Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
HOW DOES THIS SITE HANDLE DEMOS?
Posts
Pages:
1
Sviel
2006
Sviel
View playlists
CloseI've been nosing around the 'new to RMN' FAQ and such, but haven't really found a solid answer to this. It's implied that demos should be released in the same fashion as a game, but this seems kind of odd as there is then no distinction in terms of makerscore.
For example, I have a game that I'm going to release later that is actually a game. Right now, I just want to put up a demo that is a sampling of the game, but necessarily has different production goals as the point is to give players an idea of what to expect from the main. One has several hours of content, then other is 10-15 minutes long. One is obviously recognizable as a game, the other is vastly tighter in terms of progression and choice.
It seems like a poor idea to replace the demo dl with the actual game later on as any ratings would become inaccurate and, ideally, the demo would persist even after the main release.
But at the same time, it doesn't seem right that both projects are valued equally. Not necessarily because of length, some sort games are fine, but because a demo is not a proper game, in the same respect as the game is it demoing.
So, yeah. If that's how it's done, I won't get my panties in a bunch over it, but I don't want to inadvertently look like I'm making a cheap grab for makerscore.
For example, I have a game that I'm going to release later that is actually a game. Right now, I just want to put up a demo that is a sampling of the game, but necessarily has different production goals as the point is to give players an idea of what to expect from the main. One has several hours of content, then other is 10-15 minutes long. One is obviously recognizable as a game, the other is vastly tighter in terms of progression and choice.
It seems like a poor idea to replace the demo dl with the actual game later on as any ratings would become inaccurate and, ideally, the demo would persist even after the main release.
But at the same time, it doesn't seem right that both projects are valued equally. Not necessarily because of length, some sort games are fine, but because a demo is not a proper game, in the same respect as the game is it demoing.
So, yeah. If that's how it's done, I won't get my panties in a bunch over it, but I don't want to inadvertently look like I'm making a cheap grab for makerscore.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
You can mark on your game page whether the game is completed or not. I'm not sure if marking your game as completed gives you more makerscore; not that makerscore actually matters.
Unfortunately there's no built-in way of removing reviews of the demo versions, as it's impossible to automatically detect how old a review needs to be before it's no longer relevant. But if you finish the game and don't want the reviews of the demo affecting the final game's score, you can message the writers of the reviews and they can change the number of stars they gave you to N/A. Or if the writers have disappeared from the website by then, I think the RMN staff will usually do this too?
Unfortunately there's no built-in way of removing reviews of the demo versions, as it's impossible to automatically detect how old a review needs to be before it's no longer relevant. But if you finish the game and don't want the reviews of the demo affecting the final game's score, you can message the writers of the reviews and they can change the number of stars they gave you to N/A. Or if the writers have disappeared from the website by then, I think the RMN staff will usually do this too?
Sviel
2006
Completed games get double the makerscore. I considered having the demo permanently listed as incomplete, but that's misleading and is still a huge chunk of points for something that isn't really a game.
Then again, if it doesn't matter, I'm not opposed to having one less thing to worry about.
Then again, if it doesn't matter, I'm not opposed to having one less thing to worry about.
The MS a game receives, when complete, is based on the current star score. The better star score, the bigger MS you get from it. Scores are the weighted average of reviews given.
Demo gets a small amount of base MS when compared to completed games. This is also affected by star score but if the game has no stars/reviews then the amount is just the normal stipend.
When changed to completed, the basic no-star jumps up significantly. Anything extra is then based on reviews.
A lot of reviewers give N/A on demos because it doesn't affect star scores at all. Scores are weighted by averaging the scores of any reviews that aren't N/A, hence why they're 'safer' to give.
Asking a reviewer to change their demo review to N/A is fine and expected after you release a full game, or asking them to change their review to reflect the game. Also, the more reviews you have, the better the score will reflect your game - or people's opinions there-of - so in the off chance that you get a low-scoring demo score that hasn't changed, and you get a few complete game reviews, the score will change to reflect that. For example, one 1-star demo review and a 3-star, 4-star and 3.5-star will take your rating from 1-star to 2.5 or 3-stars. The more added, the better the score gets.
Of course, the best way to guarantee that such a thing doesn't mess with your star score is to release a polished, good demo that reflects well on the game. Or ask everyone to change any scores they give when the game is completed.
Demo gets a small amount of base MS when compared to completed games. This is also affected by star score but if the game has no stars/reviews then the amount is just the normal stipend.
When changed to completed, the basic no-star jumps up significantly. Anything extra is then based on reviews.
A lot of reviewers give N/A on demos because it doesn't affect star scores at all. Scores are weighted by averaging the scores of any reviews that aren't N/A, hence why they're 'safer' to give.
Asking a reviewer to change their demo review to N/A is fine and expected after you release a full game, or asking them to change their review to reflect the game. Also, the more reviews you have, the better the score will reflect your game - or people's opinions there-of - so in the off chance that you get a low-scoring demo score that hasn't changed, and you get a few complete game reviews, the score will change to reflect that. For example, one 1-star demo review and a 3-star, 4-star and 3.5-star will take your rating from 1-star to 2.5 or 3-stars. The more added, the better the score gets.
Of course, the best way to guarantee that such a thing doesn't mess with your star score is to release a polished, good demo that reflects well on the game. Or ask everyone to change any scores they give when the game is completed.
Sviel
2006
That seems to work well provided that:
-The demo is just a smaller, incomplete version of the main game, and thus,
-There is little reason for the demo to exist after the game's release.
I think you answered my question, though. The problem is likely that my idea of a demo is not in line with the concept of a demo here.
Would I be right to say that a demo here is more of an alpha? That is, it's playable from one point straight to some other point with minimal workarounds or missing systems? This isn't too uncommon in practice since demos tend to be requested/expected during the time a game is still in an alpha stage.
I was thinking more along the lines of a hook demo, which might be a term I just made up, but I can't remember the actual one just now. The goal here is to have a short, stand-alone showcase of key game elements. Not much depth, but plenty of breadth, so to speak. All systems should be working and ideally present. Most importantly, the segment shown in the demo does not appear anywhere in the game.
The point of the hook demo is to give people something to review that doesn't take much time to complete with the idea being that a 10-15 minute session is more agreeable to reviewers than several hours. The hook demo is the super-condensed version of the game.
Since I don't have any sort of reputation here, I thought it would be a good idea to give people a low-entry way to judge me before asking them to consider a much larger bite.
So, in the end, I want to keep the two separate so that the demo persists...but I can't really ask people not to review the demo as that was almost the entire point of creating it. It'd also be nice to have that reviewed demo to point to rather than just a link in the description.
I'll figure something out that doesn't feel like gaming the system, somehow...I still have plenty of time to do that. Though, in future updates, I think a demo tag would be a good idea...albeit, the restructuring...could be a bit of work.
-The demo is just a smaller, incomplete version of the main game, and thus,
-There is little reason for the demo to exist after the game's release.
I think you answered my question, though. The problem is likely that my idea of a demo is not in line with the concept of a demo here.
Would I be right to say that a demo here is more of an alpha? That is, it's playable from one point straight to some other point with minimal workarounds or missing systems? This isn't too uncommon in practice since demos tend to be requested/expected during the time a game is still in an alpha stage.
I was thinking more along the lines of a hook demo, which might be a term I just made up, but I can't remember the actual one just now. The goal here is to have a short, stand-alone showcase of key game elements. Not much depth, but plenty of breadth, so to speak. All systems should be working and ideally present. Most importantly, the segment shown in the demo does not appear anywhere in the game.
The point of the hook demo is to give people something to review that doesn't take much time to complete with the idea being that a 10-15 minute session is more agreeable to reviewers than several hours. The hook demo is the super-condensed version of the game.
Since I don't have any sort of reputation here, I thought it would be a good idea to give people a low-entry way to judge me before asking them to consider a much larger bite.
So, in the end, I want to keep the two separate so that the demo persists...but I can't really ask people not to review the demo as that was almost the entire point of creating it. It'd also be nice to have that reviewed demo to point to rather than just a link in the description.
I'll figure something out that doesn't feel like gaming the system, somehow...I still have plenty of time to do that. Though, in future updates, I think a demo tag would be a good idea...albeit, the restructuring...could be a bit of work.
Demos are up the the creator. We do get longer ones, yes, but we also get bite-sized ones too. Both are treated the same - as showcases of what the game may have to offer when it's complete.
Frankly, you could ask people not to add an official score to any reviews, or make a page on your game page for demo feedback and direct people to post there instead of reviewing. Not saying it'll stop everyone, but it could. You can add descriptions to uploads, so don't make it the main download (thus, they have to go to the actual download page to grab it) or even upload it to your locker and provide the link on said feedback page to ensure they get the message.
Frankly, I wouldn't stress it too much. Most of the prolific reviewers will usually only use N/A for demos (or if asked to). It's not a big deal either way, really, even if you're new.
If you want to help people get to know you better, maybe get involved in something community-wise. We currently have a community game on the go. At the moment it's basically ideas and a short demo (well, longer compared to what you're considering ;p ) for feedback. Since we know it's in constant revision, there's no reviews (and probably won't be for a while).
Another thing you might like to look into is asking an LPer to try the game for you and give feedback. Then host the video (via media page) on your game page and ask for feedback there. I think if you're open about not wanting people to review, and only to give feedback, it shouldn't be an issue.
Frankly, you could ask people not to add an official score to any reviews, or make a page on your game page for demo feedback and direct people to post there instead of reviewing. Not saying it'll stop everyone, but it could. You can add descriptions to uploads, so don't make it the main download (thus, they have to go to the actual download page to grab it) or even upload it to your locker and provide the link on said feedback page to ensure they get the message.
Frankly, I wouldn't stress it too much. Most of the prolific reviewers will usually only use N/A for demos (or if asked to). It's not a big deal either way, really, even if you're new.
If you want to help people get to know you better, maybe get involved in something community-wise. We currently have a community game on the go. At the moment it's basically ideas and a short demo (well, longer compared to what you're considering ;p ) for feedback. Since we know it's in constant revision, there's no reviews (and probably won't be for a while).
Another thing you might like to look into is asking an LPer to try the game for you and give feedback. Then host the video (via media page) on your game page and ask for feedback there. I think if you're open about not wanting people to review, and only to give feedback, it shouldn't be an issue.
Sviel
2006
Ah. When in Rome, no? I think I'll settle for the unofficial reviews, as it should roughly communicate the same thing by convention.
I've looked at the community game (I think?) but it was literally based on the history of the community and thus I had precious little to grasp onto as I've been here for only ~2 weeks. In addition, I have a hard time with traditional fantasy settings...bad case of overexposure, I think.
I've looked at the community game (I think?) but it was literally based on the history of the community and thus I had precious little to grasp onto as I've been here for only ~2 weeks. In addition, I have a hard time with traditional fantasy settings...bad case of overexposure, I think.
I'd have to see the game-page, but I've been known to play demos. Actually, no, that's not an accurate statement. Demos are, like, 90% of the games I play from RMN.
Sviel
2006
I felt like posting this thread with a gamepage up would be too close to advertising the game...I kind of have a love/hate relationship with rules?
At any rate, it's pending, along with the review I've done. Somewhat off-topic, but is there a standard length to the submission process? I want to be able to better estimate to someone when I might have a review up for them.
At any rate, it's pending, along with the review I've done. Somewhat off-topic, but is there a standard length to the submission process? I want to be able to better estimate to someone when I might have a review up for them.
At most, a week unless something goes horribly wrong or it gets denied (in which case Decky will let you know what needs fixing and you just resubmit). But usually a couple of days, depending on how much time Decky has on hand and when the queue was last seen to.
The reviews are usually a day or two - it also depends on when it was last checked and how busy Soli is. Shouldn't take much longer than that, though.
Rule of thumb is if you reach the week mark and haven't heard anything back, send a polite PM to either Deckiller or Solitayre. (Decky for games, Soli for reviews and the like.)
The reviews are usually a day or two - it also depends on when it was last checked and how busy Soli is. Shouldn't take much longer than that, though.
Rule of thumb is if you reach the week mark and haven't heard anything back, send a polite PM to either Deckiller or Solitayre. (Decky for games, Soli for reviews and the like.)
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Sviel
I've looked at the community game (I think?) but it was literally based on the history of the community and thus I had precious little to grasp onto as I've been here for only ~2 weeks. In addition, I have a hard time with traditional fantasy settings...bad case of overexposure, I think.
Nah. Someone came up with the clever idea of naming some of the items/equipment in Wyrm Warriors after some other games, but the rest of the game is original. We really need some more dungeons! And many of the towns still need to be created also, even though people have already submitted concepts for them.
There's also a community Zelda fangame in progress, if that's more your thing. We're making it in Super Mario Bros. X, in the style of Zelda 2. It still needs people to make more stages!
Sviel
2006
@Liberty
I didn't realize that it was one person handling all of that. Sounds like a hassle, though, so I don't mind if it takes awhile.
@LockeZ
Unfortunately, dungeons are not really my thing. I have also never played a Zelda game for more than an hour D:
I'll take another look, though. I'm willing to help, just, I wouldn't be any help at all in those areas as I don't personally find them enjoyable and haven't studied them enough to recreate the enjoyment others feel by rote calculation.
I didn't realize that it was one person handling all of that. Sounds like a hassle, though, so I don't mind if it takes awhile.
@LockeZ
Unfortunately, dungeons are not really my thing. I have also never played a Zelda game for more than an hour D:
I'll take another look, though. I'm willing to help, just, I wouldn't be any help at all in those areas as I don't personally find them enjoyable and haven't studied them enough to recreate the enjoyment others feel by rote calculation.
Pages:
1
