So, a little backstory. I am a fresh college graduate. I just landed my first job working as a developer for an indie startup mobile games company. Their main tool of choice is Cocos2Dx, which I am still in the process of learning (awesome framework).

Previously and independently, I've studied game programming for about 4+ years now (since high school). I've studied DirectX, Unity3D, and UDK by doing some very small educational projects, one of which ended up as my final year project, which impressed my current employers (my parents weren't that impressed. They still think that I play Atari all day) enough to land me a very decent-paying job in the first place. A few white lies were inserted here and there to get the job, but honestly, who hasn't done that ??

Anyhow, apparently I've liked game programming enough to stick with it for 4+ years, 5-6 days a week, aside from my school work. I honestly love coding in C++, C#, and other beautiful scripting languages like Lua and Unrealscript (ah...good ol' Unrealscript....).

My problem is that I don't really know where I can move forward from there. I know my question is a bit vague and too early to ask, but what is the future of a game programmer in the industry ??

Do you just keep learning new systems and languages forever ??

Do you become a developer or a designer in a AAA game studio or just stay in the indie scene ??

What is the natural next move ??

I hope some of the veterans here can help clear the smoke.

Do you just keep learning new [1]systems and [2]languages forever ??

I'm not the veteran a lot of people here are, but I think I can answer these.

1. Yes. Games themselves are systems, too - the job of a game programmer is to build new systems (which requires inventing them in the first place) and/or extend old ones (which requires learning how the old ones work). Being involved in a AAA game development effort can mean working on the game engine itself, which requires learning how that bit of software works - altogether a larger task than learning some API or framework. Any time you switch projects, you will likely be learning how a whole new codebase works just to be able to do your job. Picking up a new API doesn't seem like such a huge task when you look at things this way.

2. As long as there are programming languages, somebody will think they can invent a better one. Same goes for programming paradigms, APIs, frameworks, and just about any piece of technology, really. Sometimes their idea becomes widespread (though this does not mean that their idea is really better) and remaining competitive necessitates learning the new thing.

So yes, as long as you are a game programmer, you will be learning new things.

A few white lies were inserted here and there to get the job, but honestly, who hasn't done that ??

Now this I take issue with. I have never lied to an employer at any stage of a job interview. In fact, I am quite honest about areas where my skills are lacking, when questioned. Why should I lie about my qualifications? If I'm not qualified, I'm not qualified and therefore shouldn't get the job. I feel I would be miserable at a job for which I'm not qualified. I am baffled and angered by people who feel so entitled to a job that they lie (=cheat, in my world) to get it.

I honestly love coding
My problem is that I don't really know where I can move forward from there.
1. Do you just keep learning new systems and languages forever ??
2. Do you become a developer or a designer in a AAA game studio or just stay in the indie scene ??
3. What is the natural next move ??

1. Yes.
2. Both, or either, or neither.
3. You get moved up to manager, because your experience is valued. The farther up you move, the less actual programming you do. The "natural" move happens; you don't make it happen.

Thanks for the great advice, guys. I guess that cleared up some misconceptions I had.

About the white lies, I know it was a wrong move, but what happened was that the company simply asked me if I knew Cocos2D, and I said that I've worked with C++ for over 3+ years (honest), and that I had basic working knowledge in Cocos2D (I didn't really). Back then, I still had 40 days until I start the job, and I've used those 40 days to learn everything I can about Cocos2D (remedial action).

I honestly love coding
My problem is that I don't really know where I can move forward from there.
1. Do you just keep learning new systems and languages forever ??
2. Do you become a developer or a designer in a AAA game studio or just stay in the indie scene ??
3. What is the natural next move ??

1. Yes.
2. Both, or either, or neither.
3. You get moved up to manager, because your experience is valued. The farther up you move, the less actual programming you do. The "natural" move happens; you don't make it happen.

This is called the frank effect. It's the reason why EA makes such crappy games.

Programmers are not usually talented at game design. "Weeding out" game designers starting from the bottom (as programmers) is idiotic at best, mindless idiocy at worst.

If someone is good at game design, they should start at the "top", immediately, and not have to be weeded out by gatekeepers. Corporations don't seem to understand the frank effect (promoting someone to a new field, based on their success at a prior field, does not mean they are actually going to be talented at that new field.)

I honestly love coding
My problem is that I don't really know where I can move forward from there.
1. Do you just keep learning new systems and languages forever ??
2. Do you become a developer or a designer in a AAA game studio or just stay in the indie scene ??
3. What is the natural next move ??

1. Yes.
2. Both, or either, or neither.
3. You get moved up to manager, because your experience is valued. The farther up you move, the less actual programming you do. The "natural" move happens; you don't make it happen.

This is called the frank effect. It's the reason why EA makes such crappy games.

Programmers are not usually talented at game design. "Weeding out" game designers starting from the bottom (as programmers) is idiotic at best, mindless idiocy at worst.

If someone is good at game design, they should start at the "top", immediately, and not have to be weeded out by gatekeepers. Corporations don't seem to understand the frank effect (promoting someone to a new field, based on their success at a prior field, does not mean they are actually going to be talented at that new field.)

Good point. The industry always takes "game design" as the one department that has to be earned rather than learned.

@GreatandWiseOne: You seem to be confusing managers with game designers.

No manager should be allowed to just waltz in without having worked themselves up (gained experience).

I find that usually programmers don't make good managers or designers. Nothing personal against those that do/want to do that, but it's all about how you think of things. There's a whole career path on simply being an amazing programmer, why try to get into project management or design? :D

I find that usually programmers don't make good managers or designers. Nothing personal against those that do/want to do that, but it's all about how you think of things. There's a whole career path on simply being an amazing programmer, why try to get into project management or design?

The allure of having creative control is strong.

It is fun how beginners and novices feel like beginners and novices should be placed in charge. And experienced veterans feel like experienced veterans should be placed in charge.

The trick is that when you look at project success rates, when you look at what succeed and what fails, it is the projects lead by veterans that succeed.

The enormous number of projects that fail before reaching the marketplace are lead by beginners and novices. The tiny number of novice successes represent such a minuscule fraction of the numbers, probably on the scale of one per hundred thousand, that they are outliers in the extreme.

It is certainly true that anyone can make designs. When working on Littlest PetShop my daughters frequently came to the studio to play the game in development and our designers sat behind them taking plenty of notes and asking questions. But that does not mean that anyone can run the business or make the hard business decisions. You are right that wonderful creative ideas can come from anyone.

But creative ideas alone do not succeed in the market. The ideas are heavily pruned, and then the product is created and the ideas executed into a product. That is the hard part.

There are many excellent features and ideas that need to be cut to make a quality game. At one point we called these "puppy drowning meetings". It is really hard to make the decisions that will trigger the success or failure of the game. Every major game has a bunch of wonderful features and amazing proposed technologies that are killed along the way. It is hard on everybody to make those decisions, and making the wrong choices will completely destroy the game.

Empirical evidence says it takes experience to do that part well.