Are programmers the best at their games?

[Cobra Kai]

You could view this as Dumb Question: Deluxe Edition, or a legit question. I've often wondered about how classic games are programmed to get harder and faster with each level advance. When programming a game, does a programmer necessarily get really good at his own game while making it? Are they the best at their games?

 

I would say no, because I don't know of any programmer that holds a world record on his own game, if that's even allowed. Or, is it just a matter of coding, that once you have the general game design down, you can code it to get progressively more difficult without actually having to play test it at that level? Am I making sense?

[DragonGrafx-16]

No, otherwise the Konami code never would have been invented. lol...

[Magmavision2000]

Yes and no. If a programmer makes a game like Dragster, where the outcome is more or less the same every time you play, then yes. But in the game is like Berserk or Pac-Man where the game is different no matter how you play (with some exceptions), then no.

[Video]

While they understand the workings of their own game better than anyone else likely does, and probably did play it to test, I doubt many are best, and I'd hazard a guess, many probably aren't that good either.

 

hand eye coordination and programming are two different skillsets, and need not overlap much, if at all.

[Midnight Synergy]

From my own experience, I'd say no. I agree with everything said above, and would add this: after working on a game for months or a year, you can get _really_ sick of your own game. I may not actually play the finished game that much, having played every piece of it to death during development.

[spacecadet]

It may be a little different in the modern era, I don't know. But I worked at Rockstar Games for several years and most of the guys and girls there and in the actual development divisions were pretty good at the games. One of the reasons for playtesting is that developers kind of lose sight of how difficult parts of the game can be. My department (marketing) was often pressed into informal playtesting so we could give feedback on whether some missions were too difficult. A lot of stuff is too difficult before it's playtested by people other than those designing and coding it.

 

That said, most of these guys weren't the *best* I'd eventually see after each game was released, but they played pretty effortlessly. Parts of the game that normal people would think were really hard, they'd just sail through like it was nothing. Like they didn't even need to concentrate on it (probably because they knew where all the bad guys were, what the right strategy was, etc.). That *can* be ok if a game is consistently difficult, like I've heard about a game like Cuphead. But the kinds of games we were working on had a lot of different types of missions and the guys doing the programming honestly could not tell that some missions were super-easy while others were borderline impossible, almost regardless of where you were in the game. To them, all the missions were pretty easy because they knew how to beat them from the beginning. So we all had to pitch in to help get every game into a state where it would ramp up in difficulty in some kind of logical way, which meant people other than the programmers playing them.

[Tanooki]

The only time I would think the programmer would be the best at the game is if they're basically the team, or nearly the team so they need to test it as they go along to make sure it naturally progresses well and comes together right.  But in reality, that's rarely the case and those who would be best are those int he testing department.  I've been there, you basically spend 8-12+hrs a day doing the same game over and over again by the revision to make sure something new was added right or something broken was fixed.  Don't screw with a tester against a game they've put an insane amount of hours on, they'll school your ass much like a pool hall hustler.

[zzip]

On 9/7/2019 at 8:22 PM, Nuclear Pacman said:

You could view this as Dumb Question: Deluxe Edition, or a legit question. I've often wondered about how classic games are programmed to get harder and faster with each level advance. When programming a game, does a programmer necessarily get really good at his own game while making it? Are they the best at their games?

 

I would say no, because I don't know of any programmer that holds a world record on his own game, if that's even allowed. Or, is it just a matter of coding, that once you have the general game design down, you can code it to get progressively more difficult without actually having to play test it at that level? Am I making sense?

It isn't hard to make a game that is tough to beat yourself.

Edited September 9, 2019 by zzip

[Cynicaster]

I would think that the answer to this question is directly related to what factors are most closely linked to"success" in a given game.  For example, lots of early arcade-style games were algorithmically driven and purely about skill, reaction time, etc.  In this case, being the programmer may not give you much of an edge; even if you know the underlying algorithms, you still need the precision and skill to navigate them and survive.  For example, I remember seeing videos of Eugene Jarvis playing Robotron and he was getting his ass kicked just like most of us mere mortals. 

 

On the other hand, if success in the game is more driven by discovery and memorization, then of course the programmer has a major advantage.  It seems like most modern games are beatable by anybody who has the requisite 120 or whatever hours of spare time available to invest in it, so if you already know where all the secrets are, and what the solutions to all the puzzles are because you programmed them, then you have a distinct advantage. 

 

 

 

 

[Cobra Kai]

Great answer, I was really thinking more about classic games like Defender where the game just gets harder. The programming is just a math equation in essence and the programmer doesn't actually even have to be able to play at a high level. Would that be an accurate statement?

[FrankJovine]

Gaming has simply been the entry point for generations of programmers and has boomed the industry to where it is now

[Cynicaster]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 1:21 PM, Nuclear Pacman said:

Great answer, I was really thinking more about classic games like Defender where the game just gets harder. The programming is just a math equation in essence and the programmer doesn't actually even have to be able to play at a high level. Would that be an accurate statement?

 

I'm not a programmer, but I think this is basically it.  

 

In a game like Defender, the programmer comes up with some clever algorithm for generating a playfield layout and some clever algorithms for governing the behavior of enemies and hazards, and the player has to use their skill to fight against those things and survive.  Simply "knowing" these algorithms doesn't necessarily give one the ability to excel.  Similarly, I can watch some guy at the circus do a juggling routine and I can study what he is doing to the point where I understand the basic pattern of movements that he is using, but that doesn't get me measurably closer to being able to execute those moves myself without dropping things left and right.