Question for the programers

[edweird13]

If you program a game does that make you an expert at that game? Or do you still have trouble with it. I have always wondered that.

Edited July 6, 2007 by edweird13

[Alison DeMeyer]

The more you program, the more you learn, it's a bit like life, really.

[Pixelboy]

Pretty weird question, but anyhow, programming is always a learning experience, no matter how many years you've spent doing it. When you program your first game, what you're really doing is learning how the machine works, so your code is usually quite messy and buggy. As you acquire experience, you learn to code more efficiently, and debugging gets easier with time. As with any field of work, one can only claim to be an "expert" when he/she has accumulated enough experience.

[edweird13]

Rephrased my question to clarify what I was asking.

[SeaGtGruff]

Rephrased my question to clarify what I was asking.

If you mean an expert at understanding the rules of the game, then yes. But if you mean an expert at playing the game, then no. Just because you wrote the program for a game does not mean you will be any good at playing it.

 

Michael

[edweird13]

Rephrased my question to clarify what I was asking.

But if you mean an expert at playing the game, then no. Just because you wrote the program for a game does not mean you will be any good at playing it.

 

Michael

Yes thats what I meant.

[vdub_bobby]

It depends, I think. If there is a lot of subtle strategy that isn't obvious then, well, as the programmer you know all that stuff pretty well (until you forget... ). So that can give you an advantage. And you know the level layouts, if that applies.

 

For example, in M-4 I know how the enemy AI works, so that gives me a small advantage, I suppose. But in Elevators Amiss, there isn't much strategy, it's almost entirely pattern recognition and reflexes - so the playtime I put in testing it gives me a leg up, but other than that I don't have much of an advantage over anyone else.

 

But my observations have been that most programmers don't put in the necessary time to become the best at their games. I'm certainly not close to the best at Reindeer Rescue or Go Fish!.

[Ross PK]

It depends on the level of difficulty you've programmed into it. Whether you've made it easy or difficult you shouldn't have any advantage over anyone else as long as beating the game is soley based on skill and not knowledge.

[cyberfluxor]

Some good responses, however there really are multiple directions to go with here. What kind of programming model are we dealing with:

1) Self employed where 1 person does everything.

2) A team of programmers working closely and have generalized ideas of what's going on overall.

3) Large teams of programmers working on specialty areas for the code.

 

Obviously the 1st person will understand most everything and can test limits, however debugging can sometimes be a bitch. For the second, it's nice because there are elements you don't need to deal with and have a general understanding of where things are going but unless you're the one dealing with indepth game mechanics there's only so much you can anticipate. As for the later, well this is where a team of game testers get involved and the coders just don't care. You're getting paid, usually not told what is even going on just that your boss wants you to write something and have it fit certain specs due by Friday.

 

 

Well, since I got that element out of the way, there are a few others things that must take place for a general coder to be good:

1) Game skills - I mean come on, if you can't even handle a controller right then obviously you can't do much.

2) Intellect - Although it's funny you design and wrote a game, some just can't comprehend what they've done, kind of like a math studenting doing their first integration by parts or calculating an 11th dimentional space (damn M-theorist).

[Pixelboy]

There's also the question of how much random elements there are in the game. A game like Super Mario or Mega Man, where all enemies and obstacles have pre-determined locations, are easier to master through beta-testing, so by the time you're done beta-testing, you can almost play with your eyes closed. Other games, where certain gameplay elements are randomized, can give you problems with just a bit of bad luck, even if you've been playing since forever.

[gdement]

There's also the question of how much random elements there are in the game. A game like Super Mario or Mega Man, where all enemies and obstacles have pre-determined locations, are easier to master through beta-testing, so by the time you're done beta-testing, you can almost play with your eyes closed. Other games, where certain gameplay elements are randomized, can give you problems with just a bit of bad luck, even if you've been playing since forever.

 

That's a good point - the level designers are probably the best at playing games like that. I'm also surprised how little randomization was used in the classic NES platformers. I can't think of any games that did this, actually.

[+atari2600land]

I'm programming Halloween Hunt, and if I don't write down the solution to a room, I usually don't know the answer to it! I just know it's solvable using the number of moves because I know I did it once. And I'm no expert at GoSub, either. Kinda weird, huh?