Video Game Frustration: Does playing transfer into making?

[Quadocky]

This is an interesting topic to me because I've yet to really see much in the way that can show that playing video games transfers in the aid of their creation.

On a personal level myself I've found that engaging with games does not do anything to offer aid in their creation. Of course that may not be always true, but I can't shake the idea that all this time spent playing does nothing to aid in knowledge of how to create these games.

Why? Well, the framework of creation is completely different. Games are 'fun' and easy to engage with for the most part, but the tools used to make them are not. In fact the tools are utterly dismal and depressing. (at least from my point of view, especially if you are not well versed in them)

In comparison, writing and reading are utterly intuitive and intertwine with an obscene gracefulness. If you read a lot, you understand writing better. Thus when you write you have a larger body of understanding of how to put words together. Even drawing can be intuitive as while you may not be able to master the techniques right away, you at least get the 'gist' of how drawing works and how things come together as a whole.

Anyone else feel similar in this regard? Or am I looking at this all wrong? I mean, I could be, but its just it seems like there is this barrier of heavy technical knowledge that is required before you can even begin making anything.

 

[briankoontz]

Here's some history that can help illuminate this - coders used to sometimes be called "wizards". So consider a wizard in a fantasy world casting a spell which you witness. Does that help you cast the spell?

Maybe a little, but it's a long way away from casting the spell yourself. Fighters, Clerics, and Thieves don't gain "magic-user XP" from witnessing their wizard do his thing.

Code is a kind of language, so a desire to learn the code followed up by applying oneself in the learning of the code is what *really* transfers into the making, or at least the *ability* to make which then requires networking to move oneself into a position to then apply one's newfound ability.

It's a similar process for animators, writers, and others in the video game industry. Get the ability. Get others already in the industry to accept that you have the ability. Move into a position to apply the ability.

Playing video games can be quite valuable for people who *already* have the ability to make them, since they can see things, largely due to their own abilities, and then apply what they've learned from the game into their own work.

But for people without this ability, no, playing games is at most going to be a slight boost to their game-making ability. However, playing games can easily *inspire* someone to want to make them - I suspect that's how most game developers got the DESIRE to learn code in the first place.

If there was no such thing as delicious food there wouldn't be nearly so many people wanting to become chefs.

Bear in mind the original conception - game makers are wizards, game players are muggles - this kind of truth never would have been generated in the modern age of political correctness and pandering to gamers to maximize one's own game sales, but those of us who still stand for truth should never forget it.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

In comparison, writing and reading are utterly intuitive and intertwine with an obscene gracefulness. If you read a lot, you understand writing better. Thus when you write you have a larger body of understanding of how to put words together. Even drawing can be intuitive as while you may not be able to master the techniques right away, you at least get the 'gist' of how drawing works and how things come together as a whole.

The difference is that a pencil and a piece of paper is much easier to understand than a game engine. This distinction isn't inherent to the medium, but rather the means of production. You could make a similar argument for 3D design in that seeing a lot of well-built pieces of furniture doesn't aid your ability to design chairs because it doesn't teach you how to use a saw.

Once you know how to use a game engine and can get it to do what you want, it is possible to take concepts and techniques from video games you've played and incorporate them into your own ideas. It is particularly pleasing to look at a feature in a game and try to figure out how they implemented it (or at least how you would implement such a thing).

The other thing I would like to add is that the tools are continuously being improved on. There are a number of game engines out there with the emphasis on being easy to pick up, some even leaving the user able to develop games without writing any code. But the important point is that they are becoming easier, just like a pen is much simpler to write with than a quill.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You don't learn game coding by playing games, but you learn game design theory, which is an important part of the game creation process. A game isn't just a collection of code, in order to make a good game you need creative vision in how that code applies, you need to understand how to balance game mechanics, etc. There's no such thing as the "fun" code that when written makes your game "fun." A fun game, or an engaging game, is created by a people who understand game design and how to properly implement mechanics, and this is aided by playing a wide variety of games.

I personally don't play a lot of real time strategy games, and as such I don't have a good grasp of high level RTS mechanics. Even if I had the technological know-how to code an RTS game it would probably be a piss poor one because I wouldn't know how to properly implement various mechanics, how to balance units, or be able to predict how people might seek to break the game balance. On the other hand, if I was making a multiplayer shooter I'd know exactly what to look for in terms of finding exploits, balancing weapons and map design because that's something I know very well.

So I do think that playing games does transfer to game making, but not in a direct way. You need a different knowledge pool composed of coding before you can begin implementing anything you've learned from actual gameplay.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I disagree. You won't become a good coder, or a good animator, or a good texture artist by playing games. But you are more likely to have an understanding of what people want in their games. You'll have a working knowledge of which game narrative tropes are considered cliche, you'll know which control schemes people tend to use, you'll know when a game is too easy or too challenging for your target audience, you'll know what kinds of level design and boss design etc are likely to annoy and frustrate the player.

In short, you'll know what you'd want from a game on a surface level, which means you can apply skills such as coding with that aim in mind.