Sorry but this is a Dunning-Kruger type of post. It's good that you're making progress on your game and increasing your knowledge but you're falling in the trap of thinking that you can guess what the entire picture looks like just because you've seen a glimpse of its corner. Some things are relatively simple to code by themselves but inserting them in a giant machine full of many different parts made by many different people and then ensuring that everything plays well with each other... well that's never easy. That's the kind of thing you don't learn to overcome by reading theory but can only be acquired through experience. I'm referring to software here since that's the focus of your post but the other point is that art/music/design is magnitude harder to learn and can also only be acquired by grinding a lot. You always have to "just put the time in" but it's called difficult because the vast majority of people attempting it fail.
At the end of the day, it's easy to tape up a simple game, alone, with store assets and a pre-made engine but making a good high quality game that can compete with what's out there on budget/time is difficult... If it wasn't, everyone would do it.
I agree that the big studios devs bitching on Twitter are stupid. Not only do they flip assets from megascan and others but they also contract 3rd world studios to fill the holes left by their unskilled diversity hires. The managers are selling you high poly photorealism because it's a deceptively cheap art style and no one's left at the top with the talent to have a real artistic vision. A game like Elden Ring is magnitude harder to make than Spiderman 2. If that's what you meant in your OP then we're in agreement. Sorry my reply was with the assumption that you were taking a slap at all game devs including the ones still trying to make good products.
Companies make their games exponentially harder to make by writing absolute messes in the programming. Some of the games I play are apparently so bad they have significant difficulty in doing basic bug fixes for things you would think are unrelated to any aspects of their gameplay (like sun glare for example) that then totally break the game and spring up a dozen new issues.
I think the issue is that as difficult as game design can be, it's still not as difficult as many within the industry make it out to be. And it should be noted that many of the biggest successes in recent history either started or were overwhelmingly single person efforts. Things like Minecraft, Stardew Valley, Papers Please, Undertale, FNAF, Spelunky, Braid, and plenty more. And no, these games aren't the pinnacle of game design, and they're not for everyone. They're also the exception for success. But the idea that it's some gargantuan task that cannot be achieved, considering just how many have happened over the past 15+ years? Well, it's just a bit silly to discount it. And sure, many will fail. Most will probably barely get any traction (just take a look at itch.io to see what I mean there). But if you're a creative type and you want to make something, why not try? Hell, even if you're not a creative type, why not try something? There are more resources now than ever before. So why not cut your teeth on something and have a little fun making what you want?
All of these successes you named happened before the so called "indiepocalypse" and are the result of a decade of experience prior or from the project itself. This is survivorship bias. Success takes time, resilience, discipline, talent and a lot of luck but even then you'll still probably lose. Look, the vast majority of people fail to become marketable artists, musicians, writers, engineers.. why do you feel the need to claim that a task combining all of the above and more is "not that hard"? It's unrealistic. I encourage everyone that has the desire to do it and to support each other but never to lie to themselves and distort reality as a coping mechanism.. this path is a long road littered with the corpses of past failures. Most people don't find it fun (which is why they quit) and even those that do wouldn't dare to claim it's fun most of the time. Rewarding might be a better term but only if you can appreciate self growth more than materialistic rewards.. because even in success gatekeepers take a large cut of your usually small earnings, the audience loves you as much as they hate you while the rest of the world either doesn't get it or wants to use you. Dramatic? Yes lol. But am I wrong? No. This is how you present it. You still want to be a game dev after hearing that? Go for it you crazy mother fucker :D
Because "design" is the easiest part. You can do it in fucking excel. I know because I've done it.
Art direction is hard (can't do it) writing is hard (have done it) writing dialog is worse (only Tarantino does it)
The problem is with vision because of crisscrossed incentives. Wherever money conflicts with design money wins 7-3. The stronger the vison and the tighter your controls thereof the better you can do, but designing a "great X genre game" is relitively easy. Designing it within budget, space, time, licencing, producer demand, and purchasibiluty requirements is harder. Take X-Com. The best version of Xcom is Long War and Long War 2. Designed by unpaid amateurs. How can they manage it? Cause ALllllllll the bullshit disappears, from needing to appeal broadly, to having DLC hooks, to being "accesible" all of which throw numerous kinks in the process.
Or 40k. The rules are shackled by their archaic production model, as well as being hamstrung by a number of rules only kept around to keep the models selling. The fan versions beat it to pieces by virtually every metric.
Sorry but this is a Dunning-Kruger type of post. It's good that you're making progress on your game and increasing your knowledge but you're falling in the trap of thinking that you can guess what the entire picture looks like just because you've seen a glimpse of its corner. Some things are relatively simple to code by themselves but inserting them in a giant machine full of many different parts made by many different people and then ensuring that everything plays well with each other... well that's never easy. That's the kind of thing you don't learn to overcome by reading theory but can only be acquired through experience. I'm referring to software here since that's the focus of your post but the other point is that art/music/design is magnitude harder to learn and can also only be acquired by grinding a lot. You always have to "just put the time in" but it's called difficult because the vast majority of people attempting it fail.
At the end of the day, it's easy to tape up a simple game, alone, with store assets and a pre-made engine but making a good high quality game that can compete with what's out there on budget/time is difficult... If it wasn't, everyone would do it.
I agree that the big studios devs bitching on Twitter are stupid. Not only do they flip assets from megascan and others but they also contract 3rd world studios to fill the holes left by their unskilled diversity hires. The managers are selling you high poly photorealism because it's a deceptively cheap art style and no one's left at the top with the talent to have a real artistic vision. A game like Elden Ring is magnitude harder to make than Spiderman 2. If that's what you meant in your OP then we're in agreement. Sorry my reply was with the assumption that you were taking a slap at all game devs including the ones still trying to make good products.
Companies make their games exponentially harder to make by writing absolute messes in the programming. Some of the games I play are apparently so bad they have significant difficulty in doing basic bug fixes for things you would think are unrelated to any aspects of their gameplay (like sun glare for example) that then totally break the game and spring up a dozen new issues.
I think the issue is that as difficult as game design can be, it's still not as difficult as many within the industry make it out to be. And it should be noted that many of the biggest successes in recent history either started or were overwhelmingly single person efforts. Things like Minecraft, Stardew Valley, Papers Please, Undertale, FNAF, Spelunky, Braid, and plenty more. And no, these games aren't the pinnacle of game design, and they're not for everyone. They're also the exception for success. But the idea that it's some gargantuan task that cannot be achieved, considering just how many have happened over the past 15+ years? Well, it's just a bit silly to discount it. And sure, many will fail. Most will probably barely get any traction (just take a look at itch.io to see what I mean there). But if you're a creative type and you want to make something, why not try? Hell, even if you're not a creative type, why not try something? There are more resources now than ever before. So why not cut your teeth on something and have a little fun making what you want?
All of these successes you named happened before the so called "indiepocalypse" and are the result of a decade of experience prior or from the project itself. This is survivorship bias. Success takes time, resilience, discipline, talent and a lot of luck but even then you'll still probably lose. Look, the vast majority of people fail to become marketable artists, musicians, writers, engineers.. why do you feel the need to claim that a task combining all of the above and more is "not that hard"? It's unrealistic. I encourage everyone that has the desire to do it and to support each other but never to lie to themselves and distort reality as a coping mechanism.. this path is a long road littered with the corpses of past failures. Most people don't find it fun (which is why they quit) and even those that do wouldn't dare to claim it's fun most of the time. Rewarding might be a better term but only if you can appreciate self growth more than materialistic rewards.. because even in success gatekeepers take a large cut of your usually small earnings, the audience loves you as much as they hate you while the rest of the world either doesn't get it or wants to use you. Dramatic? Yes lol. But am I wrong? No. This is how you present it. You still want to be a game dev after hearing that? Go for it you crazy mother fucker :D
Because "design" is the easiest part. You can do it in fucking excel. I know because I've done it.
Art direction is hard (can't do it) writing is hard (have done it) writing dialog is worse (only Tarantino does it)
The problem is with vision because of crisscrossed incentives. Wherever money conflicts with design money wins 7-3. The stronger the vison and the tighter your controls thereof the better you can do, but designing a "great X genre game" is relitively easy. Designing it within budget, space, time, licencing, producer demand, and purchasibiluty requirements is harder. Take X-Com. The best version of Xcom is Long War and Long War 2. Designed by unpaid amateurs. How can they manage it? Cause ALllllllll the bullshit disappears, from needing to appeal broadly, to having DLC hooks, to being "accesible" all of which throw numerous kinks in the process.
Or 40k. The rules are shackled by their archaic production model, as well as being hamstrung by a number of rules only kept around to keep the models selling. The fan versions beat it to pieces by virtually every metric.
Yup.