HOW TO MAKE A DEMO

How to make a good, functional demo in today's society

  • Tuomo_L
  • 01/26/2018 11:21 AM
  • 26915 views
First of all, let me start by saying, you should probably never make a demo. In fact, I'm starting this by discouraging you against such silly idea. Before you get the pitchforks, you should see this video.





The fact is 99% of the RPG Maker games demos that I've played have been totally awful and done massive disservice to the game. I was a RPG Maker reviewer for quite few years and over the tons of games I played, I only played one haf decent demo which stood out because of its gross out violence and mature themes but even then, it kinda broke my third rule which did dissapoint me a lot when I got so invested in it. The demos are relics of the past what with internet being stock full of information that you can already give great idea of your game, without playing a single second of the game by simply using youtube alone. Instead of dedicating time and resources to making a demo, you should focus in marketing and polishing your game. Promotional videos that show gameplay and things dev talks are infinitely much more useful and personal than just making a poor demo and thinking that's enough. If however you're totally set to the path that you wish to make a demo, I'll give you some sage advice that will hopefully help.



Golden Rules for making a demo



Never start from the start



This is the reason most of the RPG Maker demos fail. They have you play the slow start with your starter town and ages long text story and blah blah blah. This not only does reflect the overall game you are making very poorly, since most of the time the start of the game is not like the rest of the game but it also means when they get the full verison, they'll have to most likely play through the boring segments over again, which WILL turn people off your game. The only exceptions is very unique ways of starting a game but for most part, you should start somewhere middle, hopefully with all the important main characters already avaivable, to better give the player an idea of the overall idea of the game and the characters. 99% of the time, you want to start at the middle and not at the start and no, you having original characters and you wanting to show their personality more isn't a reason enough to start from the very beginning.


NEVER BEGIN THE DEMO WITH A TUTORIAL TOWN OR LONG STORY AND CUTSCENES!!!!


If you have complex gameplay elements that need explanation, you should have a picture at the start of the game that has all the controls listed and layed out for the player to pick up and play your demo from the get go, not after tons of tutorials and forcing them to do things.


If you want to go and make a demo from the start, go Bayonetta route. Leave out all the cutscene elements from the start and introduce the story through gameplay, skip any unncessary cutscenes and keep the action flowing, leaving the player wanting much more when the demo is done.



Make a game, when you have a game



Another critical failure is starting to make the demo when the game is still under work. If your game is not even in alpha stage, a demo is way too early to be released. A demo should reflect how your game is like, if you make a demo too soon (A.K.A "Everything will probably change") then it's not a good demo and will leave a very bad impressions on the player. You should make your game at least to beta stage, so that enough stuff are there to stay. It also means that you can easier crop a portion from the main game for the demo, such as from middle of the act 2. If you are selling the game, set the game store and such stuff up first, you can link to the game store and give teasers about the full game at the end of the demo.


Your game should be almost completely finished when you release a demo or in ways that you are 100% certain you will not change or alter aside maybe adding few tiny cutscenes or minor things like graphical filters or such.


Short is sweet






Sonic sez; your demo's too loooong!


A demo is meant to be a short, quick look into what makes your game special, to start interest and to gather following. Even though there's no time limit for a demo length, generally 30 minutes or so should suffice. I have seen some people make like 4 hours long demos which is going to piss off a lot of people when they've played already that long only to meet a brick wall of "see you at full version, btw your demo save file will not work in full version either, lol." Again, keep it short, keep it simple and to the point.


The longer you make your demo, the more likely you're not able to get players interested in your full version, because they already have the free version. You also are shooting yourself into foot because it takes more time which you could use to make full game instead. Too long games also have the chance of massive backlash when the demo ends and often leads the player into hating your game for "pulling the plug" just when things got good.


I'll play a 30 minute long full game over 5 hour demo any day. In fact, I have a personal rule that if your demo is over 2 hours, I will not play it for any reason.



If your game is already free, don't bother with a demo



The main reason for a demo is to give interest to your upcoming game and to give a buyer an idea of what the full game is like, before they are going to buy the game. IN theory, the demo is a way of a consumer to see the product before purchase and to help improve your sales. IF your game is already freeware, there's even less value in a demo since it's just a shorter and sometimes, less polished full version which has the same free price tag.


Seriously, there's absolutely no reason to make a demo of a free game. The price is exactly same as in the full game, free. Your player will not benefit at all for playing the demo as opossed to the full version.


Even worse, many times when people make demos, they never finish the game once they get the initial response. That or they just do 360 and completely begin to remake the game, wasting time to catch up to the point they were at when releasing the demo. For a prime example of this, compare Destiny's Call demo to Destiny's Call complete. The DCC version is shorter, has added tacked in features for "because..." reasons, had hunge, sleep, etc systems that weren't really explored in great edetail and generally feels a lot more toned down and shorter experience than demo, even literally ending the player's progress when trying to enter a tower by a message of saying "Stay tuned for part 2" and leaving the player to wander the map forever instead of the actual ending credits that demo version had. Also the demo lasted past the tower scene and far longer past that point the DCC stopped. Notice stopped, because there was no ending and the game didn't really end, you just couldn't progress anywhere anymore. DCC is the prime example of everything wrong with RPG Maker demos, the demo was released years before the full game with every single resource being placeholders and then the whole game began to be remade from the very first scene with every resource and feature changed, only for the game to stop even before it got halfway to the part it had been before starting to redo it. The game ended up never being finished and all we were left was a poor "episode 1" of the full game, which brings us to the next point...



Consider episodic format instead



Okay, okay, before you get the pitchforks at me again, hear me out. One of the reasons people have also made demos is that they have wanted to hear feedback and see reactions to the game they've made. This is especially true for the freeware demo games. There are multiple benefits to releasing your game in episodic format as opossed to demo version. First of all, once finished with one episode, you can release it and ask for feedback and use this to help fix issues in next episodes or if very major, polish them in the first episode. Then finish second episode, release it and so on and forth. This way, the playerbase and the reviewers will help you shape your game and it will be a lot more effective than releasing tons of demos and people won't be as angry to play a long episodic game, as opossed to overly long demo. This way you also build much more interaction with your audience and maybe establish long term fans that may even translate to future customers if you ever make a commercial game.


When making episodic game, MAKE IT EPISODIC FROM THE START. This is literally a decision you have to make before starting to make your game and you can NOT go back to this idea if you have already made a demo and you'll have a hard time in cutting the game into naturally flowing episodes if you haven't planned the game around it. DCC aside, I have seen more times than one where first we get a demo, then the maker decides they should rework the whole game from the scratch (because their standards have grown), with literal years being used to carefully craft things scene by scene only ending up with a shorter "episode 1" version instead which feels more like an after thought rather than something the maker planned in the first place. These games are also never finished and will forever be remembered in a poor, unfinished light instead of what could have been a fun game experience, had they just finished the game years ago. Making episodic format games should be done more in likes of The Way series.


That's all for now! If you have thoughts or suggestions or want to share your own thoughts, you're more than welcome to as I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this subject matter!

Posts

Pages: first prev 12 last
author=Link_2112
is pretty stupid. There is no saving grace here. Talking about AAA studios and big business isn't going to divert attention from the gobs of bad advice here directed towards us amateur game makers.

I'm just disappointed I posted here and will have to continue to see notices on this because it's quite obvious Tuomo has no intention of backing down.


Read my previous posts.
OldPat
OrudoPatto, kisama!
5017
I think you can disable your subscription to this article, Link.

Anyway, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If Tuomo doesn't want to... back down, then it's not our problem. We can debate and share our view on the matter, but we can't and should not force people to adjust to our own opinions.
author=Tuomo_L
Read my previous posts.


Sigh, ok, let's examine your posts here.

After a few people expressed issues with your article, you didn't respond to any of them.

author=Tuomo_L
author=Link_2112
You should avoid telling people to never do something. You can suggest what shouldn't be done, but I don't like being told I can never do something. Especially when I can think of many ways to do it, and do it well.
I mean honestly, starting with the start tutorial town and dragging the experience down does slow the game down needlessly. Plus, most of the players who will play your RPG Maker demo, will have grasp on these mechanics as is.


Even in quoting my post, you didn't acknowledge what I said. Instead, you chose to double down on your opinion regarding not including the start of the game and tutorials on game mechanics.

author=Tuomo_L
You guys realize that you at first say it's only hobbyist and you're not looking to go into many commercial routes or market the game much but then you say not everyone in here knows the RPG mechanics, when everyone on this website probably knows what Max HP stands for, without the tutorial explaining about it among tons of the other core mechanics that the tutorial towns are exactly all about. It's only when the gameplay concepts and the elements are changed in ways that are out of the ordinary, at least in terms of RPG Maker that you may need to really tell about them. Focusing at start to tell about these things that your playerbase already does know about does nothing but pad out the experience and slows it down before getting to the actual content.

Yes, the concept of hobby vs commercial was mentioned, but that has NOTHING to do with what you are saying here. Nobody here has said anything about a tutorial involving explaining such basic things as Max HP. I really have no idea where you are getting this from. If I had to guess, you have been playing many demos of people's very first RPGs and basing all your opinions on those bad games with their bad tutorials.

Even if a tutorial briefly explained Max HP, because really how much time could that take to explain, it has no bearing on the validity of tutorials/demos. All you can say from that is that there is a wrong way to make tutorials. It sounds more like you are using such a benign, imaginary thing to justify your opinion about demos.

Like I said before, the solution is to make better tutorials and better openings and better games. Please show me examples of games that have such bad tutorials explaining basic elements of RPGs like what Max HP is, because I have never seen one. If I remember correctly, even a game like pokemon explains at some point that if your pokemon loses all it's HP it faints. I've never heard any backlash at the stupidity of pokemon tutorials or outrage at not being able to skip them.


It's very different in commercial market where the exposure to your game is far bigger and your game may literally be the first ever RPG someone picks up. You have to have the tutorials that'll guide the player by hand as much of possible if they need it, but also have the option to skip it if they're scarred RPG veterans already. You guys also keep comparing to commercial games and pointing to demos like Nier while still telling me this is only hobbyist site and not everyone is interested in monetization. But in order for us to have a debate, we have to agree on some common ground on what we'll compare these demos at and from what point of view we'll approach to this discussion, shall we focus on hobbyism or commercial titles? Because Nier nor the demo for it wasn't made by hobbyist and it had a budget of over 10 million. None of us on this website have even close to that sort of budget.

And here we have your first attempt to divert the conversation away from the issues raised about your article and how it relates to us amateurs. It doesn't matter if we are talking about hobby vs commercial, or what the budget is, none of that matters at all when we are talking about a player's experience with a game. A hobby game can have an amazing intro, tutorial, and demo, while a commercial game can suck at all of it. Who cares? None of that is a valid argument to wipe demos off the face of the internet. Anything can be done badly, it's not a reason to abolish it.

At this point you have still not addressed a single thing mentioned by the people who posted. Except for the fact that someone mentioned a Neir demo and you seem so focused on using that as an excuse to ignore everything else.

author=Tuomo_L
Still, to have a good and mature discussion about such a topic where I'm sure everyone has their own opinions we need to make a distinct difference in something.

There are varying levels for game development in terms of budget and such, from lowest to biggest they are

Hobbyism
Indie game
Big budget indies
Triple A games

Hobbyists have nothing to lose, in this case at most, a poor demo will just make a person lose interest in the game but since you have probably very little money involved, it's not really any harm, the demo is for YOU for YOUR fans and you will probably find your own fans regardless. Still, you should most likely not start from the start and try and make it as simple and neat as you can. You may get a lot more fans and may find new friends and people who want to help you with your project if you "wow" people. So, while there's nothing to lose you have a lot to GAIN, so you need to think a lot if you really want to put out a demo that doesn't give a good lasting impression on the player.

Actually, we don't need to make a distinction between those levels of game development, but you sure seem to think so.

Your article says nothing of the sort. Here you seem to be bending, ever so slightly, to agree with what people are complaining about while still holding fast to your idea that you shouldn't include the opening. Since hobbyists are 100% of the audience of this article, don't you think that should be the focus? And if it is, that doesn't exclude using commercial games as examples to prove valid and obvious points.

Reading it over, your article contains a lot of "99% of the time" and "the fact is", when you can't say anything like that with certainty because all of this is your opinion. So you've played every game on the site and have kept track of which ones are bad and 99% is the number you came up with? You can use any made up statistic to prove your point, 74% of people know that.



However, for indie game level of development where actual money gets involvevd, you usually have a very limited budget and small team if even that, sometimes you do it alone. Making a demo does take time, it does take resources. The saying "time is money" is very true when you're indie dev and you have to literally make games to pay for your bills and the food you eat. Demos may not be the best course of action in this case when you literally need to use all the time and resources you have to focus on getting your product out.

For big indies, they have larger budgets and large number of people who support them. These people can easily do demos and many do (such as Nier) because they have the manpower and budget to organize their workforce far more than again, anyone on this website.

For triple A's, they could easily do demos but they honestly, don't bother. They don't need to, most of these already will have massive sales and massive marketing campaign as is and demos don't really help contribute to the overall sales at all.

All pointless to RMN's audience.

I'm also a bit curious how you know so much about the internal working of an industry to say so confiendtly the reasons why they don't make demos. When in fact, many big games have demos. When you become a member of PS Plus you have access to many demos of completed games. I think rather than trying to agree on what the audience is, hobby vs commercial, it would better for us to come to an agreement on what a demo actually is. Because everything about your article points to a demo being something released before a game is complete, but is that the case? Many times a demo is a short part of the game you can try before you buy.

On RMN a demo is usually an alpha build for testing and feedback purposes. The very point is that the game isn't complete, is very unpolished, and probably sucks(from new developers, and 82% of them are newbs). This is their main source of feedback. Are they supposed to spend months working on a bad game, only to release it and have countless hours of time shit on? They want feedback early so they can fix the problems they likely didn't know were problems. In what universe is that a bad thing?

Based on what you say in the article, this seems more like a reaction of you not liking the fact that you've played many bad games made in RPG maker. You offer no actual advice here, except to say 'don't do these things that I dislike'. This reads more like a checklist of all the bad things you see from newbie devs. I think the better solution is that you stop playing RPG maker demos from unknown developers, unless you can accept the fact that they will probably suck.

So, as you can see, in the case of game development for demos it is like this

Hobbyist- Can make a demo (But probably should consider if they can make it look GOOD)
Indie developer - Can't in most cases, it takes too much time and focus from other projects and the game itself. Plus, if you release a bad demo, you'll run the risk of losing more sales and since you're small, you need EVERY single sale you can get. The only other alternative is to focus a lot of time and effort into making a great demo, really polish and hone it to like a fine diamond but that will take a lot of time and money, something most indie developers literally don't have.
Big indies - They can and often will release demos.
Triple A - Totally could but most often don't, because they don't honestly benefit from them that much.

Again, you didn't say anything like this in the article, and you haven't updated it to include it. Now all of a sudden it's ok for a hobbyist to make a demo, but only if it's good. Which is only coming up after we mentioned it.

And again, everything beyond that is pointless to RMN and pure conjecture on your part. Plus it's so wishy washy, "totally could, but most don't, probably maybe could have might have...."

And yet again, you state your ever changing opinion as if it were fact.

The most likely reason why these upper level devs don't release demos/alphas to the public is because they bring in people for that. They either get the employees themselves to play it, they have specific game testers, or get focus groups or whatever other means. It sounds like you are applying RMN style logic to the entire game industry. A demo isn't one thing - an early version of a game released to the world for all to see.


None of us are in Bid Indies. I made this post on RPG maker net, not on Steam Developers discussion board. You need to understand that most of us are on tier 1 or tier 2 at most. You guys can point to Nier all you want and how great demo they made, but unless you have similar levels of budget and teams, I don't think that's a good comparision to draw from.

Here you are again trying to deflect criticism by, from what I can tell, suggesting that you need a big budget to make a good game/tutorial/opening/demo. All bullshit. And all because one person cited AAA games as good examples of something you have stated in no uncertain terms CANNOT BE DONE AND SHOULD NEVER BE DONE.

author=the article
NEVER BEGIN THE DEMO WITH A TUTORIAL TOWN OR LONG STORY AND CUTSCENES!!!!


The publishers don't care if the game is totally broken, if the deadline is set and the company doesn't meet the deadline, the company will be blamed for the delays. We've seen this time and time and time again. The company who made the game will lose a lot of money and may have a hard time working with big time publishers after that. It's silly to think that the triple A industry that's so focused on stuff like lootboxes, pre orders and DLC, would actually care for a demo of any sort. It wouldn't even matter to them since games like Mass Effect Andromeda was a sales success despite all the backlash, it still made over 111 million dollars.

Again, something that has no bearing on the article, the feedback given by us, or RMN.

So that brings me to this:

author=Tuomo_L
Read my previous posts.


What part of your previous posts is supposed to offer any kind of rebuttal to my post, or ANY of the other posts here?

Also you state:

author=Tuomo_L
That's all for now! If you have thoughts or suggestions or want to share your own thoughts, you're more than welcome to as I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this subject matter!

Are you sure about that? Because so far you haven't addressed a single persons thoughts or comments, except to deflect criticism and focus on unrelated stuff.


author=OldPat
I think you can disable your subscription to this article, Link.

Anyway, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If Tuomo doesn't want to... back down, then it's not our problem. We can debate and share our view on the matter, but we can't and should not force people to adjust to our own opinions.

You can't disable it for articles like this. At least not that I'm aware of. If you can show me how, that would be great. I'm still getting notices on the "New to RMN" article :/

And I wouldn't have such a problem here if he didn't pass off his opinion so objectively as fact, when he is just sooooo demonstrably WRONG. Opinions can be dangerous, especially when there is so much evidence to prove otherwise. If someone wrote an article saying the Earth is flat or vaccines cause Austism, when there is tons of scientific proof to say otherwise(or at the very least no proof it's true), do you think it's ok to let it slide? I mean, I'm not going to force anyone to change their opinion, and nothing I've done so far should suggest as much. If it came across that way, I apologize. But I can still debate it with enthusiasm, if only to persuade anybody reading this article to think twice about accepting such terrible advice.

LONG LIVE DEMOS!!!!!
InfectionFiles
the world ends in whatever my makerscore currently is
4622
LONG LIVE DEMOS
VIVA LA DEMO!

Seriously, this article is pure opinion and there's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is trying to present it as a factual and unbiased account of why people shouldn't make demos, when it's very clearly lacking both facts and non-bias on the issue.
OldPat
OrudoPatto, kisama!
5017
@Link: *grat grat* Actually, you're right, I can't find a way for you to delete a subscription to an article. That's odd, you can do that for topics and games but not for articles? Or have I just missed that option?
>.>
<.<
>.<;;;;;
Demos are great in the context of RMN. This is a place where people come to share what they have created, to communicate and grow as developers regardless of experience of backgrounds. Demos allow us to show each other where our games are at conceptually and to give each other feedback on graphics, mechanics, characters and writing. Thats hugely valuable.

Yeah 99% of RPG Maker Game demos are your going to see are "totally awful"... Thats because 99% of RPG Maker Games are "totally awful" at worst and below average at best, its all about finding the diamonds in the rough. Thats what happens when you have an engine thats so simple it opens the gateway to literally almost anyone with an interest in game development. Demos are a tool to help us skip the crap.

Its worth pointing out too that 90% of what you talk about in this post have anything to do with the people of this community. Have you spent enough time reading the threads on here to even know the sort of folks on this forum? You seem to spend an awful lot of time preaching but not a lot of time reading.

Also spell check your fucking posts. Im no saint when it comes to grammer but jesus titty fucking christ, its easier to desipher hyroglifics than it is to make sense most of what your write.

Edit: Dont make it episodic, if your first episodes shit nobody is going to stick around for the next episode even if you do fix things.
OldPat
OrudoPatto, kisama!
5017
author=Liberty
>.>
<.<
>.<;;;;;


รจ.-
author=visitorsfromdreams
This is a place where people come to share what they have created, to communicate and grow as developers regardless of experience of backgrounds.

That's what I love so much about RMN. And the reason I stick around although I never used a RPG Maker engine.


author=visitorsfromdreams
Demos allow us to show each other where our games are at conceptually and to give each other feedback on graphics, mechanics, characters and writing. Thats hugely valuable.

Yes we all need feedback to fuel motivation and steer our projects in the right direction.


Make demos! Play demos! And above all: give feedback on demos!
CashmereCat
Self-proclaimed Puzzle Snob
11638
I don't know what y'all talking about. This is a pretty good read. You do know that opinion pieces often state subjective feelings in an objective manner to stress force of writing, right? That it's an accepted trope of the medium, and that you don't have to agree with everything 100%?

Well-written, Tuomo. Good job.
OldPat
OrudoPatto, kisama!
5017
author=CashmereCat
You do know that opinion pieces often state subjective feelings in an objective manner to stress force of writing, right?

That is actually very true and the reason why I didn't like how things went, from "I think I don't agree with you because..." to "This is a dangerous article, back down!"

I don't agree with most of what Tuomo wrote and I explained what I disliked in a comment, that's what everyone else should do if they have a different opinion on the matter and that's it, period. No reason to flag this article as "dangerous" because it really is not. (And the comparisons with "earth is flat" and "vaccines" is stupid. Those are very different things. It's not a... "scientific fact" that demos should be made or not... and surely agreeing with Tuomo doesn't constitute a threat to our health as it would be agreeing to the whole "we shouldn't take vaccines" thing).

The only thing that can potentially be dangerous is to think that every other opinion is stupid and spit on it.

This is supposed to be a place of peaceful discussion among developers, after all.

Then again, I agree with most of what you guys wrote in the comments below. (You've read my first comment, after all).
Just... take it easy. ^^
Ha, I made those comparisons in passing, but if you wanna focus on them, go ahead. And you really seem to be focusing on when I said back down. Tuomo himself has already backtracked on his opinions of the article as the comments went along, but has not yet updated the article in any way.

But agreeing with this nonsense and not making demos would in fact be a threat to our health as developers. Demos are the lifeblood of what we do, how we learn and improve. It's a driving force to get things completed. If even one person reads this and avoids making a demo, it's too many. This hobby would be void of hope and excitement if we didn't release demos.

Whatever the reason many games never get finished, so demos are the only way to get proper feedback and validation for hours upon hours of work spent. Outside a few devs who makes games for themselves or close friends, we make games for other people to play. Demos can be the only thing that will ever get released. There is nothing else.
CashmereCat
Self-proclaimed Puzzle Snob
11638
Idk, I think there's a case to be made against demos. As a person with both demos and completed games, releasing demos often leads you to stagnate and provides players with a half finished experience. On most of the demos I have released, I'm glad people got to play them, but I felt a lot more pride about finished projects. So at least I think not releasing a demo is an option someone should consider.
OldPat
OrudoPatto, kisama!
5017
If even one person reads this and avoids making a demo, it's too many

Why? I mean, a demo is really useful, as we both explained in our past comments, but... it's not something that a dev ABSOLUTELY have to do. He could also avoid making one. Is it really that much of a problem? No.

Releasing a demo can have its downsides too. In fact, I agree with Cashmere's last post.

Sometimes people just stop after releasing a demo. They release something playable and that's it, the project stops there. (I mean, it happened to me and to a lot of other devs I know as well).

And if demos are the only things that ever get released then that's hardly a victory for the dev. Even if you release the best demo in the world... it's still a demo. You can't grow as a dev, nor show your true potential if you can't manage to release a complete game. That's a really important goal to achieve.

Full games are the REAL lifeblood of what we do. Relasing a demo should not be the goal. It's just another step, another development phase. An important step that can prove to be really useful, but not an absolutely required one.
God damn, so many people are so passionate about demos...for no good reason. Honestly, I had no problem with this article, but I'm a nobody with no maker score, so what do I know, right?

I thought it was a decently written opinion piece as to why you shouldn't make a demo, but if you do make one: here are some steps to help. Why are so many people taking this as personal attack? The only issue with the article I have is the title.
Because talking about how AAA games do things (even if the facts are wrong) has no real comparison to how indie and hobbyist games should be approached. They're like comparing lemons and oranges, except in this article's case the oranges were described as fish.


That is, an argument was made that 'all these people in the industry say not to do so so it's bad' when the facts are that there's a lot of games out there in the industry that do so and do very well for themselves. So, yeah, presenting something as fact when it's really not tends to backfire a bit.
author=CaptainCrimson
God damn, so many people are so passionate about demos...for no good reason.

You don't get to decide what other people are passionate about or decide if their passion is legitimate.

Why are so many people taking this as personal attack?

If you actually read the comments and still don't get it, then there is nothing left to discuss.
author=Link_2112
author=CaptainCrimson
God damn, so many people are so passionate about demos...for no good reason.
You don't get to decide what other people are passionate about or decide if their passion is legitimate.

Why are so many people taking this as personal attack?

If you actually read the comments and still don't get it, then there is nothing left to discuss.


Once again, someone is taking this as a personal attack on them. You are desperately shouting from your keyboard trying to start drama where there doesn't need to be any. I'm sorry I don't want to read your 3,000 ~ 4,000 word essay on why author is wrong and you are right, but I'm already here so let's dig in:

This article, as a whole, is about game demos and why here on RMN they are not needed, but if you'd like to make one, here are some tips. Immediately, you jumped on it saying that the author should never tell you not to do something. This is hypocritical because you are telling him never to do something which is directly contradictory to what he should do to you. This means one of two things: you don't think the rules should apply to you or you don't like this opinion so nobody should have it. Quite frankly, I believe it to be the latter.

However, this point is moot because the discussion quickly shifts when the author says that demos aren't necessary. Before I go any deeper, let's first define what a demo is. From what I gathered reading through the comments, there are two types of demos: The first is to get people interested in a game, and the second is to build hype and gather feedback. The author views game demos as the prior, while several people here on RMN view them as the latter. If we look back on the history of gaming, demos were released as a way to spark one's interest and convince them to spend money on the game if they thought the demo was fun. The second kind of demos is typically released a bit further back from release day. The purpose of this demo is to keep people interested, despite the game not coming out for a while. It's more of a teaser than a demo. It also does the job of figuring out what exactly the players don't like. If the teaser is released and part of the game is completely panned, they have plenty of time to fix it before the game's official release.

Now that my little digression is out of the way I can continue. I would argue that an extraordinarily high percentage of games made on RPG Maker and posted to this website are the latter: games that are still a ways from being finished and are looking for feedback. This is understandable, because most devs here are probably working by themselves with no one to give feedback as the development progresses.

The author also brings up how one can structure a demo. He says not to start your demo at the beginning of the game because that is when a game is at its most drab and boring. He also states that you don't need this part in the demo because typically this is where the player is given tutorials and introduced to certain mechanics of the game; certain mechanics that most people playing the game will probably already know. I don't like saying this, but RPG Maker games are almost exclusively played by other RPGM hobbyists. Yes, there are some games that get very popular (ie To the Moon, OneShot, etc), but these games typically aren't RPGs. Traditional JRPG-style games made with the engine all play and feel very similar, and since the core audience of these games already know the basic mechanics, tutorials are unnecessary, but I digress. I agree with the author that starting a demo at the game's beginning is rather bland and boring, but that's not why people are releasing "demos" on this site. They are doing it for feedback.

The author of this article has the first previously mentioned definition of demo in his head as he wrote. The EC video does paint a pretty solid picture on the current state of demos in the gaming industry, and this is where we then get into the discussion of Hobbyist v. Indie v. Corporate game dev. Again, the EC video explains why we don't see a lot of game demos anymore, and author was definitely riding off of that video. In fact, I would take a guess that the article was inspired by the video and the author was thinking of ways to help make better demos; most of them are very sound arguments. And yes, from what I've read, the author is being rather stubborn about his definition of demo, but several people are extremely rude to him telling him he's wrong and a terrible person, instead of offering valid criticisms and simply stating what they feel a demo should be.

Now, here comes my final point: when writing an opinionated and argumentative article as author has done, you need to present your point confidently. People have been spewing out their mouths that he shouldn't be presenting his opinions as fact, but this is wrong. He's presenting his opinion and using reasoning to explain why he thinks demos should be presented this way. That is not presenting them to be factual, but because people don't like this, they subvert this and then start asserting their own opinion that we need demos because that's how people get feedback for their games.

At the end of all of this, this whole argument has boiled down to miscommunication of definitions: One side sees demos as ways to gather interest, and the other sees them as a way to gather feedback. I could go on about the topics of budget and the random inclusion of Nier: Automata's demo, but that wouldn't add anything to my response.
Pages: first prev 12 last