Item — HN Reader

Hi, I'm the author of the post. I actually am an indie dev myself and have many smallish games as well as worked in AAA for years.

I think indie developers tend to get it right more often, but anyone can fall into the wrong approach of over-complicating their games with needless features that actually detract from the fun.

Like take for example RDR2. Imagine if instead of having all those silly mini-games, they just polished the core combat and movement mechanics more. That's the game I want to play.

I guess I was trying to say a few things with this post, but one big part is that removing stuff from a game and making it simpler is often better then adding more stuff. I talk much more about that in my epic js1k post coming soon!

1 comments

I think the code length restriction is a great way to distill a game concept into the "core fun", which is what more people should be focusing on when making them IMHO.

If you go on say /r/gamedev, you'll see all kinds of posts of people stuck down rabbit holes of negligible design, like how to make the best hair physics. A lone developer could spend a year's worth of free time implementing things that don't make the game any more fun or complete.

I think you get that kind of potential to get stuck on inconsequential details in any design. It happens in video game design of course, but also board game design, and graphic design, and software design in general, among many other fields. Most general design guides encourage iteration and refinement, and when it comes to game design specifically that comes across as the push for frequent prototypes and playtests so you can refine the mechanics. (In the software world it often comes across as the "minimum viable product" concept.) I think people who get stuck on details in ways like you mentioned are people who never learned this, whether self taught or formally educated, or they're forgetting those tenets of design.