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?
RMN v4.5 (and beyond) Feature Idea List
CRITICISM, YOUR AUDIENCE, AND PUTTING YOUR FOOT DOWN; THE CONCEPT OF SAYING "THAT'S TOO GOD DAMN BAD."
Posts
Feldschlacht IV
CloseA lot of times, actually, most of the time, a creator asks for input on something he's working on for his game, and most of the time, more often than not, the possible answers narrow down to two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Opinions clash, and invariably the comment is mentioned "Do what you want, it's your game."
That concept is something I want to talk about with you guys. Is there an objective line, or even a subjective line drawn when it comes to possible quality, appealing to a certain audience, and the final option, just saying "Fuck it", because it's your game and you should do what you want with it?
Where does the responsibility as a game creator go when it comes to taking suggestions, keeping a level of quality for his game, and of course fulfilling his own wants for the direction of his project? How do you feel about this, not only as a game creator yourself, but as a gamer when you play other games, professional or otherwise?
That concept is something I want to talk about with you guys. Is there an objective line, or even a subjective line drawn when it comes to possible quality, appealing to a certain audience, and the final option, just saying "Fuck it", because it's your game and you should do what you want with it?
Where does the responsibility as a game creator go when it comes to taking suggestions, keeping a level of quality for his game, and of course fulfilling his own wants for the direction of his project? How do you feel about this, not only as a game creator yourself, but as a gamer when you play other games, professional or otherwise?
tpasmall
287
I think it follows a pretty linear scale, the more talent you have the less advice you should listen to. While advice can help make a bad project tolerable, an innovative, great project can be watered down by too much input and just be another game.
You can't please everyone, so if you believe in your project, just do it the way you want. Ask for advice on mechanical or visual aspects, but as far as creative aspects go, do your own thing.
You can't please everyone, so if you believe in your project, just do it the way you want. Ask for advice on mechanical or visual aspects, but as far as creative aspects go, do your own thing.
Despain
70
first off you can't have a topic like this unless you break down different types of criticism. whats relevant to this topic are hard crits vs opinions (or whatever the fuck terminology you want to use).
if i give someone a hard crit I'm stating a FACT. something that is very hard to disagree with and something that most people can spot. ("your facesets dont match at all—you're mixing rtp with anime rips and it looks like shit" or if there's a glitch or an obvious mapping error or something). people should listen to that.
if there's something that's more of a gameplay decision then they can take it at their discretion. the problem here is that MOST OF THE TIME THE PERSON WITH THE CRITICISM IS STILL RIGHT AND LISTENING TO THEM WILL MAKE THE GAME BETTER. if some aspect of the gameplay is total shit and someone calls you out on it—more importantly, if MULTIPLE PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME CRITICISM TO MAKE, don't brush it aside with "well durrr that's my choice lol". if you want to make your game better, then listen to what people have to say.
if they're just making the game to fuck around or w/e and don't give a shit about making it good, then they probably shouldn't be posting it online in the first place.
the problem here is that the people without talents are the ones who think they have the most of it.
really good rpgmaker game? ahahahhahhahhaha good one buddy
if i give someone a hard crit I'm stating a FACT. something that is very hard to disagree with and something that most people can spot. ("your facesets dont match at all—you're mixing rtp with anime rips and it looks like shit" or if there's a glitch or an obvious mapping error or something). people should listen to that.
if there's something that's more of a gameplay decision then they can take it at their discretion. the problem here is that MOST OF THE TIME THE PERSON WITH THE CRITICISM IS STILL RIGHT AND LISTENING TO THEM WILL MAKE THE GAME BETTER. if some aspect of the gameplay is total shit and someone calls you out on it—more importantly, if MULTIPLE PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME CRITICISM TO MAKE, don't brush it aside with "well durrr that's my choice lol". if you want to make your game better, then listen to what people have to say.
if they're just making the game to fuck around or w/e and don't give a shit about making it good, then they probably shouldn't be posting it online in the first place.
I think it follows a pretty linear scale, the more talent you have the less advice you should listen to.
the problem here is that the people without talents are the ones who think they have the most of it.
author=Max McGee
I want to reply to this topic, but I am actually playing a really good RPG Maker game right now.
really good rpgmaker game? ahahahhahhahhaha good one buddy
I believe there's a completely objective line.
Know what you want to accomplish. Take only the advice that leads you to that goal. The rest you say fuck it.
For example:
If you want to make a game that is praised by the community, listen to what the community has to say. Even if you disagree with what they think.
If you just want to make a game with a story/concept/idea/etc that you like, then don't give a damn if someone else doesn't like your story/concept/idea/etc.
If it's somewhere in the middle (most people's projects), establish to yourself what you're not willing to change. This could be anything. Then ask for opinions about everything else.
In the end, everything in your game falls under the category of "this is my game, I do what want." I mean EVERYTHING. However, people do care about the opinions of others. They do aspire to make a 'better' game. Just take whatever advice you want to take.
The point of a place like this is discussion. "I don't know what's best by myself, so I want to hear what other people have to say." They should never ever ever ever ever dictate to you what you will do in your game.
edit:
I will say this though. I've noticed that some critics don't realize how much influence they have on their fellow gamemakers. It's pretty sad to see people get thrown off or quit because of a few comments here and there.
Know what you want to accomplish. Take only the advice that leads you to that goal. The rest you say fuck it.
For example:
If you want to make a game that is praised by the community, listen to what the community has to say. Even if you disagree with what they think.
If you just want to make a game with a story/concept/idea/etc that you like, then don't give a damn if someone else doesn't like your story/concept/idea/etc.
If it's somewhere in the middle (most people's projects), establish to yourself what you're not willing to change. This could be anything. Then ask for opinions about everything else.
In the end, everything in your game falls under the category of "this is my game, I do what want." I mean EVERYTHING. However, people do care about the opinions of others. They do aspire to make a 'better' game. Just take whatever advice you want to take.
The point of a place like this is discussion. "I don't know what's best by myself, so I want to hear what other people have to say." They should never ever ever ever ever dictate to you what you will do in your game.
edit:
I will say this though. I've noticed that some critics don't realize how much influence they have on their fellow gamemakers. It's pretty sad to see people get thrown off or quit because of a few comments here and there.
really good rpgmaker game? ahahahhahhahhaha good one buddy
No seriously bro. It is fucking awesome.
EDIT: Link adjusted.
if i give someone a hard crit I'm stating a FACT. something that is very hard to disagree with and something that most people can spot. ("your facesets dont match at all—you're mixing rtp with anime rips and it looks like shit" or if there's a glitch or an obvious mapping error or something). people should listen to that.
It also helps when criticism is directly paired with aid: that is the stuff that obviously doesn't come from bad faith and that you should probably listen to. Like "that title screen is really bad, here have this much better one". : )
GreatRedSpirit
"Campaign promises are—by long democratic tradition—the least binding form of human commitment...."
5278
Criticism gets compared against Reward:Cost (which does factor in sunken cost), what the devs are capable of, and concept. There's a million things wrong with my stuff. Would a fix improve it and how much would it cost to implement? Is it worth it, especially if it moved past the requirements and design stage and drastic changes can mean increased debugging time? Can I implement it? I can't write worth a shit so when somebody tells me my characters are crap I go "Yeah, I know". I'd love to make interesting characters then I try and the result is always awful. Shit I cut like 80% of the dialog from Demon's Gate because when I was proof reading it all I could think about was how dumb and shitty it was. Image comes down to what kind of experience I want to convey. Is something making a game I want to be fun boring? Then I'd weight it in against the rest of the criticism machine. Somebody complaining about the music in Nightmare from RMNBros2? Sorry bro but that's exactly the experience I want to convey.
author=Despain
if there's something that's more of a gameplay decision then they can take it at their discretion. the problem here is that MOST OF THE TIME THE PERSON WITH THE CRITICISM IS STILL RIGHT AND LISTENING TO THEM WILL MAKE THE GAME BETTER. if some aspect of the gameplay is total shit and someone calls you out on it—more importantly, if MULTIPLE PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME CRITICISM TO MAKE, don't brush it aside with "well durrr that's my choice lol". if you want to make your game better, then listen to what people have to say.
A lot of the time, people think you should change a certain thing in the game because they aren't having fun at that part. But it's the way it is because otherwise much more serious problems would be caused at another part. You have to learn to interpret criticism - unless the person you're talking to is an experienced game designer they basically have like a 0% chance of actually being completely right about what they think is the best solution.
Let me give you an example from my MUD. A few weeks ago we added a new very high level boss that drops some cool very high level equipment when it's killed. But we don't handle equipment the way, say, World of Warcraft does. A player might get a new piece of equipment every five levels or so, and the vast majority of equipment is only useful in certain situations. So balancing the equipment has to be micromanaged on a case-by-case basis.
In this case, one of the items - a set of body slot equipment for agility-based characters - has maximum defense power plus a huge amount of evasion. At first glance this is a good defensive item, but evasion isn't a reliable way of surviving against bosses. You have to be able to survive even when you don't evade, because sometimes you won't evade. What evasion actually does is A) it gives people extra turns where they don't have to heal and can attack instead, and B) gives some room for error. So those are the main benefits of this new item.
But this item is designed for agility-based characters, and one of their strongest attacks drains HP. With the right setup, they never actually have to spend rounds just healing themselves. And since that is by far the dominant strategy among high level agility characters, the new item is basically useless. They don't need the extra turns for offense because they already spend every round on offense. They don't need the room for error because they use one ability over and over.
And so, I get bombarded with complaints that the item is useless and needs to be recoded to not suck and actually provide some benefit for the agility characters. I don't get bombarded with the reasoning I've listed above, as the players don't actually think about that stuff. They don't think about the other design choices that cause them to play the way they do or that cause it to be worse than other items. They just see that their damage output stays the same as before and that they can't survive any attacks they couldn't survive before, so the item isn't an improvement. I have been getting messages every day, "Make it better," "This item sucks ass," "Agility characters get screwed, they have no good items from the new boss".
But the real solution, as a good game designer would probably see, isn't to make the item better. It's to add additional, more fun strategies for agility characters to use. It's stupid that their best playstyle revolves around using a single ability every single round. If we make other playstyles be viable choices for agility-based characters also, then the item becomes useful *and* the game becomes more fun.
In conclusion: If a bunch of players are complaining about something, you almost certainly have a problem. But the chances of it actually being the problem they say it is? Pretty slim. You did stuff the way you did for a reason; find a way to solve the problem the players are talking about that lets you also do what you originally wanted.
Avee
850
The professionnal game design industry doesn't have communities and forums where developers listen to and consider players' criticism.
Here, such an exchange is possible and encouraged because:
1) most of us appreciate this exchange, and
2) we don't design games for a living.
Yet developers are free to consider players' criticism or not. They can do what they want and that can include considering players' opinions, or not.
If a player is unsatisfied with a certain game, it's great to express his opinion, but he shouldn't expect to be considered. If a player gets to the point of saying "it's your game, do what you want", he already expected too much from this. I believe that the "mistake" is there, not in the clashing ideas about what quality should be.
Here, such an exchange is possible and encouraged because:
1) most of us appreciate this exchange, and
2) we don't design games for a living.
Yet developers are free to consider players' criticism or not. They can do what they want and that can include considering players' opinions, or not.
If a player is unsatisfied with a certain game, it's great to express his opinion, but he shouldn't expect to be considered. If a player gets to the point of saying "it's your game, do what you want", he already expected too much from this. I believe that the "mistake" is there, not in the clashing ideas about what quality should be.
author=Avee
The professionnal game design industry doesn't have communities and forums where developers listen to and consider players' criticism.
That's not actually true. Many online games have exactly that. I know for a fact Blizzard actually has automated scripts that tally the number of people complaining about certain things in the forums (and possibly also in in-game chat, I can't remember), and report the numbers to the designers.
Darken
982
Lately I've been thinking games and other creative works can kind of benefit from a closed or limited criticism. Like everyone here tends to gravitate towards an established list of do nots (sprite rip clash, slow walk speeds, etc.) to the point where if everyone listened to us every game would feel almost the same except with few minor cross adjustments.
What we hammer in here is not much different from professional game development. (every game needs an achievement system, every game needs some sort of progression or pseudo rpg system to keep suckers playing, every game needs a sand box in order to trick people they have a million choices when all we did was scale the level size to 5.0 and implemented stock NPCs due to budget/time constraints) you get the idea... Even if someone sounds objectively sound, I think there's always a flipside to things, like you can change a common flaw into something completely different. The people that do this are only thinking for themselves, which is something that gets tarnished sometimes. Yes it means the game might suck, but I don't see Sturgeon's Law changing any time soon (if you believe in it anyway) so why strive for everyone's appeal?
Games like Space Funeral or Yume Nikki seem to spit on standards we have set around these parts (SF having easy as shit battles with YM having slow walk speed and no clear direction) yet they have been popular beyond just RMN. What I mean to say is "HAHA IN YOUR FACE QUALITY!!!". Idk I think there's just something to take from a 'creator for himself' point of view and maybe striving for perfection in order to get a small 1k download pool doesn't really fit an amateur game making community well.
What we hammer in here is not much different from professional game development. (every game needs an achievement system, every game needs some sort of progression or pseudo rpg system to keep suckers playing, every game needs a sand box in order to trick people they have a million choices when all we did was scale the level size to 5.0 and implemented stock NPCs due to budget/time constraints) you get the idea... Even if someone sounds objectively sound, I think there's always a flipside to things, like you can change a common flaw into something completely different. The people that do this are only thinking for themselves, which is something that gets tarnished sometimes. Yes it means the game might suck, but I don't see Sturgeon's Law changing any time soon (if you believe in it anyway) so why strive for everyone's appeal?
Games like Space Funeral or Yume Nikki seem to spit on standards we have set around these parts (SF having easy as shit battles with YM having slow walk speed and no clear direction) yet they have been popular beyond just RMN. What I mean to say is "HAHA IN YOUR FACE QUALITY!!!". Idk I think there's just something to take from a 'creator for himself' point of view and maybe striving for perfection in order to get a small 1k download pool doesn't really fit an amateur game making community well.
author=Darken
Lately I've been thinking games and other creative works can kind of benefit from a closed or limited criticism. Like everyone here tends to gravitate towards an established list of do nots (sprite rip clash, slow walk speeds, etc.) to the point where if everyone listened to us every game would feel almost the same except with few minor cross adjustments.
Considering there are probably not more than fifty completed indie RPGs out there that even attempt to adhere to this stuff and probably not even one that comes close to succeeding, I don't think we're in danger of anything of the sort. I, personally, wouldn't keep harping on the common flaws if they became uncommon. They haven't yet. The few people who actually understand what they're doing always seem to either make weird unique stuff that doesn't come anywhere close to these ideals, or just abandon their projects.
Also, you have to know something is right and know why it's right before you can decide to go against it for the sake of artistic merit. If you just go against it because doing so is the first thing that comes to your mind and you're not aware of the "right" way to do it, the result will not be a piece of artistic genius. It will be a piece of amateur garbage. You have to keep preaching about the proper way to do things in order for the "improper" games to succeed.
Feld, to answer you question directly, there should be ZERO responsibility on your part as a game creator to listen to advice/criticism.
There is no moral right in gamemaking. Only a list of if/then's.
If you want many people to play your game, then make it marketable.
If you want to be innovative, expect backlash from people who want games to be a certain way.
In appealing to an audience, you can't change what they want. You can only pander to their tastes. Or appeal to a different audience.
My advice is do what makes you happy. If you don't enjoy making a game that people like, you shouldn't do it. Conversely if the reward of people appreciating your game is enough for your hard work, then that's cool too.
There is no moral right in gamemaking. Only a list of if/then's.
If you want many people to play your game, then make it marketable.
If you want to be innovative, expect backlash from people who want games to be a certain way.
In appealing to an audience, you can't change what they want. You can only pander to their tastes. Or appeal to a different audience.
My advice is do what makes you happy. If you don't enjoy making a game that people like, you shouldn't do it. Conversely if the reward of people appreciating your game is enough for your hard work, then that's cool too.
Considering there are probably not more than fifty completed indie RPGs out there that even attempt to adhere to this stuff and probably not even one that comes close to succeeding, I
You're exaggerating. I played one just today that met all of these criteria and was good on top of it. I reviewed it.
Well I was assuming there were like 40 more things implied in "etc." that are commonly considered obviously-good ideas.
If all he meant was literally just making your graphics match, your walk speed tolerable, three tile rule or whatever, and one or two other obvious things, then his complaining that it will make all games the same is kind of ridiculous.
(Three tile rule is dumb, by the way. But it's an okay starting point if you are quite bad at mapping.)
If all he meant was literally just making your graphics match, your walk speed tolerable, three tile rule or whatever, and one or two other obvious things, then his complaining that it will make all games the same is kind of ridiculous.
(Three tile rule is dumb, by the way. But it's an okay starting point if you are quite bad at mapping.)
Darken
982
author=LockeZ
You have to keep preaching about the proper way to do things in order for the "improper" games to succeed.
It's definitely not working. Also what is the proper way?
author=LockeZ
Also, you have to know something is right and know why it's right before you can decide to go against it for the sake of artistic merit. If you just go against it because doing so is the first thing that comes to your mind and you're not aware of the "right" way to do it, the result will not be a piece of artistic genius. It will be a piece of amateur garbage. You have to keep preaching about the proper way to do things in order for the "improper" games to succeed.
I just can't agree that there's a "correct" way to make games. Or art, or music, or whatever.
...Didn't you just explain that yourself like five posts ago?
That stuff is what I meant.
Don't say it's not working, that's an outright lie. Games like Edifice, I'm Scared of Girls, Clock of Atonement, etc. are all examples where it worked. You said yourself Yume Nikki and Space Funeral were examples of games that spit on our common game design standards. These games all break the mold, and are good games because of it. They couldn't do so if there weren't a mold to break.
everyone here tends to gravitate towards an established list of do nots (sprite rip clash, slow walk speeds, etc.)
What we hammer in here is not much different from professional game development. (every game needs an achievement system, every game needs some sort of progression or pseudo rpg system to keep suckers playing, every game needs a sand box in order to trick people they have a million choices when all we did was scale the level size to 5.0 and implemented stock NPCs due to budget/time constraints) you get the idea...
That stuff is what I meant.
Don't say it's not working, that's an outright lie. Games like Edifice, I'm Scared of Girls, Clock of Atonement, etc. are all examples where it worked. You said yourself Yume Nikki and Space Funeral were examples of games that spit on our common game design standards. These games all break the mold, and are good games because of it. They couldn't do so if there weren't a mold to break.
author=SauceDid you even read the post you quoted? I wasn't saying that stuff that doesn't fit the mold of "proper game design" is automatically bad. I was saying almost the exact opposite.
I just can't agree that there's a "correct" way to make games. Or art, or music, or whatever.
Yellow Magic
I'm the Dawg, so that's what you call me. Or maybe His Dawgness, or Dawger, or El Dawgerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
1363
Surely it depends on the direction the game designer aims to take? Even on RMN, there are those who went to take game development "to the next level" and those who just see "mak gam" as a hobby. I don't think the latter would/should care as to what others thought as much, but someone who'd like to go pro could probably use quite a bit of that criticism.
And then there's the matter of the source of said criticism. If I were the "aspirational game developer" type, I'd be more likely to take the thoughts of fellow (evidently good) game designers on board as opposed others who play the game and have issues with, for example, the difficulty of a certain boss (although of course, if said difficulty appears to be a major issue from a large number of people then it's worth considering that piece of criticism).
EDIT: Fuck I need a thesaurus
And then there's the matter of the source of said criticism. If I were the "aspirational game developer" type, I'd be more likely to take the thoughts of fellow (evidently good) game designers on board as opposed others who play the game and have issues with, for example, the difficulty of a certain boss (although of course, if said difficulty appears to be a major issue from a large number of people then it's worth considering that piece of criticism).
EDIT: Fuck I need a thesaurus
I think the only 'bad' is failing to accomplish what you set out to do. I remember playing Monstrous Wars. It was so whack and drugged out, you have no idea what's happening. From all standards of storytelling and direction it was awful. But I think the author said his goal was to mess with the gamer's head. Mission accomplished. I can appreciate it for what it's suppose to be.
If you mean for something to be tragic, but it's laughable, it's bad. That kind of thing. Nothing should be considered 'bad' because X number of people don't like it. In art, anyway.
