This game programming stuff is way easier than anything else.

<sarcasm>

Ahh yes, all of us engineers are just a bunch of untalented nobodies who just sit around picking their noses all day? Surely anyone can do that kind of job, I mean it's all just writing stupid text files right?

All those AAA studios having hundreds of these guys working for years on a project and even crunching for weeks or months at a time is all just a massive conspiracy to make you believe that programming games is actually difficult! Wake up sheeple!

</sarcasm>

This thread is ridiculous

Out of interest, can you describe a game you want to make that proves how easy all this stuff is, and how long do think it would to create it, if you had to start today?

Its time for me to duck out of this thread with some grace. I'm not gonna start a bickering match.

Before you go (presuming that I haven't missed you already), I'd like to ask something:

You said:

I think all games are easy to make. Its just what I believe.

If I may ask, what prompts you to believe that?

For the sake of clarity, while I do have some degree of rhetorical purpose in asking, I genuinely am curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

I can't imagine scripting taking a long time

In that case, you're unfortunately imagining inaccurately.

Theres no reason why they couldn't release a halo with 100 guns and 100 vehicles. They just don't.

The reasons they don't release a Halo with 100 guns and 100 vehicles are:

• Cost. It would be expensive to pay for all of the necessary content to be created. You would need to pay for artists to create the graphics, programmers to script the logic (or at least a designer to tweak the numbers of an existing script), and audio professionals to add sounds.
• Time. It takes time to create all of the assets for a weapon or vehicle and to implement the scripted logic, and it takes time to test the game-balance.
• Gameplay. Most games already have a couple of dominant items that most players use because it is hard to balance the gameplay with many different items available. This problem only becomes worse as you add more items.
• Redundancy. There are only so many weapons you can add before you're just adding more that are exactly the same as others but with different graphics.

I think all games are easy to make.

You're wrong, but like Thaumaturge I'd be really interested to know what makes you believe that? Case in point, not only are you not able to make games for yourself, but for some reason you believe you would never be able to learn how. How can you possibly consider them easy to make if you also consider them to be beyond any capability you could ever muster?

Personally at this point I'm inclined to believe you're just trolling.

Its time for me to duck out of this thread with some grace. I'm not gonna start a bickering match.

I think you lost that grace long ago.

A lot of the people answering here are not amateurs but game development professionals, with actual experience in shipping real games.

You basically walked into a room full of experts, told them all that everything they know about their field is wrong, and you know better, whilst at the same time saying you have no knowledge at all about the field, and no inclination to learn about it.

And you are surprised people get baffled?

I'm talking about a game with scripts as complex as the industry, but with graphics made by novices. I'm really hellbent on this notion that the game be built first, then me being taught how to expand it. I don't even think it would be difficult. The expert would be making most of the game. I'd just be adding items, abilities, (with some help) vehicles, structures, characters, containers, scenery. And all that stuff would already be coded, I would just be modifying code a little bit.

Also, I imagine that making all the art for a great game takes a long time... but I can't imagine scripting taking a long time. Its not like there aren't geniuses out there who can code a completely functional game in a week. The industry just wants you to think that its harder than it really is.

In my opinion games could be a lot different than they are today. Like for example... halo only has a handful of guns and vehicles. Theres no reason why they couldn't release a halo with 100 guns and 100 vehicles. They just don't. Its just the way the world is.

Game production is way easier than anything else. Way easier than how the world's infrastructure was created. Way easier than manufacturing. Way easier than it was to craft the computers themselves.

Its like this is a stupid cat and mouse game between me and the universe. I come and I complain that it should be a different. I complain that there should be more games. That the games should be more expansive. That the titles out right now are great but there just isn't that much content in them.

Unless I learn to produce games myself I can never prove how easy it is. So its never going anywhere.

Alls I know is that they're a combination of clients, servers, databases, websites, and software used to maintain/expand them. I think all games are easy to make. Its just what I believe.

Wow... you are correct in that there are people who can code a fully functional game in a week, (i've coded a fully functional game in 30 minutes myself), but that doesn't quite apply to AAA games, Doom 3 for example (a fairly old AAA game) contains over 600.000 lines of code, many of which are non trivial.

Remember, a computer is not a magic device, it only really does two things, basic math and moving bits from one place to another, it doesn't know what a game is, you can use code written by others (engines or libraries) to avoid having to provide the computer with your own instructions on how to accomplish common tasks but everything you do that is new or unique requires step by step instructions for the computer to follow and since computers are extremely stupid each individual instruction has to be really simple, thus complex software such as games require an almost insane number of instructions and many things.

As a simple experiment, take a few sheets of graph paper, write down:

cube = [-1,-1,1,1,-1,1,-1,1,1,1,1,1,

each instruction has to be in the form of a mathematical expression(x = y*z), a conditional expression (if x is true, do y, else do z), a jump (go to line x) or the super special instruction "fill in square x,y on the graph paper"

that when followed to the letter will result in a 3D cube wireframe viewed from a position 10 units above and 10 units to the left of the cube, looking straight at the center of the cube with a 90 degree field of view.

That should give you an idea of the kind of effort required to make a computer perform a seemingly simple task.

...

Wow... you are correct in that there are people who can code a fully functional game in a week, (i've coded a fully functional game in 30 minutes myself), but that doesn't quite apply to AAA games, Doom 3 for example (a fairly old AAA game) contains over 600.000 lines of code, many of which are non trivial.

Remember, a computer is not a magic device, it only really does two things, basic math and moving bits from one place to another, it doesn't know what a game is, you can use code written by others (engines or libraries) to avoid having to provide the computer with your own instructions on how to accomplish common tasks but everything you do that is new or unique requires step by step instructions for the computer to follow and since computers are extremely stupid each individual instruction has to be really simple, thus complex software such as games require an almost insane number of instructions and many things.

As a simple experiment, take a few sheets of graph paper, write down:

cube = [-1,-1,1,1,-1,1,-1,1,1,1,1,1,

1,-1,1,1,-1,-1,1,1,1,1,1,-1,

1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,1,1,-1,-1,1,-1,

-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,1,-1,1,-1,-1,1,1,

-1,-1,-1,1,-1,-1,-1,-1,1,1,-1,1,

-1,1,1,1,1,1,-1,1,-1,1,1,-1]

at the top of one and then write down step by step instructions where

each instruction has to be in the form of a mathematical expression(x = y*z), a conditional expression (if x is true, do y, else do z), a jump (go to line x) or the super special instruction "fill in square x,y on the graph paper"

that when followed to the letter will result in a 3D cube wireframe viewed from a position 10 units above and 10 units to the left of the cube, looking straight at the center of the cube with a 90 degree field of view.

That should give you an idea of the kind of effort required to make a computer perform a seemingly simple task.

Its time for me to duck out of this thread with some grace. I'm not gonna start a bickering match.

I think your time for that passed long ago when you started making off the wall erroneous claims like engines not costing millions to make or game development being easier than other forms of software development. Someone would have to correct me, but I think game programming is heavier on graphical programming and render programming than most other software development fields.