First, it is quite contrary, but I believe that you don't necessarily need to make a "game" - in the way most people think that you should. You are better off if you can, but it is not a requirement. The best example I can cite is Minecraft, whose own creator claims it is not a game (he also is adverse to labels in general though). I demoed VQ to someone at GDC and they had fun just walking around and enjoying the scenery (yes, it was the proverbial "walking simulator").
There is value in whatever you decide to do, even if it is not monetary value. The most important thing, I think, is that you are having fun, because if you are not then the game business is generally not worth the associated suffering.
In my case, I enjoyed work most of the time, and in addition got to take a stab at pushing technological boundaries. The latter was not particularly valuable in terms of gameplay, but it was valuable in terms of creating interest and opportunities.
That said, the most telling thing that I found was that I often wanted to find something simpler (not a strong desire, but definitely in the back of my head). If I had to redo it all I'd make a 2D platformer - as overdone as that is, it is something that is far easier to work on and there are not nearly as many technical battles.
What you decide to use is up to you, but going completely from scratch is not a good idea IMO (unless you want to learn it all). I am a big fan of minimalist frameworks like Monogame and bgfx - they handle a lot of that annoying framework setup for you, but do not include the usual scene-graph workflow that you find in Unreal and Unity. That said, Unreal and Unity are excellent options if you do prefer a scene editor and an engine that is ready to ship out of the box.
> If I had to redo it all I'd make a 2D platformer - as overdone as that is, it is something that is far easier to work on and there are not nearly as many technical battles.
I, for one, am extremely happy that you don't get to redo all of it :P
First, it is quite contrary, but I believe that you don't necessarily need to make a "game" - in the way most people think that you should. You are better off if you can, but it is not a requirement. The best example I can cite is Minecraft, whose own creator claims it is not a game (he also is adverse to labels in general though). I demoed VQ to someone at GDC and they had fun just walking around and enjoying the scenery (yes, it was the proverbial "walking simulator").
There is value in whatever you decide to do, even if it is not monetary value. The most important thing, I think, is that you are having fun, because if you are not then the game business is generally not worth the associated suffering.
In my case, I enjoyed work most of the time, and in addition got to take a stab at pushing technological boundaries. The latter was not particularly valuable in terms of gameplay, but it was valuable in terms of creating interest and opportunities.
That said, the most telling thing that I found was that I often wanted to find something simpler (not a strong desire, but definitely in the back of my head). If I had to redo it all I'd make a 2D platformer - as overdone as that is, it is something that is far easier to work on and there are not nearly as many technical battles.
What you decide to use is up to you, but going completely from scratch is not a good idea IMO (unless you want to learn it all). I am a big fan of minimalist frameworks like Monogame and bgfx - they handle a lot of that annoying framework setup for you, but do not include the usual scene-graph workflow that you find in Unreal and Unity. That said, Unreal and Unity are excellent options if you do prefer a scene editor and an engine that is ready to ship out of the box.