Hi,

Maybe someone can help me understand this. It seems most indie game devs want to be lone wolves.

Collaboration seems to be the exception?

I've seen people doing same or similar things near to each other on the internet, and it frustrates me to no end.

Can someone help me understand this?

I think there is one point you may overlook.

Games industry is a creative industry. So let's see what makes creatives successful.

Looking at painters, book authors, music composers, their works are usually the work of just one person. Notice this covers already the most creative art achievements of humanity.
Looking at pop / rock music, composition can involve two people (one for music, one for lyrics), but at most up to five (a rock band). In pop it is common composers and interprets are different people, in rock they usually were the same.
Looking at big movie productions, it's still a small circle of creatives who define the outcome. Author, director, a single digit of actors for the main roles.

Now looking at big AAA game productions. Is there a single designer with the same amount of control such as a movie director? Not really. There is game design, art direction, engine tech, an army of artists to create content, many programmers to make it work.
In the best case we have a working hierarchy of direction, responsibility and design. In the average case it does not work out, creative ideals can't be agreed upon, lowbrow compromises is what we get.
And it never feels like a result of individual creativity.

Looking at small team / single person indie productions, the pearls feel much more individual and creative.
It's like with rock bands. If they have the proper idea, and the chemistry among the team is right, talent and skill is given, the outcome is good. Same if one guy already has all the necessary skills and talent to do it alone.

Looking at iconic classic games, a whole lot of them are made (mainly) by a single dev. Initially even ALL games were made by a single dev.

Why do you think it is not natural that some creative people likely want to work alone?
I'm curious about your answer, considering the above.

I don't think there is a need for witch hunting lone wolves. It's the opposite: Ideally we get back to the state where a single person actually can make a game, to spur individual creativity, innovation and unique ideas. It seems that's really what this industry needs the most. Only few lone wolves will succeed, but one was enough to dominate gaming over a decade with a dead simple game about blocks.

JoeJ said:
Why do you think it is not natural that some creative people likely want to work alone? I'm curious about your answer, considering the above.

Well, no, I see how most do want to work alone.

They seemed to be satisfied toiling in obscurity for years.

I always thought “collaboration” leads to more creativity, and results in bigger outcomes.

So, I wonder, would more get done in a solo dev situation, or make that person game director, and have people working with them?

Together

everyone

Achieves

More

It seems most of the time, being a creative and being a manager/ leader don't coincide that often.

Listing solo creatives is all well and good, but I can list feet's that changed the world, that would be impossible if done solo.

Going to the Moon

The Beatles

building the pyramids

founding the United States

Disney empire

etc.

GeneralJist said:
I always thought “collaboration” leads to more creativity, and results in bigger outcomes.

That's totally matter of luck.

I mean, it's easy to find people who dislike the same issues as you do, agreeing on what not to do. But it's hard to find people which share the same vision, agreeing on what to do.

GeneralJist said:
Together everyone Achieves More

Not if it's about creativity. Together you can build a pyramid faster, but your pyramid then is likely a copy of a former pyramid. The former pyramid serves as a template, necessary to have a solid plan in the first place, so a team can be coordinated and work towards a predefined goal.

But true creativity has no predefined goal. You may find it along the way. Or not, then you decide to go elsewhere spontaneously.

GeneralJist said:
It seems most of the time, being a creative and being a manager/ leader don't coincide that often.

Yes. And i think you pay most attention on the managers side. The problems you can solve or prevent with good management. But that's about creativity.

It reminds me on the manager of the rock band Led Zeppelin. Back they, he was the first who realized: Maybe it works better if we do not tell the band what they should do. Let them do what they want, what they come up with, and make sure nothing crosses their way.

It worked. But that's not the main reason they became the greatest rock band of all times. The main reason was that all 4 band members were gifted with great talent, and the proper chemistry between them allowed them to combine their power to create something greater. This combination is pure luck, and all a manager or producer can contribute is detecting such talent, and then letting it grow with just gentle guidance.
On top of that, increasing their luck, was the rise of new music. Traditional influences with new technology such as distorted, electric guitar sounds gave birth to hard rock, progressive rock, heavy metal. Coming up with something new was easy for them, and new things are exciting and inspiring, so success is likely.

We had such moments in gaming too. The first arcade games, bringing them to the peoples homes with consoles, CD-Roms to enrich them with media, adding one dimension with 3D games. New things every few years, and we even assumed it is normal that video games are exciting by default.

Then, slowly, it turned out that's not the case. Games became bigger, more professional, more polished, huge business. But still the progress in terms of new things slowed down, and currently it feels like a deep sole of stagnation. Big marketing claims and promises, big disappointments, no more new experiences or mechanics. Their main inspiration is their own, better past. Creative bankruptcy with some rare exceptions.

And to me that's the reason to work alone. I can't be individually creative if i'm just a little gear in a huge AAA company, nor can i if i have a leading design position and responsibility over a large team and company. But if i'm alone, i can. And maybe i come up with new things the others can't risk to look at.

I mean, that's just a mindset. But you have to admit it makes sense. It's more of a dream than business. But you have to agree this is a creative industry, so you depend on those creative individuals willing to take the risk of failure for the small chance of new excitement.

From our discussion back then i have learned ‘made by a single person’ is not necessarily an achievement, or something desirable at all. It's no seal of quality, no general recipe to do better.
But you also have to learn. Creativity is something individual. That's how it works. And this industry has a huge problem from having lost the ability to utilize individual creativity. Geoff shaking hands with Hideo and Todd on stage - that's just sycophantic self confirmation from the AAA industry of still being awesome. But it does not address the core problem of stagnation. And the consequent dissatisfaction naturally causes a growth of lone wolves trying to find solutions outside the establishment. Wishing them luck and respecting their visions is the best you can do.

GeneralJist said:
Listing solo creatives is all well and good, but I can list feet's that changed the world, that would be impossible if done solo.

Of course. Ideally we have both.
And there should be no hostile competition between the big and the small camp. ‘Together achieves more’ also goes this way.

Finally, my crystal ball shows me the stagnation plus the economical bad times will force us all to go smaller than we did before anyway. Lone wolves are just ahead ;D

(I guess my views on lone wolf mentality is no complete picture of the whole story. But i always was the only programmer / game dev in my real world environment, so i can only guess.
Also, i only draw a line between big and small, not between solo and team.)

GeneralJist said:
I've seen people doing same or similar things near to each other on the internet, and it frustrates me to no end. Can someone help me understand this?

I've seen a lot of people toil away at fruitless hobby endeavors.

Personally, I don't care. You do you. If you want to make games on your own time, do it. Similarly, if you want to keep an old rustbucket in your garage with the intent that maybe someday you'll fix it up, if you want to collect things that have little/no value, if you want to do whatever for your hobby or pastime, go for it. They could just as easily be doing something else, maybe playing games or stacking blocks or reading teen romance novels. None of these impact me, and I genuinely don't care what people do with their time. It doesn't frustrate me at all.

What annoys me about some people - both those with game hobbies and with other hobbies - is when they unrealistically expect that their hobby project will somehow become the next big thing, the next megacorp, or somehow win them a lottery of some type. No, your hobby game won't make your rich. Your Pez Dispenser collection won't make you rich. Your <strike>doll</strike> action figure collection won't make you rich. Your sewing hobby, your scrapbooking, your photo collection, none of these will make you rich as a hobby. Someone might figure out how to scrape out a living using some of them, and if that makes the person happy then again, go for it, that part wouldn't bother me. But don't go around telling me how you're going to somehow get filthy rich because you collected Magic the Gathering cards your entire life; I don't care if you do it, but I also don't want to hear about it.

Do what you want for hobbies, and I'm not going to be bothered by you doing your hobbies. I might get annoyed by you bringing up your hobbies too often, and in that case I'll tell you to talk about it less around me, it's the talking not the hobby. Otherwise, meh.

GeneralJist said:

Hi,

Maybe someone can help me understand this. It seems most indie game devs want to be lone wolves.

Collaboration seems to be the exception?

If I had people to work with, I would not be working alone. But, with one exception, other people seem to mostly waste my time (the one exception being a musician who sometimes helps me).

I never got anything done, until I stopped looking for collaboration, and set out on my own.

I tried making a game with someone else twice now. Both times they underperformed, and eventually just stopped contributing altogether. It's solo for me from now on.

Having the “right” (as in the one that works for you, bad or good) people aren't easy, and most of the time, time-consuming. Perhaps the ideal of dedicating time towards the same goal is too exhausting in a long term?
Time goes by, everyone needs/forced to change, and finding anything that fits their own schedule seem to be a better preference?
Even in online games, being a team leader to keep the members doing the same things every week seem to be already hard enough, and having a gamedev team is even harder to even think about?
Security over team synchronization issue?
They don't have money and the project is short/long enough to think it's worthless to do together?
Maybe it's just because the person has laptop that do pretty much of everything and so it can be done alone?

I personally got older and older and my friends in real life have things on their own as time goes by so I go solo. I do believe having a team is a good way to go, but not at the moment cause I unfortunately also have more important things to do.

I want to control the direction and effort of my project without drama. I'm not getting paid for my work, and I may never be. It might as well be as enjoyable as possible.

dragonalumni said:
It might as well be as enjoyable as possible.

I find enjoyment in teams and socialization, being alone drives me and most others crazy?