A psychology question really .. what is it about game development in particular that makes the typical first posts of a beginner something like:

'For my first game, I want to make one like this, that took 50 programmers, artists, and designers 3 years to make, but mine will be better, obviously and like, twice as big. I don't know any programming languages or how to make art. I'm thinking of using Unity, and I expect to finish it in 2 weeks. How should I begin?'.

Not just beginners, more experienced developers and teams regularly fall into the same traps (and myself all the time ).

I just can't imagine for example, on a forum for builders, first posts like 'Hi, for my first building, I'm thinking of making one like the Taj Mahal, only twice as big and impressive. I don't know how to lay bricks. How should I start?'. Or in music composition 'Hi, for my first composition, I'm thinking of making one like Moonlight Sonata, only much more impressive. I can't play the piano. How do I start?'.

Why do we do this?

I n some cases it's because they have what I call a "glorious vision" of what their game will be.  They are imagining that they will re-create reality when, and that in their game things are going to be like reality.  It's not until they actually try to make the game that they will realize that, just like everyone else's games, their game will necessarily function in the same simple ways as everyone else's games do.  You can imagine the combat in your game being just like in real life right up to the point that you attempt to actually implement it.  That is when reality sets in.

This is one of the better reasons for creating a detailed design document, one that works out exactly and specifically how key aspects of the game will actually work.  Because this is the process that shatters the "glorious vision" and brings you back to the reality of how simple it is actually going to be in the end compared to the wishful thinking of your "glorious vision".

Beginners don't understand how game development works. They think game X hasn't been made just because no one thought to do it; they never think that it wasn't made because it's either unfun or too difficult to program, or both. There are people who do the same with science, assuming that the only reason science doesn't accept something is because no one came up with the idea. It's a form of the Dunning-Krueger Effect, really.

Beginners also tend to underestimate costs and assume that because their idea is obviously so perfect, people are going to swarm in and volunteer to do all the work for free just for a cut of "the profits", which they imagine must be millions and millions of dollars that just keep on coming. So they don't understand how markets work, either. More Dunning-Krueger here.

I'm not innocent; I was one of those idiot beginners.

I think a big factor is that video games aren't physical things, but just data. Game development does - at least in theory(!!) - not require any money, supporters or physical resources beyond what most people (at least in rich countries) already own anyway. With infinite time and infinite knowledge, you could really create any sort of game completely on your own. You don't need to buy anything (all required software is available for free), you usually don't need to care about laws, and there is nobody you depend on who could just say "no" for whatever reason.

Compare this to constructing a building: Even if you had all the knowledge that is required for all aspects of the construction, you still need to buy land to build on, you need to buy building material and machines, many tasks are probably physically impossible to do alone, and you need to folllow a ton of regulations to avoid being shut down.

Without all these things, it is not so surprising that the efforts of game development are drastically underestimated by many people.

Two more thoughts:

- Since there is no initial risk involved at all, fantasizing about crazily huge unrealistic software development projects is just much less frightening. All you need to invest is some time, and if you fail, you haven't lost anything other than that time..

- The less you understand about software development, the less you can imagine how much work it is. Everbody has somewhat of an idea of what it takes to build a house, because you can see people doing it frequently somewhere in your town. But in a non-developer's everyday life, you usually don't see people working on video games, so how could you get a realistic impression of it?

This is in no way limited to game development - every teenager with an electric guitar thinks they will be the next Jimi Hendrix too. It's easy to underestimate the difficulty of anything, before you have tried and failed a few times.

2 hours ago, JulieMaru-chan said:

 It's a form of the Dunning-Krueger Effect, really.

This

Very good input from all of you guys. Agree there's a lot of Dunning-Krueger going on.

There also seems to be an element of that child-like 'mine is going to be better than yours' effect. I don't know whether this is something we are born with, or something our parents / schools instil in us, the need to be 'better' and impress. Certainly not all people have it to the same extent.

I have a sneaking suspicion it is something encouraged more in male children than female children, I anecdotally have heard more often males express belief that they will be 'the best footballer' or whatever. I guess society tends to reward and respect those who are better, and there can be ridicule (particularly for kids) when they are not good at something.

There is also an element of many parents often saying to their kids 'you are the greatest', so the kids end up subconsciously primed to believe that they are better than average.

Overall I don't think this competitive 'need to be better' is a bad thing, it has probably helped lead to many of mankind's advances. But there can be negative consequences too (sometimes catastrophic) so important to keep some kind of perspective.

1 hour ago, lawnjelly said:

Overall I don't think this competitive 'need to be better' is a bad thing, it has probably helped lead to many of mankind's advances. But there can be negative consequences too (sometimes catastrophic) so important to keep some kind of perspective.

In my own opinion, this is NOT a bad thing. Being competitive and striving to be the best is a very good thing.

Such competitive, over-ambitious, overzealous and talented youngsters only need to be mentored and well directed by an experienced guru in the field

Imagine a very talented sports person (footballer, ...) but he or she is playing in a team without a manager.  The consequence is that they be will all over the place, without proper overarching strategy, without good structure and will be learning from their mistakes the hard way

I was like that... without a mentor, so I followed only my instincts and I paid dearly for that. A lot of wasted years. Probably not fully recovered yet. But it wasn't because of my over-ambitions and competitiveness, rather it was because I wasn't mentored or guided. 

Of course, every once in a while... someone comes along who really does have a means of doing something that everyone else thinks can't be done.

“Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.” - Arthur Schopenhauer

;-)