00:00
00:00

New category: "Others"?

157 Views | 17 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. Audio Portal Cleanup || Flash Portal Cleanup (EGB).

Primer: No Copyright Sound to learn about licensing.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.