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?
rpgmaker.net needs your help (again)!
RMN V4.3 APPROACHES! COMMAND?
Posts
Solitayre
Closeauthor=CreationI think the "problems" with Buzz are more emblematic of problems with user mindsets than with the buzz systems. People love to heap tons and tons and tons and tons of attention on terrible games and tend to ignore a lot of decent-to-good games. This results in bad games getting a ton of buzz while good games wallow in obscurity. A miscarriage of justice!You make it sound like Heartache 101 is a bad game :(. This being said, I'd say you're generally right about the user mindset. We probably should focus more on encouraging good elements as opposed to discouraging awful ones.
Wasn't talking about Heartache 101, which I have no opinion on. A better example would be during the recent review drive. Someone made a game called The Out Casts, a clear first effort RTP game by someone who clearly did not speak English well. It got four reviews, all reinforcing that yes, this is a bad game made by someone who doesn't speak English well!
Meanwhile, cool-looking games like Boutalles and Adventure Ace have zero reviews.
Boutalles is getting a remake and AA isn't done yet IIRC
I mean AA is a nugget crash course one and the games from your above example is nagademo ;w;
I mean AA is a nugget crash course one and the games from your above example is nagademo ;w;
author=Solitayre
Now, call me biased but I think this happens because this site keeps pushing for quantity instead of quality. With better standards, we'd have less 'first RTP effort games' done in a hurry for some contest. Less events where reviewing said games is easier and reaps the same benefits than reviewing "cool-looking games". And of course, less complaints about lack of quality control. x) ...Everybody wins! \o/
Edit: Well, no, that would be setting the bar too high if you ask me... I just want for things to be taken up a notch a bit. ;_;
I'm not sure where you're coming from on that one, alterego. If you mean "contests and events should only allow completed games" then I absolutely agree.
Dyhalto
1288
I don't know about 'completed' games only, but it would be nice to see the "no using materials from your main project" rule eased up or lifted altogether. Contests on a regular basis are nice, but so is having opportunities to show off your flagship's goods in a creative way.
author=alteregoauthor=SolitayreNow, call me biased but I think this happens because this site keeps pushing for quantity instead of quality. With better standards, we'd have less 'first RTP effort games' done in a hurry for some contest. Less events where reviewing said games is easier and reaps the same benefits than reviewing "cool-looking games". And of course, less complaints about lack of quality control. x) ...Everybody wins! \o/
Edit: Well, no, that would be setting the bar too high if you ask me... I just want for things to be taken up a notch a bit. ;_;
I'm not sure I completely follow. From an individual's perspective, I think making a series of short games can lead to sharper skills. In other words, I think quantity can breed quality. From the site's perspective, an event yielding a bunch of poor games is certainly quantity over quality. But everyone has to start somewhere, and all of these people are bound to improve. If the same people enter the same type of contest one year later, the games are likely to be considerably better.
I think it's important for all games to get feedback, regardless if they were for a contest or whatnot. The review drive is an isolated event to put an exclamation point on NaGaDeMo. Future review drives will likely focus on games that have not been reviewed, and so forth.
Thinking long-term, I feel it's fine to take some quality hits now so that people can improve and contribute much better games in the future. The question is: where should the minimum standard be? That's a line that's tricky to draw.
Well people can always submit the low-quality stuff to other sites. It's important for them to be able to put those games out onto a public site and get feedback, but that's different from it being important that we be the site to do it.
Our quality cut-off point is low- to mid-range for indie games. It's somewhere above RRR's but below, say, Newgrounds's or Kongregate's. However, contests and events are pretty much guaranteed to produce worse games than the creators would be making without the contests, because they add time limits. A contest motivates designers to release something, but it sounds like that's exactly the problem. People would rather have the designers release nothing than release mediocre crap. So maybe we should be having fewer contests, or at least not be publishing most of the contest results as actual game profiles.
Our quality cut-off point is low- to mid-range for indie games. It's somewhere above RRR's but below, say, Newgrounds's or Kongregate's. However, contests and events are pretty much guaranteed to produce worse games than the creators would be making without the contests, because they add time limits. A contest motivates designers to release something, but it sounds like that's exactly the problem. People would rather have the designers release nothing than release mediocre crap. So maybe we should be having fewer contests, or at least not be publishing most of the contest results as actual game profiles.
author=LockeZ
Well people can always submit the low-quality stuff to other sites. It's important for them to be able to put those games out onto a public site and get feedback, but that's different from it being important that we be the site to do it.
Our quality cut-off point is low- to mid-range for indie games. It's somewhere above RRR's but below, say, Newgrounds's or Kongregate's. However, contests and events are pretty much guaranteed to produce worse games than the creators would be making without the contests, because they add time limits. A contest motivates designers to release something, but it sounds like that's exactly the problem. People would rather have the designers release nothing than release mediocre crap. So maybe we should be having fewer contests, or at least not be publishing most of the contest results as actual game profiles.
I really think that events that are geared towards producing small games in a short time frame should get one game page just for the event, not individual game pages. Kinda how Action 52/Befuddle Quest is setup.
author=ankylo
I really think that events that are geared towards producing small games in a short time frame should get one game page just for the event, not individual game pages. Kinda how Action 52/Befuddle Quest is setup.
Some of the small games are really quite good. And if I produced something good(small or not) I would prefer it appear directly in my list of games, rather than an event appearing. Things like Befuddle Quest and RMNbros are team games so it makes sense for the event to appear in the list. Plus, sometimes the dev will expand on the game and it is no longer a little event game.
There's also the issue of comments/blogs/images. People are going to comment/add stuff on a game and if all games are on the same page it becomes harder for anything to stand out.
author=Deckiller
quantity can breed quality
This is a good point. Even for skilled developers, as you make small games you are getting feedback and figuring out what works without having an epicly huge project that is nearly impossible to make all those improvements on.
On topic, I had this idea for some kind of "Trusted" status for users. It's a manual flag that can be applied by the mods to someone who has proven a certain level of quality in their work over a decent period of time. It doesn't have to be visual, it can be behind the scenes. The purpose? To allow them to submit something without needing it approved by staff. They are "Trusted" and have never produced anything that got denied because of quality. When you see a submission from a certain user like, say, Archeia_Nessiah are you likely to accept it right away? It can be revoked if the person abuses it in some way.
author=Link_2112
On topic, I had this idea for some kind of "Trusted" status for users. It's a manual flag that can be applied by the mods to someone who has proven a certain level of quality in their work over a decent period of time. It doesn't have to be visual, it can be behind the scenes. The purpose? To allow them to submit something without needing it approved by staff. They are "Trusted" and have never produced anything that got denied because of quality. When you see a submission from a certain user like, say, Archeia_Nessiah are you likely to accept it right away? It can be revoked if the person abuses it in some way.
This already exists (for some content, not games) and has been applied to a few users.
author=ankylo
This already exists (for some content, not games) and has been applied to a few users.
Neat!
Minor suggestion, I kind of feel like the "Articles" could use a "community" sub-section for things like interviews, Tau's Looking Back series, or other articles related to the community.
I really like Ankylo's idea of keeping contest entries in a single gamepage. Entries that are good can be allowed to have their own gamepage once the contest ends or once the game is further developed by their author(s). This could help keep to things more organized and whatnot... Though, maybe a 'collective' type of gamepage needs be created for this to be more effective.
