Should the Games in Production Forum require a demo?

Squinky · Wed 31/12/2003 04:44:38

I've just been wondering about this, seems like a game announcement can't stay afloat for more than a day or so with all the new games being supposidly produced...

I guess it really dosen't matter if a guy never makes a game or not, but I do think it's a little bit lame if you look at the stats for the pages:

Completed games:
12 pages
4578 posts

In Production:
14 pages
4671 posts

I don't knowwhy, but for some elusive reason I think this is sad...

Heres the part where I'm a complete bastard:
I personally expect something when I click on a thread and see all the cool art, story ideas etc...I want a demo damnit...heh. I don't want to look at one screenshot and then the author updating saying how he hasn't made any progress for three months (of which I am guilty) Thats a waste of my time....

And it seems like we get a lot of "Kodo Jast" type threads, and I think that sort of issue would be easily resolved with the demo rule...

Okay, I'm done. Bastard Squinky out...

evilspacefart · Wed 31/12/2003 05:13:56

amen, brother.

Duzz · Wed 31/12/2003 05:19:16

It would be nice, but it's not the most practical of ideas. Quite a few games don't have demos untill the game is in later stages of development, fatman, FoA, Legend of LE, etc... and small games often don't merit demos at all. But they still deserve threads.

The current rules are pretty good, but they're too hard to enforece. A mod can't lock a thread because he has a hunch the game will never be completed... well they could, but it might piss some people off =)

It's also very interesting (as Nixxon said) how the threads with the least information are the ones that get the most replies, and hence push more descriptive and useful threads off the page very quickly.

solution: cj, hurry up with that time machine feature for ags so moderators can lock the threads of games that are never completed...

Darth Mandarb · Wed 31/12/2003 05:35:04

I think it could work ... I mean, if a post is made about a GiP and there's no demo available, the thread gets moved into the Critic's Lounge (if graphics are provided) or locked up into obscurity.

There would have to be a very specific rule stating that before you can post in here you must have demo available for DL. That way, when the loser ... user ... posts illegally they can't complain or they get, "Read the FU**ING rules!!" thrown at them!

I don't really mind the posts as long as there's stuff to look at. I rarely get my hopes up for seeing it finished though.

])]v[

Timosity · Wed 31/12/2003 05:36:41

I don't know about having a demo as a requirement is a good Idea, as some people might not want to release a demo.

I agree that it does get a bit crazy in the productions forum at some stages, though other times it's fairly quiet.

I have a game somewhere back on that list that has been constantly worked on for the last 10 months and is probably over 80% complete, I didn't post it until I was passed 50% when I wanted some beta testing. I'm not releasing a demo, if people wanted to play it they could have signed up for beta testing. But most people don't do it this way cause they need people to know they're not being unproductive, but it backfires on them when they become unproductive.

I've kept it pretty low key as I don't really want a huge following, just a few people that drop by here playing it.

I know I'll finish it, hopefully early next year (if I'm still alive), but yeah, I know a lot of people come flying in here all keen and put up a couple of sceenies and think they will make the worlds greatest game, then when they realise how much work is involved to fit in amongst their lives, they sort of just dissappear.

Oh well, I think people will still keep doing this if the rules are changed or not.

Sorry to crap on, but I do agree with you Squinky, except about the demo thingy.

maybe just stricter rules, eg. game must be at least 50% complete before announcing it. I think that would bring the forum to a bit of a hault. And the games that were there would more likely get finished.

People are just too impatient, and it seems the more patient the person is the more they get done. There's a clue for everyone, It takes time to make a game, You don't need everyone to know about it every step of the way.

Ah that's enough crapping on.

DGMacphee · Wed 31/12/2003 06:30:36

I agree with Squinky because it makes compiling demo lists for the AGS Awards easier.

This year was a pain in the arse cause I looked at all the thread and many had SWEET FA in them.

Timosity · Wed 31/12/2003 06:41:14

Most people do it but maybe it should be required to edit your MAIN post to mention there is a demo there, If you don't, It won't be on the AGS awards list, Now that would make it a piece of cake for you.

I still don't think a Demo should be required, it leaves more suspense, but I guess the impatient are most people. I'm not saying people shouldn't release demos, cause I love them too, just not a requuirement.

Squinky · Wed 31/12/2003 06:57:24

I see your point Timosity (and everyone else for that matter, see I'm a giving kind of person) but I still think there needs to be some form of higher standard...I'm just being picky I guess, cause the only real definitive thing I can think of is the demo. A lot of people don't want to make a playable demo for good reason, but maybe a trailer of some sort (Like the Donna avenger of blood trailer)

I just think if a personis so ready to start promoting their game that they should have to show something first. Now the problem with that is that we won't get to see a lot of the cool ideas that never go anywhere that are posted now....but maybe darths solution could help with that.

And of course, there should be provisions set up for DG's demo collection....Man, that must be a bitch...

Vel · Wed 31/12/2003 09:24:57

I personally do not agree with the idea of having a demo as a rule. For the GK-like game, I will not be releasing more than a trailer only when the game is like halfway done. Anyway, there should be rule which forbids jo... one to post if he does not have proof that the game is made(screenshots, music).

The Subliminal Messenger · Wed 31/12/2003 12:36:04

I don't think a DEMO should be required, but certainly at least three screenshots, and a main character sprite. But if you think about it, if some guy posts about his amazing new game, with 64 different endings and 3d poser characters all by next year, no one will care. But if someone *Jodo* posts about his amazing new game, BASED ON LAURA BOW, with 64 different endings and 3d poser characters all by next year, war will break out. So definately something solid for the remakes, but for original games, it doesn't matter.

BTW, I wonder if Jodo checks other threads?

Timosity · Wed 31/12/2003 17:31:36

Geez, don't bring that other thread in here, get over it

Vel · Wed 31/12/2003 18:16:37

We're using this just as an example, Timosity.

Blackthorne · Wed 31/12/2003 19:11:04

Squinky,

I dunno about a demo, off the bat - sometimes you can see a real project just if they post enough screenshots, and talk about their programming and plot development in some kind of real manner. Kodo Jast's posts and website are vague at best, but there have been some projects which have started which have great potential, and no demo yet. It's a fine line, methinks..... people just have to remember not to act all HIGH and MIGHTY like Kodo Jast, and just work until you have something to show..... I mean, the guy HAS produced demos before, and I'm sure you heard all about Roger's adventures, first in psychedelic land, and then in the land of seven SCI screens linked together. Technology demos, he called them. To "see if AGS worked". Now we all know AGS works. He's just blowing smoke; when he started this project, he begged people for help..... Muzlak Oofmay created a background in VGA style to show him what he could do, and then he was like, "GOOD, now make as many backgrounds as you can......" He demanded it out of someone who wasn't willing to join a team yet..... he's just a nut ball. Instead of trying to get real help, or be a team player, he's just rude and demanding. Like people should bow to him; that's the biggest fault of some people who don't post demos in the forum..... wait till you have product till you demand clout.

Bt

Squinky · Thu 01/01/2004 03:38:40

Okay, I'm sorry I brought up that other thread, (I just intended it as a point, not to stir up that arguement again) and I think bitching about that threads been done to death...

But my main point is I think the GIP forum has turned into something into wasn't intended to...and it seems excessive and wasteful to wade thru all of the threads, and of course the good games are pushed to the bottom of some guy continually double posting on his own thread...

The problem with any rule is that it will restrict someone who never even needed the rule....but a multitude of others who don't have that sort of common sense make the need for it...

GarageGothic · Thu 01/01/2004 12:26:28

I do agree that the GiP forum could be more restrictive than it is now - although it would be if people just followed (not to mention read) the rules. But I think a demo is the wrong criteria. It would only lead to less serious people cranking out totally worthless demos (a la the so-called "technology demo") to be able to start a GiP thread.

Usually the general tone of the post tells me if this is a real project or just bullshit. Obviously not all projects are going to be finished, for whatever reason, but at least you know when the developer truly believes in his project and won't lose interest next week.

When I started my Shadowplay thread, I didn't have a single thing programmed other than a few trial scripts. But I did have a heavily researched story, which took me years to develop, as well as a number of backgrounds and character designs.
I didn't post it to get attention or to attract team members, but rather to "claim the idea" first, in case anyone else, within or outside the community, should be working on a similar game. As well as letting community members know that this is what I'm working on.

Rather than the demo restriction, I think it would be enough to ask people for more info. On story, features, and possibly characters, as well as a number of screenshots. Obviously we should expect more details for remakes. By forcing people to think all these things through, as well as creating presentable art work, we'd at least get rid of those who just think up a neat but very sketchy idea and post it the very same day.

On second thought, possibly there could be a restriction that only people who'd already released an AGS game (either another game or a demo of the GiP) were allowed to start threads. I'd better get my demo finished soon

Ginny · Thu 01/01/2004 14:24:57

Well, I disagree on the demo because not everyone wants to release a demo of any kind, or at least not early into the project. I also think that requiring a previously made game or demo isn't fair, because those who want to start right away with a large project (and have the right to- many don't succeed but some who are serious do), and of course can't release a demo too early, shouldn't be deprived of the right to start a thread. Also, if someone wants to bypass this rule it's all too simple- they could make a quick "test" game. Of course these games can and should be made sometimes, but not in order to get "permission" to post a thread. Also, MAGS games can't release a demo cause they're small as it is, and many people (like myself) begin AGS game making with MAGS.

Overall, I like GG's idea of providing more information, story, progress info, etc as a requirment. This might be easier for serious games, but games based on humor or joke games can also do this by providing screenshots, characters, features, music or anything else. Also updating something like a designer diary or just the first post with new information, can also help promote any type of game.

Pumaman · Thu 01/01/2004 14:32:38

Yeah, I'm not sure that requiring a demo is such a good idea. From DG's perspective for the awards, perhaps we could have a rule that people should add something like "[DEMO]" to the beginning of the thread title when a demo is available - that way, a quick scan down the forum would show you which games had demos available.

Now the current rule for starting a thread there is:
"* ONLY post a topic for your game if the game has been STARTED, and you have completed at least two playable rooms, or equivalent."

Perhaps we need a better definition of what constitutes a game-in-production. The thing is of course that we shouldn't need one and it should be down to common sense, but perhaps people are posting threads too early and we need to clarify the existing rule.

So perhaps we could say:
"* ONLY post a topic for your game if the game has been STARTED, you have a clear outline of the story, and have screenshots available."

Or is it too much to require screenshots? I'm not sure, any opinions?

Vel · Thu 01/01/2004 14:36:34

In my opinion, asking for screenshots inst much - for example, I have 101 ideas in my head, with rough outline of the plot, but hey, I haven't started work on most of them.

scotch · Thu 01/01/2004 14:45:16

Perhaps suggest they have a minimum of 10% of the game playable before they post a topic about it, as a guideline.. and require they give at least a thorough description of the game story/characters/setting with screenshots or music recommended.

2 rooms isn't much to go on if they are making a 100 room epic, at least if 10% of the game is playable then you know they have the ability to get the game working in AGS.

Trapezoid · Thu 01/01/2004 16:39:55

What about people who are saving the actual programming of their game for last?