The first mistake you have made: You came to these forums.

Opinions of all these people are irrelevant. You know why? Because its all about your nationality... Some nations values more the work-power, some the ideas. Evidently, the nation you live in is preferring the ideas over work-power. Where are you from? I guess its some communistic or post-communistic nation.

The question is: Are there some good game developing companies in your country?
If yes: Keep trying. Your GDD have THE value.
If not: Its a waste of time. The America/Eastern Europe will not buy it. These nations lacks the work-power, but they are full of ideas ...

Complete utter B.S.

No one is going to buy a GDD from a nobody who hasn't shown the skills to successfuly lead a team of developers. Sorry, but that's just the way it works.
And 4000(!) pages of game design? Come on, that's just ridiculous. Usually the first design document iteration should be as concise and high level as possible. Game design is (should be) an iterative process, where you implement > test > identitfy problems > redesign > implement... until you have a polished product.

That might sound discouraging but please notice that every once in a while that kind of thread pops up here.
Why don't you reduce your gdd to its essence and try to build a team with which you implement that design. If you have a fun, working game you will have a muuuuch bigger chance to make any money from it.

cheers

Where are you from?

Czech Republic

The problem is, there are already amazing, talented designers pitching their ideas to big companies like EA, but they've actually proven themselves as designers. They have games to backup their claim that they know what fun is. If you don't wanna make music, aren't an artist, can't write, can't do voice overs, and refuse to code, then there's one final option: Find a programmer, an artist, a musician, and a writer. Convince them to work on your project, and get started. If you can somehow pull this miracle off, and get the game(probably a very small game; definitely not your opus--yet) completed and up on the web for others to see, you'll be able to move on to more incrementally larger projects. You never have to know what the hell inheritance or polymorphism is, and you get to do what you want: Design. With those games under your belt, you'll have more clout and actually maybe might somehow get a chance to work with a huge publisher.

That's your absolute best bet.

But remember, there are a ton of people just like you who are also multitalented. I'm a writer, musician and programmer. If I've got a game idea, implementation for me only requires some placeholder art; I can do the rest on my own. I can show that to a true artist and get them onboard if they like my game. On the other hand, you have your design and your design only. It's a harder sell, right? You've got a tough, tough road ahead, but if this is what you want to do then you're going to have to start small.

Edit:: Some of the replies here were probably very harsh and cynical. If so, I hope you don't take those comments as representative of the gamedev community as a whole, or even the general disposition of those who made the comments. It's just that topics like yours are brought up all the time, and people get frustrated having to repeat themselves and still get the same defiant "No, I'm different! I know I can be different!" Maybe you are different. Regardless, I just wanted to say something about the reaction you've been getting.

I'am NOT placing only the basics of the game. Like I explain what the game is about and that more or less about it. In my GDD I do everything.
Lets take the World of Warcraft as an example: I write the story line, I make the races, the classes, the zones, the quests/tasks, the talent points, the skills - I make a name for the skill, I explain how it looks, what kind of sound the usage of the skill makes/what sound it does on impact, and I do complete maths.

Yes, I understood that already.
Are you actually skilled at all that? Are you actually a good writer? Many people think they are, but what do other people think of your writing. Do you have the necessary skill (from 10,000 hours of practical experience) to really balance the skills?

Basically, if you take my GDD, you don't have to ask What kind of enemy is supposed to be here? What is his name? His attributes? How he will react? etc. etc. You just write the code.[/quote]
I "just" write the code, draw the art, model the 3D models, rig the 3D models, animate the 3D models, translate the text into a dozen languages, compose the music, make the sound effects, write the graphic shaders, layout the GUI in culturally-aware ways, draw the 2D textures, balance the server loads of a 5 million players across multiple machines located in geographically distributed areas, handle local government tax laws, legal protection from other companies wanting to sue us, implement credit card transactions (legal-wise and software-wise), and handle two hundred other odds and ends.

But thanks for doing (what you think is) all the hard stuff, and letting us "just" do the rest.
You took one thing (enemy design) and started breaking it down bit by bit. I can take any one of the things I mentioned above, and break it down into a dozen more things, or even hundreds or thousands. If writing the code is really that easy, then every game would look like the best game and would be without flaws or bugs. That's not to say programming is harder than writing... but it's certainly not less than it.

I don't know... I just think this is the most important, the most valuable part in the game development.[/quote]
Yes, because you did it. And you are passionate about your work. That's a good thing. Every musician needs to think, "My music is the most valuable part of the game, so I need to make it the best it can be". And every artist needs to think the same, and every writer, and every programmer. But at the same time, in humility, they need to acknowledge and understand that they are also a single part of a whole, to allow them to get along with, and work alongside, all 20, 50, or 100 other people on the team.

Yes, there is the hard work of coding, recording the music, creating meshes, textures etc. but someone have to bring the in "the game" in the first place, or not?[/quote]
Yeah, a group of people (paid regular salaries) working full time on it from creation of the idea, to continually enhancing and improving and refining the idea all through development until the very end. One person leads it, and the leader is the one who (hopefully) has the most practical experience from working on previous titles and so was promoted to that position by management.

You also cant make a good movie without a good script.[/quote]
Sure you can. You can make very successful and popular movies without a good script if every other part of the movie can compensate. But you can make better movies with a good script AND good everything else.

The script writer doesn't get a percentage of the movie profits, he sells his script for a flat fee, as far as I known. His part is important, but other parts are equally or more important. Other parts including: Stage setting, costume design, acting, directing, camera work, lighting, special effects, etc...

A bad script can be made up for by other parts (as can bad lighting or bad costume design or bad special effects). Bad directing or bad acting cannot be made up for - ruins the entire movie. So you can't say that the script is more important than the directing. I'm not saying that the directing is more important than the script either - but it does have a greater impact (in my opinion).

Idea: Kid finds a alien and befriends it. Excellent execution: E.T.
Idea: War between an empire and a rebellion set in space. Excellent execution: Star Wars.

You cant write a good book without a set of ideas.[/quote]
Here's a good book idea: A lawyer set in the south (every John Grisham novel - made him millions, and I've enjoyed reading them). A CIA operative racing against the clock to stop a war (every Tom Clancy novel - made him millions, and I've enjoyed reading them).

Execution is everything. Ideas are a part of the execution, but don't break or make the execution on their own.

If I come to a prestige novel writer and tell him: "Look, I have an idea which will yell another Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter success." ... Even if its only an idea and HE is the one who have to write it, can and will he just send me to hell?[/quote]
Lord of the Rings wasn't successful until much later. It's success was polish and detail of the world created, not the idea itself. The idea was a rehashing of previous European fairy-tales re-imagined for England. The polish and detail was the time invested in characters, fictional languages, and world. In sort, it was the execution of the writing behind the idea, not the idea itself.

Harry Potter wasn't superbly written, and the idea was nothing new. It wasn't polished too well (but it wasn't butchered either), at least not the first few books that kicked off it's popularity. Harry Potter falls under the same "Fluke" category as Minecraft. Unbeknownst to everybody (including the author), it just happened to be the right idea at the right time and became wildly successful. This from someone who's read all 7 books, and from someone who owns three copies of Minecraft.

(And I'am actually not lying and it really does have the potential).[/quote]
I believe you! But you don't believe me, when I say that many many many ideas have that potential. Many ideas are good ideas - really great ideas. New ideas. But potential does not equal money. Execution on the potential is what makes that potential a success or not. Poor execution ruins it. Great execution makes it. Execution is the deciding factor that makes a good idea into a successful idea. That execution has the choice of a few hundred good ideas to be directed at (and a few thousand bad ideas)... but the execution is the deciding factor of success or not, not the idea itself.

Don't get me wrong: The idea is very important. But there are many great ideas. There are no lack of them available. There is a lack of people who can execute upon ideas to a high level of quality. There is a lack of funding to support those people while they work. The skills get paid, and the funding gets returned to the investor hopefully multiplied. But if I choose great idea A over great idea B, a great game still gets made and still becomes a success.

You want money. Awesome. You want to be paid for something you did in your free time. Full understandable. But very unlikely.
However, if you try to execute the idea, you might make something of it.

I have a great idea for a song, but I don't have the voice to sing it, the skills to play the instruments, the equipment to record it, or the money to market it. So what am I left with? A great idea for a song. Nothing more.
However, if I spend a few years learning to play guitar, and if I invest my own money to pay a recording studio to record it, and if I sing it anyway with my shaky voice, and then I upload it online, my poor prototype might catch the attention of someone who can actually execute on it what the idea deserves - many a well known musician will cover it. Maybe. But if I just leave it as an idea, then it's just an idea - even if it's a great idea.

The idea part isn't the hard part. I can prove it with one simple equation: 1 person + lots of free time + sweat and blood / zero experience = A great idea. Right? Is this not the formula you used?
So how can I calculate the value of that? Let's try two different ways:

First, let's calculate the value if we assume the effort is worth the money:
((sweat and blood * lots of free time) * hourly wage) / number of people = ???
((200 hours) * $20.00) / 1 = $4,000

Second, let's try to calculate the value by scarcity of this resource:
Number of people ... with lots of free time ... who aren't lazy (sweat and blood) ... but have zero experience ...
6 billion (population of the earth) ... 350 million (population of the USA) ... 200 million ... 150 million ...

Right? I know this is rather harsh, but I'm not trying to discourage you. I'm trying to inform you of the reality, and then point you in the right direction.

What is the right direction?
Number of people ... with the skill to make games ... who aren't lazy (sweat and blood) ... but have years of experience ...
6 billion (population of the earth) ... 50 million ... 40 million ... 20 million ...
(Randomly guessing at the numbers)

If ideas on their own were worth money, 6 billion people would be rich. If only good ideas were worth money, 5 billion people would be rich. If only great ideas were worth money, 3 billion people would be rich. If only the super best most fantasticly uniquely incredible ideas were worth money, 500 million people would still be rich.

But an idea, without the effort to back it, is not worth much. Sorry, but that's the actual real truth. I'm not just saying this because I'm jealous of your idea (I also have great ideas!). I'm not saying this because I'm jealous of your passion (I also have passion!). I'm saying this because if you want to actually have your game made (A), or if you want to actually get paid to make games (B), there is an actual path you can take. It won't fall into your lap (but you have passion), and it will take time and effort (but you have years of life remaining and determination and a willingness to learn).

A) To have your game made (and maybe profit off it), learn to make games so you can execute on your own idea. (Indie game development)
B) To get paid for making games (and earn a stable living), learn to make games so you can be hired by a studio. (Studio game development)

Really! Truly! Find out what part of game development you really enjoy, learn the skills behind that part of development, hone your skills through practice and experience, and pursue what you enjoy doing!

Or put your fingers in your ears, and tell us that we're wrong, and your case is super different and people should give you money for your idea on it's own.
Sure you didn't hear what you wanted to hear, and that's unfortunate, but it's the truth. But there is hope, as I explained above, if you are willing to put in more effort and more time (it takes years).

We're not just being mean or grumpy - we're being as polite and helpful as we know how, even if the truth that you don't want to hear is harsher than you expected.
It's hard trying to give hope and point into the right direction someone who doesn't want to hear what we have to say, because he came with a preset answer that he was wanting us to give, and absolutely doesn't want to hear anything but the answer he wants. Please don't be that type of person.

We didn't misunderstand you the first time - really.

I hope I'm not beating the dead horse, but

1. You can't tell if something is professional unless it's peer reviewed by other professionals.
2. As one person (Extra Credits) once said, every budding game designer has at least 5 ideas. In other words, having an idea doesn't make you special.

What a depressing thread... cynicism rains supreme, but it is not all the fault of some, but a corruption of the majority.

It is a shame our world shuns any attempt at creativity, whether or not it is not equitable. Hopefully you have put forth the effort required to create one heck of a GDD and that you can find a team to help create a proof of concept. Start small, the basics, and go from there.

I won't tell you what you can and cannot do, but do not expect words of kindness, unfortunately as already pointed out, everyone feels their ideas are greater than great. I pity those with the technical skill that cannot abide by taking in information and advice from others while I applaud those that do. Ideas alone can be worthless or even great, but the ideas must be presented in a way that lets them shine. Continue developing your GDD and do with it what you can. Try and present it to as many open minds/ears as possible and accept criticism and advice with humility. If you have the fortune to succeed you can look back at those that shunned you, but I hope you are more capable of tolerance and show the patience required to be hospitable in return.

Hrm, now where did I leave that beer?

I pity those with the technical skill that cannot abide by taking in information and advice from others [...]

I wonder, where the myth that tech people are too inimaginative to design a game comes from. In my entire life I have not met even one coder that would be uncapable of designing a simple game. I mean, what kind of talent it takes to design a "fly the space ship to the top of the screen and shot at incoming enemy ships while watching your lives/energy go down and your score go up"? A lot of games are really, really trivial to design (not all, designing a strategy game require a true designer, also RPGs with their quests might benefit greatly from a pro designer).

The division for tech talented people and design talented people is artificial and untrue. Basicly ALL tech people (with so few exceptions it is not worth mentioning) are also quite decent designers. I mean, if they were not why would they learn how to code in the first place? All those tech people are tech people because they were designers first (wanted to make games) and they become tech people because it was helping in their design part.

So, a designer that never switched to a tech/art person and stayed "just a designer" forever is simply someone who was not excited enough about making games.

The division for tech talented people and design talented people is artificial and untrue. Basicly ALL tech people (with so few exceptions it is not worth mentioning) are also quite decent designers. I mean, if they were not why would they learn how to code in the first place? All those tech people are tech people because they were designers first (wanted to make games) and they become tech people because it was helping in their design part.

I'm not so sure of "ALL", there's a lot of "code monkeys" out there, that seem perfectly happy to never personally develop or make any innovation at all for them selfs.
They just want to write code someone else tells them to from 8-5 and then cash out their check and forget about it.
It's of course partly the organisations fault, but not everyone are creative

I do though agree that there really is nothing mutually exclusive between the two, and most if not all that are involved in game development, specially in small teams, have a lot of creativity, and must have to do their job properly.
To create a great product, you need a lot of passion, and you need it from _all_ members of the team, and make all feel like they "own" it, and get their input considered.
Creating and maintaining such a team is not easy, and ability to do so is a big part of what makes "wannabes" become "successful".
Most that do have strong technical or art skill or both too, because that makes it a lot easier to lead-by-example, and competent people tend to respect competence.

I'm not so sure of "ALL", there's a lot of "code monkeys" out there, that seem perfectly happy to never personally develop or make any innovation at all for them selfs. They just want to write code someone else tells them to from 8-5 and then cash out their check and forget about it.

Yes and no Yes, if we talk about the world's population as a whole there are many programmers that have aboslutely no design skills/talent, they make business software. But when it comes to the subset of programmers that work in the gaming industry they ALL have design skills of some sort, that's why they find making games more fun than making business software.

Note that being a programmer in the gaming industry basicly always means less income than if you were a programmer in business software industry. So, by evolution, only those programmers who have design skills (desire to make games) are in the gaming industry. This almost guarantee that any programmer making a game will have at least some basic design talent (if you don't care if you are making a game or a biz software you will go for the better paid task, which is not games for sure ).

What a depressing thread... cynicism rains supreme, but it is not all the fault of some, but a corruption of the majority.

I don't think people are all that negative really. Possibly just a bit fed up with the constant stream of "idea guys".

All that people in this thread are really saying is you need _more_ then "just a gdd" to get your game made.
And some excellent feedback on what is needed

It's just reality based on simple principles like supply and demand...