Only in games that do not require much AI, like Adventures and Casual. And there are indeed lots of other factors,so I suppose it could be possible to make a very good adventure with superb AI, if you do the other factors right.
Frankly, I think the sliders should be overhauled. Each slider should indicate how much time you’re spending on that specific aspect of the game, rather than being a percentage of predetermined time. In other words…if the slider is at, say, 10% you only spend a month or two on that one aspect of the game. As well, if it’s at 100%, you may spend 6-9 months, or even a year, on that single aspect. It will make time management more important, allow for each specific aspect of a game to shine in reviews, and make the process a bit more in-depth.
Obviously, the more time spent on specific aspects should effect the scoring/rating, as well…based on which genre you’re making.
3 Likes
I don’t agree with the simplicity of your slider model. If I, for instance, produce a small game with 5 people why can I not have all sliders on full and just spent more time with development? Also, why are all small games rated average or below just because I am able to produce AAA ? It’s also uncool to only be able to assign one person for each topic in each step. And: the system stops to work completely when I do a AAA MMO.
[quote=“Resistanc3, post:10, topic:4142, full:true”]
I don’t agree with the simplicity of your slider model. If I, for instance, produce a small game with 5 people why can I not have all sliders on full and just spent more time with development? (…)[/quote]
THIS, so much this!
At first playthrough, I assumed increasing sliders meant spending more time on each, and that the preview was just a weird fun thrown-in thing. When I realized that the amount of time spend per phase was fixed and that you were allocating fractions of it, that was quite a bummer.
Forgive me, but suppose you have a 2 mediocre coders on on two sliders and an uber tech guy on AI and you’re making an RPG and your sliders are optimal, won’t the excessive tech generated by the AI guy throw off your balance and cause crap reviews?
yeah, i think so. The current rating system is pretty bad, you can never get a perfect 10 on it.
@Resistanc3 @dafranker
We discussed this early on as well. The problem is that if we tie slider values to actual time spent the first thing everyone would do is drag them all to maximum, thinking that this will result in the best possible game. Then we would need to explain somehow that it still matters on what areas you focus on. Having the development time fixed (and based on game size) while the sliders just set the relative focus just makes much more sense.
I’m strongly against any system where you can just create a perfect game by spending money and time. This isn’t how game development works. You could have millions and a great team, if you try to be perfect you will not achieve this goal.
to everyone:
Please keep conversations about this constructive. If this devolves into just saying ‘this is bad’ and throwing around arguments based on wiki-knowledge or flat-out wrong assumptions as if they are hard facts then there isn’t much value added.
1 Like
@PatrickKlug
Ah, of course. I see what you mean about the problem with the ability to just spend more time to linearly get better games. The kind of design for this I had in mind by default would not suffer this problem (i.e. a good diminishing returns thing based on project bloat and bugs and such), but on second thought doesn’t seem to fit with (what I perceive to be) your general design goal.
As in, I was envisioning the ability to just increment the number of weeks spent on something arbitrarily, i.e. +/- buttons or number-entry, with no sliders, and leave it to the player to determine “good” amounts - and have the amount of points currently put into some aspect of the game act as a slowdown/bloating effect on putting more points into it, modified by developer skill. So yeah, doesn’t seem to fit in that well with the rest of the game.
And from what I’ve seen (*whistles innocently*) this thing would require quite a major rewrite of… well, one of the core elements of this game! Why, that’d be just like a new, different game! (which I should go make right now, if I’m as good as I make myself seem - sheesh, I should shut up now).
@Fruit_Platter
Real life’s current rating system is pretty bad too. You can never get a perfect 10 on it, even if you’ve got the best game in history. There’s always some bummer somewhere who’s going to give you an 8.
Not that I’m arguing in defense of the rating system. I dislike it greatly too, but unfortunately don’t have any genius ideas that would make it better without, as implied above, major rewrites of key game elements.
Why don’t you just put benchmark ranges of points that equal different game scores. This benchmark could go up every year to reflect the advancement of the industry as a whole.
example
year 1 benchmark 9-12 design 9-12 technology= avg 5-7 [7 if the direction is perfect 5 if its not good]
13-15 13-15 =avg 8-10
year 30 benchmark 600-800 design 600-800 technology= avg 5-7
800+ 800+ =avg 8-10
In this way both things would matter and it would be more realistic. This is just a rough idea you could make higher top ends more prone to getting better averages as well.
we have experimented with this before. it doesn’t work. play-styles are very different and this would make it either too hard or too easy for some. anyway, we have already plans on how to adjust the current system. we just need to try it out first.
1 Like
Best of luck! Cant wait to hear what you have in mind and see it implemented.
Patrick, I would love to beta test the new review system for you.
Yeah I agree, this system definitely needs a overhaul. And go more indepth, with at least a paragraph of reviews and actual reviews…its hard to explain but in depth, etc.
It shouldn’t pause the game… After a few days of playing I get annoyed by waiting on it. Can’t you do it similar to the sales?
I actually became good in this game. I think my lowest score I got is 5.75. Well, maybe because I turn off when I got 1 or 3 scores. Trying to beat the high score which I think is actually dumb since it’ll never be online.
Haha yeah, I know that feeling, working on a game that you think would do incredibly well and then you get 3…and you’re just like. ARGH. I never get a game higher than a 8 for a Medieval/Action Game D:
It makes sense to me. You’ve got 2 ‘meh’ coders working on the world and the graphics and the game play, then you’ve got an ace who goes nuts making the enemy AI crafty as hell.
What do you have? A Drab, hum-drum looking RPG that has enemies who can and will wipe your party constantly if you aren’t careful. Doesn’t sound like a fun RPG to me.
Take that same combo and apply it to a strategy game, where the whole POINT of the game is complexity and challenge, rather than eye candy, and that same team becomes gold. The ‘meh’ designers get the graphics to where they are enough to know what is going on and are not an eyesore…while the ace tech guy works on a Magnificent Bastard AI who will give even seasoned Strategy Veterans pause. This makes the game good because people who buy a strategy game don’t care as much about the pretty graphics, but DO want a complex and fun game with a challenging AI.
Regarding reworking the ratings system, I think it is working very well as is. I do have one suggestion to remedy the main problem of it. Because it holds you to the standard of your highest scoring game, taking too big of a leap in quality ends up feeling like a penalty, because your next few games are going to get crap reviews unless you seriously rework your engine. On the other hand, you don’t want someone to find a winning formula and just keep churning out game after game and have them all be 9.0 + winners.
A compromise would be a sort of ‘industry average’ where the expected quality of a game rises more slowly. If you come out with a 9.75 smash hit…the industry average will start to increase…but will not immediately equal that game. If you follow up your hit with another, it’ll still be seen as good, but maybe not quite as good as the original. An 8.75. The more games you make above the average, the higher and faster the average moves. Eventually the average will catch up and re-making the same game with no improvements will result in a ‘meh’ score, forcing you to innovate.
I dunno, if you look at real life ratings you see them give perfect 10s to games that don’t even deserve to have it.
Pinstar: What do you have? A Drab, hum-drum looking RPG that has enemies who can and will wipe your party constantly if you aren’t careful. Doesn’t sound like a fun RPG to me.
Actually, the Mount & Blade series had very hard AI and if you weren’t careful, you would of gotten killed easier, and it was a challenge and very fun to make, so I make that statement subjective.
First Playthrough and I got 10 score all in all(which game the AAA feature) is the game I named: Everyone! Dance!
You know the genre, it’s on mbox next and it’s funny how it got 10 in all reviewers.:))