First steps for game development

5ec43b8e50ba808ef30ceed66fd1f479
0
dazin09 104 Oct 20, 2013 at 11:09

I just want to know what other peoples first steps were when they got into game development Here were my first steps

1st of course learn all the stuff you need to know, i watched at least 100 hours of youtube videos before i could program in java

2nd Get someone to help. If your a programmer, make sure you have someone who can model or sprite. The key to game development is numbers.

3rd Get ideas,its easy to get stuck down into game development if you have ideas. Nobody wants another Lame old COD style game. When you can have a trench warfare world war one shooter. Make something special.

4th Just gonna say. Real men create their own game engines. Or you can go with a good engine like Unity Or The UDK. They are both free.

5th Get makin ;)

This is purley what i did and what i think people should do if they want to be a gam dev. Obviously its not that simple. But its a start

4 Replies

Please log in or register to post a reply.

A638aa42130293f319eda7fa4ba121f4
0
fireside 141 Oct 20, 2013 at 15:47

I think, if you are an indy, you need to work out a programmer art solution and be at least acquainted with some art tools. Other than that I more or less agree. I started with 2d games and I’m glad I did, but now I’m not so sure that it’s necessary with engines like Unity. Anyway, I think it’s important to be able to make games all by yourself, because you will have partners that quit etc. Also, you will probably not be able to do the game you would like to do because everyone wants to do something else. I completely disagree with real men make their own engines. I know a few that have made their own engines and actually wrote games, but the majority just end up making their own engine and doing a tech demo. With all the porting issues, making games that work with different video cards, you are a lot better off using an engine. Especially when they are as cheap or free as they are now. Games are a lot of work and if you want to produce something, you have to use every tool and shortcut at your disposal.

B5262118b588a5a420230bfbef4a2cdf
0
Stainless 151 Oct 21, 2013 at 09:04

I locked myself in my bedroom with a 1k single board micro for about a year.

Then I found out that we had an Apple 1 at school and I spent every spare moment locked in the physics lab with it. Later they got an Apple II and I nearly wet myself.

Got paid for a few jobs on the Apple II and suddenly realised my hobby wasn’t.

Then I bought a zx80 as a kit and started writing games.

I remember the day someone showed me an assembler. I was furious I had not thought of writing one. I had been using machine code up until then.

My point is you should probably change the subject of this thread to something like “What should you do to be a good games coder”

B20d81438814b6ba7da7ff8eb502d039
0
Vilem_Otte 117 Oct 21, 2013 at 09:43

So… uhm, I disagree in few points…

1.) Technology changes, and 100 hours is not nearly enough to be good programmer. It is good for start (and to start making games), but I’ve spent a lot more in different languages (and even in terms of paradigm) - yet I know I should program more to be better. Also OO-only programmers tend to make bad code. Don’t get me wrong, not all of them, but for most of the time Carmacks comment here is right - http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/

2.) Numbers isn’t key to success, will to finish project and actually finishing it is. Numbers can make also project go apart (too many people - too many brains - too many different ideas -> result is dead project), also more people on code = messy code (it never happened in plain C to me - all multi-ppl projects were clean and nice, again only in OOP land - the theoretical principles really don’t work that well in praxis).

3.) Nobody wants old COD style game? Then why CODs are still top-sales? This point is invalid.

4.) Also not right, I’m one of those that creates his own engine for a reason - performance (Unity is just slow as hell to do the stuff I have to do); And note that they are definitely NOT free (maybe free to use in the start, but once you start selling, you’re paying). Using an engine is option if it is affordable, available (e.g. it exists) and you don’t want to use in-house technology.

5.) That doesn’t count just for games, this counts for everything.

A638aa42130293f319eda7fa4ba121f4
0
fireside 141 Oct 21, 2013 at 13:30

“Also OO-only programmers tend to make bad code.”

OO isn’t the fastest code, but I think it’s the most maintainable. Take Ogre. That’s basically the same engine just swapping out parts for about a decade now. That’s the difference. Carmack does a rewrite every couple years. Another example is Flash. In the old days it wasn’t object oriented and they kept adding features and it turned into a complete mess. Then they got smart and did a complete rewrite using OO. So much better to use. Only trouble was it was nearing the end of it’s days because of html5. The thing that’s changing is that, even in games, maintainability is becoming as important as speed because of faster processors.

“maybe free to use in the start, but once you start selling, you’re paying”

Depends on the engine. For Unity, there are no costs when you start selling.