Making games you don't like
We already discussed games to work on first. Shmups, flappy birds, match-3s, endless runners, pong, whatever floats your boat...
But here lies the problem.
What if they don't float your boat? What if you don't like these games? What if you don't play them? And since you don't play them you won't be able to test them properly and check if they work. How will you be able to make them work?
You might say I'm overthinking it a bit.
And you're right, at least when it comes to learning and practice.
But what if it’s not only about learning and practice?
What if you want to show your work?
If you decide to iterate over simple prototypes and milk a genre to the limits of your imagination you might want to consider showing your game to genre fans!
That's what a solopreneur would do.
Build fast, sell fast!
And iterate on it, enhance, test ideas, show it to people, gather feedback, repeat!
That can help, as long as you won't introduce yourself as "Hi, my name is X, and I don't like shmups" (or put any genre name here). You might not be greeted with joy 😉
But public relations and networking aside, you still need to make a game you do not actually like. How to approach this?
First,
I would start by making the game easy as in child's play. Even if you make a souls-like, make it a souls-like for kids 😉
Second,
I would make it parametrized. Then it can be easily tweaked and made harder on demand. You could also use it to train yourself in this genre and start liking it (because you will suck less at it 😉).
Third,
add a twist or personal flavor. Don’t stop with making a simple mediocre (sorry!) game. Use your brain while it's in the game designer’s mindset!
I should probably keep this in mind instead of staring at the end goal and not starting anything because of how overwhelming it looks 😅
All good points.
Then there's the psychology of the game genre itself. WHY don't you like that genre of games?
I have no idea what a "schmups" game is, but the name itself is off-puting to me.
If I were to approach the genre, I'd get micro-detailed into what the core gameplay element is (SINGULAR), then determine what features are often associated with in and why the games in the genre are made that way.
Ex: Super Mario Bros. was mostly just a character move element with gravity which enabled a semi-realistic jump motion. From there, the movement was impeded by stairs, moving platforms, enemies, etc. Adding the Supersize mushroom was a way to delay death if hurt by an enemy. The Fire Flower gave a different kind of attack than just jumping atop them.
Sonic the Hedgehog is the exact same game but different. It's also dependent entirely on just the character move element with gravity and jump. The difference is how Sega chose to impede / aid Sonic's journey vs how Nintendo impeded Mario's.
How would Mario fare battling Dr. Robotnik?
How would Sonic fare battling Koopas?
In every game, there's a single game mechanic that's core to the entire game. Everything else is added on to help or hinder that mechanic. The mechanic isn't anything special, but what's added on makes the game more or less interesting. It could be the storyline, the art, age focus, etc. that's turning you off to the genre. It's NOT the genre itself; it's everything AROUND it that's irritating.
I have found that by focusing on the genre's I HATE; I find that it's often the atheist game developers / oneupsmanshipping gamer community that made it as much of an irritation more than the game itself. I don't do MMORPGs because of the idiots that inevitably get on and ruin the whole experience.