As usual, I've spent time imagining what kind of game's I could develop with GameMaker. I don't get far, and as for why, I'm forced to admit in the end I lack the creative foresight that most designers possess, yet I suppose I'm lucky enough to program, as opposed to designers I've seen who can't accomplish much more than writing lengthy descriptions of their ideas.
I've thought about working with a team, and while I'm still interested in doing so, I find I'm difficult to work with if my ideas are taken into account, as opposed to simply telling me what to program. And it's not that I'm anti-social, or difficult to understand, so much as I have difficulty letting others change my ideas for better or worse. I don't always consider my ideas good, and I think it mainly has to do with the fact I'm generally a stubborn person who occasionally sees things clearly and intelligently and uses this as an excuse to vie for more control on a collaborative project when the group lacks a definite leader or direction to head.I won't say I'm great at programming with GameMaker, but I will say I'm quite competent. If we were to sidestep for a moment and consider who in my opinion ranks as some of the most proficient GMLers, I would say people such as Yourself, Roach, CoderChris etc. However, a lot of their accomplishments reflect a firm understanding of other programming languages, such as C++. It would seem as though a deeper understanding into GML is one that takes a step out of it. Learning other computer languages help develop a better understanding of memory efficiency, among other key attributes of computer programming that GM either vaguely covers, or leaves out entirely.Anyhow, I quite like programming, however I'm conflicted with my creative self who urges that I take on more interesting works than the usual examples demonstrating how efficiently I've been able to accomplish an otherwise uninspiring task, such as one-script games, or memory efficiency. However, I find the problem in the end is a lack of proper resources. I have a friend whose a talented artist, but lacks the motivation to draw the numerous (small and unassuming) resources needed to make a full game, a friend whose talented musically (one who owns a small stockpile of stringed instruments) who suffers from being a perfectionist, and can't seem to hand over any works of his for use in a game unless it's the best he can do, regardless of whether he should consider that anything other than the usual ripped MIDIs or bloated mp3s found in most of that which exists featuring in GM games today, is the better alternative.I'd much rather do a puzzle game, or something else which is simple to build, simple to play, and can be easily polished and rewritten for maximum code and performance efficiency. This seems typical I think of most programmers interested in games, but given the number of existing games which seemed to have already perfected the genre, it then becomes more difficult to develop new and original games, that is without having already copied, mimicked, or built upon pre-existing titles of the past.If given the chance (and not to say this expecting anyone to raise their hand asking if I'm interested in any projects), I'd design and write something which is both abstract in design, but provokes the mind without giving the player a sense as if they've been left to fend for themselves, assuming if they're not intelligent or creative enough to get anywhere in the game (or understand much about what's being seen), they shouldn't be playing the game in the first place (which I think a lot of surrealist games tend to do).Being an intelligent and/or creative individual should not mean always creating something so esoteric that only a few understand it. While its important to challenge ourselves, I think its equally important to make intelligent and creative games accessible to everyone (a la Nintendo), yet not to be caught up in keeping everyone hooked on easy-to-understand expressions of the mind. If only there were more games that existed which lent a thought-provoking message or design to itself, but didn't lose integrity in pretentious ideology and selfishly hiding significant truths, only to purposely keep people guessing like mindless idiots featured in a whodunit-styled plot device, there would be something more interesting and at home (for me at least) to play in this world.
I suffer from a different problem. Time. Time makes great games, and when I see that time is short on a project, I usually quit it before its started.
I have some good ideas, (like a videogame quiz), but I never get round to building an engine and experimenting with it.This is also why, despite using GM for over 2 years, I'm not actually very good at using it, (despite the fact I can see most of the method in my head).I haven't shown this to anyone, but I have made a simple grappling hook example (we're talking 2D platformer, not zelda), that if I had time, I would spruce it up and release it here.(As I haven't documented it, and it needs tweaking)Try thinking of a few games you love, then maybe try to combine them, or add what you would believe to be an upgrade to them. Thats what I do, or I make weird engines that never make it to this site because then they would have my awesome particle designer like that one on the site. Just think of something, and go through with it. I do it, but about 70% of my games are dropped because they get too hard, too stupid, too easy, and so on.
If this wasn't any help, just think of it as me talking just for the sake of talking.What I do is experiment with different ideas and gameplay mechanics. Out of the 12 games I have made in gm, only 4 are online to play (and the 3rd is a 1 stage demo.) How I broke my mold is to make small simple arcade games (i.e bubbles). Big games take a lot of time (kyles quest took me nearly 9 months to make) and it may not be well received because of the time factor. However simple games leave a lot of room for experimentation and are more fun to make.