SEERIC'S PROFILE

author=MISTER BIG T
Uh, if they're unfamiliar with it how can they tell it's RPG Maker game?

Just to clarify, I meant people who have at least heard about RPG Maker, but who may have never used it nor actually played a game made in it. RPG Maker games, especially those using the RTP assets, are usually pretty easy to identify even from a single screenshot. There are also plenty who will instantly dislike a game they have not even seen a screenshot of if they so much as hear that it was made using RPG Maker. For example, while none of the RPG Maker games uploaded to Greenlight when it first launched were necessarily masterpieces, the comments section for any given game was filled to the brim with comments along the lines of "RPG Maker no" instead of anything resembling feedback about the game itself.

Basically, I meant that in this particular way RPG Maker games are quite a bit like anime; in both cases there is enough of a sense of general negativity surrounding the medium that many people who do not bother watching/playing products created in the medium have a knee jerk negative reaction to anything at all associated with the medium instead of judging a work on its own merits.

EDIT: FlyingJester above me probably clarified it perfectly.

author=KingArthur
There are also an astoundingly larger number of "No" votes compared to "Yes" votes as of this writing if we were to simply tally up the vote count from those that have clearly stated as such.

Actually, the two sides seem to be pretty evenly split, at least within the bounds of this thread. However, I agree that there is a lot of middle of the road talk with most votes seeming to be 'yes, but only if so-and-so cautions are taken' and 'no, unless so-and-so thing is done'.

This seems to be rapidly getting complicated, so I'll try to make a list of points brought up so far; if I have misinterpreted a point or forgotten a major point, just message me and I will correct it (I will also try to edit this post to include points which may be brought up or changed as the discussion goes on:

• Some posters on both sides seem to think 'it would be ok if they were kept on a separate section/website,' but there has been opposition to this from both sides as well.

• Many of the 'no' votes still seem to be ok with allowing free demos and/or other free content on the site.

• Both sides agree that any purchasable games should not actually be available to buy directly through RMN.

• Both sides name quality control and potential scammers or those who would otherwise take advantage of the RMN community as concerns.

• The primary concern of the 'no' side is a change in the community on RMN from a 'hobbyist' community primarily consisting of developers to a more standard 'gaming' community primarily consisting of players.

• The primary concern of the 'yes' side is overall growth in the awareness of and/or developer population of RPG Maker and other niche game design engines found on this site.

• The possibility of putting a simple yes/no poll on the front page explicitly for the sake of gathering data has been brought up.

My vote remains yes, but as I have already posted several walls of text in this thread, I'll refrain from direct participation in this discussion from this point on and instead focus on trying to update this list from as neutral of a position as possible.

sbester, while I understand your concern that people may believe price = quality, I also believe that the RPG Maker community of all communities is the best one for circumventing this danger. Anyone familiar with RPG Maker games (or free indie games in general for that matter) is likely already aware that a free game can be just as compelling as a $15 or even a $50+ game and likewise that a game with a price tag can still be complete garbage.

You also mention "I know that a lot of people will argue that it's a player's own fault for not knowing the difference between a solid, well made commercial project and a cheap, thrown together one, but people who have never seen an RM game before is not going to realize the difference," but I think the exact opposite is the case. At the present time, the vast, vast majority of gamers who are unfamiliar with RM will take one look at a game made in the engine and, even if it uses an entirely custom battle system with unique graphical and music assets, will still say 'ew it's an RPG Maker game' and not touch it. Those who are familiar with RM are likely going to be able to tell the difference between a mediocre game and a good one from a mile away while those unfamiliar with RM generally won't even touch an excellent free game, let alone a below-average purchasable one. Not to mention, RMN has an in-built review system so if all else fails a poor purchasable game will almost certainly receive equally poor reviews.

If someone pours hundreds/thousands of hours into making a great game, I really don't see a problem with letting them ask money for a well-made product if they desire to do so. Likewise, developers who do not desire money for their products are unlikely to hop onto the 'commercial games' bandwagon as they would have likely already done so on sites other than RMN.

To wrap things up a little, I'll sort this into a best-case vs worst-case scenario:

Best: The site gets some good games, both new ones and existing which which previously were not allowed. Indie games made using RPG Maker and similar engines get some good publicity and the stigma against them lessens a bit, allowing people the potential to make a living (or at least a decent amount of money) doing something they're passionate about while developers who choose to maintain their products as freeware can be taken more seriously even on sites not focused on RPG Maker.

Worst: A bunch of cheap cash-in commercial games appear. The truly terrible ones get filtered out before they are even allowed on the site while the subpar ones receive terrible reviews and fade into obscurity after making a handful of money. RPG Maker and similar engines get terrible press and the majority of the gaming community reaffirms their already highly-negative stance on such games while the RPG Maker community continues on as always and nothing really changes. As hosting commercial games proved to be something of a disaster not worth the effort, RMN goes back to barring commercial games and everything goes back to the way it was here as well.

Basically, I realize that there are risks involved if things go poorly and there will certainly be a handful of terrible cash-in games in even the best of scenarios so allowing purchasable games is a gamble no matter how RMN goes about it, but I think the potential benefits to RMN, to the RPG Maker community, and even to the indie community as a whole far outway the potential downsides, especially since those downsides can always be reversed by the removal of commercial games, so it seems like a risk worth taking to me.

I think it could be a good idea to allow commercial games as it would help both RMN and the game gain a bit of publicity and could help at least slightly remove the massive stigma against games made in RPG Maker (and other engines which don't necessarily rely upon 'real code'). However, I do think some restrictions should be in place, such as:

Minimum Makerscore:
This is a big one which I think should really be included. Simply put, if a person wants to add a purchasable game/games to RMN, they need to have first accumulated a minimum Makerscore, probably something like 500 or 1000, which is relatively low, but which still requires a degree of effort to achieve. This way, it shows that they have been in at least some way an active member of the community and don't plan to just use RMN as a form of 'free advertising' for their game and move on. Without this or a similar restriction, I have to imagine that quite a few people would simply cobble together terrible zero-effort games, slap a price tag on them, and then upload them here, which would both hurt the site and further damage the overall general viewpoint of RPG Maker games.

Separate Section:
I think games with a price tag should go in an entirely different section from the free games if they get added. Even with a filter option, it would likely be a mess as you'd probably have developers with a 'free demo' still showing up in the free section and the like. If a game has anything at all which costs money, whether that be the game itself, an expansion, or some form of add-on, it should go into a separate area.

Nothing Hosted Here:
If you're worried abut legal issues, simply play it safe. It's unlikely that a developer would ever take legal action against RMN because it somehow 'hurt their sales', but someone putting a price tag on a game which includes pop songs or ripped sprites is another issue altogether. So, if a person 'uploads' a game which costs money to RMN, any downloads at all related to their game (including free demos) should remain strictly off-site. Furthermore, there should be a way to report any game which costs money yet includes copyright-breaking stuff; these games would have to be completely taken down until the issue is resolved. In this regard, the system would work in a way very similar to how Steam's Greenlight system worked whenever someone posted an RPG Maker game which included stuff which was blatantly not theirs.

So, I'm voting yes to this, but I understand that there are a lot of things which would need to be taken into account. At best, existing members of the RMN community would have a way to make a bit of money off of their hard work as both their free and purchasable games would be visible to us and it could help draw the attention of the general gaming population towards some of the better freeware games too. At worst, it could lead to a lot of additional work if people frequently post purchasable games which break copyright, but the limitation of a minimum Makerscore and/or some other limitations would presumably reduce this.

I think the issue of silent vs. non-silent protagonist largely depends on your own area of comfort.

A non-silent protagonist is fine if you're good at avoiding cliches and overly long, forced conversations. This one has the bigger risk but also a higher reward as such a protagonist is more likely to be memorable, but not necessarily for a good reason. If the only character you can think of is along the lines of a hot-headed good-hearted youth who falls in love with the first girl he meets and wants to save the world while spouting off about the importance of friendship or if the only way you can think of to develop a character is to have the party sit around at a campfire/inn as the protagonist goes on at length about his/her tragic past, you'll want to avoid this.

Silent protagonists are the 'safer' of the two, but are harder to pull off unless you want them to be a completely blank slate. Writing is still important here, but instead of there being a focus upon direct dialogue, there is now a focus upon pantomime, actions taken, and the reactions of other characters. Players are unlikely to ever understand silent protagonists on the same level as a well-written non-silent one, but this does not mean a silent protagonist cannot be a distinct character. Dragon Quest V is a fantastic example of a game which makes players care about a silent protagonist. However, while MrChearlie may have posted that Legend of Zelda video as a joke, Nintendo really is the king of silent protagonists, especially with the Mario franchise (and definitely with the Mario & Luigi series) and, until relatively recently, with the mostly-silent Samus from Metroid.

Since I think it both makes a good counterpoint to the belief of "silent protagonist = blank slate" and goes into detail about how not to handle development with non-silent protagonists, here is one of my favorite videos (topics relevant to the purposes of this thread begin at 3:00):