Why Good Isn't Always The Goal

Any time you do creative work - that is, work that requires you to go out on a limb to make your own risky judgments about what is good, what isn't, and why - you will inevitably run up against the worry that what you are doing is just garbage.

This really applies to any sort of creative work, but since you're probably reading this because you're somehow into the game modding scene, I'm going to talk about coding and making game mods.

I'm as bad about this as anyone. Is this idea any good?, the voices ask. Should I continue devoting time to it? Is anyone going to like it? Am I kidding myself, telling myself I'm better at this than I actually am?

Doubt is sort of the driver in the creative process, I've found, and is something you never ever quite put to bed once and for all.

Here's the problem, though.  "Good" doesn't really mean anything, not in any objective and literal sense. It's nothing but a word that means "it passes someone's particular set of troll bridge tests and may now move on to the next trial, fool or hero as the case may be". It means that you're waiting for permission to work.

Over the years I've noticed that definitions of "good" when it comes to game mods include:

• It's the mod I was looking for today
• It's the mod that surprised me most today
• It's the mod that everyone else likes
• It's the mod everyone hates and I'm edgy
• I like the author personally
• I love the idea but have no clue if it actually works as advertised
• I love the idea because no one else knows about it
• It allows me to replace some other mod that didn't make me as happy
• The code may be slow, but it is cleanly written and robust
• The code runs fast, regardless of how messy it actually is
• The mod is compatible with everything, but has limited features
• The mod isn't compatible with anything, but has lots of features
• The mod validated my other mod choices
• The mod inspired me to toss out my other mod choices

Meanwhile, "not good" can include:

• This isn't the mod I would have written myself
• I don't like the author's attitude on a personal level
• The mod was written five years ago and doesn't support the latest mods
• The mod lacks a certain feature that I need
• The mod has features that I don't need
• The mod runs too slow for the build I need it for
• The mod runs fine, but the code is an unreadable mess
• The mod doesn't work as I think it should but I don't know why
• Other people don't like the mod for some reason
• Other people don't like the author for some reason
• The mod expresses a game vision I disagree with

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

You can't win by shooting for "good", because no two people ever entirely agree on what "good" actually is. Even the objective metrics (run speed, bugs, etc.) are chosen and prioritized subjectively. The only distinction lies in who you choose to listen to.

The other problem - and, for me, the bigger one - is that very often a metric for "good" requires a tradeoff sacrifice of some other competing metric. It's hard to be good at everything, and it's generally impossible to be good at everything at the same time.

For example: let's say you have an idea for a mod that implements some complex but possibly very interesting game mechanic. However, making it happen at all is going to mean breaking a lot of compatibility, placing high stress on the game engine, probably providing a lot of personal user support, and likely spending years stomping out edge case bugs.

Should you do it? Is it a good idea?

Some would say no. They would say that all the costs involved in the idea outweigh any possible benefit, that you should never write a mod that breaks compatibility or pushes the engine too hard. No effect is worth that hassle.

Others would say yes. They would say that no one is forcing anyone to use the mod, and that as long as the user is made aware of the cost, they can make their own informed decision about whether the benefit outweighs that. And besides, it's a very cool effect.

Who is right?

None of them are right.

All of them are right.

And that's the problem.

That is why you shouldn't spend too much of your time worrying about whether the thing you're working on is "any good". Because, honestly, it's none of your business. It is "good" if it is faithful to what it is. It is "good" if it is honest about the tradeoffs that it presents, if it isn't lying to people.

Everything beyond that is a personal taste decision that happens outside of your control, and usually, your ability to clearly discern.

So if you are looking at an idea today and asking yourself whether it is "good", please, stop asking yourself that. Because all you are really asking yourself is, who are you willing to empower to make you abandon it? Who are you outsourcing your decisions to, and why?

If you have an idea, it is worth pursuing that idea to see where it goes.

It may go nowhere. It may go everywhere. It may go to a place you never dreamed of. It may change your life. It may change someone else's life.

Waiting for the "good idea" just means waiting for the risk-free idea. They don't exist, because they've all already been done. So just start working. Make your own decisions, for your own reasons, in pursuit of your own goals.

Let the critics do their own work for a change.

But when someone inevitably tells you that your effort is no good - and they will - try to understand what metric they are using before you feel bad about it. Because very often, you will discover that it is a metric that you never cared about in the first place, held up as an objective standard by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.