at what point do you say "enough" and stop adding in features?

[pixeltroid]

when I started on my project, I told myself its just going to be a simple platformer with jumping challenges. after that objective was met, I decided to add a weapon. after I got that done, I decided to add alternate weapons.

after that was done, I decided to have a key and door system.

after that was done, i decided to introduce bosses.

after that wasn't done, i decided to have multistage bosses.

and so on.

recently, I decided to introduce duck, for no reason other than it feels weir not be able to duck in a game.

recently, i looked at some of the demos here and began toying with the idea of introducing double jumps, moving platforms, dashing, climbing ladders, maps and all sorts of other things that people take for granted in a platformer. but, I have now decided against it, as it would prolong my project that I've been working on for a year. I'm looking to finalize things, fix bugs and get this over with

I guess I'm somewhat insecure about people responding negatively to my game because of a lack of these features. my fear is that my game might come across as inadequate or primitive.

anyway. when you guys work on a game, do you start off with a list of features you want or do you just add to them as you go along?

and as the thread title asks, at what point do you say "enough" and stop adding in features?

all opinions welcome!

 

[nicktheslayer95]

This is an issue that I have, honestly, and my current project is an attempt to tackle this. My idea is to make a definitive list of features. Write a list of EXACTLY what the game will have, no more, no less. Then, make a complete product using this feature list, from Title Screen to End Credits. Now, this doesn't mean the game is done being worked on, but this way, you have an actual product, right? Then you can add a new list of features, and make a game using those! Even if it's a remake of the first with new and refined features, you've now made two games instead of one, or potentially, none.

 

[Hyomoto]

That's called 'feature creep'. Personally I think if that is the case, it just means either a) you didn't have a particularly strong design to begin with, or b) you need to step back and reexamine your scope. While it's natural to come across things you'd like to add or test out later in development, the real core of managing it is simply to have a design to begin with. That's not to say no good games have ever come of cavalier game design, but the roads of time are littered with the corpses of unfinished projects for which it was not a good approach.

Because, at it's core, adding features is also adding work. Sure, you have multi-stage bosses. Well, if every boss is going to be multi-stage, you've doubled or more the amount of work you need to do for each one. A single boss is a lot of work. The same way with weapons, enemies, keys, and everything else. If your original design had included all of these things you could adequately assess how large you want your project to be, and what resources to devote, but once you start shooting from the hip you'll find every new addition creates more work elsewhere until inevitably it spirals out of control and you have to do the opposite: cut back.

But here's some advice that should help you out: no one will ever be more critical, or more accepting of your game than you. Most players will be apathetic at best. Games that have hundreds of commenters praising it have thousands of players playing it, and ten thousand buyers who moved on. Even the Star Wars Battlefront II controversy only consisted of, at best, around half of the players. And that was a BIG controversy. So however good or bad you think your game is, the average player quite literally doesn't care. For the player it's all relative. They most likely won't care about the clever tricks you used to accomplish things, stuff you will be absolutely enamored with, but they will care about basic playabililty, reliability and value. If the game is fun, plays well and is reliable: hooray, you win. Just look at the "I wanna be the _____" games, they are notoriously punishing platformers that have very little in the way of 'features' and yet they have dedicated communities.

So, to sum up: no one cares as much as you do. Most players are just interested in killing some time. And unless your goal is to charge 60$ for it, you really are better off making a game within a scope you can manage than trying to impress people.

 

[Calvert]

I have always had this problem as well. The solution is making a design document before you start turning your game idea into a reality. A game design document can just include a brief summary of what you want your game to be. It will help you to stick to the original idea. As for your little fear of the game being too primitive, that is the beauty of sequels. It can be a good idea to make a simple primitive game, and if people like it, introduce a second one; this time with double-jumping and boss battles. This time you can feel better about adding more features and giving it the works without feeling like there is no end.

 

[hogwater]

When there are consequences for not finishing it. No consequences, no end.

 

[John Andrews]

Wow I just have to say that this happens to me a lot, but in my case my game isn't even halfway near of being finished, so it might be partially ok, maybe not, and this may happen for the idea of testing yourself to see how good you are at programming/making graphics or etc, but who knows, I'm no expert either

 

[Cloaked Games]

I'm just going to reinforce what the others have pretty much said: have a design from the beginning. That will keep you focused and on track. That way you'll have a finished game.

Now, if you end up with a finished game, perhaps you might even find more you can add if you have time. The only things you can't really change is major mechanics, like movement, because that would affect everything you've already made. But want to go back through at the end and add a second phase to each of your bosses, or add some mini-games, fill in more dialogue, or even optional areas or bosses, then have fun. But if you want to finish a game, make sure you focus on the basics and leave anything extra you want to add to the end so that you always end up with something completed.

 

[Tayoyo]

For me, I like to think of an ideal game that I wan't my game to be like. I think about what allowed the game to have these systems, what do they lack, and how can I do it. If I can't imagine the way I could add the feature in my head, or I can't find a Youtube tutorial to teach me, then I'll usually move on (eg. having the player being able to change their cloak colour or armor. It's way to complicated for and would take too much work)

I also think about little things that I can do to make my game NOT be a copy of the game that I'm copying from. Yes I want my movement to be like theirs. Yes I want it the combat to feel exactly like theirs. I also want more blood, and more enemy variations, and maybe even a type of enemy that has nothing to do with the game that I'm looking to for inspiration.

I'm making a game and my biggest focus for the past little while has been getting the combat to feel like Hyper Light Drifter's. Now that I've gotten it down to the point where I'm happy with it, I've started to add my own things to my game, like having more blood than HLD, and blood pools under dead enemies (HLD didn't have that)

Some things that I've though about putting into my game as a mechanic, but probably won't do are:
-Having A.I. that can fight eachother
-Having a CO-OP mode
-Adding in different kinds of weapons (There is only a sword in my game, which you can change the colour of for different special abilities. What I wouldn't do is have a whole new move set for a different weapon, because that'd take a ton of work in animating it and coding.)
-Having a world that dynamically changes every time you die
-Adding executions for enemies
-Adding death animations (I'm just not good enough for this kind of stuff yet)

It's important to remember what quality you hold your game up to, and how much work you're willing to put in.

 

[sitebender]

When I realize I've made a game for a year each day for 2 - 18 hours each day (40 - 60 hours a week) literally for 365 days only missing a single day.

It took another 6 months to wrap up.

Other than that... for game jams, I stop adding things 5/7ths of the way through. It always seems to work out. Then I take the engine to the next game jam.

 

[Yal]

I tend to get my best ideas based on how my original ideas turn out once implemented, so I'm very susceptible to feature creep. I tend to filter features very heavily on the idea stage: if an idea is too much work to add, don't. Ideas are cheap, good ideas are rare, and ideas that are both good and feasible are even rarer. Doesn't stop my games from suffering from feature creep, but at least I can keep the momentum going even when they're getting bogged down by it.

Also, make sure to add in stuff in a way that's easy to reverse if it failed. Probably sounds weird, but it helps with cutting content that ended up not being that good after all. I've had some projects I had to scrap because they got too messy to keep working on, so this is a real problem

Also, a major thing you should look out for: while generally adding more content always makes your game better, sometimes you end up making old things redundant by introducing new systems with a better reward/effort ratio. That's more or less just destroying your previous work, so keep an eye out for that. (Example: if you add in a jetpack, suddenly interesting jumping puzzles you made before becomes trivialized because now you can just fly to the goal right away). Relevant video explaining this problem (called "design accretion"):

 

[Gerald Tyler]

Two perspectives for you TC:

1: You stop whenever you're happy with it, and it pleases you. If you're just doing this as a hobby, then make the game that you want to make. Yes, you will want to still go with a design document so you can weigh the pros and cons of each feature, along with balancing that against the work that will be created in doing so. I would definitely say do the critical things first, then add on the "Luxury" features later if you still want to put in the effort.

2: The engineer's perspective is that something isn't finished when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to Remove. Also known as Design by Subtraction...and I'm pretty sure ExtraCredits has a video on that if I recall. This is very important for games which use Mechanics as Metaphor, where you're trying to tell a very specific story or convey a very specific idea. Additional features can get in the way of that core idea. PS2's Ico removed a bit of things in order to reinforce their main concept...and it's something I've been working on for my game as well. Just cut what doesn't serve the core experience you're trying to deliver. Some ideas are great, but that does not mean that they are great for the game you're currently working on.

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

I've had a clear idea of what I want my game to be from the beginning. Now I'm just making it. I think if your game is growing or shrinking dramatically as you make it, you might not have had a solid enough vision when you started.

Basically, measure twice, cut once. Good planning will save you a lot of wasted work.