"Originally Posted by Muz Lol, you can't ever put a massive clickers together to make a big game. If they ever stop fighting and choose a leader, that leader is in a rut on how to control an untrained, unprofessional group, that works only in their spare time. And the more people you have on the project, the more people will disagree with any direction it's going.
In other words, there will never be a Daily Click game. Prove me wrong "
Anyone want to try and prove Muz wrong? I've got some basic organisational ideas of how we can, but I'd really like to see some sort of interest before I start throwing those ideas around. They're great ideas, too.
But let's not use that. Anyway, I want it to be online, with chat and interactivity. And be a platformer, and have cool super forms an engine where you move with the keyboard but use the mouse to interact with the environment, and customizable characters...
The only necessary thing there was the platforming. RPG elements please.
Muz's reasoning is very strong on this one. The only way you can make click games in groups is to have small groups, and even then it's really hard. (I speak from experience, as does Codemonkey.) Anything short of having one person do everything and everyone else just pitching in ideas is just too pointless and not worth the headache. A lot more would get done if it were just you or the group were small.
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
20th January, 2009 at 04:56:24 -
Go for it, good luck.
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
Note especially the part on communication lines. Communication will easily make up 50% of the effort dedicated to teamwork. In addition, I'd have to suggest that someone become a manager. Someone who wants to contribute to the project, isn't egoistic, and doesn't do anything useful. All this guy does is pass around tasks, cheer on motivate people, and edits the group forum for legibility. It's a seemingly useless task, but it helps a lot, especially when things gets stressful. The leader himself, preferably a skilled coder or game designer, should do more work and work faster and harder than the rest of the group. This guy should (appear to) do at least twice as much work as any other single member. Otherwise, group members get lazy and don't even bother with the project.
Good luck. You'll need it
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Only one person? That's not the kind of turnout I was expecting. Maybe everyone should be wishing good luck on finding people to try this, not for actually getting it done
"Anyone want to try and prove Muz wrong? I've got some basic organisational ideas of how we can, but I'd really like to see some sort of interest before I start throwing those ideas around. They're great ideas, too"
effort > ideas. Anyone of us could easily think up ideas. If you want to show people you're gung-ho about taking on a huge project like this, I'd advise to start working on a design doc and then working on a beta engine. It's the only way people are going to take you seriously.
Organising a multi-person project would be futile if you didn't have any idea on how to make it all work. The ideas are all about how to get everyone to work together, not what the project would be.
Just because you have an idea, that doesn't make it possible. I'm not saying it isn't, it's just that when something is impractical, it's impractical. There's no justification for even trying, really, since we've all had experience with large groups and the headaches and arguments. Even if you get a group of individuals that get along well, they're usually too laid back and just say, "whatever is fine with me." Well, if everyone makes everyone else decide, nothing gets done.
Just saying what's been my experience. I encourage you to have a whack at it if you wish, groups are entirely possible-- it's just that large groups are more trouble than they're worth and are draining and slow down production time. (In this setting, anyway. Full of Indie game makers who all have ideas and can't talk things out in person. I've found that intonation of speech and body language can go a long way with convincing people and cooperation; especially in a leader. Being a large group in an office is a different story; especially when these people are just being hired to do their jobs.)
So long as there isn't much overlap between team members' roles, I think a group project is not impractical. Having one person for graphics, one for sound, etc could work very well.
I think having more than 1 person doing the programming part would be a bad idea - you'll all be making different changes, and it'll be more work trying to merge the different versions, than it would have been for one person to do it all in the first place.
As far as design goes, it's good for everyone to have some input, but there needs to be one person who ultimately has the final say. Also, it's essential that everyone is in agreement about all the important points, from the start.
I've always wanted to try something like this but I can't at the moment.
IMO there needs to be a small fixed group with just lots of contributers. The problem is everyone would want to be a director and if something didn't go someones way there could be hissy fits and such. Maybe. Would be nice to see it working though.
Hmm.. I don't think it's really a matter of who wants to call the shots, rather who's going to take the brunt of the work load. No matter how you look at it, there is going to be one person that has to program all of the different media into the game. While the game would use from all of us, one or two artists will have to draw up the back bone of the game.
Being a project leader isn't a matter of how imaginative or how charismatic you are. If you want people follow you, or even listen to you, you need to show you are worthy of being a leader. And the best way to do that is show everyone how committed you are by your willingness to work.
I'm repeating myself here, but you need to create a detailed design doc. Or even better yet a early beta. It doesn't matter if it has placeholder images. It doesn't matter if it doesn't have all the features you've envisioned or not. What matters is proving to everyone you're a man of action and not just a kid with an idea.
You can take this as a flame and sulk or you can use this to get fired up and start working. Up to you.
Originally Posted by tetsuya_shinoOr even better yet a early beta. It doesn't matter if it has placeholder images. It doesn't matter if it doesn't have all the features you've envisioned or not. What matters is proving to everyone you're a man of action and not just a kid with an idea.
What I'm getting from this is, "Have the game mostly done before you bring people onto the project." An early beta would have most of the fundamental code in, so any features would just be extensions of that. It would basically be done, save the art, levels, and testing.
I'm also pulling from this thread that no one even wants to try because it's impractical, except for Jon Lambert and Dr. James (who wouldn't be allowed so work can continue on Tormi.)
There's nothing wrong with having one person do graphics, one sound, one programming. I do that with a lot of my games. (Except a lot of times my sister does some art along with my own. But she isn't a game maker, she's an artist-- and is happy to draw whatever I need, not what she thinks it needs.) It's that most people want to split each thing up or have all of their own ideas implanted in the game. If you get a case where one person has the final say and everyone agrees, that's the office setting I was talking about where people just work on it because they get paid to.
Clickers' egos sometimes get in the way.
But hey, if you get a working group going, I'd be happy to help!
Advertisement
Post Reply
"
(I speak from experience, as does Codemonkey.) Anything short of having one person do everything and everyone else just pitching in ideas is just too pointless and not worth the headache. A lot more would get done if it were just you or the group were small. 
Edited by OMC