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)
THE VOID
Posts
halibabica
View playlists
CloseI proposed this once before back when I was still a (useless) staff member, and I wanted to bring it up again in the hopes it might be implemented with RMN4.
It's a simple concept, really; a division in the games database. A threshold of quality above which games would be publicly available, and below which, would be in The Void.
The Void would not be the same as an unapproved game page that couldn't be viewed by the public. Rather, it would be a place where games that need work could be seen and given feedback for their improvement. They would not appear on the front page or turn up in database searches, but they would still be accessible for aspiring game makers to get the criticism they need.
So instead of games being 'approved' or 'unapproved', they'd either be 'Available' or 'Voided'. The title 'The Void' is meant to carry a negative connotation, as the games listed inside it are lacking in quality. Casual players won't be likely to check these games out unless they're just in it for shits and giggles. Of course, the place would have to be carefully moderated from trolls seeking easy pickings. Due to the kind of attention they would draw in such a place, it would be the concern of the games' creators to improve their projects and get them out of The Void. If they are willing to put in the effort and make the changes necessary, they can ask to be considered for admission into the main database after doing so. And the developers who don't care enough to make their games good would just rot in The Void for all eternity.
If this system is possible, it'd also make moderating the submission queue a bit easier, as the decision between accept/deny is more difficult to make. Games that are obviously bad would all just get Voided.
It's a simple concept, really; a division in the games database. A threshold of quality above which games would be publicly available, and below which, would be in The Void.
The Void would not be the same as an unapproved game page that couldn't be viewed by the public. Rather, it would be a place where games that need work could be seen and given feedback for their improvement. They would not appear on the front page or turn up in database searches, but they would still be accessible for aspiring game makers to get the criticism they need.
So instead of games being 'approved' or 'unapproved', they'd either be 'Available' or 'Voided'. The title 'The Void' is meant to carry a negative connotation, as the games listed inside it are lacking in quality. Casual players won't be likely to check these games out unless they're just in it for shits and giggles. Of course, the place would have to be carefully moderated from trolls seeking easy pickings. Due to the kind of attention they would draw in such a place, it would be the concern of the games' creators to improve their projects and get them out of The Void. If they are willing to put in the effort and make the changes necessary, they can ask to be considered for admission into the main database after doing so. And the developers who don't care enough to make their games good would just rot in The Void for all eternity.
If this system is possible, it'd also make moderating the submission queue a bit easier, as the decision between accept/deny is more difficult to make. Games that are obviously bad would all just get Voided.
Question: Is the threshold determined by a number of games (say, top 500 games are available), or is it a ratings threshold?
(The specific cutoff of either isn't particularly important, since lines in the sand can always be erased and redrawn in a more desirable location.)
(The specific cutoff of either isn't particularly important, since lines in the sand can always be erased and redrawn in a more desirable location.)
I wouldn't base it on any definitive rating scale, and especially not the one we have that review scores determine. No no, it'd be on a case by case basis. Whether games belonged in The Void or not would be entirely up to those managing the submissions queue. If the system were implemented, I would expect all the games currently accepted to be flagged as available (not Voided). Then we could just hold another Great Purge and send the games that aren't good enough to The Void.
EDIT: Likewise, any games that are currently denied would be flagged as Voided.
EDIT: Likewise, any games that are currently denied would be flagged as Voided.
I'm in favor of having this, or something like this, exist between "Accepted" and "Denied", actually.
I'll give this some thought later when I'm less burnt out.
I'll give this some thought later when I'm less burnt out.
One idea that was brought up recently was turning the Introduction forum into some type of newbie proving grounds where new users would start out at, complete with links to site rules, helpful links, etc. They could possibly post their games there and get feedback from moderators/mentors before moving on to prime time. This would prevent the really rough stuff from showing up on the mainsite and also help develop some newer users and show them the ropes.
Not sure where I was really going with this.
Not sure where I was really going with this.
Holb: This could probably be a better implementation of that idea; a user would submit their game and link to the Voided gamepage instead of breaking the otherwise-consistent "no games on the forums" mantra.
also in before exdeath THE VOID
e: god fucking dammit
also in before exdeath THE VOID
e: god fucking dammit
<-- has 2 gams in the Void and doesn't know how to get them outta there. There is life in the Void, but THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE VOID!
I'm prepared to flesh this idea out further with specifics, if asked. The Void could have plenty of disadvantages compared to regular game pages that would make escaping it more appealing. I expect it would also prevent a lot of topics like the ones we got from charmandrek and other butthurt whiners.
psy_wombats
13315
author=halibabica
I expect it would also prevent a lot of topics like the ones we got from charmandrek and other butthurt whiners.
Wouldn't people then just whine about how their game was unfairly sentenced to the void...?
Dyhalto
7536
author=psy_wombats
Wouldn't people then just whine about how their game was unfairly sentenced to the void...?
^That.
Rather than making some place with negative connotation to it where all newbies' games go, why not just provide some sort of tag beside "Completed" that represents total completion/no more updates/good to go. It can be just a tiny image that denotes availability for public use.
It's a psychological hurdle, but instead of makers strugging to get out of the pit (the Void) they aspire to achieve the reward (the Tag).
Meanwhile, The Void could be used to sentence projects that haven't had an update in over a year. But usually being on page 30+ of a search will accomplish that effect.
from psy_wombats
Wouldn't people then just whine about how their game was unfairly sentenced to the void...?
They would, but the big difference here is their role in the matter. When a game is denied, there's nothing the creator can do about it. The game can't be accessed publicly and that makes it more difficult for them to get the criticism they need to improve (or realize anything is wrong in the first place).
With The Void, their games would be publicly available, and the task of getting it out falls squarely on their shoulders. So instead of bitching and moaning that the mods won't approve their game, they'll bitch and moan that the mods won't let it out of The Void. And then the public can go in, tell them why it sucks so much, and then they can continue bitching and moaning at mods until we ban them.
...in all seriousness, that's a worst case scenario. But there is a perceptual difference between being outright denied and being made available in a section known for games that need help.
psy_wombats
13315
author=halibabicafrom psy_wombatsWith The Void, their games would be publicly available, and the task of getting it out falls squarely on their shoulders. So instead of bitching and moaning that the mods won't approve their game, they'll bitch and moan that the mods won't let it out of The Void. And then the public can go in, tell them why it sucks so much, and then they can continue bitching and moaning at mods until we ban them.
Wouldn't people then just whine about how their game was unfairly sentenced to the void...?
Okay, this makes a lot more sense explained like that. Telling people why there game sucks sounds like something RMN would be good at, ha. Though this also presents an opportunity to raise the threshold for true "acceptance" a little bit as well.
Yes, it does. We could raise the bar for games available in the database, but I wouldn't put it too high. Standards of quality are a finicky thing to decide on; maybe clearing the submission queue wouldn't be easier after all! ;P
author=halibabica
When a game is denied, there's nothing the creator can do about it. The game can't be accessed publicly and that makes it more difficult for them to get the criticism they need to improve (or realize anything is wrong in the first place).
I really like this and how you worded it, because this is so true and we get people in the design threads having there hand held the entire way or being publicly mocked, etc.
It'd be really nice for those who get denied a chance to still have their games visible for those willing to help improve their knowledge or tell them what can be better, made to look nicer, etc.
I back this idea a lot, as long as it doesn't turn into a negative thing.
Mmh- In principle this sounds very good, but in practice I'm not sure things would play out as hoped...
Imo, this could only work if a) people actually had the habit to give feedback. But even the really cool games don't get helpful comments very often, much less the not so cool ones. and b) if most newbies weren't the worst kind of people at taking criticism. And even when nice, patient advice is given to them, most would just disregard it due to their inability to put it in practice, or would give up trying. (That, or maybe I've just had too many bad experiences trying to help newcomers.)
For the record, I don't say this trying to sound like some elitist prick. But I actually believe those newbies are better off learning the long, painful way (As many of us did) before being allowed to have their games showcased here. Meanwhile we should instead focus on the tons of games we already have that deserve that help.
Imo, this could only work if a) people actually had the habit to give feedback. But even the really cool games don't get helpful comments very often, much less the not so cool ones. and b) if most newbies weren't the worst kind of people at taking criticism. And even when nice, patient advice is given to them, most would just disregard it due to their inability to put it in practice, or would give up trying. (That, or maybe I've just had too many bad experiences trying to help newcomers.)
For the record, I don't say this trying to sound like some elitist prick. But I actually believe those newbies are better off learning the long, painful way (As many of us did) before being allowed to have their games showcased here. Meanwhile we should instead focus on the tons of games we already have that deserve that help.
psy_wombats
13315
author=alterego
Imo, this could only work if a) people actually had the habit to give feedback. But even the really cool games don't get helpful comments very often, much less the not so cool ones. and b) if most newbies weren't the worst kind of people at taking criticism. And even when nice, patient advice is given to them, most would just disregard it due to their inability to put it in practice, or would give up trying. (That, or maybe I've just had too many bad experiences trying to help newcomers.
Uh, I'm not sure how you became the master game maker that you are now, but this only happens through feedback. Without someone telling me "your encounter rates are stupidly high and I refuse to play until you lower them," would I have ever lowered encounter rates? Would I have gone the long hard way of...? What is the long hard way? Everyone starts somewhere, meaning every single person here was once a newbie. You can't claim that everyone working on a sub par project is bad at criticism.
...Also, it's not like The Void is showcasing these works anyway; it's just putting them in their own little leper colony.
from psy_wombats
it's not like The Void is showcasing these works anyway; it's just putting them in their own little leper colony.
That. Also, I'm well aware that plenty of 'newbs' also qualify as 'n00bs' and won't take feedback no matter how helpful it is. This is why I had a certain structure planned for The Void to help ensure feedback gets where it's actually helping.
It would display the game pages of Voided projects like a forum list. The games with recent activity would be bumped to the top. How we define 'activity' would be important, as that sort of thing can be exploited pretty easily. But on the other hand, there wouldn't be much point in exploiting it because of the reputation The Void would carry. Ideally, the games getting feedback and making improvements would be nearest to the top, and those of developers who don't care or won't listen would eventually sink, either due to feedback drying up or the creator ceasing efforts to bump their game.
RMN's inability to provide helpful feedback to developers is another story. Maybe something like this would encourage us to improve in that regard???
