Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
SUBMISSION RULES: UPDATE - ADDENDUM ADDED BECAUSE FFS PEOPLE!
Posts
JosephSeraph
View playlists
Closedo you guys really think people would play rudra if it hasn't been ripped as well and overused in rpg maker？
speaking of which how many amazing games would we lose if we deleted games that used Rudra's rips？？？Quite a plenty, ne？
From a certain point of view, ripping is wrong. But from an artistic point of view, it's absolutely not. It's everything but wrong, to use your beloved creators' art, learning how to deconstruct it, for a project that is properly documented as being using their resources. It's giving them, at worst, exposure!* Nothing else! I can't see why Balmung Cycle would be hurting Squenix for the rips, for instance. And it's a great game! It's art. And I'd like to leave it be. When people grow experient enough they will want to drop using rips and start doing their custom resources. But let them learn using their masters' creations first, too! I see no problem on it. And so many precious jewels are made by that ;w;
*i know it's stupid talking about the indie game design scene giving exposure to AAA games but then again, half of Rudra's playerbase only exists thanks to rpg maker I guess
speaking of which how many amazing games would we lose if we deleted games that used Rudra's rips？？？Quite a plenty, ne？
From a certain point of view, ripping is wrong. But from an artistic point of view, it's absolutely not. It's everything but wrong, to use your beloved creators' art, learning how to deconstruct it, for a project that is properly documented as being using their resources. It's giving them, at worst, exposure!* Nothing else! I can't see why Balmung Cycle would be hurting Squenix for the rips, for instance. And it's a great game! It's art. And I'd like to leave it be. When people grow experient enough they will want to drop using rips and start doing their custom resources. But let them learn using their masters' creations first, too! I see no problem on it. And so many precious jewels are made by that ;w;
*i know it's stupid talking about the indie game design scene giving exposure to AAA games but then again, half of Rudra's playerbase only exists thanks to rpg maker I guess
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
Let me reiterate that it's not "JUST judging by the title" but "ALSO judging by the title" I don't know why you keep doing that. xD ...And of course, judging the entirety of a game from any three screenshots is going to be a gamble. Under those circumstances each one of those screens becomes a "cover" on its own right. But you have to be able to make this kind of judgement calls; a call that is equal parts and objective assessment of what you can see, and a vote of confidence that what you can't see will be just as good.
The problem here, I believe, is seeing title screens as the literal "covers" of the games. A tiny part of the whole, fixed at the very beginning never to be seen again; But that would be a shallow mistake. Again, it's about thinking what design choices went into the creation of any given screenshot and extrapolate how those choices could resonate during the rest of the "actual" game.
@Puddor: Mmmh. That sounds like a good rationale at first. But the purpose of game profiles is, as I see it, for people to follow the progress of your game; for them to take part of the development process. And not just to enjoy the finished product... If I subscribe to a game is because I like the premise of the game, or because I trust the "vision" of the developer. Therefore, in this particular case, I think a game's "playable content" is second to its overall artistic direction. Something even a title screen can contribute to.
_
But anyway, I'll leave this on the air, maybe it will catch on someday. xD
The problem here, I believe, is seeing title screens as the literal "covers" of the games. A tiny part of the whole, fixed at the very beginning never to be seen again; But that would be a shallow mistake. Again, it's about thinking what design choices went into the creation of any given screenshot and extrapolate how those choices could resonate during the rest of the "actual" game.
@Puddor: Mmmh. That sounds like a good rationale at first. But the purpose of game profiles is, as I see it, for people to follow the progress of your game; for them to take part of the development process. And not just to enjoy the finished product... If I subscribe to a game is because I like the premise of the game, or because I trust the "vision" of the developer. Therefore, in this particular case, I think a game's "playable content" is second to its overall artistic direction. Something even a title screen can contribute to.
_
But anyway, I'll leave this on the air, maybe it will catch on someday. xD
Honestly? 3 in-game images isn't much to ask for. If you're showing off your game then you should have something to show. And title screens don't really show anything in-game aside from how prettily the person in question can make a single image or how lucky they were in getting someone to make one for them.
Games are highly visual in component - for the most part they require you to interact with the world presented within the game and in-game play images can tell you a lot about what a game will be like. Can it tell you all? No. But it can tell you a LOT - what kind of style are the battles? How much effort and thought was put into the polish for mapping, dialogue, design, characters, the game in general? Is it side-scroller, top down, 3/4 view or other? Does it look interesting? What kind of systems are included? Faces or portrait usage? Is the windowskin hard to read on? Is the font decent? These can all be shown in screenshots of the actual game.
You can judge something by the cover but you should not. And yes, that is what a title is - the cover. Every time you pick up thebookgame the cover is shown until you open it and begin to readplay. Usually it's a pretty picture that MIGHT show something of what is in the bookgame but more often than not is chosen for the 'coolness' and how good it looks. You should never, ever judge a bookgame by its covertitle because it is not content. You can't play a title screen.
Just as you can't play a game over screen or concept art. They're not bad additions to show off, but when judging if a game is of sufficient quality they just are not enough - because anyone can take a cool image and slap some pretty text on it.
Games are highly visual in component - for the most part they require you to interact with the world presented within the game and in-game play images can tell you a lot about what a game will be like. Can it tell you all? No. But it can tell you a LOT - what kind of style are the battles? How much effort and thought was put into the polish for mapping, dialogue, design, characters, the game in general? Is it side-scroller, top down, 3/4 view or other? Does it look interesting? What kind of systems are included? Faces or portrait usage? Is the windowskin hard to read on? Is the font decent? These can all be shown in screenshots of the actual game.
You can judge something by the cover but you should not. And yes, that is what a title is - the cover. Every time you pick up the
Just as you can't play a game over screen or concept art. They're not bad additions to show off, but when judging if a game is of sufficient quality they just are not enough - because anyone can take a cool image and slap some pretty text on it.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
I'm not sure if it's been covered here yet, but I'm curious: Where do in-game pictures sit on the judging criteria? For example:
http://rpgmaker.net/games/6203/images/47793/
Or this: http://rpgmaker.net/games/5247/images/44207/
They are merely pictures, but the text boxes clearly indicates that they are IN the game. Since it would be easy to just start up a new project and slap that picture in, would images like these count towards the 3 image minimum? Perhaps if they were put alongside more in-game footage?
http://rpgmaker.net/games/6203/images/47793/
Or this: http://rpgmaker.net/games/5247/images/44207/
They are merely pictures, but the text boxes clearly indicates that they are IN the game. Since it would be easy to just start up a new project and slap that picture in, would images like these count towards the 3 image minimum? Perhaps if they were put alongside more in-game footage?
It depends. If it's just the image with no dialogue or text, I'll usually ask for another image but if it's like the first one you linked it'll depend on what the other images are. I mean, we do get Renpy and VN games through so it does depend on the game type and how it's being used.
If all the images are like that and the description talks about how it's an epic RPG set in a deep world and stuff like that... well, personally I'll ask to see some actual mapping.
People tend not to mind - the few times I've had to ask for more images (aside from the initial three) they usually throw more than just the asked-for one on. And it's not often that I've had to. Usually if they only have a few that aren't the required in-game images I just have to ask once and they'll be fine, but there have been enough times where the extra images showed really bad mapping - the kind that would see drama erupt over 'such a game being allowed on the site'.
It's not like they're just told 'NO' and left to that, though. If a game is denied they're sent links to tutorials and topics (Description and Screenshot threads) that can help them get better. If I've noticed someone struggling or just on the cusp, I tend to PM them and talk to them about it, give them tips and hints on how to make their maps just that little bit better or point out the couple of issues in their description that needs fixing.
For the most part I enjoy watching people come in and grow as developers. I like seeing their games progress and get better over their time here. It's great to see.
If all the images are like that and the description talks about how it's an epic RPG set in a deep world and stuff like that... well, personally I'll ask to see some actual mapping.
People tend not to mind - the few times I've had to ask for more images (aside from the initial three) they usually throw more than just the asked-for one on. And it's not often that I've had to. Usually if they only have a few that aren't the required in-game images I just have to ask once and they'll be fine, but there have been enough times where the extra images showed really bad mapping - the kind that would see drama erupt over 'such a game being allowed on the site'.
It's not like they're just told 'NO' and left to that, though. If a game is denied they're sent links to tutorials and topics (Description and Screenshot threads) that can help them get better. If I've noticed someone struggling or just on the cusp, I tend to PM them and talk to them about it, give them tips and hints on how to make their maps just that little bit better or point out the couple of issues in their description that needs fixing.
For the most part I enjoy watching people come in and grow as developers. I like seeing their games progress and get better over their time here. It's great to see.
guys. you can submit MANY IMAGES when submitting a gameprofile. 3 in-game screenshots is the BARE MINIMUM of effort that we request when submitting a game.
Why are you guys arguing the fine nuances of submitting the bare minimum?
Why are you guys arguing the fine nuances of submitting the bare minimum?
HERP DERP DERP WELP THIS IS A TITLE SCREEN TIME TO PUT MY BLINDERS ON HERPADERPA! of of course we look at all of the fucking images. but if you don't fucking submit the bare minimum of 3 ingame screens welp you're outta luck bubbo
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
So it depends on the game. Cool. I usually add four or five images anyway when I submit a profile, but they usually all look similar in terms of maps, battles, etc. I was thinking maybe an in-game picture could add some variety to the image gallery, but not at the cost of accidentally being denied the game page.
Because arguing is fun!
Why are you guys arguing the fine nuances of submitting the bare minimum?
Because arguing is fun!
As kentona just said, if more than the three initially required images are thrown on, that's great. Not an issue in my book (unless they're stolen or all black screens for a game that is supposed to be more than just text on a black screen). But we were talking about the bare minimum requirement and that is 3 in-game images. For those three images title, game over, concept art and sample maps won't do. They can be image 4, 5, 6, and so forth, but images 1, 2, 3 - on a profile with only three images - all need to show in-game content.
Dem be the rules, homies.
Dem be the rules, homies.
It's like we're talking different languages. ;_; I could write my own laundry list of what kind of useful information you could derive from a title screen alone; some of which would even coincide with items in your list (Skin choice, readability, etc.) This should be reason enough not to categorically exclude a good title screen from being one of the three screenshots accepted. But you have your mind set that a title screen is just "a cool image with some pretty text slapped on it" and nothing more... Ah, but I guess this just confirms my initial conclusion: It's not that there's a legitimate reason not to allow this, it's simply that the disposition to do it does not exist.
@Kentona: This is about principles, man! Ugh! You people would never understand!
PS: Out of spite I'll make all the title screens of my future games fully interactive. >=(
@Kentona: This is about principles, man! Ugh! You people would never understand!
PS: Out of spite I'll make all the title screens of my future games fully interactive. >=(
ppl chill, it's not like stuff is set on stone and stuff
just provide screens you think are meaningful :v
you're not gonna die in the unlikely occasion that they get rejected. You'll only get some sweet dam orientation :v
don't make such a fuss outta' it guys, it's something so simple! ;-;
just do your best and work hard on ya game u_u
just provide screens you think are meaningful :v
you're not gonna die in the unlikely occasion that they get rejected. You'll only get some sweet dam orientation :v
don't make such a fuss outta' it guys, it's something so simple! ;-;
just do your best and work hard on ya game u_u
author=alteregoIt's not about excluding titlescreens. It's about having a solid foundation of gameplay related screens. You can't play a titlescreen. But awesome titlescreens totally weigh in (in my mind) to the quality of the game.
It's like we're talking different languages. ;_; I could write my own laundry list of what kind of useful information you could derive from a title screen alone; some of which would even coincide with items in your list (Skin choice, readability, etc.) This should be reason enough not to categorically exclude a good title screen from being one of the three screenshots accepted. But you have your mind set that a title screen is just "a cool image with some pretty text slapped on it" and nothing more... Ah, but I guess this just confirms my initial conclusion: It's not that there's a legitimate reason not to allow this, it's simply that the disposition to do it does not exist.
@Kentona: This is about principles, man! Ugh! You people would never understand!
PS: Out of spite I'll make all the title screens of my future games fully interactive. >=(
But they will not count towards meeting the minimum 3 gameplay related screenshots requirements because (I'll say it again) you can't play a titlescreen.
E:
Do you know what is more effective than extrapolating what a game might be like by studying the titlescreen? Looking at a screen that shows what the game is like.
The principle of minimizing-the-guesswork is at play here.
The games submission queue has already claimed the lives of Magi, Karsuman and Deckiller. How many more lives must be sacrificed to satiate your desire for misguided leniency?
What do you mean it's claimed Deckiller, I know he hasn't been around in a while, but it's not a permanent thing though, right?
Please note I don't care about this thread, being a not Game Maker, but when I look at a game page it's the description I look at first, not the images, they come second, and of the images, it's dialogue and then battle screen that I want to see. That tells me a lot.
Please note I don't care about this thread, being a not Game Maker, but when I look at a game page it's the description I look at first, not the images, they come second, and of the images, it's dialogue and then battle screen that I want to see. That tells me a lot.
He's been completely MIA since like June. Liberty has taken over his duties. I am tempted to promote her to full on Manager.
....maybe she killed him?
....maybe she killed him?
Well, bollocks, that's a damn shame. Then again the whole IGMC did go well beyond its remit.
Hmm, she does run the current Mafia, so it's not like there isn't probable cause.
Though, is assassination the preferred method for promotion around here?
Hmm, she does run the current Mafia, so it's not like there isn't probable cause.
Though, is assassination the preferred method for promotion around here?
I know Deckiller was involved with judging the IGMC, but that's over now. I wonder what's new with him?
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I'm not sure where this idea that a map is "playable content" and a menu isn't comes from. Neither one can be played. They're both just background graphics that appear during different points in the gameplay.
I'm not saying you should actually accept a game based on a shitty, unimpressive title screen. You shouldn't accept games based on shitty, unimpressive screenshots of maps either. I really think what you should do is allow screenshots of any part of the game, but increase the minimum number of screenshots to eight or ten.
Or, hell, require a trailer video for every submission.
I'm not saying you should actually accept a game based on a shitty, unimpressive title screen. You shouldn't accept games based on shitty, unimpressive screenshots of maps either. I really think what you should do is allow screenshots of any part of the game, but increase the minimum number of screenshots to eight or ten.
Or, hell, require a trailer video for every submission.
