"I don't think people really view their project as "better" necessarily, maybe more like "I would have done it this way" or "I prefer this style as opposed to that style". Whether it's actually better is a matter of opinion and personal preference..."
I agree. That is much better put.
"...the ability to submit a new game project by individuals ... should be restricted in some way. For instance, within a reputation system, a certain level of reputation must be earned within the community before that function becomes available."
Partially disagree. I think the option to submit a project proposal should be relatively direct. One of the major drivers of the existence of so many similar game projects out there is likely that everyone feels they have a good idea for a project, but aren't aware of other similar projects already out there. When someone has a project idea, you can't tell them "don't tell me your idea until you've listened to my idea." It just drives them away. I think we should say "yeah, tell me about your idea." then we show them the projects that are similar. That doesn't mean all new projects are displayed prominantly immediately, but I feel like much much fewer people would join the community if they felt like they had to wait and prove themselves before they were allowed to participate in that part. Kind of like how Itch.io allows new users to submit games, even if they haven't proven themselves capable of making a decent game yet. There are a lot of total garbage games on itch, but they do a pretty good job of displaying the good stuff up front. You're not wrong, though. Reducing the number of duplicate, nearly-identical, or immature project proposals is a major goal.
"Also, there should be some sort of (at least basic) skill assessment implemented similar to CodeFights to gain insight on a person's actual skills."
Great idea! I'm not sure how to approach a graphical arts or sound engineering skills assessment. At least not automated. Code-fight's method allows the assessment to need no human judging. Is there a way to do the same thing with pixel art, concept art, sound effects production, etc.? EDIT: I think a quick skills assessment could serve the function of "prove yourself before submitting a proposal". It would be direct enough that people wouldn't be turned away. It'd probably only take 5 to 10 minutes. I'm not opposed to disallowing proposal submissions for Donut users, so if they have no skills to assess (game design doesn't count) they don't get to propose game projects yet.
I believe there are plenty of talented people willing to work on a game.
I suspect these people don't collaborate on a game project more often because their own personal idea for the game they want to create is difficult to see from outside existing game projects.
They breifly look around, see some game projects, but don't see their own vision in them, so they start their own project. "I'm making a game. It's kinda like those other game projects, but it has all the things I didn't see in those other projects, so therefore, It's a much better project. Come join my project. I can see very clearly it's the best."
This isn't really arrognace. As far as each person is concerned, they're right. Their own project has that extra thing that will make it better... but it only seems that way because they understand their own idea, but not the other guy's.
Maybe when a new user signs up and clicks the "Submit a game project concept" button, the site first gathers information on the user's various skills: Music composition? what kinds? Chiptune? Orchestral? Modern? Electronica? Graphical art? what kinds? pixel art? vector? concept art? scenery? character portraits? Coding? What kinds? Java? Python? C#? Game design? gameplay concepts? ...and so on until their skills profile is built. A lot of people are going check those last two boxes, but unless they have more than that, the site will know they're probably just Donuts.
Assuming they've got skills to contribute, the site asks them several categorizing questions about the game project they want to propose to the community: Is this a 2D game? 3D? Sidescrolling? 1st person perspective? RPG? what kind of RPG? JRPG? story focused? Action RPG? What makes it special? Unique leveling system? Customizable shoe laces?
Once the site has gathered a fairly detailed set of datapoints on this user's proposal, behind the scenes, the site seaches through all the existing projects looking for a high degree of similarity. If/when it finds some, it proposes them to the user:
"Hey, that's a great concept for a game. We found some people who are interested in making something like that. Check out these similar proposals already under way. If they look close enough to what you're going for, you should jump on board! They are already building momentum and I'm sure your creative input and skills would be valuable! You're much more likely to be successful if you are part of an existing game project."
The goal here is to help make people aware of projects similar to their own vision. It's better to join an existing project with momentum and a team than to just propose yet another game project that is almost exactly like hundreds of others out there. Everyone wants to be a game designer and help create the fun aspects of a game. As long as they have a skill to contribute (other than game design) we let them express their game design ideas. If you're on a team, you get to discuss features that could make the game fun and interesting. The team discusses those ideas and votes them in, out, or needs adjustment.
So far we've outlined the concepts across several comments. I am not sure I understand the whole concept. Would anyone be able to outline the primary elements of each all in one spot?
I have HTML, PHP, C#, and VB.NET expertise. I have done some webhosting, but the server wasn't mine, I just access the server and administrate it. I have very little server hardware experience.
@Chasersgaming, @kicknbrit: Haha! Yes I know you weren't meaning that harshly. I really do think my concept is better suited for a later iteration, though.
@LDAsh: Agreed. I don't mean people should assume possession of projects. I just think it might encourage a lot of participation when each member feels invested in the project. Not that each member feels they are the sole owner of the project and can dictate terms, but that each member feels the project is co-owned by all team members where each individual's input is at least considered if not valued. They aren't working on some other guy's project. They are working on their own project along with all their teammates. :) Same as what you're saying, but with emphasis on community ownership... Which I guess is what you were already proposing.
I've realized my idea is less relevant overall to the main idea. What i propose might be useful for solving a problem with difficult task balancing, but that problem doesn't even exist yet. Let's focus more on kicknbrits and LDAshs concepts.
So, start to finish, how do you see a projects life cycle going in such a system? I want to understand how it might work.
Concern 1: That is a good point. Less-than-reputable individuals would try to game the system or hack it to give themselves unearned points. However, the points have no real value outside this community so the only motivation for doing so would be to gain an advantage in getting game assets created for themselves. The same motivation is present with a purely credibility or reputation based system where the highest ranked developers get the most influence over who joins their team and how much resources are dedicated to "their" project. I think there is a bit less of a selfish motivation on the project side since no single person is trying to get a project completed, but instead many people who all agree and upvote the project. Either way, hardening the system against abuse is a good idea.
Concern 2: Also a good point. This is would be close to Just Another Freelance Website. Though I think a place where you can trade freelance work for freelance work definitely solves one of the problems a lot of people run into with their projects: Most people wanting to make a game have three things: 1) A specialized talent that is integral for creating a game, but also not sufficient for creating the entire game. 2) A desire for the other components needed to make their game. 3) Insufficient capital to obtain #2 via freelance requests.
Allowing each person to exchange #1 for #2 allows people to disregard #3. I suck at art, but I'm a wizard at code. Someone is a beautiful artist, but can't really code. Some game making software helps in this regard, but often that software lacks the ability to implement the kind of features the creator really wants in their game. I code for the artists game, they draw for my game. We both get the parts we want (hopefully) regardless of not having the money for the assets. Maybe this is just Freelance work with extra steps; if all these people had a truly valuable talent (#1) they could do freelance work, earn money, and hire freelance work for the parts they need.
I think that illustrates the team aspect should always be integral. Perhaps these exchanges are occurring within a team, within a project. These teammates are already on-board to accomplish the same goal, but this would give weight to team contributions. I've had people join my project so they could help out only to find they weren't pulling their weight. One artist was doing 90% of the work, but only getting 1/5th of the total credit on a 5-artist team. The credits page lists all 5 artists as if they contributed the same amount of effort. Maybe an internal exchange system or point system within a project would help motivate all members to put in the effort. Each team member gets a visible reward/feedback for their contributions and the priority of tasks is a bit more free. If there is a high-priority coding task (lots of points for completion) I would be motivated to take it on, but if it looks like something I really REALLY don't want to do, I'm free not to. I can pick a lower reward task instead and leave that one to another coder.
It also helps people understand the effort required by a task they may not be familiar with. Someone on the team says "we'll need monster AI" so they request a very simple task "create advanced monster AI that can outsmart 80% of players" and offer 3 points for it. Huh, thats weird. Why isn't anyone taking this task? It's an easy 3 points. Maybe it isn't as simple a task as I thought it was. We either need to give it a higher priority (more points), or tone it down (make it a simpler request)."
Ah, now I'm starting to see this better. It isn't just the one top project that gets attention, it's a scale of multiple projects, and people can choose to join the one they like? Though they would tend to join the top ranking projects because they have the best organization and momentum.
"Welcome to Pendant. The other side of indie-pendant game development."
"If people are only interested in working on their own projects and not willing to compromise, and not confident their project would get upvoted in some substantial way, at some time, then maybe that's saying something?"
Hmm... yes I think it's saying we emphasise that these projects ARE your project. "Want to make a game? Have some ideas? Come join! Everyone gets to give input. Make this game project your own!" It will be true that everyone gives input, and that input isn't simply dismissed. It's weighed and discussed by the community and given a lower or higher priority democratically. I still think every project needs a project-leader, but that leader would be selected by vote probably, and the responsibilities of the leader do NOT include unilaterally making demands for "my game". Rockstars welcome... just not the kind that can't compromize or listen. Everyone gets to be a rockstar game creator.
I'm sure some projects may fill up with all the members they can handle and possibly won't be able to accept many new members, but that won't be the only project available.
How are people going to be ranked? I don't mean "what are the ranks going to be". I mean what determines a person's rank? Kicknbrit's concept of viral credibility seem interesting, but I feel like it needs a balancing factor. Some additional mechanic to go with it to counteract potential nepotism. Well, not quite nepotism, but it feels like it could reward people for seeking out all the easy tasks as long as they're requested by the most credible people.
Assume I'm highly credible. I request one sprite 32x32 pixels non-animated. I also request concept art for a cutscene backdrop 1024x768, with a bit of animated lightning flashing in a storm in the background of the scene. Everyone will jump on the sprite and pay no attention to the backdrop because the sprite is a way easier task, but grants the same amount of Credibility Points when completed. A bidding system perhaps? Something that would allow the community to quickly negotiate the difficulty vs reward for completing tasks. The community will tend to ignore tasks if the reward is not high enough to account for the difficulty of the task, prompting requestors to evaluate how important that task is to them. If they really need it, they'll probably raise the reward for that task a little until the "free market" decides the reward is sufficient.
Perhaps this is where the hybrid comes in. People with high credibility probably have high credibility because they put in a lot of work to one or many projects, earning those credibility points. Now they are in a position to spend those credibility points in exhange for tasks being completed.
The people with the most credibility and upvotes would have the most currency to spend toward the implementation of the upvoted concepts they are championing. Yes, no, yes?
@fablefox: Does the artwork need to be exclusive? Or do you already have a very specific art style that it needs to match? If not, why not use some of the already-existing assets here on OGA? They're all free and already done. :)
I agree. That is much better put.
Partially disagree. I think the option to submit a project proposal should be relatively direct. One of the major drivers of the existence of so many similar game projects out there is likely that everyone feels they have a good idea for a project, but aren't aware of other similar projects already out there. When someone has a project idea, you can't tell them "don't tell me your idea until you've listened to my idea." It just drives them away. I think we should say "yeah, tell me about your idea." then we show them the projects that are similar. That doesn't mean all new projects are displayed prominantly immediately, but I feel like much much fewer people would join the community if they felt like they had to wait and prove themselves before they were allowed to participate in that part. Kind of like how Itch.io allows new users to submit games, even if they haven't proven themselves capable of making a decent game yet. There are a lot of total garbage games on itch, but they do a pretty good job of displaying the good stuff up front. You're not wrong, though. Reducing the number of duplicate, nearly-identical, or immature project proposals is a major goal.
Great idea! I'm not sure how to approach a graphical arts or sound engineering skills assessment. At least not automated. Code-fight's method allows the assessment to need no human judging. Is there a way to do the same thing with pixel art, concept art, sound effects production, etc.? EDIT: I think a quick skills assessment could serve the function of "prove yourself before submitting a proposal". It would be direct enough that people wouldn't be turned away. It'd probably only take 5 to 10 minutes. I'm not opposed to disallowing proposal submissions for Donut users, so if they have no skills to assess (game design doesn't count) they don't get to propose game projects yet.
I believe there are plenty of talented people willing to work on a game.
I suspect these people don't collaborate on a game project more often because their own personal idea for the game they want to create is difficult to see from outside existing game projects.
They breifly look around, see some game projects, but don't see their own vision in them, so they start their own project. "I'm making a game. It's kinda like those other game projects, but it has all the things I didn't see in those other projects, so therefore, It's a much better project. Come join my project. I can see very clearly it's the best."
This isn't really arrognace. As far as each person is concerned, they're right. Their own project has that extra thing that will make it better... but it only seems that way because they understand their own idea, but not the other guy's.
Maybe when a new user signs up and clicks the "Submit a game project concept" button, the site first gathers information on the user's various skills: Music composition? what kinds? Chiptune? Orchestral? Modern? Electronica? Graphical art? what kinds? pixel art? vector? concept art? scenery? character portraits? Coding? What kinds? Java? Python? C#? Game design? gameplay concepts? ...and so on until their skills profile is built. A lot of people are going check those last two boxes, but unless they have more than that, the site will know they're probably just Donuts.
Assuming they've got skills to contribute, the site asks them several categorizing questions about the game project they want to propose to the community: Is this a 2D game? 3D? Sidescrolling? 1st person perspective? RPG? what kind of RPG? JRPG? story focused? Action RPG? What makes it special? Unique leveling system? Customizable shoe laces?
Once the site has gathered a fairly detailed set of datapoints on this user's proposal, behind the scenes, the site seaches through all the existing projects looking for a high degree of similarity. If/when it finds some, it proposes them to the user:
The goal here is to help make people aware of projects similar to their own vision. It's better to join an existing project with momentum and a team than to just propose yet another game project that is almost exactly like hundreds of others out there. Everyone wants to be a game designer and help create the fun aspects of a game. As long as they have a skill to contribute (other than game design) we let them express their game design ideas. If you're on a team, you get to discuss features that could make the game fun and interesting. The team discusses those ideas and votes them in, out, or needs adjustment.
Thoughts?
So far we've outlined the concepts across several comments. I am not sure I understand the whole concept. Would anyone be able to outline the primary elements of each all in one spot?
I have HTML, PHP, C#, and VB.NET expertise. I have done some webhosting, but the server wasn't mine, I just access the server and administrate it. I have very little server hardware experience.
@Chasersgaming, @kicknbrit: Haha! Yes I know you weren't meaning that harshly. I really do think my concept is better suited for a later iteration, though.
@LDAsh: Agreed. I don't mean people should assume possession of projects. I just think it might encourage a lot of participation when each member feels invested in the project. Not that each member feels they are the sole owner of the project and can dictate terms, but that each member feels the project is co-owned by all team members where each individual's input is at least considered if not valued. They aren't working on some other guy's project. They are working on their own project along with all their teammates. :) Same as what you're saying, but with emphasis on community ownership... Which I guess is what you were already proposing.
I've realized my idea is less relevant overall to the main idea. What i propose might be useful for solving a problem with difficult task balancing, but that problem doesn't even exist yet. Let's focus more on kicknbrits and LDAshs concepts.
So, start to finish, how do you see a projects life cycle going in such a system? I want to understand how it might work.
Concern 1: That is a good point. Less-than-reputable individuals would try to game the system or hack it to give themselves unearned points. However, the points have no real value outside this community so the only motivation for doing so would be to gain an advantage in getting game assets created for themselves. The same motivation is present with a purely credibility or reputation based system where the highest ranked developers get the most influence over who joins their team and how much resources are dedicated to "their" project. I think there is a bit less of a selfish motivation on the project side since no single person is trying to get a project completed, but instead many people who all agree and upvote the project. Either way, hardening the system against abuse is a good idea.
Concern 2: Also a good point. This is would be close to Just Another Freelance Website. Though I think a place where you can trade freelance work for freelance work definitely solves one of the problems a lot of people run into with their projects: Most people wanting to make a game have three things: 1) A specialized talent that is integral for creating a game, but also not sufficient for creating the entire game. 2) A desire for the other components needed to make their game. 3) Insufficient capital to obtain #2 via freelance requests.
Allowing each person to exchange #1 for #2 allows people to disregard #3. I suck at art, but I'm a wizard at code. Someone is a beautiful artist, but can't really code. Some game making software helps in this regard, but often that software lacks the ability to implement the kind of features the creator really wants in their game. I code for the artists game, they draw for my game. We both get the parts we want (hopefully) regardless of not having the money for the assets. Maybe this is just Freelance work with extra steps; if all these people had a truly valuable talent (#1) they could do freelance work, earn money, and hire freelance work for the parts they need.
I think that illustrates the team aspect should always be integral. Perhaps these exchanges are occurring within a team, within a project. These teammates are already on-board to accomplish the same goal, but this would give weight to team contributions. I've had people join my project so they could help out only to find they weren't pulling their weight. One artist was doing 90% of the work, but only getting 1/5th of the total credit on a 5-artist team. The credits page lists all 5 artists as if they contributed the same amount of effort. Maybe an internal exchange system or point system within a project would help motivate all members to put in the effort. Each team member gets a visible reward/feedback for their contributions and the priority of tasks is a bit more free. If there is a high-priority coding task (lots of points for completion) I would be motivated to take it on, but if it looks like something I really REALLY don't want to do, I'm free not to. I can pick a lower reward task instead and leave that one to another coder.
It also helps people understand the effort required by a task they may not be familiar with. Someone on the team says "we'll need monster AI" so they request a very simple task "create advanced monster AI that can outsmart 80% of players" and offer 3 points for it. Huh, thats weird. Why isn't anyone taking this task? It's an easy 3 points. Maybe it isn't as simple a task as I thought it was. We either need to give it a higher priority (more points), or tone it down (make it a simpler request)."
What do you think?
Ah, now I'm starting to see this better. It isn't just the one top project that gets attention, it's a scale of multiple projects, and people can choose to join the one they like? Though they would tend to join the top ranking projects because they have the best organization and momentum.
"Welcome to Pendant. The other side of indie-pendant game development."
Hmm... yes I think it's saying we emphasise that these projects ARE your project. "Want to make a game? Have some ideas? Come join! Everyone gets to give input. Make this game project your own!" It will be true that everyone gives input, and that input isn't simply dismissed. It's weighed and discussed by the community and given a lower or higher priority democratically. I still think every project needs a project-leader, but that leader would be selected by vote probably, and the responsibilities of the leader do NOT include unilaterally making demands for "my game". Rockstars welcome... just not the kind that can't compromize or listen. Everyone gets to be a rockstar game creator.
I'm sure some projects may fill up with all the members they can handle and possibly won't be able to accept many new members, but that won't be the only project available.
How are people going to be ranked? I don't mean "what are the ranks going to be". I mean what determines a person's rank? Kicknbrit's concept of viral credibility seem interesting, but I feel like it needs a balancing factor. Some additional mechanic to go with it to counteract potential nepotism. Well, not quite nepotism, but it feels like it could reward people for seeking out all the easy tasks as long as they're requested by the most credible people.
Assume I'm highly credible. I request one sprite 32x32 pixels non-animated. I also request concept art for a cutscene backdrop 1024x768, with a bit of animated lightning flashing in a storm in the background of the scene. Everyone will jump on the sprite and pay no attention to the backdrop because the sprite is a way easier task, but grants the same amount of Credibility Points when completed. A bidding system perhaps? Something that would allow the community to quickly negotiate the difficulty vs reward for completing tasks. The community will tend to ignore tasks if the reward is not high enough to account for the difficulty of the task, prompting requestors to evaluate how important that task is to them. If they really need it, they'll probably raise the reward for that task a little until the "free market" decides the reward is sufficient.
Perhaps this is where the hybrid comes in. People with high credibility probably have high credibility because they put in a lot of work to one or many projects, earning those credibility points. Now they are in a position to spend those credibility points in exhange for tasks being completed.
The people with the most credibility and upvotes would have the most currency to spend toward the implementation of the upvoted concepts they are championing. Yes, no, yes?
Yes I'm pretty sure that was fixed a while ago.
@Spring: What can't you find?
@fablefox: Does the artwork need to be exclusive? Or do you already have a very specific art style that it needs to match? If not, why not use some of the already-existing assets here on OGA? They're all free and already done. :)
Pages