New Board Discussion (Hard Theory, Creative Commons), A community discussion Options

[Titanhex]

I mentioned to a few of other moderators that there was a slight issue between the GTD and the other boards.

Design is soft sometimes, like you see in GTD. It's ideas floating around in our head. It's the thought of what makes boss battles interesting, character writing, or game re-playability. But then you start putting these ideas into your game and it becomes Hard Design. Creating character stats, making boss AI, and or deciding what actions make 100% completion in a game with multiple choices.

That's just the start of hard data. Numbers, diagrams, layouts, and even maps. Things you can back by pictures and formulas often times tied to specific games. Hard Design is your efforts trying to design levels, character stats, and a working battle system for in the context of your game.

My idea was to create a subforum in GUC that discusses these ideas. A Hard Theory board. You can post pictures of mapping for feedback, talk about systems you'll be using in your game and provide numbers and detailed workings of it instead of just vague general thoughts.

The forum will have some guidelines though. You have to provide more than a soft general idea. You should hard info, like screenshots, pictures, drawn layouts, or real numbers to work with. Your idea should be pretty solid when it's posted for discussion. Discussions such as balance, aesthetics, and function will take place here. It's about asking how two systems may work together, or if the map you drew on paper or created in an editor looks functional as well as pleasing. Also consider it for discussion of level design, minigame design, monster designs, character designs, etc. The discussion can even be specific to an engine you're using, so long as it's not questions on how to use the engine itself.

What do you all think of this new board?

Would it be helpful to you?
If so how helpful?

Would you use it?

Would you visit it and check it out from time to time?

Do you understand how it works?
If so tell me how you think it works and what you would post in it?

[kaz]

What no one has an opinion on the new area for screenshots- despite the fact that a whole debate is going on in another thread?

[Adrien.]

maybe its because of that.

After reading this post what I see is that we do this already....every where. we have our game threads as you have pointed out (and other mods) for these "hard data" sections which I argued that - it would turn our game threads into a scratch pad of ideas. We have the critique threads for the maps...we can post the "hard numbers and detailed info" in the GTD thread if we make no mention that it pertains to our game.

essentially - everything this new forum would do - is already here, just scattered about.

[kaz]

maybe its because of that.

After reading this post what I see is that we do this already....every where. we have our game threads as you have pointed out (and other mods) for these "hard data" sections which I argued that - it would turn our game threads into a scratch pad of ideas. We have the critique threads for the maps...we can post the "hard numbers and detailed info" in the GTD thread if we make no mention that it pertains to our game.

essentially - everything this new forum would do - is already here, just scattered about.

But the screenshots would be here- but rather than a random "what do you think of my map" in among many others you could have a whole topic to include your own maps - rather than cluttering the game threads which is how you see it.

[Adrien.]

Thats senseless UNLESS it was, for example, to talk about (using me here as an example) the FFT style of mapping - then I would make a thread about this style, provide game example, Square Enix examples and explain how mine are similar and how they are not floating islands. THIS is what this new section could be used for - how ever as stated and argued simple "omg look my new maps" would go in the famous "screen shot thread"

I see what you want kaz and its exactly what I want, some where I could be like "so in my game I have this idea and I have this detailed report and blog post and hard crunched numbers - what do you guys think..." with out a mod being like "this is GTD go post this info in your game thread"

[Harryb412]

A new forum for essentially the same thing is redundant.
A Hard Theory thread tag would be much more efficient.

[Adrien.]

actually it wouldnt be (not sure if I understand thread tags??) how ever the section could be about implemtening ideas into your current game and getting community feed back before going back to your game thread and stating "new feature is..."

[Harryb412]

Thread tags would basically be putting [HARD DESIGN] into the title of your topic, to let people know that this is more fleshed out than just an idea.
We already have a forum for theory and design, why do we need a different forum for theory and design?

[Adrien.]

because if you look at my closed thread in TD youll see that it fits more of the HD rather then the TD and thus "breaks" the rules for TD as TD is more about game theory NOT relating to your game where as this new section WOULD or COULD relate to your game with out you polluting your game thread with "scratch pad ideas"

while I agree we could use [Tag's] it would still go against the GTD section unless the rules are changed to state that threads that do some hard number crunching and bla bla bla in releation to your game or games using the same features should have or use [Hard Design] tag before the name...

if that makes sense

[Harryb412]

because if you look at my closed thread in TD youll see that it fits more of the HD rather then the TD and thus "breaks" the rules for TD as TD is more about game theory NOT relating to your game where as this new section WOULD or COULD relate to your game with out you polluting your game thread with "scratch pad ideas"

while I agree we could use [Tag's] it would still go against the GTD section unless the rules are changed to state that threads that do some hard number crunching and bla bla bla in releation to your game or games using the same features should have or use [Hard Design] tag before the name...

if that makes sense

Well, if we make a HD forum then it would contradict the TD forum.
People are only allowed to post concepts relating to their game separately only if there are hard numbers or images attached?
Why not just broaden the use to Theory and Design, it would bring in my visitors rather than making a separation.

[Adrien.]

No its more of "people can only post concepts relating to their game if they have detailed information" an example that I have used would be - What if I wanted to map like FFT, I would first post the idea, post some examples from the game and then post some of my screen shots and explain how they are similar and how they are different. I would give detailed examples on how players could move about, the edge of the maps, the cut off style and what not...

then the community would give me feed back and ideas and suggestions. it would be a conversation around one core topic. the reason it cant be in GTD is because of the current rules and structore of that forum

[Harryb412]

No its more of "people can only post concepts relating to their game if they have detailed information" an example that I have used would be - What if I wanted to map like FFT, I would first post the idea, post some examples from the game and then post some of my screen shots and explain how they are similar and how they are different. I would give detailed examples on how players could move about, the edge of the maps, the cut off style and what not...

then the community would give me feed back and ideas and suggestions. it would be a conversation around one core topic. the reason it cant be in GTD is because of the current rules and structore of that forum

Then we should change the rules of that forum rather than create an almost identical forum. Considering the sites recent attempt to cut down on size/streamline forums, creating another Theory and Design forum would be counter-productive.

[Adrien.]

I agree. But i think Titan and kaz see diffrently? I could be wrong.

[Harryb412]

I understand how the Hard Theory thread is different, sure. But it is different for entirely self imposed reasons, and would be fixed with a couple of rule changes.

[kaz]

I agree. But i think Titan and kaz see diffrently? I could be wrong.

You are -

We have made no decisions yet - plus the other staff have not commented yet - but titan and I are not the only ones.

[Adrien.]

I doubt any one will actually want this. tbh I have to agree with harry. just change the rule to say add a [] infront. makes more sense and is way cleaner.

[amerk]

I've mentioned this to a couple of people before in PM, but perhaps I'll put it out for further discussion.

First, I enjoyed the screenshot for what it was. For a person who is not good at mapping, I use screenshots to give myself ideas on how I should do my own mapping. I've even commented on the mapping, but there's only so much you can write about (that looks good, you've got a tile error, it needs work). I mean, for a person who is not terribly great at mapping myself, it's really not my place to critique the mapping of others. I'd much prefer to critique the game (or idea of a game) in its entirety, with mapping being a small fraction, along with story, features, characters, and what not. There was a darkside to the screenshot thread, too. Some mapping I saw and thought not bad, especially for an amateur developer, but others try to find fault in every screenshot, almost to the point that you had to map a certain way in order to gain approval. So I never posted anything there (other than comments) for that reason.

My idea for the Creative Commons is this:

1. Keep the Theory and Design, as I think that offers a lot of information as it pertains to ideas, game mechanics not yet developed, and ways we can all improve.

2. Change Long Demos to Project Demos. The length requirement is not always followed anyways, as I see 2+ hour demos in GUC, and lesser demos in LD. Instead, any game that has a demo would go into Project Demos, regardless of length, assuming the game is not yet complete.

3. Complete Games would remain as is.

4. GUC would get a big change, as it would be for any game that has not reached demo stage. Once a game gets a demo, it gets moved into LD or CG (if complete). The requirements for submitting a GUC would still be around the same to avoid spam topics, and they would still have to go through the Submission Form route to ensure the game is legit. Sometimes I feel a person goes through GUC just to find a game with a working demo, and ignore everything else. By setting it up this way, we weed out the demo hunters, and the only people in GUC are those who are developing a game in its early stages, and those who are trying to offer support. This way a person can develop their ideas, get feedback, post their screenshots and continue to improve their game until a demo is released.

Finally, to avoid topics that go nowhere, perhaps we can enforce a timeframe of activity with GUC and the "alleged" PD section. For GUC, any game that has not seen activity (from either a member or the game's developer) in more than 3 months would be closed and moved to a dormant section. In PD (or LD if we don't change the name), any game that has not seen any activity in more than 6 months would also be closed and moved to the dormant section. Perhaps we can even implement a rule for the dormant section so that any game that has been dormant for 6 months will be deleted, at which time the developer would have to start from scratch if they decide to bring their game back.

[kaz]

Good feedback Amerk - but for the moment let us sort the hard theory area.

Must admit i rather like Project Demos for a name also the concept of Demos only whatever the length. leaving GUC for bare bones topics.

We used to have dormant projects and any over 6 months in GUC were cleared out into a sub forum.We did prune the forum a while back, but the dormant section was closed down.( if it wasnt so late I might remember why lol)

We have had many reincarnations of the cc over the years

T and D is a very popular area so for the moment I would like to see if Titan and Sai's idea could work for the hard theory.

Keep these ideas on hold

[amerk]

No prob, it just seemed people weren't sure what to do without a screenshot thread, and the Hard Theory was still a sort of an idea floating around that I wanted to mention other possible solutions.

I guess in a way what I was suggesting was to make the current GUC thread sort of like the Hard Theory idea, which would in turn cause changes for LD. Anyways, while it's hard for some to accept changes, many will come around eventually.

[Titanhex]

A lot of good ideas floating around.

GUC is a great place for the concept of "Hard Theory" which is why I wanted to subforum it there.

If we decide to turn GUC into the same concept as "Hard Theory", eliminating the need for "Hard Theory", that means several things may need to be accounted for:

GUC threads would get rather clustered with ideas and feedback, and many developers would not want to carry their threads over to Project Demos with all that feedback and design work in the threads. They would then have to make a new thread with their actual project they want to advertise for Project Demos or Completed Games.

Hard Theory was also meant to teach people about the more hands-on approach to game making, especially as a one-man developer. It's meant to show how to come up with monster designs, how to create a menu layout, and different ways to create fun levels all through constructive feedback. It removes itself from Soft Theory by not making itself about the story or the writing or general ideas. GUC games are currently all about that.

I'm honestly all for restructuring GUC to be our "Hard Theory" board but that may mean a large overhaul for GUC, which brings up the question of what to do with all the threads in it now. To be honest GUC games are prematurely advertised games. That doesn't mean they don't get some attention, and aren't useful for recruitment. Restructuring it may not be the best solution.

I would be okay changing TD's rules to allow for Hard Theory style threads, but TD gets a lot of action as is. Soft Theory and Hard Theory are also very different. Hard Theory is very specific to it's game, and may easily be seen as advertising for your own game, which is probably one of the reasons TD doesn't allow this among others.
In the end it may be less confusing and less problematic to keep them separate.

I would also like to emphasize the differences in Soft Theory versus Hard Design. Soft theory is not backed up with practical application to a game. Soft Theory is like saying "The zombie apocalypse would be a great game!" and then Hard Design would be your efforts trying to design levels, character stats, and a working battle system for that. The latter is one of the most pivotal parts of game development, and yet we do not have a board where people are comfortable posting feedback for their work in this area.

I'm forgetting what I was saying. I've had a cold so I'm working through this crisis. :\ If I forgot something let me know. I'm open to ideas but it's good to be realistic. If we can do something a lot simpler for this Hard Design I'd love to do it, as long as we're realistic about it. It's improtant to know when you're talking about ideals instead of real application. That's why I made this thread, to separate my ideals of how the Hard Theory board would work versus how people really view it working. Infact, I made questions to help me discern this in my first post.