Ask A Game Dev! - We Are Your Friend's Uncle

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Ask A Game Dev! - We Are Your Friend's Uncle

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

GC_ChrisReeves posted:

Probably the thing that has depressed me more than anything about this story, regardless of the reality of life there, was how quickly gamers came to the defence of the idea of 100 hour weeks and how it's fine and totally normal look they all enjoy it and are millionaires shut up about working conditions and give me my videogame!!!

Y'all, devs deserve a life outside of the office.

John Carmack, famous for amongst other things having an insane work ethic he understands is extraordinary, said he's never worked that much in a week

https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1051874929631789056?s=19

Gamers are largely just reactionaries

# ¿ Oct 30, 2018 03:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 17:30

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

c355n4 posted:

Are there any good up to date VR dev tutorials? I'm coming from a professional background of C# development so looking at using Unity. I'd like to play around with some personal projects and not looking to go BIG or whatever. I've come across a few; but, I'm getting the distinct feeling that the development tools/libraries are in a large state of flux still. I guess I should just dive in; but, I I'd like to minimize missteps.

This guy has some good videos https://www.youtube.com/c/ValemVR/videos and if you look up a few like this one: https://www.youtube.com/c/ValemVR/videos it has step by step instructions on getting stuff set up. This was a bit over a year ago though, but my game I'm working on in Unity I'm still using those older settings (there are various reasons why newer versions can be a pain).

# ¿ Jul 12, 2021 18:41

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

c355n4 posted:

I was actually watching his videos. Cool. Still trying to wrap my head around all the various version of Unity and their pros/cons.

I would check this page out https://skarredghost.com/2020/09/25/steamvr-unity-xr-interaction-toolkit-input/ since there are some issues with making builds that work with all the various platforms and headsets. I personally am using Unity 2019.3.15f (I think) and using the legacy settings, since I'm trying to build everything in UnityXR to keep things relatively platform agnostic

# ¿ Jul 12, 2021 19:28

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

chglcu posted:

You don�t actually like games anymore and haven�t yet accepted it. The old ones only seem good due to nostalgia.

At least, I�m pretty sure that�s where I�m at these days.

Old games often seem more interesting because they were trying out new things before people had learned all the bullshit "rules" that make sure new games all feel samey and stale. If you didn't have a huge amount of stuff to copy from, sometimes you'd have to create something new, but now most games are just mixes and rehashes of stuff that's already been done

Of course, that doesn't make all old games good, but that's why they can feel fresher than stuff that just came out sometimes

# ¿ Jun 9, 2022 04:03

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Chernabog posted:

Also, if you are getting interviews you are already past the hardest part. It means that at least on paper you are ready or else they wouldn't be wasting their time with you.

On the other topic, I'm gonna say AAA in general don't suck. You'll always have both good and bad games and IMO it hasn't really gone in either direction recently.

They're local maximum versions of games that have been iterated on for decades, polished to a mirror shine and completely bereft of any new ideas. They aren't bad games, but they're not fresh or interesting

My opinion of the current state of games (or at least, primarily AAA games), is pretty much summed up in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOQzTtsr3AQ

# ¿ Jun 9, 2022 22:27

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

rojay posted:

I think that video may say more about the state of the gaming press than the state of games.

It's very difficult to review anything without referencing something else. When the purpose of your article/video is to give people a way to assess whether they will like a thing, the easiest way to do it is to compare that thing to other things that your readers/viewers already know/understand. I don't write about games, but I do write about food and if I'm trying to describe the taste of something like yuzu I'm going to have a hard time not making a comparison to other citrus fruit.

I agree with you in the sense that lots of things people work on are referential and build on other things, but I disagree in that I think that does apply to game devs as much as it applies to gaming press. I actually think a good example of this is Elden Ring, and how far down the dodge roll rabbit hole things have gone. The dodge roll is a mechanic that I really don't like that much, so I have some bias here, but part of it is how it's kind of fundamentally a nonsense thing to have, but it exists because of the progression of how these kinds of games have been iterated on. The entire game is based around a mechanic that only exists as a result of referencing other kinds of games that have dodge rolls, and it's such an expected part of how these games work now that all the enemies are built around that entirely. Lots of bosses come down to more or less memorization of exactly when you should dodge roll, and boss attacks and stuff have continued to evolve around that. One thing Elden Ring has a lot of (which I think is particularly nasty) are the hesitation attacks and the homing attacks of the bosses, so you really just have no positioning or reaction based (or your reactions have to be insane) alternatives, you just have to memorize the exact times to use the dodge roll

I don't think this is the kind of thing that would get created if you were designing a game without reference to other things; it's an iterative kind of mechanic, that is based on pushing things that players are already familiar with to their limit. I don't think it's inherently bad or anything (although, again, I personally don't like it), but I've already played a ton of dodge roll action games and it's not really that interesting to me. I played through Elden Ring because the rest of the game was great (the world building, first and foremost), but that part of the combat was just something to get past.

My main point is that I think that lots of games are just in local maximums where they're iterating on what's come before them, and their creation and design is entirely built on referencing things other game developers have already done. This results in a lot of games that are still good, but aren't all that innovative or different from what came before them. The huge catalogue of games that exist kind of pigeonhole new things that get made, and it seems hard for devs to break out of that (I recognize that a massive part of that is just shareholders trying to guarantee returns on their investment, which causes safe things to get made), even in the indie space these days. I dunno, I'm sure part of it is that I'm getting older too, but it really does seem like we're not seeing as many new and fresh things as you would hope

# ¿ Jun 10, 2022 18:03

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

TooMuchAbstraction posted:

You're not wrong about this, but I think it bears emphasizing just how loving risky it is to try new stuff. If you have a machine that prints money, why the hell would you mess with it? From Software has spent the better part of two decades refining their formula, and now are able to put out a new game every few years that will reliably be a modest success. That's goddamn amazing for gamedev; very few studios get to that point.

There's two main reasons why you see so much more experimentation in the indie space. The first is that budgets are much smaller (like, two orders of magnitude smaller!). That means that indies simply can't follow the latest formulae, which tend to have very high minimum investments to produce. You can't realistically do a good open-world game as a small indie studio, for example. The second reason is that indies are desperate to be seen, and one of the ways to do that is to make something that's different from what everyone else is doing.

Note that neither of those reasons has anything in particular to do with artistic integrity, exploring the space of what videogames are capable of, or other fuzzy concepts. That's not to say that people don't do that too, but they're generally not going to be making a business out of it, and they're not going to be getting the kind of press attention that means most people will have heard of them.

Absolutely. I don't really mean to say that any individual person or entity is making the *wrong* decision, but I think it's a real, significant effect and I think that innovation really has been in decline in the recent past. Of course, I acknowledge it could just be a bias, but it's why I think if people care about this kind of thing, I don't think it's a mistake to look at some older stuff and see how things were done differently for some kind of inspiration, since it's not just nostalgia.

I also do think there's a lot of room to be successful in doing this kind of thing. I'd agree it's risky, but I also think that people respond to innovation. Look at the battle royale genre - it's one of the most explicitly, clearly new things that's come out in a while (even though it's already progressed to the iterated on and smooth and potentially stale stage of things), and it's led to some of the biggest games out there and huge, wild successes

It gives me hope that we aren't stuck in a place where this is as good as it gets, there's still lots of potential. It's not clear to me how to make that kind of thing happen, though. I got frustrated in the VR space with this same kind of thing happening, so I started making my own stuff, and while that's working for me personally, it's also not clear how to make a wider impact than just working on whatever I can

# ¿ Jun 10, 2022 20:56

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

leper khan posted:

Innovation matters very little. Most of the big titles weren't really innovative. Instead they synthesized ideas at a very high level of execution.

I mean, if that were completely true and innovation barely mattered then platformers would still be the biggest games. I agree it's not the only factor, but I think it's very clear that people as a whole still do value new and interesting things, even if it's not valued *as much* as something familiar that's well executed. There's obviously a factor where bigger budget studios and game devs can take new ideas from smaller guys, iterate on it and polish it a bit, then release it at a higher level of quality to a broader audience, which is a little unfair, but that wouldn't be a successful strategy if people weren't interested in things that were new to them

TooMuchAbstraction posted:

Again, there's plenty of innovation in the indie space, because (by the nature of the environment indies develop in) there has to be. Look there for the new stuff. Do not look to AAA to take risks and experiment with the format, because they're not going to do it. They'll wait for someone to discover something new, and then they'll refine it and show what can happen if you throw a hundred million dollars or more at it.

Innovation has not be in decline. What's been in decline is the visibility of the innovation that's happening, because so much of the press is dedicated to covering AAA content, and AAA content is not about innovating.

I dunno, I wouldn't try to argue there's no innovation in the indie space, and there's too much to be aware of for some of the reasons you've outlined, but I feel like we're getting more and more to the stage where people making video games as a whole have been playing video games for so long that it's getting more difficult not to think about making stuff in the context of stuff they've already played before. It feels like it's difficult to create new things when you're so influenced by things that already exist, you're kind of primed to consider doing things in a similar way to how you've seen it done before

I'm not trying to argue it's not happening, but it feels like the industry is kind of stagnant right now, to me

# ¿ Jun 10, 2022 21:15

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

All the gambling poo poo is bad because it preys on people's addictions and it's horrifyingly effective. The more it works the more they'll do it, and those strategies and tactics bleed out into the rest of the industry. It loving sucks and I don't see a solution except making it illegal, but that'll never happen

# ¿ Jun 25, 2022 20:57

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

leper khan posted:

Don't know what to tell you, but I could go buy some crystals or supplements right now if I wanted to. Also free to praise Satan.

Sorry you're just now coming to the realization that the world isn't built for you. Or that people build things, often, with financial motives. It'd be cool if we lived in the stat trek future you think we should, but we're in the bad timeline if you hadn't heard.

Talk to your legislators or run for office if you care about regulating it.

I'm not sure where you think you are, but this is a video game forum. It's actually perfectly fine to complain here about horrible gambling poo poo that sucks rear end and is spreading like a virus in gaming.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2022 21:19

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

I don't think "free to play" and "horribly exploitative gambling trash" are the same thing at all, despite lots of gambling things being free to play. There's also of plenty bad degenerative paid gambling things in non free games, and it's definitely important not to throw the baby out with the bath water

Loot boxes where you have to gamble to get what you want instead of being able to directly buy the thing you want is pretty transparently bad

# ¿ Jun 25, 2022 22:24

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

leper khan posted:

This is the thread for people who earn their keep in this industry.

Thanks, I know, that's why I'm here

leper khan posted:

If you don't like a game, vote with your wallet. There are plenty of art games being made, and games by small teams not equipped for the content grinder of live services.

Large commercial organizations will maximize revenues. They always have. If your problem is you want the bombast of large budgets but don't like the monetization practices associated, you've regrettably been left behind. Until something more effective comes along, more of the larger experiences will trend toward social and micro transactions. Because these are effective in the market today.

This transition isn't really any different from pinball, coin op arcades, subscription mmos, or any of the other business model trends that have come and gone in the industry.

If you wait long enough, something worse will come along. But there's some quality products (among mountains of rubbish) across business models and throughout time. The profit motive isn't new, and it will not go away.

Again, yeah, I know. As I posted earlier, I don't think any of this will change unless it just becomes straight up illegal, because it's the best path for any individual company to maximize revenue for their games. It still sucks, regardless of how much market forces causes it to be the status quo

MJBuddy posted:

Was it bad in Mass Effect 3?

Like I really enjoyed the era in loot box systems where you were guaranteed no shoes and such. I didn't have any problem with Halo 5's cosmetic unlocks through boxes or ME3 locking all progression behind them. Frankly I personally have a bigger issue with the impulse behind subscription services to play nothing but the thing I've paid for to feel like I'm getting my money's worth (which is less of a problem now that I have some more income to work with). I spent more on WoW than on any F2P game in both time and money and at the end of it I was still rolling for loot from raid bosses. Halo Infinite has no loot boxes and a cash shop and people absolutely lost their poo poo over the their pricing model and called it FOMO. If you release a $60 boxed game with a little bit of progression and unlocks and stop updating it, your fans will absolutely show up and complain about how they've been abandoned and how the devs stopped supporting them.

There's absolutely nothing you can do in this industry that involves money changing hands that won't get poo poo on. That doesn't mean that one method isn't worse in some ways than others or that people should say gently caress it and just go all in on brain hacking monetization (though a bunch of people absolutely will).

I've said before, probably here, that the finest line I can draw is that kids should not be exposed to RNG monetization. My 5 year old cannot do probability. He can't understand "value". It's unethical to attempt to sell to him something that he cannot comprehend what it is worth. But selling dumb poo poo to kids with lies is older than videogames and barely anything has been done to protect them there other than toys not being allowed to be literally weapons or poison (and they gently caress this up constantly!).

Honestly, like everything, I think there are degrees, and while Mass Effect 3 was less exploitative than lots of other implementations (in that you can earn pretty much everything relevant for free just by playing more, unlike lots of games where you literally have to pay to gamble or you can't reasonably progress), it's still going to prey on the people who are weak to that kind of thing, and there will be lots of people who dump in more money than they can afford because they can't stop gambling. If you couldn't buy more lootboxes directly, but could do something like pay for xp multiplier or that kind of thing, that would be a soft cap on how much money you could spend and ensure that swiping your credit card wasn't a direct pull on the lever, I think you could create a system where there's still randomness, but it's not directly exploitative

WoW, as you brought up, is a good example of that - no matter how much money you pay, you don't get more rolls. You need to actually play to get those rolls, and even if you wanted to, the game physically does not let you gamble tens of thousands of dollars at rolls for better loot.

And I agree that people are going to be unhappy no matter what. For my part, I've had players directly ask me to add loot boxes, which seems like complete insanity, but obviously people go for that kind of thing to some degree because they genuinely like it. People want things that are bad for them all the time. Ultimately, I'm mostly talking about game patterns that target the gambling portion of your brain, it's something that not everyone is weak to, but a significant portion of people are, and it's so insanely lucrative to just farm those players for cash that it pushes out doing other things just because that works so well. I'd disagree with your point about children only because I don't think many adults are actually that much better off in terms of understanding risk/reward/value, I think the problem with gambling is it just comes down fundamentally to a part of your brain that just loves pulling the lever and going through that action itself, I don't even think it's about the possibility of a good reward or whatever. It's why so many people who win big gambling eventually lose it all; even though they've already won, all they really *want* is to gamble, so the gambling doesn't need to be with real money to be destructive

# ¿ Jun 26, 2022 00:09

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Fangz posted:

I think these days it's just better to trust the player and give them the options to adjust difficulty themselves at any point while playing the game.

I like when this is done through gameplay, not through dedicated difficulty selection or whatever. I'm not the biggest fan of Elden Ring, but stuff like having the option when you get stuck on a boss to grind, change your build, get more consumables, get more summons, get some online no-lifer to solo the boss for you, etc, are all options to tune how difficult it is based on what you're willing to put in

Of course, this only works for certain kinds of games. For something linear like a Call of Duty or Uncharted or whatever, you have to go back to the concept of a difficulty setting, but I think those games are less interesting anyway

# ¿ Jul 29, 2022 17:00

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

I think part of the disagreement might be coming from the word "should." I don't think I'd disagree with any of the arguments in particular about giving games ways of changing how difficult they are in terms of the impacts they would have (they'd allow more people to play the game, some of whom couldn't otherwise progress at all, people want to play in different ways, sometimes people just want to chill out, playing in one way doesn't impact people who play in a different way, etc), and I wouldn't disagree that there are a lot of benefits to these aspects, and I could even agree that as a whole, this is something games should generally do better (especially given that AAA games have the time and resources to do it well), but I would definitely disagree with blanket statements like "players should be able to make all games as easy as they want."

I definitely don't think it's wrong for any particular game to make a decision to make something in a certain way, in the sense that they "should" do something else. You can definitely argue about the merits of decisions, whether they think they're good decisions or not, and what differences you'd personally like to see, but if we're going to consider games as being some form of creative expression, I really don't like the attitude of there being some kind of objectively correct/incorrect ways to make them

That said, I also think there's a difference between accessibility in terms of like, game difficulty, and stuff like colorblind mode, ability to remap controls, change the font size, subtitles for audio, etc. For the most part I think those kinds of accessibility things are less likely to conflict with the core game, and if there's not a particular impact on the game itself, it's probably better for this kind of thing to be accommodated

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 23:58

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Fangz posted:

If you can accept that games should make allowance for colour blindness, why is it different to say that games should make allowance for the fact that human reaction times vary by a factor of two or more, so for significant numbers of players the game is effectively running at twice the speed and there's nothing they can do about it?

I don't think criticising an artwork is implicitly saying there's objective correctness in art. If someone says "no artwork should shoot spikes into viewers eyeballs/be made of the skin of endangered animals/display child pornography", it would be extremely anal to protest that as an objective constraint on creative expression.

If people can come up with a persuasive reason for a game to not grant difficulty options, then fine. But "some games are about the challenge" isn't one, because it fails to engage with my point that I *want those difficulty options so I can engage with that challenge*.

This is part of why I was trying to be careful with my language; I think if something is going to impact the core of your game, like the main thing you're trying to do with the game, then that's a reasonable choice to do something that would end up making the game less accessible for some people. Admittedly I can't think of an example offhand, but I can imagine that if someone made a game that was really focused on the use of color, it might be difficult or impossible to make a version that's accessible for people who are color blind. Like there are plenty of paintings that would lose a lot of their nuance and impact if you saw them and you were colorblind, I don't think it means that the artist "should" have painted it differently

I think for things like colorblindness, remapping controls, better subtitles, ability to resize fonts, etc, I think those are all things that are significantly less likely to impact the core of the game, which is why I said generally, those are probably good things to do, given time and resource constraints. I think the core mechanics of a game are much, much more likely to be intimately related to how "difficult" the game is, and it's going to be much more likely that changing the difficultly will have a bigger impact on how the game is played, which is why I think it's much more often going to be in that area where it's much more difficult to be able to reasonably say that one choice is the "wrong" one vs another choice

Fangz posted:

I don't think criticising an artwork is implicitly saying there's objective correctness in art. If someone says "no artwork should shoot spikes into viewers eyeballs/be made of the skin of endangered animals/display child pornography", it would be extremely anal to protest that as an objective constraint on creative expression.

Alright, I think this is a little bit unfair. We're talking about video games, not insanely hosed up crimes. I think you can reasonably intuit that nobody here is saying morality doesn't exist but in the eye of the beholder. I tried to be reasonable in pointing out the particular use of the word "should" and that it has a lot of heavy implications behind it, and that was likely a big piece of the disagreement, because people here on both sides are pretty clearly passionate about the topic

Fangz posted:

If people can come up with a persuasive reason for a game to not grant difficulty options, then fine. But "some games are about the challenge" isn't one, because it fails to engage with my point that I *want those difficulty options so I can engage with that challenge*.

A strong, reasonable reason is "the creator of the game didn't want to make that game." It's not like it's trivial to make a game fun and engaging in the first place, let alone also with a bunch of different difficulties, regardless of whether that's even the kind of game the developers wanted to make. Like yeah, I also think it's totally reasonable to be frustrated if a game you would otherwise want to play doesn't have those options, and I think it's reasonable and valid to be annoyed with them and say you think it's lovely. But I also think it's valid for developers to make something in the way they want to make it

I think Getting Over It is a great example of this - it's literally a game specifically made to gently caress you over and be unreasonably frustrating and piss you off. The fucker even makes fun of you for it while you're playing it. But man, it really would have been a completely different game with a bunch of difficultly settings, and I really don't think it would have been better for it. I get that it's an extreme example and *most* games aren't specifically trying to make you pissed off, so I'm not trying to argue that it somehow invalidates the idea that it's good for games to have more difficulty options, but I think it's a good example of something that I don't think someone could make a really convincing case that it "should" have difficultly settings

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 00:40

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Fangz posted:

Most difficulty options are not that hard to implement. Letting people slow down the game speed by a few percent is not massively more challenging than rejigging the UI to accomodate font rescaling, or designing for colour blindness.

Where do you draw the line here? Because the line seems to be drawn at: "any criticism of games is impossible outside of pointing out outright criminality."

Like, what do you get out of:

What critique is actually allowed by this?

The reality here is that you're supposed to take the subjectivity as implicit. When I say "all games should have difficulty options", that's me saying "I want all games to have difficulty options, it sucks, for me, that I can't play the majority of games I want to play". The creator may have chosen to do this thing, but I choose to say that by doing this thing, the creator is being cruel to me just so some assholes can feel they are better than me.

It's an unnecessary bit of pedantry to raise this whole creator choice/objective correctness/is it valid to do X stuff. I mean I don't jump on people who critique AAA games as being too dumbed down with "the creator choose this, are your saying their choice isn't valid!!!?"

Sure I can. There's frustrating and then there's "this game is impossible". The game is designed around you getting over a series of challenges and then being faced with a new challenge that fucks you over in a new way, with narration triggered as a result of that. The player is meant to engage with each of the new and different ways the game fucks you over. The game fails as a design if the player never gets over the first obstacle after 2000 hours of play and thus never encounters any of the cleverness the designer puts into it. Adding in options to alter the game's speed would probably be fairly simple addition.

Again. I want difficulty options so I CAN RECEIVE THAT DESIRED EXPERIENCE. This is why I am getting pissed off. I keep making this point but it seems to just slide off. It is impossible for a game to structure content to deliver a consistent experience unless it recognises that players are different.

Difficultly options need to be designed, and game design is really hard. Like, sure, in some games, slowing down the speed might be appropriate, but that's not always going to be reasonable, valid, or fun. If it's a strategy game, how do you balance it, so it's easier but the gameplay is still focused on being strategic? It'd be straightforward to make every game trivial, but if you're arguing you want degrees of difficultly, then that's a whole new design space that needs to be accommodated for. I'm not saying it's necessarily difficult in many situations, but there are absolutely games where it's not straightforward.

And yeah, for game criticism, I explicitly already said that I think there are plenty of reasonable criticisms to make (I even pointed out some: "You can definitely argue about the merits of decisions, whether they think they're good decisions or not, and what differences you'd personally like to see"). I'm trying to be specific around terminology because again, "should" has a lot of weight behind it that if you use that word, you're communicating even if you don't necessarily mean to. My bet is that if you had said "I want all games to have difficulty options, it sucks, for me, that I can't play the majority of games I want to play" to begin with, you wouldn't have gotten the same kind of pushback on this topic. I absolutely agree that it's good and healthy to criticize games! I think people who make games have latitude to make games in the way they want to make them, and we as players have the same latitude to criticize and talk about what we think rules and what we think sucks.

I think the core of the disagreement is here - "The game fails as a design if the player never gets over the first obstacle" - I absolutely disagree with this. I can't really think of any kind of art where it would be reasonable or expected for everyone to fully "get it," regardless of what that means (not everyone is going to follow what happened in a book, or get the themes of a movie, or be moved by a painting in the way the artist intended). I think it's a reasonable goal for a game to have to be broadly accessible in that way, but I don't think that kind of thing determines if a specific game is a success or a failure

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 02:01

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

History Comes Inside! posted:

Vast majority of people

24 people in the whole world have done it

Ok then!

I think that's a pretty uncharitable reading of their argument - its pretty clearly about potential. To go back to an earlier example, it's like how most people could become extremely skilled in playing an instrument given enough time and effort. It's not saying that everyone is already really good, but the potential is there

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 23:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 17:30

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

TooMuchAbstraction posted:

Folks that have shipped games: how long does it usually take you to feel recovered, afterwards? I shipped my game early February, and I'm still feeling under the weather. Even given two weeks of post-launch support, that seems like a long recovery time to me, but I don't exactly have a ton of experience in this domain.

I think part of it is the gap in expectations vs how you feel, and ultimately I think it's hard to actually get that feeling of external validation that you think you'll end up getting. I think it's easier to intellectually feel proud and accomplished than to really feel it emotionally, and it feels like you missed out on something you thought you should've gotten. At least that's how I've felt. For me it helped to just recognize that I'm probably just not going to get that good feeling, and to be ok with that. That might just be a personal thing for me, but I think it has helped me to acknowledge to myself that that's just how I work.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2023 01:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Ask A Game Dev! - We Are Your Friend's Uncle