I can see your point of view (and could from the beginning), but I still disagree. My main problem with the advice you're giving is that you're treating it like it's the only way to work, when it's really just what works for you. What works for you can be very bad advice for someone else.
It certainly is advice for a first timer. You don't have to have written an RPG before to know if you're a good or bad writer. You don't have to have produced a musical score for a game to know if you're musically inclined or not. You don't have to try your hand at scripting or coding to know if you have any skill with it. If you want to learn to do those things, that's wonderful, the community seems to need more of each. But you should have a pretty good inkling of what you're already good at just based on your own life experience. Play to your strengths to start with, go for some early successes, and build on those. That's pretty good advice for just about any area of life.
There are many things that I never found out that I was any good at until I tried it, things I didn't even know I liked. Only a few months ago if you had told me I could wire an apartment I would have laughed at you, now I have. I'm not the only person who does this, it's why in many schools you're required try out different vocations than just the stuff you're already good at. I have, however, seen many brand new projects fail because the person working on the game only knew one thing like maps or writing and tried to find an entire group of people to fill those other roles instead of trying to see if they could do it themselves. I'm not saying that you have to be a one man army, just saying that knowing how to be one makes it easier to find a good group and actually finish something. Playing to your strengths, on the other hand, that's a sentiment I can get behind.
Pretty sure I qualified that right afterwards by saying if you must work digitally, work things out in a Word document beforehand. Having worked on dozens of projects including games, trading card sets, and Hollywood films, I can tell you this is absolutely essential advice. It leads to better projects and a far more efficient workflow. It works, and there's little YMMV involved here. In every instance be it film or otherwise where we did not design in analog beforehand, the project usually fell apart or at the very least suffered from severe delays. There's a reason project managers get paid so well. It's also the reason Apple and Google are where they're at. Designing in analog is mandatory, at least at Apple it certainly is.
I've written stories completely in the editor more than once. Writing outside of the editor changes nothing for me. I can see why this is a really great idea for some people, but "Absolutely essential"? No.
I'm not saying to not have a plan. I'm just saying you don't have to work the same way as Google to make a game. Especially your first, small game. Let me put it this way: some writers need a very thorough outline before they put pencil to paper or else they'll get stuck and frustrated, but some people can't write a thing if they have an outline because there's no joy of discovery and no point to writing anymore. Both are completely acceptable methods to write a book, they just have different requirements. I'm just saying the same can be true of making a game in RM. If you didn't have a program like RM or if you're working in a group, developing by the seat of your pants is a horrible idea, I agree there. I think our disagreement on this point stems entirely from our disagreement on being in a group.
If you can't function in a team, that sounds like a personal issue. The vast majority of people function better as part of a dedicated team where you can play off of one another's strengths. If you're a rock star at every single part of game design, then good on you, this advice probably isn't for you, since you aren't a beginner or someone even looking for advice. Also, I simply said don't be afraid of a team. Working on a team is not mandatory. However, I think the majority of people would benefit from having a team that they can learn from and lean on when the going gets tough. It also leads to much better finished products.
I think we're disagreeing on this point because I'm coming from the viewpoint of indie/hobbyist and you're coming from the view of a paid professional. Those are very environments and have different goals so they require a different set of skills. I don't think you should be afraid of being in a group for your
second game, but I think being in one for your first one can stunt your growth as a developer. First games are for testing the waters, trying something out and having fun. It's not actually about making a viable product.
What was the first game you've ever worked on? Was it for class? For fun? For your work? I'm willing to bet it wasn't for work. A lot of newbies here have never made
any game before, they're not ready to be in a AAA game creating environment. Working well in a group is a skill and one I don't believe should be worked on when someone is trying to develop all the others they'd need to make a game. These skills don't have to be things like spriting and music creation, I mean things like perserverance, and finishing what you start.
Your statement did get a little personal, so I feel the need to defend myself. I work very well in a group, especially when I'm the art director and not working under one. If you don't believe me I can give you the names of five people who worked with me on my last project, they will all give you glowing recommendations and have expressed the desire to work with me on other projects.
That's pretty much nitpicking, since nowhere in there did I say it wasn't going to be work. I don't see how that's a point for disagreement.
You're right, if I was disagreeing with you, that would have been very nit-picky. I'm sorry I wasn't clear that I was agreeing and adding my own thoughts.
