People are hungry for novel experiences.
Not sure what people are hungry for. So why the fuck I'm quoting this?
What I think is this, people will buy (perhaps play; presumptuous, I know) what's popular, what youtubers tell them to play.
Case in point: Among Us. Wasn't the first game in its genre, arguably isn't even the best in the genre.
It was carried entirely by stremers, memes, and all that viral stuff old farts like me won't get.
Baba is You is definitely one of the most innovative games I've seen in recent years.
I don't think it was a big hit, nor is it ever going to go viral like the above.
People (me included) just go: oh, that's so adorable and clever. Everyone should at least have a go at it.
Then they play a few levels, maybe, and never mention it again.
Question is, to what extent should you consider mass appeal as an indie dev?
What about making a game you will want to play yourself (you should still bounce it off some serious criticism)?
I know I was the first one to bash ideas in this thread. Let me rephrase myself:
If you decided to get into game development, you probably have this idea in your head about the game you want to make.
It can be vague or very specific. Doesn't matter. This idea is sacred, hold on to it'll be the guiding light along your journey.
What matters is perspective. The idea needs to be tempered by your knowledge of what is feasible - your own abilities and limitations of the medium.
You should be open to the concept that "your" idea has already been tried by someone. We're not the unique snowflakes we like to think we are.
I've had this happen numerous times. I entertained a buch of ideas for a short story in my head, only to discover some no-name schmuck already published that
in a Sci-Fi anthology in the 1980s. My ideas were still mine and I cherish them for it, but it gave me an interesting perspective, comparing an actually made thing with an idea in my head.
I keep beating around the bush, so what I'm trying to say here is best summarized by the man TS Eliot himself:
“Immature [ ] imitate; mature [ ] steal; bad [ ] deface what they take, and good [ ] make it into something better, or at least something different.”
He obviously said this about poets, but if you ad-lib it with, say, game designers, the message still rings true for me.
Innovation for innovation's sake has always been a dead-end concept for me. Feel free to disagree.
But in the context of a wannabe gamedev, you first learn the notes then you improvise.
As a counterpoint I will give you this list of flawed recent games that introduced people to new ideas and spawned entire genres:
-Slay the Spire (Card Battler)
-Defense of the Ancients (MOBA)
-Auto Chess (Auto Battler)
-PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (Battle Royale)
-Dark Souls (3rd-person Wait, Dodge, Wait, Action)
-Cookie Clicker (Idler)
-DayZ (Survival)
-[Who cares, really?] (Walking simulator)
I know it's splitting hairs, but I see a lot of this stuff as a refinement of older ideas.
First MOBA was a Warcraft mod, someone had the good idea to throw out all the regular units and focus on heroes... and it somehow worked even better for a lot of people.
My point, it was built on an existing system, didn't come out of nowhere.
Slay the Spire immediately made me think about Etherlords,
There were plenty of 3D hack and slash games similar Dark Souls, especially if you consider the consoles. Personally, I am reminded a lot of Rune.
Battle royale is not a new concept, plenty of multiplayer games had king of the hill modes.
Survival games - there was this oldie, Robinson's Requiem. We weren't ready for it back then. DayZ isn't at all like RR, but a lot of the games in the genre are.
Walking simulators - makes me think of those adventure games of the early CD-ROM era which were all graphics, but very little gameplay.
Not saying there wasn't any innovation, progress or breaking new ground in gaming, just pointing out that sometimes you just make something new of an existing idea
rather than re-invent the wheel. Sometimes the technology isn't there, other times the target audience isn't there, so perhaps luck is a factor.
That said, for learning how to make games, ideas aren't important and you should start by trying to clone another game. Once you have learned some skills, try your hand at one of your ideas.
I actually don't disagree with you J1M. First you learn, then you make your dream game. It's a process. Cheers.