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)
PARTICIPATION IN THE GAME MAKING COMMUNITY
Posts
KiraD
0
KiraD
View playlists
Closepost=100122post=100121See that "M" under your Name/ Avatar? That's called Makerscore. This is exactly what it does.
For starters, has anyone ever tried a points system around here? Not like that craaaappy idea where you get points based on how many forum posts you've made, but one where you grant points based on the amount of articles, reviews, and (maybe even) games submitted?
Seems the problem might be that there are rewards for making things, but not for playing them... I have no idea what sort of system could be worked out for that though.
I'm no coder, but what about a Gamerscore? It could work on the same principle as a Makerscore, but only tally games played, and reviews made.
And where can you find the information on some of these concepts? I feel like a dork not knowing right off, but the About section is lacking quite a bit...
post=100129
Haha, we do a lot of what you suggest!
We hold (irregular) 3-hour contests, collaborative games and the like. We have a Featured Game (changes every 3 weeks), we have a 'zine called the RMN SNEWS, at least one staff member reviews the Featured Game, we have Release Something! (quarterly) and Play Something! events and we even had a Pixel contest with a $150 prize. Plus there is the aforementioned Makerscore (with tangible benefits. More makerscore == more locker space).
Sounds like you've come to the right place, KiraD!
Call me Kira, please. The 'D' is a holdover from one of my tabletop NPCs. Cheeky little woman... ^-^
Well, if you have all of that already, what about linking up with another forum? There's one that just started up called RedZoneGaming.net that I'm affiliated with, and is supposed to be about all things gaming and geek. I daresay the man in charge would probably love to hear some ideas from you guys.
Also, is anyone here from Idaho? Or affiliated with the state? The convention I mentioned that I'm working for, called Fandemonium has a section on their site devoted to free linkage for the fan community. If there's a sit-down, or web-based group of people around this area, I don't think they'd mind adding a shout-out to the page. ^-^
Or an event to the schedule for next year, if the right conditions are met.
Drakonais
2787
Gamerscore would be awesome. The higher the gamerscore, the more weight reviews carry when you give someone a number of stars.
post=100136
Well, if you have all of that already, what about linking up with another forum? There's one that just started up called RedZoneGaming.net that I'm affiliated with, and is supposed to be about all things gaming and geek. I daresay the man in charge would probably love to hear some ideas from you guys.
RMN has a no affiliation policy.
And...no offense...but the way red is used on that website makes my eyes bleed.
post=99557
Maybe only get makerscore for a completed project, to encourage finishing games?
This will probably only give negative results.
post=99618
Makerscore adds more locker space just so you know.
Locker space is almost worthless, there are many other places you can host things and they have more space.
I think we definitely need to change the makerscore into something more appealing. I was thinking that it would be cool if we scrap makerscore and put in a level based system, kind of like an RPG(haha im so clever). Then we divide it into several major categories such as graphics, story, and gameplay and have a level for each category. Maybe do something like the pixel joint system because I know from experience that it works. If I were to relate it to a game, the current system is like continuous accumulation of exp with no rewards.
Fractal Advocate
1252
Well, it's also below every post you make, so it's like 'Look at that guy! He has 2000 makerscore, he must know what he's talking about!'
DFalcon
2141
I think we don't need to stress "my number is bigger than yours" any more than happens from showing the number alone.
If (and that's highly conjectural) we went with a Gamerscore thing, rather than just number of reviews I would want to tie it to user ratings of the reviews somehow. Have a range like "helpful, mostly agree", "helpful, has good points", "has some worthwhile points", "not helpful", "factually inaccurate", "obviously did not play the game" (off the top of my head - the lowest rating or two could even be negative). Then people could sort through the site's top reviewers to decide which of them they especially agreed or disagreed with. Though that presupposes many more reviews than we have...
So, one of the things that really bugs me about reviews for RMN is that they're the sole determiner of a game's rating... yet a game is lucky to get more than one or two reviews. As a sample size that's far beyond "poor".
I don't think telling people to do more reviews is necessarily the answer here. I can go on GameFAQs and find decent professional games where a larger user base has put together less in the way of reviews. The problem is the barrier, real or perceived, is too high - we are expecting too much from a review to get anything useful out of the aggregation of scores. Each one gets its own page, for goodness sake. In particular there's a bad problem when you can say of a game, "I would rate it lower/higher than its current score and wouldn't mind adjusting it towards my view - but X already said most of what I would have to say about it."
If there's a concern that people will flood the scores for just one game, or that crummy games will get artificially inflated from the maker and some friends giving high ratings... these still seem more workable than the problem we have. I like having full-length reviews, but I'd think that if a registered user in some nebulous range of good standing wants to post a paragraph and some sort of score, we can use that - and we'll get more of those than we will full-length reviews.
If (and that's highly conjectural) we went with a Gamerscore thing, rather than just number of reviews I would want to tie it to user ratings of the reviews somehow. Have a range like "helpful, mostly agree", "helpful, has good points", "has some worthwhile points", "not helpful", "factually inaccurate", "obviously did not play the game" (off the top of my head - the lowest rating or two could even be negative). Then people could sort through the site's top reviewers to decide which of them they especially agreed or disagreed with. Though that presupposes many more reviews than we have...
So, one of the things that really bugs me about reviews for RMN is that they're the sole determiner of a game's rating... yet a game is lucky to get more than one or two reviews. As a sample size that's far beyond "poor".
I don't think telling people to do more reviews is necessarily the answer here. I can go on GameFAQs and find decent professional games where a larger user base has put together less in the way of reviews. The problem is the barrier, real or perceived, is too high - we are expecting too much from a review to get anything useful out of the aggregation of scores. Each one gets its own page, for goodness sake. In particular there's a bad problem when you can say of a game, "I would rate it lower/higher than its current score and wouldn't mind adjusting it towards my view - but X already said most of what I would have to say about it."
If there's a concern that people will flood the scores for just one game, or that crummy games will get artificially inflated from the maker and some friends giving high ratings... these still seem more workable than the problem we have. I like having full-length reviews, but I'd think that if a registered user in some nebulous range of good standing wants to post a paragraph and some sort of score, we can use that - and we'll get more of those than we will full-length reviews.
post=99557
Maybe only get makerscore for a completed project, to encourage finishing games?
Actually, we do that. Completed projects get a 50% boost in makerscore. Also, the better the game is rated, the higher the score. (A 5-star game is worth 500, and if its completed its 750). WIP just reworked the numbers last night. He will be eventually taking into account the number of reviews a game has.
post=100155Without going to the extreme of scrapping makerscore and replacing it with your Makerscore mk II, what kinds of rewards could we offer?post=99618
Makerscore adds more locker space just so you know.
Locker space is almost worthless, there are many other places you can host things and they have more space.
I think we definitely need to change the makerscore into something more appealing. I was thinking that it would be cool if we scrap makerscore and put in a level based system, kind of like an RPG(haha im so clever). Then we divide it into several major categories such as graphics, story, and gameplay and have a level for each category. Maybe do something like the pixel joint system because I know from experience that it works. If I were to relate it to a game, the current system is like continuous accumulation of exp with no rewards.
This is a serious question, community. What would YOU like makerscore to do?
@Kira
Without going to the extreme of scrapping makerscore and replacing it with your Makerscore mk II, what kinds of rewards could we offer?
This is a serious question, community. What would YOU like makerscore to do?
I'm not sure. I've never really been totally satisfied with MS adding JUST more locker space myself. Wasn't there some sort of thing talked about before where more MS meant more space/room to customize your game page?
I believe that more time will equal CSS customization for all, regardless of makerscore.
Also I think that MS is good as-is.
Also I think that MS is good as-is.
post=100176
Seems unfair to limit basic features for new users.
I guess. I dunno, I don't think so. Hell, SomethingAwful (for example) doesn't let you do ANYTHING basic customization wise other than post until you pay (as in actual, goddamn money) for every feature at a time, and it's what, the most popular, or one of, forums on the internet? Many websites offer Premium User type of benefits in lieu of that, as well.
I mean, MS is there. It might as well do something besides just more Locker Space, which is really something you can get anywhere.
Something Awful is also renowned the world over for being a community of really, really big jerks. I would rather not see this community (d)evolve into a group of derisive, elitist pricks.
That doesn't have anything to do with the way their features purchasing system works. Nor am I suggesting we become like SomethingAwful and charge people real money for anything either. However, offering extra (emphasis on extra) incentives and features for something that frankly, people joined the community to do anyway, isn't exactly a new or an unsuccessful concept.
Alright, what would be an example of one of these new features higher makerscore would unlock? Because I honestly can't really think of anything.
ahw
0
As someone who doesn't participate much in this community (or any, really), here are some ideas of my thought process....
Keep in mind I don't have any grasp how Makerscore or what systems you have in place work, yet.
What isn't that interesting:
- Server space and storage. You can find that anywhere. You need to provide more incentives.
- Points or e-popularity systems, by themselves. These systems rarely, if ever, reflect value. Almost all reputation based systems become exploited.
What would interest me:
- Avenues of distribution. More than anything, the game making community lacks any means of distribution. As has been said, we make shit, we don't play shit. Maybe marketing a sister site, or something of the like, as a distribution pool. Hosting popular content, providing discussion purely for gameplay related topics, with added functionality for distribution.
- As far as said functionality goes.... Integrate it. Mailing lists or newsletters with new releases, dynamic pages for generating content for the user's preferencial game type, facebook plugins, iphone plugins, what have you. we need a www.indiegamehub.net that doesn't have the boring stuff that interests developers ("Which moral dilemma should inflict my secondary protagonist and what emotional response will it receive?"). We need a site that interests people wanting to play and support free indie games. We need a youtube of games.
- If we get people playing it, we are going to get more interested developers and more feedback from the people that actually matter -- the people who play what you create. Everything else should be secondary.
Basically, I agree with a lot of what WIP argues. The making community has always been segregated from the people who actually have an interest in playing games. Its like shooting yourself in the foot.
Keep in mind I don't have any grasp how Makerscore or what systems you have in place work, yet.
What isn't that interesting:
- Server space and storage. You can find that anywhere. You need to provide more incentives.
- Points or e-popularity systems, by themselves. These systems rarely, if ever, reflect value. Almost all reputation based systems become exploited.
What would interest me:
- Avenues of distribution. More than anything, the game making community lacks any means of distribution. As has been said, we make shit, we don't play shit. Maybe marketing a sister site, or something of the like, as a distribution pool. Hosting popular content, providing discussion purely for gameplay related topics, with added functionality for distribution.
- As far as said functionality goes.... Integrate it. Mailing lists or newsletters with new releases, dynamic pages for generating content for the user's preferencial game type, facebook plugins, iphone plugins, what have you. we need a www.indiegamehub.net that doesn't have the boring stuff that interests developers ("Which moral dilemma should inflict my secondary protagonist and what emotional response will it receive?"). We need a site that interests people wanting to play and support free indie games. We need a youtube of games.
- If we get people playing it, we are going to get more interested developers and more feedback from the people that actually matter -- the people who play what you create. Everything else should be secondary.
Basically, I agree with a lot of what WIP argues. The making community has always been segregated from the people who actually have an interest in playing games. Its like shooting yourself in the foot.
]Avenues of distributionI'm all for something like this, but I keep wondering...where? Where can we find a gameplaying site interested in the stuff we make? I do searches on Google for things like "RPG gamers" and "RPG playing" and "Old school RPG" and "Retro RPG" but they're all either all about commercial (old and new) RPGs, tabletop RPGs or are stagnant OR are all about flashy graphix and custom engines and shit. It makes me wonder if there is even a place we can successfully market our work.
Another thing, big game playing portals tend to be about selling games OR strictly browser based games (to sell advertising), or, if they focus on free games, its always about the casual and/or card games. While the RM dev community sucks ass when it comes to RM gameplaying, it might still be our biggest market. :(
I would love to find a passionate and active retro RPG game playing community.
www.indiegamehub.netWe need to buy this domain while we still can.
We could start a Youtube channel to promote our site and it's games, too, but the problem will be finding willing leads for this. We have a podcast, but it's sporadic.
