CIEL FINALLY BITES AND MAKES A TOPIC

author=Ciel
Since real estate is so limited, why not try to reserve that valued space for more deserving titles? I think it would be very effective to have a system where each IP address can 'vote up' a game once, and then the front page can list most popular games of the week, month, and year. There would be no 'vote down' function.

http://rpgmaker.net/forums/topics/7443/

:D

*reads ciel's opening rant*

Lot of valid points there!

Featured games should be representative of the community's finest work and a sign post to the outside world - 'Hey, look at the amazing things we make here, you should come and make amazing things with us!'. More than that, being featured should absolutely be something users aspire to - an achievement and honor one can work towards by improving the quality of their work. It may sound 'shallow' to those who strictly advocate making games for oneself, but the prestige factor within a community that is respected can be a big motivational boost. (Thinking about how cool it'll be when everyone likes the game you're working on is an oasis on the horizon in the scorching desert of development.)

To be honest, this is a double edged sword. I have approached every game I've developed with this attitude...the attitude of getting it to featured. And failing to do this time and time and time again has caused me a tremendous amount of bitterness and disillusionment. If I was able to ignore the featured game and just focus on making the game for its own sake (which is hard for me in any case) I like to think that I might have more positive feelings about RMN. tl;dr I think that "you didn't make featured, if you want to, make your game BETTER" is the worst possible attitude. We have to accept that no matter what Featured Game is going to be an INCREDIBLY SUBJECTIVE DECISION.

I still don't think you'd get much more than one anyways. Plus you'd have to reorganize the main page to do that, etc. We already have problems finding one worthwhile game per month.

Strongly disagree. I don't think there has ever been any month where there weren't at least five valid candidates.

(Will add more to this post by edits.)

EDIT: *SUCK IT K*
Still four pages behind, but I just wanted to add an addendum to the above: which is that we never just considered games released THAT MONTH. Ever. I meant that counting our backlog and recent games there are always 5+ valid candidates.

author=halibabica

from Craze
In my opinion, a good game has to have good design, presentation and execution... but apparently, that's just me.

Define 'good.'

Define sophistry. : P More to follow.

I'm not saying that the current Featured Game is not without its flaws (it isn't), but I see some individuals -- or a clique -- essentially inspiring a rebellion because their own preferred choices for Featured Game were not selected. There are lots of awesome games out there and someone will always be unhappy with the results. I see little advantage in trading tyranny of the staff oligarchy for tyranny of the masses... or even a non-staff oligarchy.

This is a lot of truth coming from Holbert. Although I still maintain that choosing Legendary Legend was a horrible move on every level.

Absolutely no one has denied the weight and power that the Featured Games hold. I am humbly wondering where you got that impression.

I have never got the impression that staff has fully reckoned the importance of the Featured Game. Going back to my time as staff. Deciding featured game is arguably the most important thing that Staff does each month.

The featuring of Legendary Legends did not in anyway prohibit "positive action". For all we know, we could've taken the chance to constructively debate exactly how and why the writing wasn't what it was made out to be (and why some other people found the writing great). It was the community and its love for incessant bickering that destroyed any chances for "positive action", not the game (LL), not the system (FG), and not the staff.

Yeah, actually. Look at the size of this debate (between people who ASSUME the game is unworthy and the staff) compared to the size of the debate on the game's ACTUAL merits.

I do agree with you that the objective that Featured Games is trying to accomplish can be done in a less misunderstanding way. I do not know whether subtlety should be strived for, though: Weren't the games overlooked because they were presented subtlely and never captured the attention they deserved?

Fuck subtlety. I don't think Games Making Waves or Hidden Gems get games a lot of downloads. Superliminal messaging all the way.

And actually, that brings me to my solution...

We should have three "featured" games. We should not change the layout of the site at all. The screenshot, title/link, review links, and description of the games should appear in the same spot, with only one being displayed at a time. They should cycle when the page is refreshed, either randomly or according to a specified sequence, with a small link to the other two games when only one is visible. (These links should, arguably, be visible everywhere on the site.) Perhaps an arrow that allows you to scroll between the three features.

Feature #1: Games Making Waves. This is voted on, quasi-monthly (from a list of choices compiled by Staff) and its purpose is to represent a POPULAR, ATTENTION GRABBING GAME that makes the community look good. (At least we have a 1/3rd chance that the French won't look down their noses at us.)
Feature #2: Hidden Gems. This is an obscure game that is GREAT and deserves more attention than it is getting. This is selected by staff, but community members can and should be able to send in suggestions.
Feature #3: Featured Game. The MAIN feature. Obviously WHAT criteria this game must meet and HOW it will be selected remain to be decided.

Obviously the corresponding features should be removed from SNEWS as they are being put on the front page.

I think if we look at the backlog as well as the newest, freshest games (which we OBVIOUSLY are doing anyway, see LL) then we should have plenty of games to choose from and it should be no problem getting three games to share the front page each month.

Soli and Silv both gave Legendary Legend high-scoring reviews. Just sayin'

F-G should OBVIOUSLY be a staff reviewer. Obviously. And should certainly be involved in the process of choosing the featured game(s).

author=Max McGee
Define sophistry. : P More to follow.

"subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation"

In addendum (and somewhat in opposition to) to my earlier point on first impressions of games: there is a flip side of a more meritocratic system of game featuring.

Commercial games already have the restriction of needing good marketing and branding (and not necessarily good content) in order to perform well. Therefore, it might be a nice change for freeware games not to be restricted by the need to rely on pretty screenshots, logos, and hype, but rather to place more merit in actual game content. There is value in having a community where game designers are 'safe' from using manipulative marketing to make up for lack of effort. That's not to say that good content and a good cover are mutually exclusive, obviously, and it should be noted that a good cover is always a good idea if you want more exposure, since the fact remains: everyone judges a book by its cover. (Mileage may vary.)

I mean, Legendary Legend might be fun to play *if you give it a chance.* Why cannot the creator of this supposedly well-written game take it a step further and not rely on people feeling obligated to give it a chance, but rather, to *want* to play it? :P

Please replace the current LL screen with:

It probably is more eye-catching, at least, so yeah

The one we have up works, yeah.

author=kentona
I kind of like the one I made the main image - it's eye catching, intriguing (to me at least) and I don't have to do shady things like uploading to and editting someone else's game profile.

The new one up there right now is perfect - so many layers of perfect.