00:00
00:00

New category: "Others"?

213 Views | 27 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic

New category: "Others"? 2019-01-06 08:23:29


I have seen a lot of interesting stuff in the games section that I have downvoted because they are simply not games in any sense. It could be interactive animations, tools or simply coding showoffs. I think most of these deserves a spot on this site, but they don't fit in any of the current categories.


Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a new category for this?

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-06 08:33:15


At 1/6/19 08:23 AM, patwotrik wrote: Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a new category for this?


There are already a bunch of "other" categories for skill, strategy, etc. Interactive animations would likely fall under "Simulation - Other", tools would fall under "Gadgets - Other".


The trouble with "Other/misc" is that it becomes a catch all like the current "spam" category. I think the artists would do well to select the most appropriate category to be found later, and us users need to vote based on the merits of the submission and less so the "this isn't a game!!11! D:<" angle.


Audio Portal Moderator. Flag stolen content. #VAC12

BBS Signature

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-07 05:31:07 (edited 2019-01-07 05:31:26)


There are a few 'Gadget' categories too, which work well for those sorts of games.


Bigger problem seems to be not everyone appreciates those types of submissions as 'games', and complains they have no place here, though they really do. Might be the reason people don't submit these types of content all that often these days. Game by definition: activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.


It really is a broad category of content.


Check out the New Review Crew / Hexalist #51 (Mar)

BBS Signature

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-07 08:35:31 (edited 2019-01-07 08:40:53)


At 1/6/19 08:33 AM, Peregrinus wrote: The trouble with "Other/misc" is that it becomes a catch all like the current "spam" category. I think the artists would do well to select the most appropriate category to be found later, and us users need to vote based on the merits of the submission and less so the "this isn't a game!!11! D:


At 1/7/19 05:31 AM, Cyberdevil wrote: Bigger problem seems to be not everyone appreciates those types of submissions as 'games', and complains they have no place here, though they really do. Might be the reason people don't submit these types of content all that often these days. Game by definition: activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.

It really is a broad category of content.

I think it is quite futile to try to force this definition upon people active here. People in general have a concept of what a computer game is, and I do believe that very many people who click on "Games" in the menu are doing so go get a fun game to play.

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-07 11:31:00 (edited 2019-01-07 11:32:34)


At 1/7/19 08:35 AM, patwotrik wrote: I think it is quite futile to try to force this definition upon people active here. People in general have a concept of what a computer game is, and I do believe that very many people who click on "Games" in the menu are doing so go get a fun game to play.


Ah, a new debate on definitions. :D That's true though. I think I have a different understanding of this since I was here before content started being split up as 'Games' and 'Movies' that way. In the early days it was simply Flash, which was a much broader term, and often stood for hybrids between the two, and virtually anything with any level of interactivity to it. So when new formats started getting supported and the menu items were split up for a newer audience then I knew what these particular categories contained, and that they didn't adhere to the mainstream vein.


I guess adding an additional content area could solve this particular issue, but that seems like a clunky solution... maybe simply a message on particular categories within the Games section, mentioning that there's more to the realm of 'games' than what users usually assume, and that these are the categories that house those more unconventional items.


Or something like that, but simpler. I really miss all the tutorials and similar gadgets people used to submit there. Lots of useful content that, though maybe just not as popular overall, might still be streaming in if it was more encouraged.


Check out the New Review Crew / Hexalist #51 (Mar)

BBS Signature

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-07 11:43:36 (edited 2019-01-07 11:48:45)


At 1/7/19 11:31 AM, Cyberdevil wrote:
At 1/7/19 08:35 AM, patwotrik wrote: I think it is quite futile to try to force this definition upon people active here. People in general have a concept of what a computer game is, and I do believe that very many people who click on "Games" in the menu are doing so go get a fun game to play.
Ah, a new debate on definitions. :D

I did guess that you would see similarities between this and our previous conversation :D


However, that actually nicely argues my point. You had an internal concept of what a punishment is, which caused a misunderstanding between us. And this was in a situation where we were discussing with each other with lengthy posts. After I clarified my view with a pretty precise and elaborate post you agreed. Can you imagine what it would take to make all the users here change their view of what a "game" really is?


(I'm not trying to put the blame on the misunderstanding on you. Just to be clear.)


That's true though. I think I have a different understanding of this since I was here before content started being split up as 'Games' and 'Movies' that way. In the early days it was simply Flash, which was a much broader term, and often stood for hybrids between the two, and virtually anything with any level of interactivity to it. So when new formats started getting supported and the menu items were split up for a newer audience then I knew what these particular categories contained, and that they didn't adhere to the mainstream vein.

I guess adding an additional content error could solve this particular issue, but that seems like a clunky solution... maybe simply a message on particular categories within the Games section, mentioning that there's more to the realm of 'games' than what users usually assume, and that these are the categories that house those more unconventional items.


How many do you think will read those messages? How many of those who do will care? No offense intended, it's a serious question.


If a category is called "games" people will expect games. That's just how it works.



Or something like that, but simpler. I really miss all the tutorials and similar gadgets people used to submit there. Lots of useful content that, though maybe just not as popular overall, might still be streaming in if it was more encouraged.


I think a separate category would do the trick. After all, an "Others/misc" kinda makes it impossible to downvote it because it is not a <arbitrary category>.

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-09 14:39:57 (edited 2019-01-09 14:42:07)


At 1/7/19 11:43 AM, patwotrik wrote: I did guess that you would see similarities between this and our previous conversation :D


Indeed. XD


However, that actually nicely argues my point. You had an internal concept of what a punishment is, which caused a misunderstanding between us. And this was in a situation where we were discussing with each other with lengthy posts. After I clarified my view with a pretty precise and elaborate post you agreed. Can you imagine what it would take to make all the users here change their view of what a "game" really is?

(I'm not trying to put the blame on the misunderstanding on you. Just to be clear.)


Of course. :) Yes, it's one of those preconceptions that goes so deep it feels like it's almost reformed the definition itself...


How many do you think will read those messages? How many of those who do will care? No offense intended, it's a serious question.


Half of those who stumble upon those categories, maybe? I think it really depends on where the message is placed, and how it's phrased. Something simple is easier to read even in passing. No need to stop what you're doing to actually digest the info, just skim by and see it and go 'aha, a game's more than I thought it was...'


If a category is called "games" people will expect games. That's just how it works.


With the subcategories, though, that's where the differentiation's really relevant. If there is a message anywhere that'd be a better place. People who move into unfamiliar subcategories will also be more prone to read such a message, if the category name doesn't really match their understanding of the content type.


I think a separate category would do the trick. After all, an "Others/misc" kinda makes it impossible to downvote it because it is not a arbitrary category.


I agree. But having that in the menu too? It's good with a very defined set of main categories, at least. And then if it's not there, or under one of the existing sections, people wouldn't find it so easily either.


Check out the New Review Crew / Hexalist #51 (Mar)

BBS Signature

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-09 16:42:57


At 1/9/19 02:39 PM, Cyberdevil wrote:
Half of those who stumble upon those categories, maybe? I think it really depends on where the message is placed, and how it's phrased. Something simple is easier to read even in passing. No need to stop what you're doing to actually digest the info, just skim by and see it and go 'aha, a game's more than I thought it was...'


I don't think it matters where you put it. People here will click games to play games.



With the subcategories, though, that's where the differentiation's really relevant. If there is a message anywhere that'd be a better place. People who move into unfamiliar subcategories will also be more prone to read such a message, if the category name doesn't really match their understanding of the content type.



I agree. But having that in the menu too? It's good with a very defined set of main categories, at least. And then if it's not there, or under one of the existing sections, people wouldn't find it so easily either.


I believe that in a menu system, you should really try to organize in such a way that every item belongs in all its parent categories. So a non-game should not be under games.


I completely agree that you also should avoid to many main menu items. You did not say that explicitly, but it was implied. However, I still think that this would be good to add.


When we are speaking of it, I think that art should be renamed. As far as I can see, there are only pictures there, so why not "pictures"? After all, every movie and game could also be considered art, and to be quite honest, some games and movies are really intended to just art and not the man-on-the-street-definition of movie and game.

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-09 16:45:41 (edited 2019-01-09 16:49:26)


At 1/6/19 08:23 AM, patwotrik wrote: I have seen a lot of interesting stuff in the games section that I have downvoted because they are simply not games in any sense. It could be interactive animations, tools or simply coding showoffs. I think most of these deserves a spot on this site, but they don't fit in any of the current categories.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a new category for this?

Yes, I think this is a good idea, I like that itch.io lets you call your submission whatever pronoun you want, like prototype, or tool, or thing. StuffedWombat gave his itch game the pronoun "shit". the smash collab is basically a game that calls itself a movie, so I would love to see this expanded. we then run into the issue that user pages depend on the limited classifications of Game/Movie/Art/Music for curation and that seems like a hairy mess that won't get fixed in 2019.


I think the much easier solution is to rate these things on how much you like them and how well the creator achieved their goal. It saddens me that you're downvoting these things that you claim have a spot here, simply because they are not games by some strict definition. I recommend ignoring labels and voting fairly.


My recent submission Dial-A-Platformer is marked as a tutorial (in hindsight, I wish I knew the label gadget existed) and people downvoted because its a shitty game, and yeah, it is, but you could just as easily say it's a shitty song because it's simply not meant to be any of those things, I would really like it if it was just judged on how well it does the job it's intended to do.


In the downvoters' defense it was front-paged in the "game" category and took a spot from real "games" but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve exposure, since I just want it to help people.


Tl;dr: Don't downvote them because they are not games and then say they have value as non-games


This blog I made | This game sucks | I, twit

Just trying to get enough Twitter followers to quit Facebook forever

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-09 17:14:36


At 1/9/19 04:45 PM, GeoKureli wrote:
I think the much easier solution is to rate these things on how much you like them and how well the creator achieved their goal. It saddens me that you're downvoting these things that you claim have a spot here, simply because they are not games by some strict definition. I recommend ignoring labels and voting fairly.

I want to add that I don't do that anymore, but I'm only one guy.


Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-12 12:31:51


At 1/9/19 04:42 PM, patwotrik wrote: I don't think it matters where you put it. People here will click games to play games.


If they just go to the Games section they'll see the top rated ones overall first and foremost though. The new quickly pass by and move into their respective category where: not so sure people won't take note of the category they browse to.


I believe that in a menu system, you should really try to organize in such a way that every item belongs in all its parent categories. So a non-game should not be under games.


Though by definition they are games...


I completely agree that you also should avoid to many main menu items. You did not say that explicitly, but it was implied. However, I still think that this would be good to add.


Yes, too many and it becomes messy all too easily. Harder to mantain and distinguish between too.


When we are speaking of it, I think that art should be renamed. As far as I can see, there are only pictures there, so why not "pictures"? After all, every movie and game could also be considered art, and to be quite honest, some games and movies are really intended to just art and not the man-on-the-street-definition of movie and game.


Well 'pictures' would imply things like photos too, which aren't allowed here. You're right pretty much any form of content could be classed as art, but when you say art you're generally speaking of the drawn medium, or sculptures, carpentry etc (which all fit into this same category). I think the name carries with it a positive connotation too, it's something with 'class'. Pictures... that could be just about anything. But if you're making real art you'd better make an effort!


Check out the New Review Crew / Hexalist #51 (Mar)

BBS Signature

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-12 13:26:50 (edited 2019-01-12 13:31:40)


At 1/9/19 04:45 PM, GeoKureli wrote: Yes, I think this is a good idea, I like that itch.io lets you call your submission whatever pronoun you want, like prototype, or tool, or thing. StuffedWombat gave his itch game the pronoun "shit".


Hah XD


While I think this'd be an interesting system, itch.io is generally based on interactive media, right? Not regular movies, or pictures? So it's like they already have one main content form, and these individual classifications are like subcategories to that. Letting users pick whatever categorization they want... it'd be pretty hard to find what you're looking for. I imagine some people just want to play games. Some just want to watch movies. All these base categories serve a very distinguishing function in that regard. And when you're playing games and watching movies you might want to stick to the same form of media for at least this current session. Having to redefine a set of content types with which we filter things to get the results we wants seems overly difficult, when it works so well as it is, IMO. People can use tags or titles with the current system to bridge distinctions between content types too.


I think the much easier solution is to rate these things on how much you like them and how well the creator achieved their goal. It saddens me that you're downvoting these things that you claim have a spot here, simply because they are not games by some strict definition. I recommend ignoring labels and voting fairly.


That's true. Wish people did rate more based on effort and result than if it conforms to their expectations or interests.


In the downvoters' defense it was front-paged in the "game" category and took a spot from real "games" but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve exposure, since I just want it to help people.

Tl;dr: Don't downvote them because they are not games and then say they have value as non-games


For sure.


Check out the New Review Crew / Hexalist #51 (Mar)

BBS Signature

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-12 22:19:43


At 1/12/19 12:31 PM, Cyberdevil wrote:
Though by definition they are games...


Yes, but I think that we can leave that particular discussion.



Well 'pictures' would imply things like photos too, which aren't allowed here. You're right pretty much any form of content could be classed as art, but when you say art you're generally speaking of the drawn medium, or sculptures, carpentry etc (which all fit into this same category). I think the name carries with it a positive connotation too, it's something with 'class'. Pictures... that could be just about anything. But if you're making real art you'd better make an effort!


So what you are saying is that when you chose the name "art" you did so with respect to the common mans interpretation and not the actual definition?


(Yes, I did plan ahead when I dropped that suggestion, muahahah :D )

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-12 22:32:35


At 1/12/19 01:26 PM, Cyberdevil wrote:
At 1/9/19 04:45 PM, GeoKureli wrote:
I think the much easier solution is to rate these things on how much you like them and how well the creator achieved their goal. It saddens me that you're downvoting these things that you claim have a spot here, simply because they are not games by some strict definition. I recommend ignoring labels and voting fairly.
That's true. Wish people did rate more based on effort and result than if it conforms to their expectations or interests.


I very rarely rate on effort. I usually go solely on result. Occasionally I throw in half or even a whole star to be nice, but that's rare, but most often I just clarify why I give a bad rating in the review. For instance I write stuff like


  • It's pretty good for being your first game, but it is still a typical first game, which unfortunately means that it's not very good. Don't give up though. It would be amazing if you made a great game the first time.
  • You wrote that it is an alpha/beta/demo but I can only judge what I see and not what it can be in the future, and at the moment it is unfortunately just crap.
  • Well, creating this in just 4 hours is impressive, but still, I find no joy in playing it. Sorry.


I often visit Popular games and Best games this month, because then the chances are pretty good that I will enjoy the games. But if people rate for effort and not result, that's destroys that purpose.


Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-13 04:45:23


At 1/12/19 10:19 PM, patwotrik wrote: Yes, but I think that we can leave that particular discussion.


I still think it'd be better with the current amount of sections though, so I'd rather have more information than to take that distinction away entirely.


So what you are saying is that when you chose the name "art" you did so with respect to the common mans interpretation and not the actual definition?

(Yes, I did plan ahead when I dropped that suggestion, muahahah :D )


Well now... definition #1: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture. ;)


Check out the New Review Crew / Hexalist #51 (Mar)

BBS Signature

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-13 04:45:27


At 1/12/19 10:32 PM, patwotrik wrote: I very rarely rate on effort. I usually go solely on result. Occasionally I throw in half or even a whole star to be nice, but that's rare, but most often I just clarify why I give a bad rating in the review. For instance I write stuff like


In a way most of these are examples on lack of effort. ;) I agree, result's more important than how long or how little time it took to make, but if for example I stumble upon an incredibly detailed artwork... that I just don't like, I still can't not let the amount of detail impact my rating at all. It feels like it's worth a little more because of that, regardless of my personal liking. A bit like not downvoting a 'game' just because isn't not a game, no? ;) Even if that was what I expected.


Thumbnails and titles can be misleading too...


I often visit Popular games and Best games this month, because then the chances are pretty good that I will enjoy the games. But if people rate for effort and not result, that's destroys that purpose.


Well I think people should consider both, since result still holds a lot of bias. Everyone doesn't enjoy the same things, but if ratings only reflected people's opinions then we'd have a very mainstream stream of content. I'm happy that some more unorthodox work still appears there. I usually view the daily Top 5, so definitely similar bias, but it's fun to stumble upon unexpected things that I don't always necessarily like... but that challenge my views or perspective. Or do something unexpected. Variation keeps us alive IMO.


Check out the New Review Crew / Hexalist #51 (Mar)

BBS Signature

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-13 13:35:30 (edited 2019-01-13 13:36:15)


At 1/12/19 10:32 PM, patwotrik wrote:
I very rarely rate on effort. I usually go solely on result.


To clarify, I'm not recommending voting on effort. I'm saying how well they accomplished their goal. For prototypes, is it a fun prototype that should be expanded, rate that shit highly. Rating a game low because it's not long is like rating a illustration low because it's not an animation. Rating a boring prototype low is fine if it doesn't seem like it has potential. And rating a gadget low because it's not a real game is lame, rate it low if it's a bad gadget


This blog I made | This game sucks | I, twit

Just trying to get enough Twitter followers to quit Facebook forever

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-14 05:14:19 (edited 2019-01-14 05:14:50)


At 1/13/19 01:35 PM, GeoKureli wrote: To clarify, I'm not recommending voting on effort. I'm saying how well they accomplished their goal. For prototypes, is it a fun prototype that should be expanded, rate that shit highly. Rating a game low because it's not long is like rating a illustration low because it's not an animation. Rating a boring prototype low is fine if it doesn't seem like it has potential. And rating a gadget low because it's not a real game is lame, rate it low if it's a bad gadget


Well said. Basically: entertain all aspects of a submission when you vote on it, and don't let personal bias steer the score too much.


Check out the New Review Crew / Hexalist #51 (Mar)

BBS Signature

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-20 19:16:11


At 1/13/19 01:35 PM, GeoKureli wrote:
To clarify, I'm not recommending voting on effort. I'm saying how well they accomplished their goal. For prototypes, is it a fun prototype that should be expanded, rate that shit highly. Rating a game low because it's not long is like rating a illustration low because it's not an animation. Rating a boring prototype low is fine if it doesn't seem like it has potential. And rating a gadget low because it's not a real game is lame, rate it low if it's a bad gadget


You do have a point, but I do definitely not agree completely here. But maybe I have misunderstood something. I thought that reviews and rates were primarily aimed at other users here and not the creators. I know that you recently changed so that we could edit our reviews, but for a long time we could not. If the review were primarily for the creator, it does not make sense to not being able to change the review. And especially not since the creator can change the content after the review is done. Another thing that supports this view is that there are good tools for us regular users to find high rated content. But I may have misunderstood something. Is there any official guidelines on how we should reason when it comes to rating and reviewing? Please link. It would be interesting to read.


When it comes to games in prototype state, one reason that I usually vote them down is that there does actually exist a beta section here. Aren't unfinished games supposed to be there when you want feedback?


I'd be happy to vote the way I should. On Stackoverflow there are pretty clear instructions on what should be taken into account when you vote, which is great. After all, the rating of a game does not say very much if I don't know why people rated the way they did. If I as a gamer want to find a good game it seems reasonable to sort them by their rating. But if the high rating is for the potential, well then it's not a good way to find a game that is fun to play.


Of course I don't vote down games only because they are short. Short does not imply unfinished. There are several very short games that I have given high rates, because even if they were very short they still felt complete. I'm talking about games that gives me the "What? Already over?"-disappointing feeling. So I guess my rating to a large extent the joy the game gave me.


So what should the ratings reflect? Unless that question has an answer, one cannot say that something is a bad reason to downvote.


(Sorry for being a bit dramatic, but I do think it is an important question.)

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-20 19:53:28 (edited 2019-01-20 20:06:37)


I check the site for the first time in a few days and it's the minute I get a reply, how weird


At 1/20/19 07:16 PM, patwotrik wrote: You do have a point, but I do definitely not agree completely here. But maybe I have misunderstood something. I thought that reviews and rates were primarily aimed at other users here and not the creators.


In the end, you're reviewing based on whatever criteria you want, and the target of the review can be the creator or the audience. If I made it seem like you're breaking rules, or that you have to vote a certain way, sorry for misleading. The only rules are don't spam or be a dick.


That said, I don't read reviews before watching/playing and I don't think many people do. Also, the site suggests being constructive in reviews, which suggests this is feedback for the author. Finally, lots of people submit on NG solely for the feedback. These are the reasons I feel that reviews are for the author and ratings are for the audience.


When it comes to games in prototype state, one reason that I usually vote them down is that there does actually exist a beta section here. Aren't unfinished games supposed to be there when you want feedback?


The easiest way to get testers is either to have an above average following on social media, or submit it on Newgrounds. nothing wrong with wanting more eyes on it. if you think it wasted your time, I think it's reasonable to vote low, but you might discover a fun unfinished project that you can follow during the development.


I'd be happy to vote the way I should. On Stackoverflow there are pretty clear instructions on what should be taken into account when you vote, which is great.


Stack overflow has a more clear cut goal, Newgrounds is an entertainment site, no guidelines can tell you what you find entertaining


All I'm saying is that you said that these things have value, but you're rating low because of what they are. and that's contradictory.


Of course I don't vote down games only because they are short. Short does not imply unfinished. There are several very short games that I have given high rates, because even if they were very short they still felt complete. I'm talking about games that gives me the "What? Already over?"-disappointing feeling. So I guess my rating to a large extent the joy the game gave me.


Edit:that's kinda how I felt about starbarians 3, but I still voted 5 stars because it's insanely awesome and things take time.


So what about episodic games? or games released in chapters? Those are unfinished, the only difference is it says "to be continued" at the end.


If you wanted it to go on longer it sounds like you were enjoying it. Voting low might make the author abandon the project.


Typically,

  • I vote high if it was worth my time, and i think it's worth the time of others, and if it can be improved (and everything can) I write a review.
  • If it's something that has no value to me I don't vote on it, like I'm not gonna go vote 0 stars on every country song in the audio portal
  • I vote lower for every bad decision they made that prevented me from enjoying a submission that I would have otherwise liked

This blog I made | This game sucks | I, twit

Just trying to get enough Twitter followers to quit Facebook forever

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-21 12:02:29 (edited 2019-01-21 12:03:55)


At 1/20/19 07:53 PM, GeoKureli wrote:
So what about episodic games? or games released in chapters? Those are unfinished, the only difference is it says "to be continued" at the end.


Depends. An episode can feel complete. But I don't rate for potential. Basically because then the high grade is dependent on that the developer does not leave the project. So I vote on what I see. I have seen quite a few games that looks promising, but the bugs and flaws pointed out in reviews don't get fixed.

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-21 12:40:19


At 1/20/19 07:53 PM, GeoKureli wrote:
So what about episodic games? or games released in chapters? Those are unfinished, the only difference is it says "to be continued" at the end.


Another thing I usually vote down is when a game requires med to go to another site for full version, or if it costs anything. Nothing wrong with that, but I rate from what I get for free on this site.


Also, sometimes I actually DO take other work from the same creator into account. That usually happens when a creator is using the same template to create as many games as possible. Those games usually feel extremely uninspired and mass produced. Take a look at this user: https://selfdefiant.newgrounds.com/ and you'll understand what I mean.

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-21 14:42:14


At 1/21/19 12:40 PM, patwotrik wrote:
At 1/20/19 07:53 PM, GeoKureli wrote:
So what about episodic games? or games released in chapters? Those are unfinished, the only difference is it says "to be continued" at the end.
Another thing I usually vote down is when a game requires med to go to another site for full version, or if it costs anything. Nothing wrong with that, but I rate from what I get for free on this site.


Yeah screw people who try to make a living wage from their craft.


Also, sometimes I actually DO take other work from the same creator into account. That usually happens when a creator is using the same template to create as many games as possible. Those games usually feel extremely uninspired and mass produced. Take a look at this user: https://selfdefiant.newgrounds.com/ and you'll understand what I mean.


If you don't like all of someone's games, stop playing them.


Honestly, your voting methods seem arbitrary to me, and they don't seem to be doing yourself or anyone any good.


This blog I made | This game sucks | I, twit

Just trying to get enough Twitter followers to quit Facebook forever

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-21 15:16:08 (edited 2019-01-21 15:18:11)


At 1/21/19 02:42 PM, GeoKureli wrote:
At 1/21/19 12:40 PM, patwotrik wrote:
At 1/20/19 07:53 PM, GeoKureli wrote:
So what about episodic games? or games released in chapters? Those are unfinished, the only difference is it says "to be continued" at the end.
Another thing I usually vote down is when a game requires med to go to another site for full version, or if it costs anything. Nothing wrong with that, but I rate from what I get for free on this site.
Yeah screw people who try to make a living wage from their craft.

That's definitely not what I said. Again, it's about that I don't vote for potential. I vote for what I have. I have given good ratings to games where you can purchase stuff to improve the gameplay. But in those cases, the game was good without buying those things. I will not pay just to be able to rate a game.


I realize that I was a bit unclear here. Sorry about that. I'm not against making money from creating games. But one thing that I DO downvote for is that when you get the message that you need to pay to continue after you have spent half an hour on playing the game. That's not cool.



Also, sometimes I actually DO take other work from the same creator into account. That usually happens when a creator is using the same template to create as many games as possible. Those games usually feel extremely uninspired and mass produced. Take a look at this user: https://selfdefiant.newgrounds.com/ and you'll understand what I mean.
If you don't like all of someone's games, stop playing them.

Most of the cases I do just that. I just explained that it happens sometimes. But I don't really see your point here. Is it that I only should rate things I think is good?



Honestly, your voting methods seem arbitrary to me, and they don't seem to be doing yourself or anyone any good.

Compared to others voting methods? Tbh, I think there are few people that put as much effort as I do into analyzing what my vote actually means.


Actually, one creator once said to me that it means a lot when I give 5 stars, because I do it so rarely.

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-21 16:13:27 (edited 2019-01-21 16:13:37)


At 1/21/19 03:16 PM, patwotrik wrote: stuff


All i'm saying is don't say that things have value here but then rate them as though they don't. I'm not telling you to vote on potential, I'm not telling you only vote on things you like. I'm saying don't vote a good demo down because it's not a full game, just as you wouldn't compare movie trailers or movie posters to actual movies.


Honestly, your voting methods seem arbitrary to me, and they don't seem to be doing yourself or anyone any good.
Compared to others voting methods? Tbh, I think there are few people that put as much effort as I do into analyzing what my vote actually means.

Actually, one creator once said to me that it means a lot when I give 5 stars, because I do it so rarely.


I'm not saying your voting on a whim, I'm saying you seem to have a set of arbitrary principals that cause you to rate things low, that have little to do with their actual quality. I'm kinda mad that you rate low if it's a demo that you can play elsewhere. I see no reason to do that, and it just hurts indie devs. we can't make any money by putting free games on NG, but we can get fans and feedback


This blog I made | This game sucks | I, twit

Just trying to get enough Twitter followers to quit Facebook forever

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-21 19:19:51


At 1/21/19 04:13 PM, GeoKureli wrote:
All i'm saying is don't say that things have value here but then rate them as though they don't. I'm not telling you to vote on potential, I'm not telling you only vote on things you like. I'm saying don't vote a good demo down because it's not a full game, just as you wouldn't compare movie trailers or movie posters to actual movies.



I'm not saying your voting on a whim, I'm saying you seem to have a set of arbitrary principals that cause you to rate things low, that have little to do with their actual quality. I'm kinda mad that you rate low if it's a demo that you can play elsewhere. I see no reason to do that, and it just hurts indie devs. we can't make any money by putting free games on NG, but we can get fans and feedback


First I'd like to say that it is possible that I will change my mind after having thought this through for a couple of days. Nothing is written in stone, and I'm always open to new angles.


So let's get down to business. You're a developer, which of course mean that you're biased in this discussion. I understand your concern, but I do have a bit of a trouble that you're basically saying that I should be blamed if you don't make money on creating games. Making money on creating games is not a right, it is a possibility. Don't get me wrong. I often read "For exposure" on twitter, and I really hate those guys that seem to think that you can demand free work from artists and programmers. I could also point out that I'm a programmer myself, and I had my fair share of requests for free work.


But the thing is that I have demanded exactly zero from you. The only thing I may have done (not sure if I have actually done it to you) is giving your submissions a bad rating based on how much joy it gave me. And the fact is that your demos are competing with full games here. NG is full of awesome FULL games. I perfectly understand that you maybe cannot combine a regular full time job and game creating, but as I said, it is not a right to be able to make your living out if it. Sorry for being blunt, but I as a gamer and reviewer have no obligations to you whatsoever. And you can definitely not demand that I visit another site to rate a game here at NG.


One of the reasons I sometimes downvote games where the full version is available elsewhere is the problem with link rot. Let's say that you create the site www.geokurelisawesomegame.com and post a demo here at NG. I visit the external link and find the game totally awesome and give you a high grade. After a while, you realize that you don't make any money of your url and take the site down and don't bother to upload the full game to any place. Now the grade is suddenly way to high, because it reflects a full version that does no longer exist.


Besides, I'm only one guy. My rating does not affect you significantly. If many others reason like me, well then it will have an impact on you. Who's to blame then? Whether we like it or not it's a market economy. If people here at NG downvote non-complete products, then you simply have to find another way to make money than posting non-complete products here. As I said, I may change my opinion about this, but I'm having trouble with that it feels that you're implying that I have an obligation to choose rating criteria to fit your business model.


Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-21 19:50:08 (edited 2019-01-21 19:51:23)


At 1/21/19 07:19 PM, patwotrik wrote:
So let's get down to business. You're a developer, which of course mean that you're biased in this discussion. I understand your concern, but I do have a bit of a trouble that you're basically saying that I should be blamed if you don't make money on creating games. Making money on creating games is not a right, it is a possibility. Don't get me wrong. I often read "For exposure" on twitter, and I really hate those guys that seem to think that you can demand free work from artists and programmers. I could also point out that I'm a programmer myself, and I had my fair share of requests for free work.


But the thing is that I have demanded exactly zero from you.


I never said you have an obligation to anyone, I said voting low for the reasons you gave helps no one, including yourself. All it does it make decent things have lower scores for arbitrary reasons. You asked about voting guidlines and I'm simply saying that based on your current voting criteria, a low vote from you doesn't really mean much to me, I'm glad someone thinks a high vote from you means a lot, but to me it means they jumped through arbitrary hoops to get it, and when I see a low rating from you, it's possible you still had fun.


One of the reasons I sometimes downvote games where the full version is available elsewhere is the problem with link rot. Let's say that you create the site www.geokurelisawesomegame.com and post a demo here at NG. I visit the external link and find the game totally awesome and give you a high grade. After a while, you realize that you don't make any money of your url and take the site down and don't bother to upload the full game to any place. Now the grade is suddenly way to high, because it reflects a full version that does no longer exist.


Are your voting low on everything because this is a possibility or are you voting low only when the link is broken? and what is the downside to this? You're afraid that one day, years from now, something in the games portal will be overrated? is that really a huge issue? at worst it means someone has to google it instead of following the link.


This blog I made | This game sucks | I, twit

Just trying to get enough Twitter followers to quit Facebook forever

Response to New category: "Others"? 2019-01-22 05:00:39 (edited 2019-01-22 05:01:03)


At 1/21/19 07:50 PM, GeoKureli wrote:
I never said you have an obligation to anyone,

You implied it by complaining about that my way of voting makes it harder for you to make money.



I said voting low for the reasons you gave helps no one, including yourself. All it does it make decent things have lower scores for arbitrary reasons.

Say what? Everything I downvote for is something that I consider bad for one reason or the other. That's hardly arbitrary. A demo is almost by definition not as good as the full product. Therefore it gets a lower score.


:You asked about voting guidlines and I'm simply saying that based on your current voting criteria, a low vote from you doesn't really mean much to me, I'm glad someone thinks a high vote from you means a lot, but to me it means they jumped through arbitrary hoops to get it, and when I see a low rating from you, it's possible you still had fun.

Well, then you're wrong. When I give 5 stars, it basically means that you have nailed almost everything. Good graphics. Music that fits the game. Solid controls. All important functionality exists, such as mute button, customizable controls, save function. Good level design that is challenging but not frustrating. Good basic concept. A uniqueness feel to it.


But yes, sometimes I have a laugh at bad stuff too. Some user made a series of crappy games where all the games where almost equal. They had names such as "touch the blue square", "touch the red circle", "touch the yellow triangle". I thought they were somewhat fun, but I did not think they deserved a high score, and I'm pretty sure the author was trolling and knew that.


Are your voting low on everything because this is a possibility or are you voting low only when the link is broken? and what is the downside to this? You're afraid that one day, years from now, something in the games portal will be overrated? is that really a huge issue? at worst it means someone has to google it instead of following the link.

It is not a huge issue. I just mentioned it as a reason. And you cannot deny that for me as a gamer, it is undoubtedly better to NOT have to google the game I just found than to have to do it. Also, as I mentioned, it may be the case that the full version simply are not available anywhere. So having to google is not the worst case scenario.