Hey there! Amazing video! Good work. Thanks for the shoutout :) Just fyi, for anyone curious, here's where my income comes from: Firstly, games! I make more than a full time salary, every year, just from games (publisher deals [I'm currently published by 3D Realms], platform deals, game sales). Secondly, I also make money from RUclips revenue. I also make money from course sales. I also used to make money from sponsorships. Passive income is wonderful for indies. I recommend it to everyone. But again, a full time income comes in every year just from games. Hope that helps :)
Yooo... I didn't think you would comment xD. Huge Respect for you, but don't take what people say personally, there are rare cases where a RUclipsr pretends to be experienced to make money through (Courses, Patreon, etc.) BUT you are definitely NOT from them. The thumbnail is just for fun lol. You inspired me to enter this journey I'll catch up to you soon, and then I hope we talk someday
You can't "recommend" passive income. "passive income" is just being paid late for labour you did in the past. It's basically saying "I recommend making a lot of money" like yeah, I totally chose to be poor.
@@NihongoWakannai The way this should be interpreted is that indie devs should be working to make supplemental money besides just their games. RUclips + having something ELSE to sell in addition to your game is the ideal way to do that. If you specialize into one field, such as animation, visual effects, programming, level design, etc. you can offer education in those topics in addition to your games, which can funnel in through youtube views.
I can't make small games because I physically can't think about a small game that I like, but thinking about every feature of a big game as a small game is helpful.
That's how I manage it too. Recreating Flappy Birds? I don't like this game to begin with. Making an RPG? I figured out way back that RPGs are multiple games glued together. Since the number one skill to acquire is the ability to break down a collossal task into many small ones, RPGs are that much more engaging to me.
same. I think ill get farther repeatedly failing but being motivated than not being motivated to make something I don't find interesting. Breaking the big game into bits and tackling those bits. I'm not worried about shipping something anytime soon.
Games don't work that way. You cannot just make a game out of smaller parts, it is a cohesive piece of software architecture. If you try to make big games as a beginner you're going to end up stuck in tech debt hell and waste a lot of time without learning much.
If your dream game is a 2d pixel art top-down twin stick shooter roguelite, then you don't need to do all these because 30 other youtubers have the exact same dream game for some reason lol
this comment made me lol, like I was like y do all these solo devs wanna make the same 'dream' game? Like just honest and say its due constraints and we will all understand and support you still
I think that is one of the easiest types of game to make. I think someone did an analysis a while back that the easiest type of game to make was a side-scrolling shooter, and the most difficult one was an MMORPG for obvious reasons. Plus roguelikes and twin sticks are both trendy right now for whatever reason.
@@darth6129 yeahh I get that, but what am saying is they should be honest, I'm making my own 3D sidescroller(not a shooter). If I ever make a devlog, I will be honest and say its not my dream game but I worked really hard on it and am proud of it. I worked within my constraints and I feel good about it. I think people deserve honesty is all am saying.
@darth6129 The trick is to balance the convenience of implementation against your own ambitions. I, for one, absolutely hate roguelikes, roguelites, whatever. The very concept makes me yawn. Like you said: it's popular because it's probably the easiest mechanic to build, one that excuses your limited resources which wouldn't yield any more varied maps. For my first, I opted for a 2D adventure game. Which is easy (well, relatively speaking) all while I actually feel like working on it in my spare time. It's only one scene (no way I can do more) so I won't be able to monetize it, but it's fine. I just want to learn.
Once you've made 90% of your game, all you have to do is make the remaining 90%. The point is that starting a game is easy and fun, but the reality of continuing and finishing development is usually difficult and frustrating. It's good to start working on smaller projects because you'll learn that lesson sooner, and know what to expect when working on bigger projects. There's so many developers stuck in hell working on their dream game and most of them will never actually publish anything, but they might have if they'd just started small.
Idea: First make a Pong clone, and then make Skyrim MMO with Elden Ring combat and WoW style raids. Reality: make a bunch of prototypes that never get finished, but teach you various aspects of making a game.
Actually, quite a few RUclipsrs you mention, are not really game devs as much as they are RUclipsrs promoting their courses. Their primary source of income is RUclips views/ads, sponsorships and selling courses or promoting their patreons. Their primary source of income is _not_ selling videogames. Heck, some of the people in there have pretty much zero experience, yet speak as if they have 20+ years of experience in the industry. Be very careful following any of their advices. Yes, making many small games is a great idea. But this is more about learning to code and organising finishing a project. Some people dive into a 'big' project, which isn't that big at all, yet still takes them 6 years to finish, with zero guarantee of success. And they forgot to prototype the basic gameplay loop to figure out if its any good to begin with. 4:00 I kind of disagree. Most people start their projects with like dozens of ideas they want to implement, instead of starting with something basic and expand from there. And then they assume that through clever planning they can still get it done. Usually total beginners simply can not do that. Feature creep is terrible, sure, but deciding on a long list of features before trying out if any of them will work, is way way worse. Most games fail because they are no fun to play. Keep in mind that the pyramid overview you show, means that for 5 or so big features, you'll end up making 100s of components to make it work. To some extent this is unavoidable, but what you're talking about is actually not simplifying core gameplay concepts at all. It's also a waste of time to implement of steps creating the larger staircase, when none of it is fun to play. That's the _real_ reason to make many small games. Prototyping ideas. Figuring out what is actually fun and what is also within someone's skills to make. A GDD is nonsense for any total beginner. It will have a lot of stuff in there that's just totally inaccurate, superfluous and a waste of time. Better is to create a single page document outlining only the most simplified version of the game you have in mind and start there. Any small game can be expanded into something bigger. You'll also understand what to rewrite completely in like 3-6 months after you started. 6:00 most of the RUclipsrs you show had to double their time, because they lacked the real experience required to build what they were trying. It's not about predicting the time something takes. Some of them simply had unrealistic expectations to begin with.
I would also say Big and Small games are objective. Some will say many indie games are Big others will say they are Small. A few indie devs even started with grand ideas and with 6-7 years dev time and were successful. It might just come down to preference and ability to adapt and learn quickly.
Hey great comment! Super helpful. My games bring in a full time income. Currently funded with the help of 3D realms as my publisher for my next game :)
Then. Make small games that have a mechanic you want to implement in your dream game with a unique story. While we have a dream game, we usually have many stories, so it's a win-win situation. (Many stories and small games)
@@Rix1Dev Personally stories bore me, it's complex mechanics working together in interesting ways that get me excited. I know most people making games have a story they want to tell, but my dream is offering an experience instead. In fact I would prefer to make a game with 0 story
@@Valentin_TeslovThen a small game should be much easier for you. There aren’t many mechanics that require a large space or tons of content. Narratives require stuff that’s not necessary for gameplay. If you’re not trying to recreate the nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor you’re good 😂
Just remember, the entire Elder Scrolls game series started as a game about being a fantasy gladiator in an arena. They got so ate up making side quests that the small game turned into a runaway project where the arena is now just a small part.
Make small games when you are a beginner but the problem is nobody plays them. Sure you can make money when you're already fame on RUclips but not because the game is good. Most successful indie games take 2-5 years to make in my experience
Something that bugs me as well... who on Earth is going to bother with a 9673482nd rendition of Space Invaders even for free, let alone for $4,99? Where is the audience for that?
You can't expect to make money as a solo gamedev as a beginner. It's a job that requires you to be good at art, animation, music, audio, game design and programming. You need many years of experience before you can expect to make ANY money.
You have to make a small game to complete it and learn the process. How many people have made Mario bros clones to start? Well really no one, most just do the physics and basic level layout and they think that's it. And it's not
There's another kind of philosophy vaguely called "Aim for the starts and hit the moon." Meaning you shouldn't limit yourself. Just like 'tutorial hell' you could end up in "small game hell" where you never even attempt your dream game because everyone else is always telling you to start small. While starting small may be good for some, for others it may not be. Frankly I'm tired of hearing people say make a bunch of small games.
I think its important to make at least one small game and then a big one. Big games have such different requirements that making small games is useless as practice. 100 small games won't teach you about multithreading, asynchronous techniques and loading/unloading data dynamically. Those games are too small to even need it, it would be overkill and a waste of time. Features like this are however requirements for big games that have a lot of content. The pipelines are also massively different. A small game or even one like undertale can and does have switch statements for every single line of dialogue. You can't do that with branching paths or something like BG3. You have to invent a whole pipeline a way to communicate and organize. Small games teach small thinking. Prototyping and quick efficient techniques. Big games teach high concepts, optimization and management. As someone solo developing a very ambitious game I've learned more working on it than I did in 4 years of university courses. Learning what to worry about and what not to is hard. But I definitely feel way smarter now than I was before. Way more experienced. I'd feel confident on a AAA team not that I'd want to or could get a role on one nowadays with the industry being... well.. shit.
You don't REALLY need to make a small game. Just know the bigger the project, the longer it will take. Not everyone is living off game dev, so not necessarily a concern. Realistically, Id say making a big one, piece by piece is just making tons of small games. Not much difference, but you get a potentially better return if it is particularly good. Small games may be a good idea as taking break for a month to make for a refresh when you start burning out, and testing out releasing a full game on the side at the same time. If you do it even smarter, maybe a small game made centered around a mechanic you will need in the main game anyways, so that you can do both at once. Just depends how smartly you do things. I know some people don't got jack for good game ideas mechanically or thematically, but just like making things. So maybe small games are a need for them to just spitball and find something that would stick. Others have a fantastic idea, but just need to be able to commit to it fully. Basically, no one advice is right, just depends on the individual. I mean, look at stardew valley. Not a small game by any means, but he did it and massively succeeded. Just know yourself, what your genuinely willing to commit to, and at LEAST do some research to kinda refine your understanding on what you comiting to. Not good to go big if you know you would be one to lose it at any major roadblocks that are difficult, takes a ton of boring tedious time with very little return by comparison sometimes; Have to have the resolution to see it through.
I just started out and i'm recreating small old games WITHOUT watching tutorials and adding a little bit of creativity and experimenting different things. I recreated pong, tic tac toe, flappy bird... to learn basic stuff. How to move, how buttons work, how to instantiate objects...
Small (is mean simple) games have only few advantage: -they are faster to make its mean less time/money waste if fail, -they cost less so is potentially more customer who can try it -they have better potential to learning new thing and experimenting But bigger have can fill nice niche, can have more unique and better marketing potential, have longer playtime because it is always a thing and can have higher price and still sells
my experience with it is making multiple projects in attempt of achieving my ‘dream game’ and picking up new knowledge and skills along the way that’s allowed me to get quicker with each new project i make.
In my opinion, making small games is actually quite good. 1 - You need to put less money on the project 2 - You get to learn more 3 - If your game gets corrupted and gets deleted, it will not be as bad, since it took not a lot of time. 4 - If you make a long game, you might get frustrated and quit game dev.
Making quick small games is smart. You get things out there. You focus on specific game mechanics one at a time so it is easier to learn. And like most things in life, it is a numbers game. The more you output, the more likely you will get noticed. Don't put all your eggs in one basket mentality. Problem is you can't put your passion into these small games. Unless small games is your passion. The motivation is to make profit rather than make a game that means something to you. So even though it has it pros to do, I personally would rather spend my time making a game I really enjoy rather than a bunch I don't. I have done a lot of projects and gotten jobs from freelance to salary in order to be stepping stones to a greater thing. But that greater thing, working in the games industry, never came. So my advice is do what makes you happy. We all have many ideas. So pick one, try to not over complicate it and enjoy the journey.
That's why my best advice is to make small games that are relatable to your dream game, that way you will enjoy the journey and follow your passion. I explained this in the "How to monetize...." video I made earlier.
Great video, i loved the perspective with the traveling and game development part, gives me more understaning on the subject and how to plan my projects in the future. Cheers man! 😁
Well, I'm very aware that coding is an extreme weakness of mine (and I have a degree in it somehow), so doing this solo is almost Sisyphean from my pov. Even "small games" are not exactly easy for me.
I study and tested a lot of things before finish and publish my first game, but my first one was really simples, it is just two chicken eating grains. Now, the second one is a 3D multiplayer MOBA :)
if your working on a new skill for example running your not going to start by doing a lot at once that's how you lose motivation for it but instead you start small and work your way up to bigger challenges it's exactly the same for game dev
I made one kind of small game and went to a big one right after. I rework everything i learned and did wrong before, when i started making the game.. instead of making small games to practice
same problem as many here, there are sorta two core rules that collide: don't make a game you don't like, and don't make a big/complex game. I don't like small games, and i don't play them, they often feel shallow or repetitive in a bad way. I generally don't like platformers and metroidvanias, roguelikes etc. too, i got like 10 hours in hollow knight and 10 hours in hades...and that's the best of them. IMO making a small game and publishing it will give you experience in publishing games definitely (and mostly publishing small games) but i feel i can pull off more, so why to make less for the sake of it...i'm also not suspended on it financially.
Hey, I'm a bit late to the party but I just found that I'm featured in the video, so uhh I'd like to say a few thing! Firstly, yeah game dev courses are an absolute scam. There is so much free information out there, you have no reason to pay for a gamedev course! Just wanted to say that in case the video made it look like I was one of them ahah.... Now, I'm not a professional game developer, and I don't want to make it look like I am one. I've only made half a dozen small games so far, but I know that game dev is what I want to do for the rest of my life, it's my passion. But a problem with a few gamedev youtubers is that I feel like there's a huge gap/disconnect between people with no knowledge who wants to get into gamedev, and professionals who work in the industry. So my goal with my channel I guess, is to try to help the ones still behind me, as someone who is still very much in the middle in terms of skill. To bridge the gap kinda. Gamedev is very complicated, and no piece of advice will ever be true for everyone, advice should be used to nudge you in the right direction, not force you into a straight path. So I highly encourage people to hear the opinions of many other individuals and then make a decision for themselves! But if someone wants to experience the joy of gamedev, I think a small finished project will always feel much more rewarding and gratifying than a big unfinished one. I know what it's like to give up on a project you were overconfident on, and I don't wish it to happen to anyone. Anyway, great video! :D
Game jams are a god sent, Was my only way out of tutorial hell. Ive been learning UE5 for 9 months trying to learn everything at once to make my dream game. I wasnt able to get anything to truly click until I finaly just sat down and started making a game. Yes it wasnt my dream game but It taught me so much of what to expect on how to traverse things. Amazing video thank you !
Great video ! Very well explained. The importance of starting with small games is something I strongly believe in, but I generally have a hard time to articulate why. It's about learning, but like you said, it's about learning to plan, based on your past experience, making a small game gives you past experience. I really liked your car travel analogy, it's a really good way to conceptualize it.
Im a Software Engineer for over 10 years and even for ONLY coding, time prediction is always off. Like not only by me but in the field in general. Imagine a Indie Dev with 1000 roles. Double the time is minimum :D
GDD contained all the detail about the game project while GDR only contained the schedule which only a section in GDD. You gotta work on full GDD if you want to make a proper game, but you can use the simplified version if you're still learning and only working on "tiny games" or even "mini games".
It a good idea to participate in game jams. By doing so, you will have a theme and a deadline to achieve, forcing you to finish your game. That what I will do my self. I recently stared on my big game and I'm new to game dev anyway, but by participating in game jams you will finish your work in a specific amount of time. You are forced anyway.
I love making small open-world games like a portion of a toqn/city and make quests, resources and funny hidden secrets. Never published any tho. I dont lie large open-world games with a billion things to do which makes them boring.
Made some small games for myself, but from your opinion don't you think it's still viable to start with your realistic "grand" idea and be attentive that any features within it needs to be modular. In that way you're making small (dependent) games/mechanics within your larger project, scrap stuff, rebuild stuff when they don't play nice with others etc. within the large game. Isn't that essentially making small "games" too? My idea is that you save time by constantly working on the long term project but also building knowledge on getting many mechanics to work together? This is with the caveat that you're not dependent on money from releasing the game
"Isn't that essentially making small "games" too? " Yup. "My idea is that you save time by ... building knowledge on getting many mechanics to work together?" yes, you save time but making small games will give you the experience to make your BIG project really good (What I mean is that while making a big project, you will level up so when you make let's say ... your 3rd level in the game, it will look better than the 1st and 2nd levels so you have to rebuild it over and over. while making small games and selling them is a better option.
No, because games don't work like this. It's like thinking you can make a building by just throwing up some wood and nailing it together over time with no regard for the foundation or structural integrity. Games are not just a bunch of smaller pieces, they require large scale architectural planning in order to make sure data flows smoothly to allow many features to all interact with each other. If you try to put all your badly coded prototypes together it's going to be a spaghetti code mess and you'll waste 90% of your time trying to brute force through all the tech debt you created instead of learning.
Well I'm making my dream game, but it's not just a single game. It's the process which I'll publish different games every now and then in order to learn new systems. One day, that dream game will become reality. It's gonna take a lot of time but at least I'm not setting myself up for high risk journey.
I agree with the idea of making the mechanics of your dream game into small games. But I feel like I know all those things about me without having to actively work on small games. I also agree it can help with budgeting. But what if... and maybe this is a novel idea... you continue your day job for as long as you need to until you have the budget to work on it full time? Sorry to sound like a smart ass, but seriously. If I'm fine working a day job, coming home, and working on my dream game for five years, who does it hurt? I wish people would stop making it sound like making small games is a requirement to be a dev, and say it as what it is: a recommendation. We're allowed to get there our own way, and do so without feeling invalidated by other devs who think they know us better than we know ourselves. For some of us, it's hard to make something we have zero interest in making. Many game devs are fueled by passion. So if we can't motivate ourself to learn via small games, the only option left is to learn via the game we actually want to make. But again, I do agree that it can be broken down by the mechanics you want. Do it seperately, see how it works, and then rebuild it better as part of that dream game. Not a bad idea there.
It's important to get the message across because there are people who could waste literal years of their life on a slower path to their goal and then wonder why they didn't progress as much as they wanted. You can make the choice to follow that path anyway if you want, but people need to know what they're getting into.
The idea behind making small games is you need to spend more time learning. It helps you to see a project to completion through the entire development phase and out the door. Also, if you focus on one large project for a very long time, you're limiting your learning. That's why it's actually beneficial to work on many different styles of games because with them come new challenges that you wouldn't otherwise face in a single project. No one tries to write an album after learning how to play 4 chords on a guitar, but for some reason people think game design is easy and doesn't require a ton of work an dedication.
fail fast and fail often that's how you learn, that's how you grow, that's why you should make small games first. You don't learn to run before you learn to walk.
I'm still looking for architectural tips about ... larger games. (I have abandoned 2 project so far -the concept and goal was not clear, now the third one is WIP fro 1 year. Promising one.)
A development tip would be to develop subsystems (like UI, enemy AI, Light and Postprocessing setup etc)actually in separate projects, so those projects have a lower complexity. And then later merge them into the main game when they have a proven architecture, and you know how to integrate them cleanly. A big problem is that large projects quickly get complex and thus hard to manage. The other important tip is to define your folder structure and asset naming scheme early, and stick to it. When you have 1000 textures with wild names for example, its a pain to find the right one.
Architecture can vary wildly depending on the needs and goals of your project. That's why it's important to understand what features your game will need and then design the architecture around allowing those features to be implemented smoothly. Ultimately it's about understanding which things create data and which things need to read that data. Then creating a clean network to traffic that data around the program.
well they aint that wrong I made 0 Games since 2014 because of the trend of being a Solo dev you need to learn everything (and as I did) now I'm got 10 years of skills in 3D art, Programming and mastered more than 10 DCC tools About Thomas Brush, in maybe 2016~2017 I was asking GameDev RUclipsrs about, after all the videos they make, how can I really do the game that I will feel like I made a game, His answer was "Start small" and that was the only thing, and he was 100% right, starting small != keep making small stickman games, and not jump on Zelda or Skyrim already! The majority of us were about to give up the cause of starting to think big when our skills and computers could not keep up. Dont forget that, the more we are beginners, the more we do things with passion only passion, and when time passes, even learning becomes a decision
Make teeny tiny smally itti bitty games that takes 1 year to make and 10 mins to finish.😅😂😊 j/k My recommendation is to small game jams (1 week long at most). Get a taste of it, learn how to use the tools, then do a game that takes 1 hour to finish 😊
3:39 this is exaggerated teen swag We don't need vfx and stuff, it's mostly center around music, art, marketing, story (optional), gameplay and mechanics, game design (i don't remeber any other but it's not like how it said)
Really good points. But this is not suitable for an absolute noob who is just starting out. An intermediate level game dev who has created a few things here and there will be able to do what you are mentioning here. An absolute noob needs to completely forget his dream game and just learn. To learn you need to make, hence he must create completely irrelevant little games/prototypes (irrelevant to his dream game). Of course there are always exceptions.
Dream Game is the motivation for many new devs, you can't simply say "Forget it" Thats why I see making small games for each mechanic from your dream game is better (Its like prototyping small parts of your dream game)
@@Rix1Dev You are right, but the complete beginner needs to first learn how to make the mechanics. That's what I mean. Disciplined Training is what enables someone of doing what he's after. If temporary ignorance of the so called "dream game" kills the motivation in such a scale that the guy leaves game dev altogether, it's sad, but the guy would never finish his dream game anyways. The "dream game" requires huge amount of "patience", "hard work", and "discipline". But I do agree with your strategy on approaching the dream game step by step, and that's exactly what I myself do.
@@whilefree Depends on the dream game though. What if my dream game is tetris? :) Dream games don't nesessarily have to be those huge massive online multiplayer virtual reality super mega hits...
@@Rix1Dev they should forget it. If they can't put aside their "dream game" and make small prototypes then they're not going to ever succeed as a game developer. Solo game development is extremely hard and just because you have a dream game doesn't mean you have the discipline to make it. If you can't even stand to make pong or flappy bird because it's not "your dream" then you will never survive spending weeks refactoring your entire project's architecture on a large game.
There are a lot of design jobs that are monetarily feasible for the present marketplace but are not functioning as a primal physical necessity (I forget the name of the civilization survival tier list/pyramid thingie). The important thing is to create a path of success and establish a realistic and repeatable table of your product and point to both your own successes and similar successes of others. There is a lot of money fed into the game industry, similar to other forms of arts and entertainment. Setting up shop may be dubious for many, but it is not impossible. Sure, being a game-dev isn't as immediately "important" as a lawyer, doctor, scientist, farmer, etc. However, being an artist, musician, or storyteller is part of what makes us human and cannot be contained by bare necessities and is an inevitable outcome of a civilized society. Can you imagine Leonardo Da Vinci without an artistic side -- only concerning himself with function and survival?
Not really, they'll just think that you're "incompetent" or that you should "grow up", basically like writing childrens books outside a company (even if you do AAA gamedev). It's in the entertainment industry, like movies, writing, acting, etc. There are more useless jobs, and either way, most people spend like 2-4hrs doing work at their 8hr job.
There's definetely a "Game dev youtuber slop" out there. 90% of these creators fall under; "“Those who can, DO; those who can’t, TEACH.”" These gamedev YT even listed in the video, are those people that created an uninspired asset flip in 3-5 months, clutch their pearls about how cruel the industry is, and then move on with "here's my 10 top best advices for game dev! (2025 version)", "make smaller games" populi talking point falls in here too. I would rather Game dev aspirants watch more tech-oriented content, purchase courses (if you can) from people with a better track record in the industry than 'game dev content creation' on RUclips.
My thought is that making small games is good but it won't teach you to make big games. You'll probably quit your first big game before it's done no matter how many small games you make before. Beyond lacking technical skills, you'll probably end up realizing a lot of your first ideas aren't actually that fun and not worth finishing. That's just how it is. I'd bet most of the youtubers who give this advice have been through exactly that. You will learn a lot from scrapped projects as well as completed projects. IMO the important thing isn't the size of the game but to keep working and learning. If you WANT to finish something you'll do it eventually even if it takes a long time.
But you make small games to test of the mechanics you imagined for the big game is actually fun. So when you start working in the big game you already know those mechanics works.
The point of making small games is to not waste precious time drowning in tech debt. It's fine to *try* and make a big game, but you should give up as soon as you hit the tech debt wall and say "well, guess I'm not good enough for this yet" The problem is beginners who just keep brute forcing their way through a giant pile of tech debt spaghetti code and then it takes them a month to learn what could have taken them a week.
i already got idea of my game if my game needed a voice acting but i dont have a money to hired one, should i release my game as a demo and raise a fund for voice acting?
Yes you can, but you can use AI voices or record your voice and learn how to change it a bit. Or make it in the lore that no one can talk in the game for some reason 🤷♂
@@Rix1Dev well my game is like left 4 dead inspired so having character mute kinde makes em soulless and I also decided to chance my mind and prob gonne develop other game which doesn't use voice acting and not too ambitious and big, which is kult Killers :DD
@@Rix1Dev il sure does I got friend that will help me how to code and I got a decent 3D image refrence to make the character n stuff story for the game is kinde non the wiser only gameplay is matter lol
When you set out to make a big game you learn all the things that you mention you would need to learn to make many small games, but you learn them faster, because there is more "selection pressure" to make you learn them, you have to learn all these things or there is not going to be any game. You can't learn to make big games by making small games, it's a different game (pun intended). Large games have many more, and much more complex, systems and this requires you to have the skill to keep all this information in your head at all times as you develop the game. You develop this skill by trying to make big, ambitious games, not by making underwhelming, simple, small games that don't come close to simulate the same situation.
I completely disagree. Beginners trying to make big games will learn SLOWER because 90% of their time is spent tangled up in all the spaghetti code they created. Tech debt slows down the learning process significantly, the best way to get past it is to abandon the project and start again from scratch. Which is why people say to make small games, because then you at least get to finish something instead of having 70 unfinished prototypes filled with tech debt. I agree to not only make small games, but you should start with small games and then slowly make bigger and bigger games as your skill improves.
1. You earned yourself a subscriber 2. The reality i found out The only reason why its encouraged to "Make Small Games" is testing yourself out and fine tuning your skill and mind set Its not necessary to start making small games... If you can learn fast and adapt pacing you can begin that dream game
Agree 🙌 "If you can learn fast and adapt pacing you can begin that dream game" But how would you know that if you are just starting out? 🤔 Thats why you should make a small game like 1 month or 3 months to test yourself if you can handle long time projects
"if you can learn fast" you're not a world class genius, so give up on that. Thinking you can "just learn fast" is egotistical, do you think you're smarter than all the other game developers in the world? You're a regular person, and all the other regular people are telling you it's not a good idea to make a giant dream game as a beginner.
@@ZedNerdStudios if you're not smarter than all the other game developers then "if you can learn fast" is a pointless thing to say. You won't learn faster than them, so you should listen to their warnings.
The actual reason is that a large big game will literally take away years from your life. This applies even more If your a beginner game developer - you will not have the skills or knowledge to finish the game in a realistic amount of time. Your going to be like the Dwarf Fortress developers - which is a game STILL IN development for over 21 years now. While developing games your losing time, money, electricity, food, other bills, etc - All of that is a drain on your personal resources. When you finally finish the game, there is no guarantee your going to make all that money back or that the game will even be successful. 95% of Indie games are not successful financially. Therefore a smaller game is better for training, better for learning, faster for error correction and more easy to recover from financially. Also, all that work can be put on a resume for potential employers or for job searches. Overall, smaller games are a better and more logical choice for smaller teams or solo indie developers. Always monetize and make sure your game will make some money from in game ads or through other means - Don't get tricked into giving your hard earned work away for free - if Triple A corporate studios will squeeze money out of paid games every single year... So can you. You ALSO need to pay bills and also need to recover for development costs somehow. Also... Game Development is a passion craft, if you REALLY want to spend 21 years making one large, giant game - Go for it. Just be aware of what could happen financially or later on in the future if nobody plays the game.
Dwarf fortress is a bad example. They were literally programming since they were small children and are making an incredibly complex game. They're not beginners who made a mistake.
@@centripetal6157 scope creep is literally a goal in those games, it's the entire appeal. That's why they have such simple graphics so that they can keep adding as many features as possible. They don't WANT to "finish" dwarf fortress.
@@NihongoWakannai That's an even bigger reason to avoid creating a game like Dwarf Fortress then. Nobody should make a game like that - Or Star Citizen. Its just software that stays stuck in development hell forever.
@@centripetal6157 I never said you should make a game like dwarf fortress, just that they're not in that situation because of a mistake. They chose to do that because that is what they're passionate about and they're succeeding at their goal. It's just not a goal that is good for 99.999% of developers. You have to be a crazy person who's been coding their whole life and wants to make one giant mega-game in order to make a game like dwarf fortress. Star citizen is a mistake though, they made promises which they're not upholding, dwarf fortress never made any promises or scammed any investors, it's just a passion project from some crazy brothers.
I don't get it, you are not literally paying yourself for making your game, you are doing it because you like it. Why calculate how many hours it would take to finish it and how much money therefore it would have cost for someone else if you were doing it for them? Why would it matter? The important thing is that you have some income or savings or a way to live trought the development process. Or what am I missing here?
Important: before you yell at me, continue the video (I respect all RUclipsrs mentioned) The most important step to start your game dev Journey! Tell me your thoughts!
There's zero chance most people will earn money with the small games this is about though. Same goes for people trying their first dream game project, which is also their first game ever. There's about a 97% failure rate there. Making small games is not about money. It's about understanding basic game design, prototyping ideas and really figuring out your skills and lack of skills to make something bigger.
@@PHeMoXYeah, they don't know what they are doing, and instead to make small games only for purpose of learning and improving, their main goal is to make money with them. Wrong intentions - bad results. But everyone want easy money and most don't want to spend 10+ years learning gamedev skills.
If you want money, generate mobile crap shovelware. If you want to make a game and risk becoming a millionaire or failing miserably make a proper product.
Hey there! Amazing video! Good work. Thanks for the shoutout :) Just fyi, for anyone curious, here's where my income comes from: Firstly, games! I make more than a full time salary, every year, just from games (publisher deals [I'm currently published by 3D Realms], platform deals, game sales). Secondly, I also make money from RUclips revenue. I also make money from course sales. I also used to make money from sponsorships. Passive income is wonderful for indies. I recommend it to everyone. But again, a full time income comes in every year just from games. Hope that helps :)
Yooo... I didn't think you would comment xD.
Huge Respect for you, but don't take what people say personally, there are rare cases where a RUclipsr pretends to be experienced to make money through (Courses, Patreon, etc.) BUT you are definitely NOT from them.
The thumbnail is just for fun lol.
You inspired me to enter this journey
I'll catch up to you soon, and then I hope we talk someday
back fired 😂
You can't "recommend" passive income. "passive income" is just being paid late for labour you did in the past.
It's basically saying "I recommend making a lot of money" like yeah, I totally chose to be poor.
@@NihongoWakannai The way this should be interpreted is that indie devs should be working to make supplemental money besides just their games. RUclips + having something ELSE to sell in addition to your game is the ideal way to do that. If you specialize into one field, such as animation, visual effects, programming, level design, etc. you can offer education in those topics in addition to your games, which can funnel in through youtube views.
You are the man Thomas! We love you and your content!
I can't make small games because I physically can't think about a small game that I like, but thinking about every feature of a big game as a small game is helpful.
That's how I manage it too. Recreating Flappy Birds? I don't like this game to begin with. Making an RPG? I figured out way back that RPGs are multiple games glued together.
Since the number one skill to acquire is the ability to break down a collossal task into many small ones, RPGs are that much more engaging to me.
same. I think ill get farther repeatedly failing but being motivated than not being motivated to make something I don't find interesting. Breaking the big game into bits and tackling those bits. I'm not worried about shipping something anytime soon.
Have you played inside or limbo?
@@TorQueMoD I saw gameplay of Limbo, not my thing.
Games don't work that way. You cannot just make a game out of smaller parts, it is a cohesive piece of software architecture.
If you try to make big games as a beginner you're going to end up stuck in tech debt hell and waste a lot of time without learning much.
If your dream game is a 2d pixel art top-down twin stick shooter roguelite, then you don't need to do all these because 30 other youtubers have the exact same dream game for some reason lol
this comment made me lol, like I was like y do all these solo devs wanna make the same 'dream' game? Like just honest and say its due constraints and we will all understand and support you still
I think that is one of the easiest types of game to make. I think someone did an analysis a while back that the easiest type of game to make was a side-scrolling shooter, and the most difficult one was an MMORPG for obvious reasons. Plus roguelikes and twin sticks are both trendy right now for whatever reason.
@@darth6129 yeahh I get that, but what am saying is they should be honest, I'm making my own 3D sidescroller(not a shooter).
If I ever make a devlog, I will be honest and say its not my dream game but I worked really hard on it and am proud of it.
I worked within my constraints and I feel good about it. I think people deserve honesty is all am saying.
@darth6129 The trick is to balance the convenience of implementation against your own ambitions. I, for one, absolutely hate roguelikes, roguelites, whatever. The very concept makes me yawn. Like you said: it's popular because it's probably the easiest mechanic to build, one that excuses your limited resources which wouldn't yield any more varied maps.
For my first, I opted for a 2D adventure game. Which is easy (well, relatively speaking) all while I actually feel like working on it in my spare time. It's only one scene (no way I can do more) so I won't be able to monetize it, but it's fine. I just want to learn.
Making your dream game is overrated you should just make a functioning game and forget about your dreams because your dreams are literaly dreams
Once you've made 90% of your game, all you have to do is make the remaining 90%. The point is that starting a game is easy and fun, but the reality of continuing and finishing development is usually difficult and frustrating. It's good to start working on smaller projects because you'll learn that lesson sooner, and know what to expect when working on bigger projects. There's so many developers stuck in hell working on their dream game and most of them will never actually publish anything, but they might have if they'd just started small.
That is what I was trying to say
Perfect comment :)
Good explanation bro👍
The reason why seeing titles like "starting my open world dream game with NO EXPERIENCE" saddens me
Most accurate
And the concept and the polish is mainly what matters
Idea: First make a Pong clone, and then make Skyrim MMO with Elden Ring combat and WoW style raids. Reality: make a bunch of prototypes that never get finished, but teach you various aspects of making a game.
I can’t go simple, I get bored. It has be complex and simple
Actually, quite a few RUclipsrs you mention, are not really game devs as much as they are RUclipsrs promoting their courses. Their primary source of income is RUclips views/ads, sponsorships and selling courses or promoting their patreons. Their primary source of income is _not_ selling videogames. Heck, some of the people in there have pretty much zero experience, yet speak as if they have 20+ years of experience in the industry. Be very careful following any of their advices. Yes, making many small games is a great idea. But this is more about learning to code and organising finishing a project. Some people dive into a 'big' project, which isn't that big at all, yet still takes them 6 years to finish, with zero guarantee of success. And they forgot to prototype the basic gameplay loop to figure out if its any good to begin with.
4:00 I kind of disagree. Most people start their projects with like dozens of ideas they want to implement, instead of starting with something basic and expand from there. And then they assume that through clever planning they can still get it done. Usually total beginners simply can not do that. Feature creep is terrible, sure, but deciding on a long list of features before trying out if any of them will work, is way way worse. Most games fail because they are no fun to play.
Keep in mind that the pyramid overview you show, means that for 5 or so big features, you'll end up making 100s of components to make it work. To some extent this is unavoidable, but what you're talking about is actually not simplifying core gameplay concepts at all. It's also a waste of time to implement of steps creating the larger staircase, when none of it is fun to play.
That's the _real_ reason to make many small games. Prototyping ideas. Figuring out what is actually fun and what is also within someone's skills to make.
A GDD is nonsense for any total beginner. It will have a lot of stuff in there that's just totally inaccurate, superfluous and a waste of time. Better is to create a single page document outlining only the most simplified version of the game you have in mind and start there. Any small game can be expanded into something bigger. You'll also understand what to rewrite completely in like 3-6 months after you started.
6:00 most of the RUclipsrs you show had to double their time, because they lacked the real experience required to build what they were trying. It's not about predicting the time something takes. Some of them simply had unrealistic expectations to begin with.
One of the Best comments, thanks for your time!
But they depend mostly on selling games, and other things are just to support their journey.
I would also say Big and Small games are objective. Some will say many indie games are Big others will say they are Small. A few indie devs even started with grand ideas and with 6-7 years dev time and were successful. It might just come down to preference and ability to adapt and learn quickly.
yup but we have to consider the normal thing, while some devs succeeded after 6-7 years, the majority did not (they are an exception)@@Taiylim
Whether or not their primary source of income is making video games, multiple of them have made multiple video games
Hey great comment! Super helpful. My games bring in a full time income. Currently funded with the help of 3D realms as my publisher for my next game :)
the thing is, i have no desire or motivation to make something smaller
Then. Make small games that have a mechanic you want to implement in your dream game with a unique story.
While we have a dream game, we usually have many stories, so it's a win-win situation. (Many stories and small games)
@@Rix1Dev Personally stories bore me, it's complex mechanics working together in interesting ways that get me excited. I know most people making games have a story they want to tell, but my dream is offering an experience instead. In fact I would prefer to make a game with 0 story
@@Valentin_TeslovThen a small game should be much easier for you. There aren’t many mechanics that require a large space or tons of content. Narratives require stuff that’s not necessary for gameplay. If you’re not trying to recreate the nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor you’re good 😂
With that attitude, you are never ever gonna succeed 😂
Just remember, the entire Elder Scrolls game series started as a game about being a fantasy gladiator in an arena. They got so ate up making side quests that the small game turned into a runaway project where the arena is now just a small part.
Make small games when you are a beginner but the problem is nobody plays them. Sure you can make money when you're already fame on RUclips but not because the game is good. Most successful indie games take 2-5 years to make in my experience
Something that bugs me as well... who on Earth is going to bother with a 9673482nd rendition of Space Invaders even for free, let alone for $4,99? Where is the audience for that?
You can't expect to make money as a solo gamedev as a beginner.
It's a job that requires you to be good at art, animation, music, audio, game design and programming. You need many years of experience before you can expect to make ANY money.
You have to make a small game to complete it and learn the process. How many people have made Mario bros clones to start? Well really no one, most just do the physics and basic level layout and they think that's it. And it's not
There's another kind of philosophy vaguely called "Aim for the starts and hit the moon." Meaning you shouldn't limit yourself. Just like 'tutorial hell' you could end up in "small game hell" where you never even attempt your dream game because everyone else is always telling you to start small. While starting small may be good for some, for others it may not be. Frankly I'm tired of hearing people say make a bunch of small games.
I think its important to make at least one small game and then a big one. Big games have such different requirements that making small games is useless as practice.
100 small games won't teach you about multithreading, asynchronous techniques and loading/unloading data dynamically. Those games are too small to even need it, it would be overkill and a waste of time. Features like this are however requirements for big games that have a lot of content.
The pipelines are also massively different. A small game or even one like undertale can and does have switch statements for every single line of dialogue. You can't do that with branching paths or something like BG3. You have to invent a whole pipeline a way to communicate and organize. Small games teach small thinking. Prototyping and quick efficient techniques. Big games teach high concepts, optimization and management.
As someone solo developing a very ambitious game I've learned more working on it than I did in 4 years of university courses. Learning what to worry about and what not to is hard. But I definitely feel way smarter now than I was before. Way more experienced. I'd feel confident on a AAA team not that I'd want to or could get a role on one nowadays with the industry being... well.. shit.
@@dracofells5390 - Exactly! ^^ This.
You don't REALLY need to make a small game. Just know the bigger the project, the longer it will take. Not everyone is living off game dev, so not necessarily a concern. Realistically, Id say making a big one, piece by piece is just making tons of small games. Not much difference, but you get a potentially better return if it is particularly good. Small games may be a good idea as taking break for a month to make for a refresh when you start burning out, and testing out releasing a full game on the side at the same time. If you do it even smarter, maybe a small game made centered around a mechanic you will need in the main game anyways, so that you can do both at once. Just depends how smartly you do things.
I know some people don't got jack for good game ideas mechanically or thematically, but just like making things. So maybe small games are a need for them to just spitball and find something that would stick. Others have a fantastic idea, but just need to be able to commit to it fully. Basically, no one advice is right, just depends on the individual. I mean, look at stardew valley. Not a small game by any means, but he did it and massively succeeded. Just know yourself, what your genuinely willing to commit to, and at LEAST do some research to kinda refine your understanding on what you comiting to. Not good to go big if you know you would be one to lose it at any major roadblocks that are difficult, takes a ton of boring tedious time with very little return by comparison sometimes; Have to have the resolution to see it through.
I just started out and i'm recreating small old games WITHOUT watching tutorials and adding a little bit of creativity and experimenting different things. I recreated pong, tic tac toe, flappy bird... to learn basic stuff. How to move, how buttons work, how to instantiate objects...
Small (is mean simple) games have only few advantage:
-they are faster to make its mean less time/money waste if fail,
-they cost less so is potentially more customer who can try it
-they have better potential to learning new thing and experimenting
But bigger have can fill nice niche, can have more unique and better marketing potential, have longer playtime because it is always a thing and can have higher price and still sells
Exactly!
Thanks for this video, really helped give me a better perspective on an indie game dev career
Glad you liked it 🙌
my experience with it is making multiple projects in attempt of achieving my ‘dream game’ and picking up new knowledge and skills along the way that’s allowed me to get quicker with each new project i make.
In my opinion, making small games is actually quite good.
1 - You need to put less money on the project
2 - You get to learn more
3 - If your game gets corrupted and gets deleted, it will not be as bad, since it took not a lot of time.
4 - If you make a long game, you might get frustrated and quit game dev.
Thank you a lot, I`m at the start of my dev journey and I was really needed this advice
That made my day! 🙌
That was my goal of the video :)
how its going so far?
Making quick small games is smart. You get things out there. You focus on specific game mechanics one at a time so it is easier to learn. And like most things in life, it is a numbers game. The more you output, the more likely you will get noticed. Don't put all your eggs in one basket mentality.
Problem is you can't put your passion into these small games. Unless small games is your passion. The motivation is to make profit rather than make a game that means something to you. So even though it has it pros to do, I personally would rather spend my time making a game I really enjoy rather than a bunch I don't. I have done a lot of projects and gotten jobs from freelance to salary in order to be stepping stones to a greater thing. But that greater thing, working in the games industry, never came.
So my advice is do what makes you happy. We all have many ideas. So pick one, try to not over complicate it and enjoy the journey.
That's why my best advice is to make small games that are relatable to your dream game, that way you will enjoy the journey and follow your passion. I explained this in the "How to monetize...." video I made earlier.
Great video, i loved the perspective with the traveling and game development part, gives me more understaning on the subject and how to plan my projects in the future. Cheers man! 😁
Glad you liked it!
Well, I'm very aware that coding is an extreme weakness of mine (and I have a degree in it somehow), so doing this solo is almost Sisyphean from my pov.
Even "small games" are not exactly easy for me.
I study and tested a lot of things before finish and publish my first game, but my first one was really simples, it is just two chicken eating grains.
Now, the second one is a 3D multiplayer MOBA :)
if your working on a new skill for example running your not going to start by doing a lot at once that's how you lose motivation for it but instead you start small and work your way up to bigger challenges it's exactly the same for game dev
I made one kind of small game and went to a big one right after. I rework everything i learned and did wrong before, when i started making the game.. instead of making small games to practice
same problem as many here, there are sorta two core rules that collide: don't make a game you don't like, and don't make a big/complex game. I don't like small games, and i don't play them, they often feel shallow or repetitive in a bad way. I generally don't like platformers and metroidvanias, roguelikes etc. too, i got like 10 hours in hollow knight and 10 hours in hades...and that's the best of them. IMO making a small game and publishing it will give you experience in publishing games definitely (and mostly publishing small games) but i feel i can pull off more, so why to make less for the sake of it...i'm also not suspended on it financially.
Hey, I'm a bit late to the party but I just found that I'm featured in the video, so uhh I'd like to say a few thing!
Firstly, yeah game dev courses are an absolute scam. There is so much free information out there, you have no reason to pay for a gamedev course! Just wanted to say that in case the video made it look like I was one of them ahah....
Now, I'm not a professional game developer, and I don't want to make it look like I am one. I've only made half a dozen small games so far, but I know that game dev is what I want to do for the rest of my life, it's my passion. But a problem with a few gamedev youtubers is that I feel like there's a huge gap/disconnect between people with no knowledge who wants to get into gamedev, and professionals who work in the industry. So my goal with my channel I guess, is to try to help the ones still behind me, as someone who is still very much in the middle in terms of skill. To bridge the gap kinda.
Gamedev is very complicated, and no piece of advice will ever be true for everyone, advice should be used to nudge you in the right direction, not force you into a straight path. So I highly encourage people to hear the opinions of many other individuals and then make a decision for themselves!
But if someone wants to experience the joy of gamedev, I think a small finished project will always feel much more rewarding and gratifying than a big unfinished one. I know what it's like to give up on a project you were overconfident on, and I don't wish it to happen to anyone.
Anyway, great video! :D
Game jams are a god sent, Was my only way out of tutorial hell. Ive been learning UE5 for 9 months trying to learn everything at once to make my dream game. I wasnt able to get anything to truly click until I finaly just sat down and started making a game. Yes it wasnt my dream game but It taught me so much of what to expect on how to traverse things. Amazing video thank you !
A game I made in about 30 days was my most successful game by far. It’s crazy cause I launched it with like 30 wishlists and it made a lot of money.
I have been making my first game for around 3 years now and it will most likely be released. It is also my dream game
Great video ! Very well explained.
The importance of starting with small games is something I strongly believe in, but I generally have a hard time to articulate why. It's about learning, but like you said, it's about learning to plan, based on your past experience, making a small game gives you past experience. I really liked your car travel analogy, it's a really good way to conceptualize it.
Thanks man, glad you like it 😁
Im a Software Engineer for over 10 years and even for ONLY coding, time prediction is always off. Like not only by me but in the field in general. Imagine a Indie Dev with 1000 roles. Double the time is minimum :D
GDD contained all the detail about the game project while GDR only contained the schedule which only a section in GDD. You gotta work on full GDD if you want to make a proper game, but you can use the simplified version if you're still learning and only working on "tiny games" or even "mini games".
such cool content! thanks for existing 🙌
It a good idea to participate in game jams. By doing so, you will have a theme and a deadline to achieve, forcing you to finish your game. That what I will do my self. I recently stared on my big game and I'm new to game dev anyway, but by participating in game jams you will finish your work in a specific amount of time. You are forced anyway.
Cool video :D a friend told me that I'm in this video so I took a look xD great points overall.
Thank you for making great videos too :)
I love making small open-world games like a portion of a toqn/city and make quests, resources and funny hidden secrets. Never published any tho. I dont lie large open-world games with a billion things to do which makes them boring.
Made some small games for myself, but from your opinion don't you think it's still viable to start with your realistic "grand" idea and be attentive that any features within it needs to be modular. In that way you're making small (dependent) games/mechanics within your larger project, scrap stuff, rebuild stuff when they don't play nice with others etc. within the large game. Isn't that essentially making small "games" too? My idea is that you save time by constantly working on the long term project but also building knowledge on getting many mechanics to work together? This is with the caveat that you're not dependent on money from releasing the game
"Isn't that essentially making small "games" too? "
Yup.
"My idea is that you save time by ... building knowledge on getting many mechanics to work together?"
yes, you save time but making small games will give you the experience to make your BIG project really good
(What I mean is that while making a big project, you will level up so when you make let's say ... your 3rd level in the game, it will look better than the 1st and 2nd levels so you have to rebuild it over and over. while making small games and selling them is a better option.
@Rix1Dev thanks for the great reply 🙏
No, because games don't work like this. It's like thinking you can make a building by just throwing up some wood and nailing it together over time with no regard for the foundation or structural integrity.
Games are not just a bunch of smaller pieces, they require large scale architectural planning in order to make sure data flows smoothly to allow many features to all interact with each other.
If you try to put all your badly coded prototypes together it's going to be a spaghetti code mess and you'll waste 90% of your time trying to brute force through all the tech debt you created instead of learning.
Make a game you want to make instead of wasting time making small shitty games
Well I'm making my dream game, but it's not just a single game. It's the process which I'll publish different games every now and then in order to learn new systems. One day, that dream game will become reality. It's gonna take a lot of time but at least I'm not setting myself up for high risk journey.
I agree with the idea of making the mechanics of your dream game into small games. But I feel like I know all those things about me without having to actively work on small games. I also agree it can help with budgeting. But what if... and maybe this is a novel idea... you continue your day job for as long as you need to until you have the budget to work on it full time? Sorry to sound like a smart ass, but seriously.
If I'm fine working a day job, coming home, and working on my dream game for five years, who does it hurt? I wish people would stop making it sound like making small games is a requirement to be a dev, and say it as what it is: a recommendation. We're allowed to get there our own way, and do so without feeling invalidated by other devs who think they know us better than we know ourselves. For some of us, it's hard to make something we have zero interest in making. Many game devs are fueled by passion. So if we can't motivate ourself to learn via small games, the only option left is to learn via the game we actually want to make.
But again, I do agree that it can be broken down by the mechanics you want. Do it seperately, see how it works, and then rebuild it better as part of that dream game. Not a bad idea there.
It's important to get the message across because there are people who could waste literal years of their life on a slower path to their goal and then wonder why they didn't progress as much as they wanted.
You can make the choice to follow that path anyway if you want, but people need to know what they're getting into.
The idea behind making small games is you need to spend more time learning. It helps you to see a project to completion through the entire development phase and out the door. Also, if you focus on one large project for a very long time, you're limiting your learning. That's why it's actually beneficial to work on many different styles of games because with them come new challenges that you wouldn't otherwise face in a single project. No one tries to write an album after learning how to play 4 chords on a guitar, but for some reason people think game design is easy and doesn't require a ton of work an dedication.
Man I love you.
Make small games because you spend a year making spaghetti code until you make less spaghetti code
literally the best explanation
I would like to appreciate the video scripting in this, it's magnificent
fail fast and fail often that's how you learn, that's how you grow, that's why you should make small games first. You don't learn to run before you learn to walk.
Hi, i also found task of becoming Polish kinda hard. Very confusing language.. C seems easier
I'm still looking for architectural tips about ... larger games. (I have abandoned 2 project so far -the concept and goal was not clear, now the third one is WIP fro 1 year. Promising one.)
A development tip would be to develop subsystems (like UI, enemy AI, Light and Postprocessing setup etc)actually in separate projects, so those projects have a lower complexity. And then later merge them into the main game when they have a proven architecture, and you know how to integrate them cleanly.
A big problem is that large projects quickly get complex and thus hard to manage.
The other important tip is to define your folder structure and asset naming scheme early, and stick to it. When you have 1000 textures with wild names for example, its a pain to find the right one.
Architecture can vary wildly depending on the needs and goals of your project. That's why it's important to understand what features your game will need and then design the architecture around allowing those features to be implemented smoothly.
Ultimately it's about understanding which things create data and which things need to read that data. Then creating a clean network to traffic that data around the program.
Those are some of the very basics of project management.
well they aint that wrong
I made 0 Games since 2014 because of the trend of being a Solo dev you need to learn everything (and as I did)
now I'm got 10 years of skills in 3D art, Programming and mastered more than 10 DCC tools
About Thomas Brush, in maybe 2016~2017 I was asking GameDev RUclipsrs about, after all the videos they make, how can I really do the game that I will feel like I made a game,
His answer was "Start small"
and that was the only thing, and he was 100% right, starting small != keep making small stickman games, and not jump on Zelda or Skyrim already!
The majority of us were about to give up the cause of starting to think big when our skills and computers could not keep up.
Dont forget that, the more we are beginners, the more we do things with passion only passion, and when time passes, even learning becomes a decision
All of these videos are so encouraging and depressing at the same time lol...
Make teeny tiny smally itti bitty games that takes 1 year to make and 10 mins to finish.😅😂😊 j/k
My recommendation is to small game jams (1 week long at most). Get a taste of it, learn how to use the tools, then do a game that takes 1 hour to finish 😊
small games can make youtubers play it to me that's good publicity. people retention don't last days its either less than an 3 hours or 3 minutes
3:39 this is exaggerated teen swag
We don't need vfx and stuff, it's mostly center around music, art, marketing, story (optional), gameplay and mechanics, game design (i don't remeber any other but it's not like how it said)
art withoute sfx and vfx ?
My dream game is an open world galaxy size space game. It's smaller than a universe. 😅
Really good points. But this is not suitable for an absolute noob who is just starting out. An intermediate level game dev who has created a few things here and there will be able to do what you are mentioning here.
An absolute noob needs to completely forget his dream game and just learn. To learn you need to make, hence he must create completely irrelevant little games/prototypes (irrelevant to his dream game).
Of course there are always exceptions.
Dream Game is the motivation for many new devs, you can't simply say "Forget it"
Thats why I see making small games for each mechanic from your dream game is better (Its like prototyping small parts of your dream game)
@@Rix1Dev You are right, but the complete beginner needs to first learn how to make the mechanics. That's what I mean.
Disciplined Training is what enables someone of doing what he's after. If temporary ignorance of the so called "dream game" kills the motivation in such a scale that the guy leaves game dev altogether, it's sad, but the guy would never finish his dream game anyways.
The "dream game" requires huge amount of "patience", "hard work", and "discipline".
But I do agree with your strategy on approaching the dream game step by step, and that's exactly what I myself do.
@@whilefree Depends on the dream game though. What if my dream game is tetris? :) Dream games don't nesessarily have to be those huge massive online multiplayer virtual reality super mega hits...
Yeah, you are right xD
@@Rix1Dev they should forget it. If they can't put aside their "dream game" and make small prototypes then they're not going to ever succeed as a game developer.
Solo game development is extremely hard and just because you have a dream game doesn't mean you have the discipline to make it.
If you can't even stand to make pong or flappy bird because it's not "your dream" then you will never survive spending weeks refactoring your entire project's architecture on a large game.
dude has never been to america from the travel metophor.
still get what he means though and it helps for game devs.
The best game for a developer isnt a aaa but better is a game that takes one day to make and still goes viral
That is a dream xD well, you mean 1 month and going viral. ye agree
@@Rix1Dev Probably a dream in 1 month as well, but anyway, is the best. That should be the goal as a gamedesigner
im worried about how people would react when i tell them i do game development, would they think that my job isnt as needed in the work world?
It's a hard question tbh :(
What do you mean "isnt as needed"? The majority of jobs isnt "needed" and exists purely to work towards a profit.
@zeez7777 Yeah I asked because it was something I was told before and it put me off
There are a lot of design jobs that are monetarily feasible for the present marketplace but are not functioning as a primal physical necessity (I forget the name of the civilization survival tier list/pyramid thingie). The important thing is to create a path of success and establish a realistic and repeatable table of your product and point to both your own successes and similar successes of others. There is a lot of money fed into the game industry, similar to other forms of arts and entertainment. Setting up shop may be dubious for many, but it is not impossible.
Sure, being a game-dev isn't as immediately "important" as a lawyer, doctor, scientist, farmer, etc. However, being an artist, musician, or storyteller is part of what makes us human and cannot be contained by bare necessities and is an inevitable outcome of a civilized society. Can you imagine Leonardo Da Vinci without an artistic side -- only concerning himself with function and survival?
Not really, they'll just think that you're "incompetent" or that you should "grow up", basically like writing childrens books outside a company (even if you do AAA gamedev).
It's in the entertainment industry, like movies, writing, acting, etc.
There are more useless jobs, and either way, most people spend like 2-4hrs doing work at their 8hr job.
There's definetely a "Game dev youtuber slop" out there. 90% of these creators fall under; "“Those who can, DO; those who can’t, TEACH.”"
These gamedev YT even listed in the video, are those people that created an uninspired asset flip in 3-5 months, clutch their pearls about how cruel the industry is, and then move on with "here's my 10 top best advices for game dev! (2025 version)", "make smaller games" populi talking point falls in here too.
I would rather Game dev aspirants watch more tech-oriented content, purchase courses (if you can) from people with a better track record in the industry than 'game dev content creation' on RUclips.
My thought is that making small games is good but it won't teach you to make big games. You'll probably quit your first big game before it's done no matter how many small games you make before. Beyond lacking technical skills, you'll probably end up realizing a lot of your first ideas aren't actually that fun and not worth finishing. That's just how it is. I'd bet most of the youtubers who give this advice have been through exactly that. You will learn a lot from scrapped projects as well as completed projects. IMO the important thing isn't the size of the game but to keep working and learning. If you WANT to finish something you'll do it eventually even if it takes a long time.
But you make small games to test of the mechanics you imagined for the big game is actually fun. So when you start working in the big game you already know those mechanics works.
The point of making small games is to not waste precious time drowning in tech debt. It's fine to *try* and make a big game, but you should give up as soon as you hit the tech debt wall and say "well, guess I'm not good enough for this yet"
The problem is beginners who just keep brute forcing their way through a giant pile of tech debt spaghetti code and then it takes them a month to learn what could have taken them a week.
i already got idea of my game if my game needed a voice acting but i dont have a money to hired one, should i release my game as a demo and raise a fund for voice acting?
Yes you can, but you can use AI voices or record your voice and learn how to change it a bit.
Or make it in the lore that no one can talk in the game for some reason 🤷♂
@@Rix1Dev well my game is like left 4 dead inspired so having character mute kinde makes em soulless and I also decided to chance my mind and prob gonne develop other game which doesn't use voice acting and not too ambitious and big, which is kult Killers :DD
@@artgokrew Good luck in your project. I hope you finish it.
@@Rix1Dev il sure does I got friend that will help me how to code and I got a decent 3D image refrence to make the character n stuff story for the game is kinde non the wiser only gameplay is matter lol
When you set out to make a big game you learn all the things that you mention you would need to learn to make many small games, but you learn them faster, because there is more "selection pressure" to make you learn them, you have to learn all these things or there is not going to be any game. You can't learn to make big games by making small games, it's a different game (pun intended). Large games have many more, and much more complex, systems and this requires you to have the skill to keep all this information in your head at all times as you develop the game. You develop this skill by trying to make big, ambitious games, not by making underwhelming, simple, small games that don't come close to simulate the same situation.
That is an interesting point of view.
I completely disagree.
Beginners trying to make big games will learn SLOWER because 90% of their time is spent tangled up in all the spaghetti code they created.
Tech debt slows down the learning process significantly, the best way to get past it is to abandon the project and start again from scratch.
Which is why people say to make small games, because then you at least get to finish something instead of having 70 unfinished prototypes filled with tech debt.
I agree to not only make small games, but you should start with small games and then slowly make bigger and bigger games as your skill improves.
1. You earned yourself a subscriber
2. The reality i found out
The only reason why its encouraged to "Make Small Games" is testing yourself out and fine tuning your skill and mind set
Its not necessary to start making small games... If you can learn fast and adapt pacing you can begin that dream game
Agree 🙌
"If you can learn fast and adapt pacing you can begin that dream game"
But how would you know that if you are just starting out? 🤔
Thats why you should make a small game like 1 month or 3 months to test yourself if you can handle long time projects
"if you can learn fast" you're not a world class genius, so give up on that. Thinking you can "just learn fast" is egotistical, do you think you're smarter than all the other game developers in the world?
You're a regular person, and all the other regular people are telling you it's not a good idea to make a giant dream game as a beginner.
@@NihongoWakannai clearly I didn't declare I'm the smartest of all other game developers
And definitely you missed the point of what I was meaning...
@@ZedNerdStudios if you're not smarter than all the other game developers then "if you can learn fast" is a pointless thing to say.
You won't learn faster than them, so you should listen to their warnings.
0:35 got me
xD
Small games are hard to think of simply because most of the ideas are boring haha
try to think of a big game and reduce the features to their basics (like making an RPG only in a small village with 2 quests)
@ that’s actually a great way to do it
Small games help me learn unity :3
The actual reason is that a large big game will literally take away years from your life. This applies even more If your a beginner game developer - you will not have the skills or knowledge to finish the game in a realistic amount of time.
Your going to be like the Dwarf Fortress developers - which is a game STILL IN development for over 21 years now.
While developing games your losing time, money, electricity, food, other bills, etc - All of that is a drain on your personal resources. When you finally finish the game, there is no guarantee your going to make all that money back or that the game will even be successful. 95% of Indie games are not successful financially.
Therefore a smaller game is better for training, better for learning, faster for error correction and more easy to recover from financially. Also, all that work can be put on a resume for potential employers or for job searches. Overall, smaller games are a better and more logical choice for smaller teams or solo indie developers.
Always monetize and make sure your game will make some money from in game ads or through other means - Don't get tricked into giving your hard earned work away for free - if Triple A corporate studios will squeeze money out of paid games every single year... So can you. You ALSO need to pay bills and also need to recover for development costs somehow.
Also... Game Development is a passion craft, if you REALLY want to spend 21 years making one large, giant game - Go for it. Just be aware of what could happen financially or later on in the future if nobody plays the game.
Dwarf fortress is a bad example. They were literally programming since they were small children and are making an incredibly complex game. They're not beginners who made a mistake.
@@NihongoWakannai it doesn't matter. Their game got scope creep and was never finished
@@centripetal6157 scope creep is literally a goal in those games, it's the entire appeal. That's why they have such simple graphics so that they can keep adding as many features as possible.
They don't WANT to "finish" dwarf fortress.
@@NihongoWakannai That's an even bigger reason to avoid creating a game like Dwarf Fortress then. Nobody should make a game like that - Or Star Citizen.
Its just software that stays stuck in development hell forever.
@@centripetal6157 I never said you should make a game like dwarf fortress, just that they're not in that situation because of a mistake. They chose to do that because that is what they're passionate about and they're succeeding at their goal. It's just not a goal that is good for 99.999% of developers. You have to be a crazy person who's been coding their whole life and wants to make one giant mega-game in order to make a game like dwarf fortress.
Star citizen is a mistake though, they made promises which they're not upholding, dwarf fortress never made any promises or scammed any investors, it's just a passion project from some crazy brothers.
I'm just a failure anyway so what's the point?
I want to create Warcraft 3 as my first game. 😂
I don't get it, you are not literally paying yourself for making your game, you are doing it because you like it. Why calculate how many hours it would take to finish it and how much money therefore it would have cost for someone else if you were doing it for them? Why would it matter?
The important thing is that you have some income or savings or a way to live trought the development process.
Or what am I missing here?
yes
ok
subscibed
man I love your accent
cool
Important: before you yell at me, continue the video (I respect all RUclipsrs mentioned)
The most important step to start your game dev Journey!
Tell me your thoughts!
cheap clickbate, don't do it again
Alright@@Skartcher
You van try first time you smal game for watch how work release this game
But other pluses besides earn money , i can't see.
There's zero chance most people will earn money with the small games this is about though. Same goes for people trying their first dream game project, which is also their first game ever. There's about a 97% failure rate there. Making small games is not about money. It's about understanding basic game design, prototyping ideas and really figuring out your skills and lack of skills to make something bigger.
@@PHeMoXYeah, they don't know what they are doing, and instead to make small games only for purpose of learning and improving, their main goal is to make money with them. Wrong intentions - bad results. But everyone want easy money and most don't want to spend 10+ years learning gamedev skills.
To answer your premise...because it's a good idea.
Also 2d games suck
No they don't
Wdym they may be boring sometimes but still really cool.
you suck
@@thesomeone2nd dig or die🤤
Unless you unplug most are 2D.
Great tips, thx for the video
If you want money, generate mobile crap shovelware. If you want to make a game and risk becoming a millionaire or failing miserably make a proper product.
Nobody becomes a game dev because they want to make small games. We want to make the best games there ever were and to do that you gotta go big! 🦸