Full Games List
Featured Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Engines
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engine Bulletins
Links
What is Makerscore?
Store
RMN Music Pack
Event History
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Status History
The Latest
RMN TV
#rpgmaker.net IRC
New to RMN?
[Poll] Would you sell your game on RMN?
BEGINNER'S INTIMIDATION AND HIGH STANDARDS
Posts
Zeuzio
3253
Zeuzio
Closeauthor=Julev
Here's an idea:
What if game submissions were separated into groups. Kind of like leagues. You have the beginner league, the intermediate league and the advanced league.
This is an interesting idea. The leagues could also be affected by makerscore, review scores, ect. It still might segregate the community a bit though, like kentona said.
EDIT:
Oh, it was slashphoenix that said that. My bad.
A.) Give him some pointers. However, "I don't like your shooting form. Fix it." is not advice. If someone said this, the kid's more likely to get annoyed than fix his form. See where I'm going with this?
This is very true. Blunt advice like "Your mapping is bad. Clean it up a bit" isn't really going to help the developer at all. He'll probably just ignore it and keep his mapping the way it is. This applies to real life as well, not just RPG Maker.
But clearly the best option is still A. Why would anybody argue in favor of B is beyond me... With A at least the kid now knows there's something wrong with his shooting. He can then sit on a bench for a while and watch how more experienced 'ballers' do it. He can grab a book and learn some theory about it. And he can always put his pride and his feelings aside and try to improve. The entire world is at his feet!
"Foster an environment where people feel like coming back"? Screw people's feelings! I only care about the games, baby. B)
Haha! I'm totally being a C right now, don't I?
"Foster an environment where people feel like coming back"? Screw people's feelings! I only care about the games, baby. B)
Haha! I'm totally being a C right now, don't I?
You guys raise some good points; my intent was not to segregate the community into rigid 'ranks', as that sounds rather like the most awful thing ever. The idea behind the tags is that they would be entirely voluntary, and serve as a way of showing people instantly what stage a developer was at. There wouldn't be anything preventing a 'newbie' from making a game with an expert tag, and there would be no obligation to use the tags at all.
But yeah, I definitely don't want to 'rank' users.
But yeah, I definitely don't want to 'rank' users.
To be honest i'm quite terrified myself, but i'll try to do my best. 8 or more games ... and i cancelled about almost all of them.
Radnen
843
About ranking/segregating the community. I actually do this myself, and I'm sure others have done so as well. When I see projects, I judge them by their screenshots or by playing them. It's true, but I do it all the time. It's really my only way of knowing their competency levels.
If someone tags themself as a beginner it wouldn't really change the way in which I view their game, honestly.
Though if there was a "beginner league" a benefit would be "skewed reviews" where a 4 star beginner league is different from a 4 star advanced or intermediate league. Beginners would have more leniency in the art/sounds. A beginner will tend to use RTP, while an advanced user will make their own graphics and an intermediate is expected to tweak/modify the graphics. This can be seen as encouragement?
If someone tags themself as a beginner it wouldn't really change the way in which I view their game, honestly.
Though if there was a "beginner league" a benefit would be "skewed reviews" where a 4 star beginner league is different from a 4 star advanced or intermediate league. Beginners would have more leniency in the art/sounds. A beginner will tend to use RTP, while an advanced user will make their own graphics and an intermediate is expected to tweak/modify the graphics. This can be seen as encouragement?
PentagonBuddy
1483
author=kentona
I don't think an official system needs to be put into place. (It would instill a false sense of trust in the "system", and when it fails -ie someone just ignores it and criticizes the game regardless, now the "system" is at fault for failing to provide those imaginary safeguards).
This is not the solution you are looking for.
I feel the need to re-quote Kentona on this. Even a voluntary ranking or league of sorts requires people estimating their own abilities; there will always be plenty who over or underestimate themselves. And "quality" is such a nebulous, subjective, generally hard-to-define thing that I think skewed reviews would only cloud it further.
I'll always advocate criticizing with respect to the person you're criticizing, (Or if nothing else, respect to the inevitable mountains of effort that went into making their game, even if it's shitty.) But plenty of people have already said this in much more eloquent terms!
author=Radnen
A beginner will tend to use RTP, while an advanced user will make their own graphics and an intermediate is expected to tweak/modify the graphics. This can be seen as encouragement?
This would only encourage the association of CUSTOM GRAPHICS/MUSIC SYSTEM~ = good game. That is a terrible association.
Indra
3239
author=PentagonBuddyauthor=Radnen
A beginner will tend to use RTP, while an advanced user will make their own graphics and an intermediate is expected to tweak/modify the graphics. This can be seen as encouragement?
This would only encourage the association of CUSTOM GRAPHICS/MUSIC SYSTEM~ = good game. That is a terrible association.
Seconded -.- *rant start*
It's kind of narrow minded to think that only begginers will go for stock graphics and musics. Those are not aspects that make a good (or expert made, or whatever) game. Considering the vast majority of the projects are non-commercial and a hobby, I feel it's normal that the developer will excel at his AREA OF EXPERTISE. If that area is art and he manages to do a lot of custom stuff? Great. But it's kind of discriminating to dismiss developers who can't or won't go into material customization for whatever reason. A game with godly graphics and a horrible story and writing is not a good game by itself.
tl;dr Yeah, custom stuff, specially graphics, are showy and a good way to grab attention, and usually require an amount of work that can tip you towards the developer's skill, but saying RTP=newbie is kinda offensive to the people who stick to it becuase they're not proficient in custom stuff.
.
*rant over*
And about the tags, as a voluntary behaviour of "I'm a begginer, so please be nice", the idea sounds good, but I don't think it merits a change in the current system. (Except for maying making space for the Begginer/whatever badge)
AABattery
732
Don't most beginners usually say, "This is my first game, so be nice" or something of the like in their gamepages anyway? Using tags won't make a difference.
Radnen
843
author=PentagonBuddyauthor=RadnenThis would only encourage the association of CUSTOM GRAPHICS/MUSIC SYSTEM~ = good game. That is a terrible association.
A beginner will tend to use RTP, while an advanced user will make their own graphics and an intermediate is expected to tweak/modify the graphics. This can be seen as encouragement?
Alright, I wasn't really thinking about good games that don't necessarily have custom graphics. Advanced users do tend to map better; this I guess is a better metric. Indra, I'll completely skip your rant. :)
author=PentagonBuddy
And "quality" is such a nebulous, subjective, generally hard-to-define thing that I think skewed reviews would only cloud it further.
Okay, I'm going to switch my brain on.
If quality were subjective, many professional fields would be obsolete. No, quality implies a metric of 'completeness and richness or excellence'. It's purely objective as per it's definition; the word is also a social construct. Completeness is a sound and definitive metric and the second one more subjective. However, one knows when quality work had been done by comparing the product to other products of similar kind. Therefore quality is also well-defined.
When you create beginner, intermediate and advanced levels you are trying to imply states to the metric; "A beginner has these qualities, intermediate these, etc." The hard part and what is open to interpretation is what exactly constitutes these states? What are their exact qualities? The word "exact" here is hard to use, because as a metric, quality is a 'comparable metric' it's not defined over a set for "less-than and equal to" or "greater-than and equal to". The quality is well defined, but not complete. No two products can be of equal quality unless it's the same thing in which case quality is a moot point.
In reality our brains tend to be super-sleuths and we do create loose definitions for beginner, intermediate and advanced. What else defines the featured games if not for quality? At one point when you create a "beginner" tag with regard to quality, you bite the bullet. There is no exact location for "beginner" but there is one with respect to the other levels of quality. A good logician would know where, while a poor logician comes to the conclusion that "quality" is subjective, and get confused.
I'm by no means a good logician. I have no clue exactly where to put "beginner" so it's best to entirely not do this, and skewed reviews. In fact it's better to keep things where they are. So I'm going to shut up now. :)
PentagonBuddy
1483
Who gets to define quality? There's the basic levels that I agree are completely objective, like "does it not make my computer explode?" or "does it refrain from making my eyes bleed?", but beyond that I think there are better things to do than attempt to iron out community-wide standards. Oftentimes games tend to excel in only one area, (The graphics are beautiful, but the gameplay is terrible. The writing is atrocious but the gameplay addictive. The gameplay is awful, but it tells a compelling story; things like that.) so how would this affect the overall "quality"?
In the end I play games (EVEN RM ONES) to have fun, and I'm of the mind that things like personal enjoyment/fun are incredibly subjective. Following the gods of game design and adhering to all the proper guidelines doesn't mean it'll result in a game I find fun, which is always what it comes back to when I'm thinking about a game's quality. Did I have fun?
I think these are questions it's impossible to get a consensus on in such a large community. People can hardly agree on individual review scores, let alone whether a game and/or its creator(s) are a beginning/intermediate/advanced level. I've played games by seasoned vets that I could have mistaken for a "beginner's effort", though I'll admit I've yet to see a self-admitted first project that rocked my polygonal socks off.
I definitely agree with this! I just think there's a lot of variation person-to-person in what qualifies for those levels.
Being suggested and debated in here, pretty much. I don't think being a featured game is inherently connected to being a good game. Certainly a game that stands out, however!
In the end I play games (EVEN RM ONES) to have fun, and I'm of the mind that things like personal enjoyment/fun are incredibly subjective. Following the gods of game design and adhering to all the proper guidelines doesn't mean it'll result in a game I find fun, which is always what it comes back to when I'm thinking about a game's quality. Did I have fun?
The hard part and what is open to interpretation is what exactly constitutes these states? What are their exact qualities?
I think these are questions it's impossible to get a consensus on in such a large community. People can hardly agree on individual review scores, let alone whether a game and/or its creator(s) are a beginning/intermediate/advanced level. I've played games by seasoned vets that I could have mistaken for a "beginner's effort", though I'll admit I've yet to see a self-admitted first project that rocked my polygonal socks off.
In reality our brains tend to be super-sleuths and we do create loose definitions for beginner, intermediate and advanced.
I definitely agree with this! I just think there's a lot of variation person-to-person in what qualifies for those levels.
What else defines the featured games if not for quality?
Being suggested and debated in here, pretty much. I don't think being a featured game is inherently connected to being a good game. Certainly a game that stands out, however!
It depends on the person of course, but in general I would consider someone with less than 3 years of experience a beginner, 3-6 years intermediate, and more than 6 years advanced. Someone else might replace years with months, though.
People who aren't clearly at the bottom or top of the list have a tendency to place themselves near the middle of the ranks in their minds. Someone who learns basic scripting will think "Oh, I know basic scripting now, that places me as an intermediate. People who don't know scripting are beginners." Two years later when he releases the final version of his first full-length epic he'll thing, "Oh, I have a completed full game now, that puts me as an intermediate. People with only short games or unfinished games are still beginners, glad I'm finally past that stage." Another three years later when he has two games and a small following for his third demo, he'll think, "OK, I'm getting pretty good at a couple aspects of game design. I still don't make my own graphics and my last game was still pretty unbalanced near the end, and I'm nowhere near the point of actually releasing my games on non-rpg-maker indie games sites yet, but at least I'm not one of those novices who is still trying to find their niche." It's a natural human tendency.
Fortunately we have M-M-M-MAKERSCORE as an objective, infallible ranking system.
People who aren't clearly at the bottom or top of the list have a tendency to place themselves near the middle of the ranks in their minds. Someone who learns basic scripting will think "Oh, I know basic scripting now, that places me as an intermediate. People who don't know scripting are beginners." Two years later when he releases the final version of his first full-length epic he'll thing, "Oh, I have a completed full game now, that puts me as an intermediate. People with only short games or unfinished games are still beginners, glad I'm finally past that stage." Another three years later when he has two games and a small following for his third demo, he'll think, "OK, I'm getting pretty good at a couple aspects of game design. I still don't make my own graphics and my last game was still pretty unbalanced near the end, and I'm nowhere near the point of actually releasing my games on non-rpg-maker indie games sites yet, but at least I'm not one of those novices who is still trying to find their niche." It's a natural human tendency.
Fortunately we have M-M-M-MAKERSCORE as an objective, infallible ranking system.
emmych
527
author=LockeZI have to fully and completely disagree with this. Experience does not equal skill and talent, only experience.
It depends on the person of course, but in general I would consider someone with less than 3 years of experience a beginner, 3-6 years intermediate, and more than 6 years advanced. Someone else might replace years with months, though.
You can experience things without learning anything new! I've definitely played games by those who, by your standards, are advanced makers, but that I found felt like a beginner maker's game.
author=LockeZYou're joking, right? I-I can't tell if you're kidding or not.
Fortunately we have M-M-M-MAKERSCORE as an objective, infallible ranking system.
...look it's too late at night for me to successfully interpret potential sarcasm okay
From (relatively limited) personal experience I'd this:
You can learn everything you need to know about making rm games (making systems, eventing, battles, mapping, effects, scripts, whatever) without even having made a single game in your life. and all of the seconadary/auxillary/ancillary rm-related skills can be learned in a non game-making scenario (talking about spriting, art, music, writing) but when it comes to execution of your ideas in-game (aka: the Crunch) experience of actually physically making the games themselves probably trumps all because it's not until all of the variables collide that you see how things are really coming across as a whole and I think it takes time to get a sense of what's good and what's not in that way :/.
(ftr, I don't think I'm actually very good with that myself, because I've not spent enough time actually MAKING THE GAMES AS A WHOLE PRODUCT. I always get stuck on systems or graphics or "x idea" for ages instead.)
I guess my mak gam philosophy is shifting to: "People will play/like anything so long as the execution is good". (and then retroactively rationalize better sounding reasons for why it was cool other than "it was done in a cool way!")
You can learn everything you need to know about making rm games (making systems, eventing, battles, mapping, effects, scripts, whatever) without even having made a single game in your life. and all of the seconadary/auxillary/ancillary rm-related skills can be learned in a non game-making scenario (talking about spriting, art, music, writing) but when it comes to execution of your ideas in-game (aka: the Crunch) experience of actually physically making the games themselves probably trumps all because it's not until all of the variables collide that you see how things are really coming across as a whole and I think it takes time to get a sense of what's good and what's not in that way :/.
(ftr, I don't think I'm actually very good with that myself, because I've not spent enough time actually MAKING THE GAMES AS A WHOLE PRODUCT. I always get stuck on systems or graphics or "x idea" for ages instead.)
I guess my mak gam philosophy is shifting to: "People will play/like anything so long as the execution is good". (and then retroactively rationalize better sounding reasons for why it was cool other than "it was done in a cool way!")
Verincia
141
I can attest to the difference between seeing a game and making a game, and the experience that goes with it. When I first got RPGMaker XP, I had this super game idea in my head, that I thought would do super great, and then I got the program, and discovered how little I knew anything so I had to scale down and do something different within the limits of the program. That's something else that would be within the limits of newbies. People would want something not template made, but for a beginner, it's actually a lot smarter to work within the existing template before you branch out. That way you will at least be acquainted with the minimums.
author=Touchfuzzy
The idea of how to give criticism came up earlier in the rmn irc channel, and the following quote is what came out from me on criticism in a hobby such as RPG Making.
author=Touchfuzzy
I actually think that, while criticism is a good thing in any artistic endeaver, the first thing that people should look for when making a game is making themselves happy. Its a hobby. If they are passionate about it and they enjoy what they've made, I'm happy for them. Doesn't mean I'll like their game as much as they do, and I will criticise what I see as flaws from my perspective but... unless they are making a commercial game, I just think the goal should be to make them happier with the game they make.
I just want to see people happy with what they make. Yeah, there are a lot of newbies who can't take any criticism, its true. But another thing I've noticed (in the RM community at large, not just at RMN) is this idea if anyone disagrees with criticism they are stubborn jackasses or whiny. I mean, if they are ignoring EVERYONE and acting like a crazy person, that's one thing, but if they are taking advice in other areas, and one thing they don't seem to want to change... that doesn't make them an idiot.
I actually saw this exact thing recently (on another forum). A person made several maps using a style that I honestly think looks pretty crappy. Several other people agreed with me, but he liked the style. He responded and adjusted almost everything that other people brought up EXCEPT that style, yet he was focused on and insulted because of his refusal to abandon that one thing.
Lets be honest. Every single game that we all love, has a few people who would absolutely hate it. I think Final Fantasy VII is a good game. I'm sure there is a crowd of you who absolutely hate it and would lambast it. I didn't really like Legend of Dragoon. I'm sure there is a crowd that will completely disagree and tell me how awesome it is. We all have different tastes, and when we give criticism we need to keep that in mind. You may see something as a huge flaw, while the person making the game might see it as great, and hell, some other people PLAYING it might think its great.
It would be a terrible thing if I liked every game that was made. It would mean that the fans of games like Call of Duty or Battlefield would have nothing for them.
Basically this is what I'm saying:
If you are giving criticism, be polite. Try to explain what it is you don't like about the game. Be specific, explain alternatives the person could use. Don't be annoyed if the person doesn't listen to your advice. Don't label someone who politely tells you that doesn't fit into their vision of their game as an idiot or whining baby.
If you are receiving criticism, be polite, don't respond badly if the person doesn't like your game. Take an honest look at the criticism and ask yourself "If I incorporate this, will it make me happier with my game." If the answer is yes, do what you can to incorporate it. If the answer is no, tell them politely that you thank them for their advice, but it doesn't fit into your view of the game. Do your best to explain WHY it doesn't fit into your game.
TLDR
Don't be a dick.
Also, hi, I don't post here, but, around the RM communities I'm... kind of a big deal /narcissism.
Also, Indra, I hope that my criticism was helpful and sorry it took so much pestering to get me to play your test build ;_;
Yeah this post is pretty winning. I might even go so far as to say that it's bi-winning.
There's nothing worse than people just being tools and pretending they're being helpful. This followed by the obligatory "you can't take criticism." You're just being an ass. Knock it off.
Yep, this.
My point is: Yes, it's your game, have all the fun in the world making it. But I find that attitude to be counterproductive. I wonder, did you really try other "graphic designs" to see if you they looked better being more consistent? If they weren't available, did you make a reasonable effort to create them yourself? And if you didn't do any of this, if you made a misinformed decision. How can you be sure it was the correct one?
This is asinine.
author=LockeZ
You know. To be honest, I think I defend my right and responsibility to be an ass at least five times as much as I actually act like an ass.
This is true.
author=Radnen
I'll speak for myself since I can't speak for others.
When I first used RPGMaker (I don't anymore, sadly), I was just a kid. I relate to the OP especially on the part of the learning curve. But I have the feeling that even if I were fluent with the software I would have still not made a great game.
I'm just going to say it. A college education will make your "gams", games. No really, I'm much smarter now than when I was in high school or middle school (when I first used RPGMaker). I've generally read more books, played more games, and wrote more essays since then. The last point is crucial. Writing and getting better at school work makes you think harder on what to do in a video game. Plus a decent college would have higher standards for essays than a high school.
Kids tend to exaggerate or think too broadly on things. I've read stories for games by kids (13 year olds or thereabout) and just shake my head at the weirdness of it. I know, as I said I did this to myself. I look at my own stories I wrote as a kid (lord I still got them), and they made no sense. Plot holes, awkward dialogue, and strange excelsior-ish things that I definitely would have not added if I re-wrote it today.
But as I said I'm only speaking for myself. Age (even maturity) has a lot to do with it. And it's not as obvious as playing other RPGMaker games. I never really did. I took long breaks from game making just to collect general knowledge of the world around me. That is what I found to be more important than churning out game after game or collecting knowledge from other game designers.
So I'm going to be cruel and say: Kids or first timers shouldn't really release their games. Do it for yourself, but keep it to yourself. Guys, I myself have many, many unreleased "garbage" games on my HD. These you'll never get to see for they suck.
tl;dr I value a college education in game designers. I value age and maturity. Better if both when making games.
People seem to like my embarassing juvenillia better than my adult work, when the latter is more informed by my education, training, and all I've learned about game design and theory. What does it meannnnnnnnnnnnnnn--
author=Blitzen
I like this website it is one of my long-time favourites.
das nice, comrade.
author=Julev
Here's an idea:
What if game submissions were separated into groups. Kind of like leagues. You have the beginner league, the intermediate league and the advanced league.
Beginner League
When you first sign up you are in the beginner league. You can only submit one game which will be in the beginner league category. The reviews and comments there are expected to be constructive and to help the developer become better at developing a game.
Intermediate League
Once you have one game submitted in the Beginner League. When that game is set to completed you will be able to join the Intermediate league. This will be a choice presented to the developer. At this level the games are expected to be good, but not perfect. Reviews still focus on criticism and helping the developer become better, but also focus a lot on how fun the game play is.
Advanced League
Similar to the Intermediate League, you can join the it once you have a completed game in the intermediate league. At this level games are expected to be really good.
Anyway, something like that.
Not to be overly brief, but no.
There's the basic levels that I agree are completely objective, like "does it not make my computer explode?"
Unfortunately, haha, everyone's computer is different so even this is pretty subjective.
AABattery
732
author=emmychauthor=LockeZ
Fortunately we have M-M-M-MAKERSCORE as an objective, infallible ranking system.
You're joking, right? I-I can't tell if you're kidding or not.
90% of my makerscore is just from making one EXTREMELY SIMPLE puzzle for Befuddle Quest. Look at my makerscore. Does that mean I'm intermediate?
It's sad that there's no easy way to show off mechanics or interesting gameplay (YouTube videos help but aren't perfect) because it means so many games get judged by their art. I'm guilty of this too - the RTP is innately a big turn-off, but to be honest if I made another RM game I'd probably use the RTP myself, so I guess it's important to be vigilant in your search. So many games try desperately to avoid the "beginner" look of the RTP and instead come up with horribly clashing sprites because they're not really artists.
This is pretty much 100% true, and why an idea for a game isn't worth much.
Anyone can think of an idea for a cool game. Ideas are dirt-cheap. A penny a dozen. Taking that idea and executing it, turning it into an enjoyable and entertaining experience? That takes skill.
author=NewBlack
I guess my mak gam philosophy is shifting to: "People will play/like anything so long as the execution is good". (and then retroactively rationalize better sounding reasons for why it was cool other than "it was done in a cool way!")
This is pretty much 100% true, and why an idea for a game isn't worth much.
Anyone can think of an idea for a cool game. Ideas are dirt-cheap. A penny a dozen. Taking that idea and executing it, turning it into an enjoyable and entertaining experience? That takes skill.
author=AABatteryauthor=emmych90% of my makerscore is just from making one EXTREMELY SIMPLE puzzle for Befuddle Quest. Look at my makerscore. Does that mean I'm intermediate?author=LockeZ
Fortunately we have M-M-M-MAKERSCORE as an objective, infallible ranking system.
You're joking, right? I-I can't tell if you're kidding or not.
Look to the left.
NO.
(muahahahahaahahahahaha!)
*Ruining the grade curve since 1992
Six.
Nine.
Zero.
Six.
Also I'm pretty sure if I took every game I've made but not submitted here (there are like...ten lying around, Eldritch, The Tower, Between Two Worlds, etcetera) and uploaded them with ten screenshots each, I could beat Kentona.
Nine.
Zero.
Six.
Also I'm pretty sure if I took every game I've made but not submitted here (there are like...ten lying around, Eldritch, The Tower, Between Two Worlds, etcetera) and uploaded them with ten screenshots each, I could beat Kentona.
AABattery
732
author=kentona
(muahahahahaahahahahaha!)
*Ruining the grade curve since 1992
I was a complete and total beginner with no games. And when Befuddle Quest 4 was released, I had more makerscore than someone who had a game and was probably far along with it.
Makerscore means SQUAT when it comes to experience.
