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
Lennon
88
Lennon
View playlists
Closepost=99597Maybe only get makerscore for a completed project, to encourage finishing games?Unless makerscore can be cashed in for money and orpornprizes, I don't see that having an impact at all.
It was in response to Kentona's idea to have special status or something similar for a high makerscore.
LDanarkos
430
Sorry, I haven't read all of the posts yet. I mean how does a one-day-old topic get 5 pages of replies anyway?
Suggestion 1: Large teams making games instead of individual people. Fact is, the game would be dramatically better, period. Let me ask a rhetorical question. Why should I play every amateur RPG, when they often aren't that great, and there's so many of them? If every game was programmed by 6 people, then there might be 1/6th as many games (all right, I know that's not necessarily true), and each game would be quite playable, instead of not-so-playable. Would I have more faith that a game's worth my time if it had a great team instead of a random individual? Yes I would.
Suggestion 2: Make the games shorter, and make sure there's no point of the game (whether it be a hard boss, a hard mini-game, or a hard-to-find plot point) that is discouragingly difficult, or extremely boring. First of all, that means people can more quickly finish the game without quitting. Second, the more people actually complete the game, the more reviews can be made about the game; and accurate, honest, positive reviews are somewhat key to enticing other people to try it.
Suggestion 3: Reveal more about the game wherever it is being advertised. Video trailers are good, specific descriptions about the custom features are good, etc.. Before a person plays a game, they should have an idea about what the graphics are like, if the soundtrack is good, how the CBS works if there is one, how the CMS works if there is one, minigames, etc., basically everything except how well the plot is written, and whether the game is suspenseful, because those last two things can't easily be previewed.
Suggestion 1: Large teams making games instead of individual people. Fact is, the game would be dramatically better, period. Let me ask a rhetorical question. Why should I play every amateur RPG, when they often aren't that great, and there's so many of them? If every game was programmed by 6 people, then there might be 1/6th as many games (all right, I know that's not necessarily true), and each game would be quite playable, instead of not-so-playable. Would I have more faith that a game's worth my time if it had a great team instead of a random individual? Yes I would.
Suggestion 2: Make the games shorter, and make sure there's no point of the game (whether it be a hard boss, a hard mini-game, or a hard-to-find plot point) that is discouragingly difficult, or extremely boring. First of all, that means people can more quickly finish the game without quitting. Second, the more people actually complete the game, the more reviews can be made about the game; and accurate, honest, positive reviews are somewhat key to enticing other people to try it.
Suggestion 3: Reveal more about the game wherever it is being advertised. Video trailers are good, specific descriptions about the custom features are good, etc.. Before a person plays a game, they should have an idea about what the graphics are like, if the soundtrack is good, how the CBS works if there is one, how the CMS works if there is one, minigames, etc., basically everything except how well the plot is written, and whether the game is suspenseful, because those last two things can't easily be previewed.
About suggestion 1: People aren't always as commited as you'd like them to be. If you're starting out, you probably won't be able to get the team to help, or not much of a good team. You can look at RRR's recruit section, it's filled with a lot of "I need a spriter, a writer, an eventer, a scripter, an artist, while I will be the developer". Then no one joins and they wonder why. Yeah, we want our own visions realized as well, not just someone elses ideas. I don't mind helping out other projects, but I want to be sure that my work won't go to waste. A lot of people end up quitting their projects and starting a new one, so if I didn't get paid for my work, all that work was wasted. Basically, give me money, I'm hungry.
About suggestion 2: Lots of people starting out however, they have grand ideas in their head. I don't think that's a bad thing, but they aren't really aware of the work load a game requires, and how the amount of hours has to keep the players interest. For me, I don't have too much free time for game playing so even commercial games which are long don't keep my interest. But yeah, it's recommended to make shorter games. You'll learn a good bit by the experiments you do, will be able to make it easier to entertain the player in that time frame, you'll have less work to do yourself, so it's a good suggestion. Quantity does not automatically make a game good.
About suggestion 2: Lots of people starting out however, they have grand ideas in their head. I don't think that's a bad thing, but they aren't really aware of the work load a game requires, and how the amount of hours has to keep the players interest. For me, I don't have too much free time for game playing so even commercial games which are long don't keep my interest. But yeah, it's recommended to make shorter games. You'll learn a good bit by the experiments you do, will be able to make it easier to entertain the player in that time frame, you'll have less work to do yourself, so it's a good suggestion. Quantity does not automatically make a game good.
Don't advertise MAEKTAEM topics on RM* forums. Make friends, spend five years with them, then decide to make a game with them. It worked (and is currently working again!) for Karsu and I.
It's also easier for people that aren't eleven to make games as a group. THE ETERNAL PLAGUE OF RRR
EDIT: Oh and I agree with NB on the mentoring thing. Sometimes it gets forced upon me when people are like OH CRAZE I SHALL PM YOU MY GAME'S STORYLINE AND CHARACTER LIST TELL ME IF THEY ARE WORTHY at which point I'll usually tear them to shreds, but yeah otherwise I just comment on random screenshots telling people why I can't see a damn thing.
It's also easier for people that aren't eleven to make games as a group. THE ETERNAL PLAGUE OF RRR
EDIT: Oh and I agree with NB on the mentoring thing. Sometimes it gets forced upon me when people are like OH CRAZE I SHALL PM YOU MY GAME'S STORYLINE AND CHARACTER LIST TELL ME IF THEY ARE WORTHY at which point I'll usually tear them to shreds, but yeah otherwise I just comment on random screenshots telling people why I can't see a damn thing.
Nightblade is right about networking and making friends. If you insist on being completely insular and inactive in the community, don't expect a HUGE reception during the development or even release of your game. If you want feedback, involvement, and participation, you have to be willing to give it.
Ramshackin
1462
post=99648
Suggestion 1: Large teams making games instead of individual people. Fact is, the game would be dramatically better, period. Let me ask a rhetorical question. Why should I play every amateur RPG, when they often aren't that great, and there's so many of them? If every game was programmed by 6 people, then there might be 1/6th as many games (all right, I know that's not necessarily true), and each game would be quite playable, instead of not-so-playable. Would I have more faith that a game's worth my time if it had a great team instead of a random individual? Yes I would.
I don't think you have much experience with indie teams. Typically, the more people on a project, the lower the quality and the longer the development time. It's very rare to put together a competent indie team :(
S. F. LaValle
1069
post=99797
I don't think you have much experience with indie teams. Typically, the more people on a project, the lower the quality and the longer the development time. It's very rare to put together a competent indie team :(
That's what happens when people collaborate for all of the wrong reasons.
People that are more mature about designing a game can gain an incredible amount of headway, both in development time and quality, with the right mindset about collaborating with others.
As mentioned earlier, a typical person new to game making will want to "produce" the project (you know, bring their ideas to life), and their idea of collaborating will be finding someone to make the music, draw sprites, design and balance the battle system or other core gameplay elements, etc. This isn't how games get made.
Develop your skills at actual game creation (not story designing, or music, or art, real work in the editor or whatever you're using). Determine your strengths and identify your weaknesses. Maybe even release some things for people to see. Most importantly, as everyone has said, network. Check out other people's game and talk with their creators. Identify things you like about people's games and elements of design that complement your own strengths while compensating for your weaknesses.
Then, pitch an idea and maybe, just maybe, magic will happen. When you have one or few people committed to actually making a game, THEN discuss things like story, art, and music.
That was all hypothetical, of course =)
At this point in the world of RMN, the most important thing you can do for yourself is make a name for yourself out here in the forums, or in the irc chatroom (#rpgmaker.net on dynastynet.net, try a browser-based client at Mibbit.com for some great discussions on game making every now and then). I don't mean to try and slather your god-like creations all over us and expect praise. I mean to be humble, be intelligent, involve yourself in discussions, write reviews, anything that pops up. If people think of you as an intelligent, mature person (I heard somewhere that we do have the oldest userbase of any RM* community), then your projects have already started selling themselves.
Wow, did I go over a bunch of random stuff or what.
LDanarkos
430
A group-based game shouldn't have each element delegated to a particular programmer, because most of us don't have specialized skills, most of us are jacks of all RPG trades. Every area should be a combined effort (except possibly the programming, because that would be a nightmare to share). Instead of having to make 200 great maps, you only need to make 35 great maps, which gives you more time to work on each individual map, which is great, because it's not easy to make great maps. Do that for cut scenes, custom graphics, etc. you get the drift. As far as the plot, there's a lot of precedence for community-based plot creation, whether it be a chain game, or a role-playing thread, or whatever; it just needs to be organized properly.
But don't knock group-based games based on the failures of bad neophyte programmers. Good programmers wouldn't be so likely to fail.
But don't knock group-based games based on the failures of bad neophyte programmers. Good programmers wouldn't be so likely to fail.
While I agree that a team game is a viable effort (as I have made one), I disagree with many of your points.
In my experience, the more people dedicated to specific tasks, the better. This way you will have less repeated work, communication problems and people crying over having their work cut. Many of us actually do have things we are 'best at' and this is what should be capitalized on in a team project. This prevents inconsistency and quality issues.
To use an example from my released collaboration, Visions & Voices, Craze worked on all the technical details (the database and scripting) and the maps. I did all the writing and design/conceptual work. It went well considering, but even then people notice parts where we took shortcuts or rushed things - pretty much everyone noticed the drop in writing quality for certain characters that had rushed writing and/or writing written by Craze since we were cutting it close on the deadline. Avoiding this problem by having singular team members working on singular tasks is a better idea.
If a certain task is particularly large in any given project and more than one member is capable in that area AND it is unreasonable for one person to do, it is best to split up that task cleanly and without ambiguity, much like a professional company does.
Once again, I note my consistency issue. If game making is an art, map-making, cutscenes and custom graphics are a craft. Very few people are good at more than one of these things, and it takes time to get good at 'em.
Chain games are popular, yes, and fun to work on, but they are rarely quality - often ending up like bad fanfiction. And I repeat my consistency complaint.
I think you might mean that good workers are less likely to fail. Being good at any given task (including programming) doesn't make you a good worker. This is why many of those games with awesome maps, great custom art and epic storylines do not get released.
P.S.
One must remember that this is an entirely amateur affair(for most of us). We make games because we are supposedly having fun doing so. If it's not fun, we get disinterested and stop working on the project.
Remember this: unless a team is headed by a competent leader/designer/producer that GETS WORK DONE (rare) and your team members all feel that they are contributing (also rare, and more predominant in larger teams), it will likely fail.
If you work on a team game/collaboration, do it with someone who shares your vision and is someone you can trust - both to do their job, and do it with a level of quality that meets your standards.
Ramshackle teams put together because 'everyone wants to join' always fail.
A group-based game shouldn't have each element delegated to a particular programmer, because most of us don't have specialized skills, most of us are jacks of all RPG trades. Every area should be a combined effort (except possibly the programming, because that would be a nightmare to share).
In my experience, the more people dedicated to specific tasks, the better. This way you will have less repeated work, communication problems and people crying over having their work cut. Many of us actually do have things we are 'best at' and this is what should be capitalized on in a team project. This prevents inconsistency and quality issues.
To use an example from my released collaboration, Visions & Voices, Craze worked on all the technical details (the database and scripting) and the maps. I did all the writing and design/conceptual work. It went well considering, but even then people notice parts where we took shortcuts or rushed things - pretty much everyone noticed the drop in writing quality for certain characters that had rushed writing and/or writing written by Craze since we were cutting it close on the deadline. Avoiding this problem by having singular team members working on singular tasks is a better idea.
If a certain task is particularly large in any given project and more than one member is capable in that area AND it is unreasonable for one person to do, it is best to split up that task cleanly and without ambiguity, much like a professional company does.
Instead of having to make 200 great maps, you only need to make 35 great maps, which gives you more time to work on each individual map, which is great, because it's not easy to make great maps. Do that for cut scenes, custom graphics, etc. you get the drift.
Once again, I note my consistency issue. If game making is an art, map-making, cutscenes and custom graphics are a craft. Very few people are good at more than one of these things, and it takes time to get good at 'em.
As far as the plot, there's a lot of precedence for community-based plot creation, whether it be a chain game, or a role-playing thread, or whatever; it just needs to be organized properly.
Chain games are popular, yes, and fun to work on, but they are rarely quality - often ending up like bad fanfiction. And I repeat my consistency complaint.
But don't knock group-based games based on the failures of bad neophyte programmers. Good programmers wouldn't be so likely to fail.
I think you might mean that good workers are less likely to fail. Being good at any given task (including programming) doesn't make you a good worker. This is why many of those games with awesome maps, great custom art and epic storylines do not get released.
P.S.
One must remember that this is an entirely amateur affair(for most of us). We make games because we are supposedly having fun doing so. If it's not fun, we get disinterested and stop working on the project.
Remember this: unless a team is headed by a competent leader/designer/producer that GETS WORK DONE (rare) and your team members all feel that they are contributing (also rare, and more predominant in larger teams), it will likely fail.
If you work on a team game/collaboration, do it with someone who shares your vision and is someone you can trust - both to do their job, and do it with a level of quality that meets your standards.
Ramshackle teams put together because 'everyone wants to join' always fail.
Drakonais
2787
I think SF mentioned it way back in the thread and someone else knocked it down, but I really like the idea of game exchanges. Here's why:
I don't feel like I have endless hours to load up (let alone actually play) every game that looks interesting. I check what other people have said about it to see whether or not I think it'll be a fun use of my time. Games like Hero's Realm with a ton of positive feedback I download and try. If no one has said anything about a game, unless it really catches my eye for some reason, I'll pass it over.
Having someone else explore your game definitely gives you an incentive to play theirs, whether or not there's is a huge set of reviews or comments under it. By then commenting and/or reviewing the exchanged game, that review base is created which other people can look at and decide if the game is worthwhile. Then the project has a life of its own.
So yeah, I'm down for trading games. Seems like a sensible, less selfish way to get feedback and participate in community gaming.
I don't feel like I have endless hours to load up (let alone actually play) every game that looks interesting. I check what other people have said about it to see whether or not I think it'll be a fun use of my time. Games like Hero's Realm with a ton of positive feedback I download and try. If no one has said anything about a game, unless it really catches my eye for some reason, I'll pass it over.
Having someone else explore your game definitely gives you an incentive to play theirs, whether or not there's is a huge set of reviews or comments under it. By then commenting and/or reviewing the exchanged game, that review base is created which other people can look at and decide if the game is worthwhile. Then the project has a life of its own.
So yeah, I'm down for trading games. Seems like a sensible, less selfish way to get feedback and participate in community gaming.
post=99640
It was in response to Kentona's idea to have special status or something similar for a high makerscore.
please don't alienate me :(
post=99931post=99640please don't alienate me :(
It was in response to Kentona's idea to have special status or something similar for a high makerscore.
Don't worry geodude. I will always think of you as special.
post=99929
I think SF mentioned it way back in the thread and someone else knocked it down, but I really like the idea of game exchanges. Here's why:
I don't feel like I have endless hours to load up (let alone actually play) every game that looks interesting. I check what other people have said about it to see whether or not I think it'll be a fun use of my time. Games like Hero's Realm with a ton of positive feedback I download and try. If no one has said anything about a game, unless it really catches my eye for some reason, I'll pass it over.
Having someone else explore your game definitely gives you an incentive to play theirs, whether or not there's is a huge set of reviews or comments under it. By then commenting and/or reviewing the exchanged game, that review base is created which other people can look at and decide if the game is worthwhile. Then the project has a life of its own.
So yeah, I'm down for trading games. Seems like a sensible, less selfish way to get feedback and participate in community gaming.
The last time I traded games, a year of community drama ensued
To clarify more about Karsuman's last point:
With a team game, there needs to be a singular vision. And whomever has this, needs to have absolute control. There needs to be a hierarchy of power.
The problem with this, is that people want to make their vision. It might not align with the person in control. It's up to them if they feel it is worth continuing after this realization.
With a team game, there needs to be a singular vision. And whomever has this, needs to have absolute control. There needs to be a hierarchy of power.
The problem with this, is that people want to make their vision. It might not align with the person in control. It's up to them if they feel it is worth continuing after this realization.
WIP is absolutely correct when it comes to almost all groups. When it comes to Karsuman and I (an example of a very close-knit pairing that understands the ideas/motivations/desires of each other AND has the ability/experience to make those ideas/motivations/desires work), we share the vision. Kind of.
To tell people how V&V was made, I'd say "I made the game, Karsuman made it interesting." It's the same way with the vision. Karsuman has the vision; he sees the game he wants made. I, however, work as the leader - I tell Karsu what needs to get done, I hold most of the game documents, I have the Absolute Control. Except that I don't, because it's Karsu's idea.
Just wanted to say that if you find your game dev soulmate, it's a shared vision.
</slightly awkward metaphor>
To tell people how V&V was made, I'd say "I made the game, Karsuman made it interesting." It's the same way with the vision. Karsuman has the vision; he sees the game he wants made. I, however, work as the leader - I tell Karsu what needs to get done, I hold most of the game documents, I have the Absolute Control. Except that I don't, because it's Karsu's idea.
Just wanted to say that if you find your game dev soulmate, it's a shared vision.
</slightly awkward metaphor>
KiraD
0
First, I would like to mention that this is a horrible, a horrible way to introduce one's self into a new forum. Jump right into a critical debate and see what happens!
Yeah. ... O.o
So, m'yes. After months and months of putting it off, I have finally buckled down into something resembling a looksee at the wonderful world of game-making. And surprisingly enough, it has a similar amount of problems to the wonderful world of convention-running... where I have been holed up for the past 6 years.
Now, most of you don't know me, or know where I'm from, or where I'm coming from, but I will ask you all to please be patient while I attempt to analyze this issue you are dealing with.
Basically, I get the impression that there are more people willing to put in the work to get something for themselves, and less people willing to partake of the fruits of said labor. As one of you put it, it's kind of inevitable, for a community that is built around making things.
Creativity is your ideology. But many of your members suffer from the misunderstanding that creativity is also singular.
It's not.
Even when you are creating a game, by yourself, you need the support and encouragement of the community around you to garner critiques. To make a game as good as it can be made, you cannot look to yourself as the only person with an opinion. Just like a writer needs an editor to look over a rough draft and correct mistakes, a game-maker needs at least one other person - or, ideally, a team - to check for cracks and help you polish the edges.
But, as someone else pointed out (somewhere...I lost it ^^;;) people are very disinterested in providing that critique and support. For various reasons - but the end result is that most people would rather make than play, because they see no benefit to the play.
How do you combat this?
First, I would suggest that you build up more of a community of support, rather than one of 'look, I did this!'.
How?
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?
Granted, for any system like that, you need to have some sort of reward - some people can run on having the most points and being the 'best', but in something where you're trying to encourage participants to put themselves out and do something that they'd normally rather not do (participate in the community), you need some sort of tangible prize.
What about partnering up with another website, webcomic artist, artist, writer, etc. - someone who may need the ad-space, links, or shout-outs on your page, and would be willing to create prize support in exchange?
Or, how about sponsoring "Make-It" seminars, or "Fast-Play" competitions? Get a group of people (2 or more) to go to a local convention and run a workshop or panel on basic game-making. In a "Fast-Play" competition, you could take some of the more popular games on the site (possibly with a quick remake, or demo), and see how quickly con-goers could get through it. Make a game out of the games. Encourage interactivity.
How about encouraging playability by forming links with websites for gamers?
Hold a "Make N'Break" tournament, where participants have one month to make a game, and reviewers have one week to try and break it - not quite sure how, but I'm brainstorming. ^-^
Create a zine. Have game reviews, opinion polls, articles, etc., and then upload a 'game of the {blank}' to the website so that everyone can play it from there.
Ask all top reviewers to review one particular game each month - this game to be picked by chance or design from a pool of games available. Then, at the end of the year, all twelve games are automatically entered into a competition. Whichever one wins is playable on the site for a designated amount of time the following year.
I know some of these suggestions may seem silly or out there, but, again, it's a brainstorm. I don't know who's in charge around here, what your budget is like, your skill levels, or how many members you have who are willing to go the extra mile, so this is the best I've got for the moment. ^-^
Yeah. ... O.o
So, m'yes. After months and months of putting it off, I have finally buckled down into something resembling a looksee at the wonderful world of game-making. And surprisingly enough, it has a similar amount of problems to the wonderful world of convention-running... where I have been holed up for the past 6 years.
Now, most of you don't know me, or know where I'm from, or where I'm coming from, but I will ask you all to please be patient while I attempt to analyze this issue you are dealing with.
Basically, I get the impression that there are more people willing to put in the work to get something for themselves, and less people willing to partake of the fruits of said labor. As one of you put it, it's kind of inevitable, for a community that is built around making things.
Creativity is your ideology. But many of your members suffer from the misunderstanding that creativity is also singular.
It's not.
Even when you are creating a game, by yourself, you need the support and encouragement of the community around you to garner critiques. To make a game as good as it can be made, you cannot look to yourself as the only person with an opinion. Just like a writer needs an editor to look over a rough draft and correct mistakes, a game-maker needs at least one other person - or, ideally, a team - to check for cracks and help you polish the edges.
But, as someone else pointed out (somewhere...I lost it ^^;;) people are very disinterested in providing that critique and support. For various reasons - but the end result is that most people would rather make than play, because they see no benefit to the play.
How do you combat this?
First, I would suggest that you build up more of a community of support, rather than one of 'look, I did this!'.
How?
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?
Granted, for any system like that, you need to have some sort of reward - some people can run on having the most points and being the 'best', but in something where you're trying to encourage participants to put themselves out and do something that they'd normally rather not do (participate in the community), you need some sort of tangible prize.
What about partnering up with another website, webcomic artist, artist, writer, etc. - someone who may need the ad-space, links, or shout-outs on your page, and would be willing to create prize support in exchange?
Or, how about sponsoring "Make-It" seminars, or "Fast-Play" competitions? Get a group of people (2 or more) to go to a local convention and run a workshop or panel on basic game-making. In a "Fast-Play" competition, you could take some of the more popular games on the site (possibly with a quick remake, or demo), and see how quickly con-goers could get through it. Make a game out of the games. Encourage interactivity.
How about encouraging playability by forming links with websites for gamers?
Hold a "Make N'Break" tournament, where participants have one month to make a game, and reviewers have one week to try and break it - not quite sure how, but I'm brainstorming. ^-^
Create a zine. Have game reviews, opinion polls, articles, etc., and then upload a 'game of the {blank}' to the website so that everyone can play it from there.
Ask all top reviewers to review one particular game each month - this game to be picked by chance or design from a pool of games available. Then, at the end of the year, all twelve games are automatically entered into a competition. Whichever one wins is playable on the site for a designated amount of time the following year.
I know some of these suggestions may seem silly or out there, but, again, it's a brainstorm. I don't know who's in charge around here, what your budget is like, your skill levels, or how many members you have who are willing to go the extra mile, so this is the best I've got for the moment. ^-^
post=100121
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?
See that "M" under your Name/ Avatar? That's called Makerscore. This is exactly what it does.
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.
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!
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!
