I really hate it when I join a game everything seems ok for a little, and then you start to slowly see the games just a half [baked] job. Ill use a pokemon game for example. Ill go into one of those games and there will be about 1/3 of the actual pokemon selection, a battle system thats just garbage, like 3 towns, and a riduculous amount of bugs. Sadely this is the case with most of the games on BYOND. There simply incomplete. I know sometimes you want to just release the game and get it out there but please make sure it actually worthy of being called a game...
I feel the standards for a complete BYOND game should be something on the lines of a gameboy game. When your finished with your game ask yourself, 'Would I buy this if it was for the gameboy?'.
ID:265776
 Sep 23 2007, 4:32 pm (Edited by moderator on Sep 29 2007, 12:21 am)
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 4:38 pm
|
|
Mecha Destroyer JD
 |
Thats the thing about byond; you kinda want to get as many people as possible to play your game unless you're just a expert debugger. By letting other people play/break your game, you'll get some feedback; mostly on bugs that you missed or some kind of "cheat" that you neglected to prevent. Those kind of games, I don't really mind(also explains why they're under unpublished)..But the games where all you can do is walk around and/or chat, I don't care too much for those..
|
Most people who start up games are newbies who really don't know what they're getting into and start off with grand ideas that will never happen. When they get into it a little bit, they realize that what they're capable of limits them to a lot less than they want.
And of course, most of the people who use BYOND use BYOND because they're lazy. Once the thrill of having your own game wears off, the laziness sets in. | |
Mhm, that happens a lot. People just lose too much motivation or become too lazy to continue updating the Game.
This happens to me all the time. :( Now, the guilds kind of do have a filter for this, only adding quality games to their featured games list. | |
Yeah I hate it to but it's reality.
Happens to me all the time, having a half finished game. Guild should do a better job reviewing games, and we should have a alpha/beta channel. I'd say only let polished games into guilds, but that meens we cant have any BYOND member start their own guild to begin with. If you are looking for a good game, don't even enter BETA or ALPHA games to begin with. | |
D4RK3 54B3R wrote:
Now, the guilds kind of do have a filter for this, only adding quality games to their featured games list. A lot of guilds must have this filter toggled. | |
Better guild reviews are supposedly in the pipeline, but a separate alpha/beta channel would not work. We had that before with the unpublished/raw games. People will just fill it up until it becomes an unsearchable mess. The main guilds might be messy, but they divide the mess into digestible chunks. Meanwhile, the games being tested provide more regular updates so that people have a reason to visit.
I'd like featured games to be listed first no matter what the sorting method is. For instance, all featured games sorted by member rank would be followed by all non-featured games sorted by member rank. That way, the allegedly higher quality stuff won't get lost. | |
Foomer wrote:
Most people who start up games are newbies who really don't know what they're getting into and start off with grand ideas that will never happen. When they get into it a little bit, they realize that what they're capable of limits them to a lot less than they want. Heh you got that right, that describes me, except I'm not lazy, I'm willing to program a game all the way through. The only thing that could possible stop that is if I get grounded or if I get a lot of homework/projects. And I did realize all the limits of BYOND after I started the game. | |
There is no such thing as a complete game when your talking about a online game where multiple players can run around. There is always something that is needing fixed, or if you learned new programming methods that increases the way the game is handled.
On byond you got to account for that Byond.exe is getting better each version, and sooner or later there will be something that you will need to update your game to. So sorry if your looking for any games that are complete but there is not. "Not on byond anyway" | |
Aoshi Shinomori x wrote:
There is no such thing as a complete game when your talking about a online game where multiple players can run around. Actually there are..I mean you can get a game to the point where there are no bugs and just stop working on it and bam its completed(like Dan's game and even my time wasting game Glacial Ember)..You don't have to upgrade or update it either; its playable and doesn't need fixing internal-wise. | |
if an online game ever truly becomes complete you shouldnt have bothered releasing it as an online game
| |
It really comes down to what you call complete. To me, if implementation of the whole game concept done, the game is complete. Bugs are omnipresent, so you can't justly define a complete game as one without bugs.
| |
In todays gaming world by what you are saying... No game should ever be released. Even offline games now recieve content updates, expansion packs and bug fixes. So I guess they are not complete (and shouldn't have been released)?
Anyway, as far as I am concerned a "complete" online game is one that has a decent level of content that is finished. Whether new content will be added to the game or not in the future is unimportant, but if the content currently in the game is all finished then the game is completed. Though, I wouldn't call a game with very little actual content finished. And I'd agree with the orignal poster. Games like I described ("complete games") are pretty uncommon on BYOND. But what can you do about it? Some of the time there is a good reason for it, such as public beta testing and so on, and stopping people from doing things like that is a pretty silly thing if you ask me! | |
When I mean complete, i mean would this be a playable game for the gameboy. Imagine if you poped in Db rebirth into your gameboy. Unorginization, things just out of place. You would think its a peace of garbage. Now some other games on BYOND could very well be on the gameboy.
| |
As others have said, if an online game becomes "complete", then there's no point in making it online in the first place. If it's multi player then obviously there's no point in releasing it, if it's single player(such as those mini-flash games on sites such as miniclip.com, etc.) then it could possibly be called complete even though it's an online game.
| |
Kakashi24142 wrote:
As others have said, if an online game becomes "complete", then there's no point in making it online in the first place. What I don't understand is you guys' logic..So because a game is for the most part "bugproof"/won't require upgrades, it shouldn't be online? Doesn't make sense. From my understanding of you guy's point of view, people should only released online games if they are half-assed in design(or not worked on as much as it could have been) and will always require updates and etc which as I said doesn't make sense to me. | |
I think what is being said (I might be totally wrong here) is that if you are to ever consider a game complete, that means nothing else is to be done with it. In an online game, you ultimately will have to add something else to it or people will eventually stop playing, so as long as you want to keep players, it cannot be classified as complete considering you will be adding to it.
Basically, if a game is complete, it has a definite end to the storyline. Whether its beating the evil wizard, reaching the pillar of storge, whatever! However, if the game has an indefinite end and leaves room for any like of things to continue to be added in the future, it cannot logically be considered complete. Im not sure I agree with it, but I can see where they are coming from. | |
I'll use Morrowind and Oblivion as examples. But by using that definition they are not complete games at all (actually, Morrowind is complete now, but it was completed like 4 years after it's release).
They both do not have any definite endings to them, and though there are storylines the game can be played after that, and in some cases in future updates the storyline is continued. They both are also updated (or use to be in the case of Morrowind), you could download official patches for the games with fix bugs, add new content and new storylines (updates for most offline games is pretty common now, even in console games that are totally offline you can expect to download bug fixes, patches, new content and even expansion packs which add a lot of new things to the games). So, by the definition people are giving, those games aren't complete, right? And a complete game shouldn't even be released, which means Oblivion shouldn't be avaliable to buy yet, and Morrowind should have been released in late 2006, not 2003. As I said before. I don't think you can classify a game as being unfinished because there is a chance it could be updated in the future, because in this day and age even offline games can be updated with new content, and quiet often they are. If you ask me a game is considered complete when it has a decent level of content, and that content is all finished. (If you can release a game to the public and they can play it for a decent amount of time before doing everything then that is good enough). In other words, if you have a game with a single town that has one quest, one class, a dungeon with 2 monsters and that is it, the game isn't complete. Nor is it complete if it has 10 classes that are only half finished, a town with 20 quests where only half of them are finished and dungeons that are not fully mapped out yet. TBut that is just what I think, and if you ask me it sounds like a lot better way of defining "complete" than saying "online games can't be completed otherwise they shouldn't have even been online in the first place". | |
The Magic Man wrote:
And a complete game shouldn't even be released, which means Oblivion shouldn't be avaliable to buy yet, and Morrowind should have been released in late 2006, not 2003. A complete game shouldnt be released as an online game, but single-player. I dont agree with his reasoning, but I understand the point he is trying to make. | |
What about Guild Wars? It is an online game and you can complete it, after which there is nothing at all to do in the game outside of PVP. Hell, you can even pay to have a maximum level character with the best equipment avaliable if you want.
How is this any different from say... A FPS game that has a story mode and then competative multiplayer modes as well. I guess Guild Wars should have been released as a single player game then? Or what about Diablo 2? It is a game that has single player and multiplayer modes, but was designed with online play in mind. It is a complete game with a storyline that can be completed, despite that it is most commonly played as a multiplayer online game (though it has an 8 player limit that is more or less the same size as most of the smaller BYOND games). Should Diablo 2 have been made specifically as a single player game because it is a complete game? Like I said. You shouldn't really classify a game as complete or not by future updates. Which brings me to another point! Unless you can see into the future you have no idea if a game, online or not will be updated in the future. So how would you go about deciding whether a game is completed or not? You could easily say a game isn't completed only to have it never be updated again (making it a complete game by your specifications), and you could just as easily say that a game is completed only for an update to be released for it the very next day (making it an uncomplete game). So... What is a complete game exactly!? With the exception of games that have closed down you have no way of knowing whether a game will be updated in the future or not, meaning you cannot tell whether it is complete or not going by the way you judge whether a game is completed or not... Which also brings up the problem of what should it be!? Since you cannot tell whether it is completed or not you cannot tell whether it should be a single player or multiplayer online game. And now it is getting confusing! But the more you go into your way of judging whether a game is complete or not the more problems you find. Which is why I prefer to say a completed game is one which has a decent amount of content that is finished. Because at least that way I am judging the game on what it is, not on what it might or might not be. | |