much.
This! Finally found someone with the same opinion.
The idea of games being an art form combines naturally with taking a core idea and making it new by adding something to it. That new thing is hard to estimate by definition, but without experience or knowledge the old stuff is hard to estimate too.
In software in general estimation is hard, but games also have a lot of programming and assets that are there to make the game world more real like memory management, images in the background or ambient sounds. Players only notice these subconscious things when they fail, so part of moving from player to gamedev is learning to notice the things in the background. It's similar to painter being able experience a painting, but also noticing the brush strokes.
When you really know what it takes to make a game, scheduling becomes easier as well as finding where and what to innovate. So basically I'm saying, become smarter to make smarter games. Whether you do that via courses, experiments, releasing multiple smaller games or something else is up to the gamedev, although there is very small theoretical chance that a small game becomes a hit, in practice innovation, quality and marketing matter and I think for those skill matters.
u literally explained me lol, i woudl create a great idea for a game, start creating the mc, side chars, and ideas for the maps, but then right after that i try to make the game i would make the main menu for the game and not know where to go after that and it overwhelms me i end up watching a whole bunch of videos then scrap the project. ahh its pain, and my ideas feel so good too. itss so hard to build up the motivation to just teach myself and make small games tho cuz its like theres no reason it feels like but im wasting time and i couldve been made a game i wanted to if i just had practiced. its a loop and i feel like im going insane!!!11!!!!!11!!!
Bro what's stopping you is anxiety. Instead of watching more game making videos (I know it helps relieving tension) do some grounding exercises and your mind will guide you to the next step.
What you could do is to plan everything the game need to have, then split the features into multiple layers, layer 1 contain the bare minimum you need (aka a prototype), layer 2 contain more features that are important, layer 3 for optional features .... etc, you should not work on a higher layer untill you finish the current one. This way you could stop at any stage and feel satisfied/rewarded while learning, the main 2 issues are Experience (your plan will suck if u got no experience, but thats a thing u will ear along the way) and Dicipline (dont start working on content or the new shiny feature until its thw right time, and this is a thing you should train for)
I've given the 'make small games' suggestion hundreds of times over the last few decades, but I think most people don't really get it...
These are the real reasons why:
1) your first game likely won't be completed and if by some luck it is, it won't be fun to play. You should NOT monetize your first attempts at making a game. The market is saturated as it is, nobody wants your metaphorical stick figure drawings, and it just hurts consumer confidence and drives the price of games down for all games (game prices in the best of cases have not gone up for nearing three decades... and at worst are free to play).
2) you likely will write and rewrite the game by the time it is actually done, multiple times. That's the CORRECT thing to do, you should lean into this and this is where most of your learning will happen. There is lots to learn on your first finished game, and that's great... no need to rob yourself of those lessons by sinking your project with features that you're just too naive to see are impossible for you to achieve at your current skill. If you're building your dream game, what happens when you get half way and you hate it, not because the idea was garbage, but because you just don't have the skills to bring it to a level of quality that it deserves?
and those are typically given,
but easily the most IMPORTANT ONE is:
3) there is a difference between development and design. SURE you could add a bunch of FEATURES into a game (development, as in software development), but that doesn't make you even a slight bit better at DESIGNING fun games. You can have a swiss army knife with a thousand blades, but if not a single one of the blades is sharp, then it is just not worth anything let alone the time you wasted making it. INSTEAD... take a game like PONG or SNAKE... have a set amount of features (a ball hitting walls and a paddle), and GO MAKE THAT FUN. Add juice,... add some polish,... maybe add ONE NOVEL idea of concept to it... the base game is proven to be fun from a feature standpoint, and they can run on flip phones and are not complex in nature to build... take that foundation and really put a spit polish on it. This works out your game-DESIGN-muscles. As for why that is important: if you just get good at adding features and have no idea on what 'fun' actually is, then you'll waste years and years making something that has a lot of 'stuff' in it, but that isn't any fun.
And of lessor importance:
4) it is a learning opportunity for project management, setting a budget of time, learning kanban, etc. If you've never made a game before, you can't possible know how to properly plan your science-based 100% dragon MMO... there just isn't a frame a reference to do so, so you just won't... and you'll just have a "I'll just add stuff as I go" type attitude.... and that's how you get lost in development hell for years and years. Feeling that pong actually takes a bit of work, and feeling each aspect of making that game and adding upgrades or items to it... you'll have a better understanding of what it takes to actually make games, and therefore plan to make games better in the future.
5) why put such high demand on yourself. game development is hard enough as it is... why put a looming due date on your head for a project that is wildly out of scope of your abilities. I mean, sure, gamers are the nicest people and they won't breathe down your neck with weekly "is it done yet" and "why is it taking so long" --- because they are too classy for that,... but even if they don't you'll do that to yourself, and you're far more mean when under that kind of stress than anyone else possible could be... you're counting the minutes between updates and feeling like a schmuck the whole time. It's high stress on a good day... it's like its your first time going to the gym and just racking up a bar with as much weight as it can hold... and I feel you, it would be nice for you to get there my dude and move that kind of weight, but if you go about it that way, you're just going to hurt yourself... being set back and injured for maybe for months or even years.
WITH THAT SAID... that's just optimal, and depending on the person, shooting for that 'dream game' (and likely failing 99.999% of the time) and chasing that dream, is where the most amount of your learning happens... and that's okay too. I am the biggest sinner when it comes to that myself - and where I got my start, and I wasted a lot of time there. The suggestion that making pong is disheartening and makes you not want to try is a fair point, and might be true for some. However, if I had to do it over again, I would have started with small unreleased games, to really get the fundamentals down of design and project management, in order to ship more and more fun games.
I disagree with the video. Nobody is saying you have to make small games forever, just to make them when starting out. To fail fast and learn fast. To gain a community around your smaller games so that once you make a big one, it will have a smaller chance to fail. It's all about maximizing experience and income and minimising time and chance to fail. That is why everybody is repeating the same advice. Also, it will be much easier to find a publisher to make a big game if you actually release something. And if you want to self publish then your smaller games can fund the bigger one.
Just my two cents.
I disagree with you. What advice do you have? Oh wait the same boring bull crap everyone else spills online. Why comment if you are gonna complain, gripe and mope about another opinion?
"Efficiency" often isn't truly very efficient. You're taking a "work harder, not smarter" approach, where his advice boils down to "work smarter, not harder".
Correct me if im wrong but doesn't the video sum up like this: "don't make small games... instead make few twists and turns and in the end you made small game"!?
Like.... after all that "pick a game you like and scale it down with a twist" does really sound like a small game in the end anyway?
Yes and no, I do think that your games should be small in scope, but I wanted to focus a bit more on *how* to actually scale them down because most videos just tell you to make it small but not how. The script did end up being a bit more repetitive than I was hoping for tho 😅
I swear youtube always recommends stuff that I already learned along the way !
Great video though ! But one thing I feel you didn't cover is that you didn't mention is that one could look into just making a very good game framework , like making an fps controller that is really satisfying then making a weapon system , then make an expandable interactable objects system (using ie interfaces) and so on . In short , you should just improve !
And generally you will end up learning alot of programming concepts while doing game dev also imo.
While working on those things is a great way to expand your knowledge, it can be quite boring (especially for those who are not into CS), and many of those systems are already available especially if you use Unity or Unreal, so if it's your cup of tea it's a great option, but for many people it would probably feel too tedious :)
Underrated channel
Thanks a lot!!
Ese acento... ¿es mesetario?
I hope you succeed in making good games, be they smart or small or whatever else. The more good games there are out there, the better for all gamers.
Soy de Zaragoza pero me cambia el acento cada dos palabras jajajajaj y en ello estoy, pronto empezaré los devlogs para mi segundo juego :)
@@AidanNieve Pues ánimos desde Barcelona ;3
Dude I agree 2000%
I didn't finish watching yet, but just wanna say YES STOP EFFING TELLING PEOPLE TO MAKE SMALL GAMES.
3:04
as long as they keep making core Magic sets, the community should see universes beyond as a way to finance everything.
I'm confused with your backward thinking. Less content is not small game, it's still big game with less content. Of course it's not fun and you'll be burned out before finishing anything to show.
Small game means as little features as possible. Complete it and build next game that is expanding feature set.
For example if your end goal is RPG game, then first goal could be Cookie Clicker. With that you'll learn how to interact with UI and you'll have basic leveling system. On top of that you'll have first published game. Next make a top down shooter where you'll get to make damage system and enemy AI. Publish second game. Now you have couple games under your belt, you are above the crowd and have great portfolio. If you want you can confidently get a game developer job and team to make bigger RPG game. Or continue by your self and now you have a library of code to create an RPG game.
... neither Cookie Clicker nor a top-down shooter would in any way help me learn to make a JRPG or CRPG. Those are too radically different to have any real value in time invested, should my end goal be an RPG game.
UI, damage and level ups are some of the easiest things to make... and like glitchygear said, those genres are not going to help you make any kind of RPG. The main thing you need to make is a combat system, piece by piece. Damage comes with that. Basic enemy AI next. You learn to improve that AI step by step to fit your needs. Level up systems are easy so that comes after you've finished combat.
That's the core of an RPG done at a basic level.
I disagree. The advice "make small games" is not so that you as a game developer can release a bunch of games. It is advice so that you can learn how to make games. You can also be passionate about a small game you are making, it does not have to be a flavorless and dumb game just because it is small. There is also a point to be made about fundamentals and the parallel you drew to art and music in the beginning of the video. Everyone who has learned to draw or play music knows that you need to practice and an excellent way to practice is to practice on smaller things. If you know how to draw a human except for the hands it is simply better to just draw hands for a while in order to become a better artist.
However, it is important to challenge yourself in your gamedev-journey or else you won't get better and part of this is to get better at game design or making smart games
I think more game devs need to play smaller games to learn how to scope a smaller game. A lot of people only play the biggest titles and it shows when they don't know how to scope down a concept