Advice you don't agree with?

[lianderson]

Power to the unique worlds!

Hmmmmmmmmmm.... HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM... I don't agree with half the advice here. Which advice? I don't know! I just picked a random number!

Good day humans.

 

[Storyteller-Hero]

I have seen some advice that makes the assumption that putting out a commercial game (especially an RPG Maker game) and being successful with it is some wild roll of the dice. They might focus almost completely on nitpicking various aspects of the game itself for chance of success.

This may lead to a first time commercial game dev or team do their marketing as an afterthought, putting the game out then posting about it on forums and social media, hoping people will start talking about it.

Marketing should be planned out ahead of time so that one knows exactly when the right time and place is to publish their game, and they are able to spend time beforehand building up actual interest.

There needs to be a balance between game quality and marketing - you need a good game AND good marketing.

For example, you post your store page, but it looks so bad that it turns off most of the customers, and by the time you fix it, you've already turned off most of your potential customers. A bit of research beforehand could have saved you from losing a lot of customers, who are too busy looking at other games to come back to a bad first impression that gave them the feeling that your game is bad because your store page was bad. They might even already have told other people to avoid your game because your store page was so bad to begin with - REVERSE, NEGATIVE viral marketing.

You could be the greatest game dev in the world with the best game ever, but bad marketing can still result in too few people playing your game in the first place to make up for the costs of making the game.

 

[Conflictx3]

Not so much of advice given to me but I hate when I see people justify charging 0.99 - 2.99 to others for their game because its built on RPG Maker. A Game is a game, the engine its built on doesn't dictate the enjoyment a player may experience, consumers pay for the promise of fun/experience, not the promise of graphics and 3D rendering. if your comfortable charging cents for the project you spent a year+ on AND its not even your first game, that sounds more like self-consciousness to me and that mindset has been shared around our intimate community as logical reasoning (RPG Maker has a bad stigma because of the crappy games released on steam for X amount of years, etc) for far too long.

 

[Iron_Brew]

"Do you feel ashamed? Good."

Still aghast that I read that here.

 

[FirestormNeos]

I prefer a game to give a similar-ish experience to all players. That way we can talk about the same game and have a good conversation because we are struggling at the same thing in the game (if the players decide to have a conversation about the game).

Oof, that's... advice I'm not going to be able to agree with in good faith, as the vast overwhelming majority of games I enjoy pretty much all spit in the face of this design mentality.

*Break Gauges

I feel dumb for wasting your time in asking this, but would you be willing to clarify real-quick exactly what a "break gauge" is to my clueless dumb@$$? x_x

 

[TheoAllen]

Oof, that's... advice I'm not going to be able to agree with in good faith, as the vast overwhelming majority of games I enjoy pretty much all spit in the face of this design mentality.

Of course, many games didn't do this. For example, putting difficulty settings. Imagine Dark Soul having difficulty setting for pity, that wouldn't make it the Dark Soul we know today.

 

[FirestormNeos]

I wasn't expecting the conservation to go this direction, but okay.

Of course, many games didn't do this. For example, putting difficulty settings. Imagine Dark Soul having difficulty setting for pity, that wouldn't make it the Dark Soul we know today.

GOOD.

"The Dark Souls we know today"— or perhaps more precisely, the Dark Souls I know —is a f**king blight to videogames as an artistic medium, just like how Call of Duty was until Spec Ops: The Line came along.

 

[Iron_Brew]

"The Dark Souls we know today"— or perhaps more precisely, the Dark Souls I know —is a f**king blight to videogames as an artistic medium, just like how Call of Duty was until Spec Ops: The Line came along.

Eh? Dark Souls is objectively great, and nobody's forcing anyone to play it. Designers are allowed to make games however they want and it is peak entitlement to want every game in the world to cater to you.

 

[Magenta-Fantasies]

Of course, many games didn't do this. For example, putting difficulty settings. Imagine Dark Soul having difficulty setting for pity, that wouldn't make it the Dark Soul we know today.

As a longtime Fire Emblem fan for the last decade, I see both sides of this argument. There’s a certain pride to playing a game that is known for being difficult, and fans of this type of game are very passionate about it and will remain devoted fans. On the other hand, high difficulty alienates a portion of the potential who would play the game otherwise.

Fire Emblem was a fairly obscure Nintendo franchise until Fire Emblem Awakening. Awakening introduced Casual Mode (technically New Mystery of the Emblem introduced Casual Mode, but it was only released in Japan) and created Classic Mode for the traditional gameplay with permadeath. While many longtime fans disliked the introduction of a mode that negated what they saw as the premise of the series, Casual Mode also brought in many more new fans and ultimately saved the series from being cancelled due to poor sales. It also helps that Nintendo made an actual effort to market Awakening, unlike previous Fire Emblem games.

Even though I started playing Fire Emblem before Casual Mode came into existence (my first Fire Emblem game was Shadow Dragon,) I like Casual Mode. I don’t have a ton of time to play video games, and resetting due to a character dying is frustrating since it can cause me to lose a couple hours of my precious gaming time. On my first playthrough of a new game, I’ll play Casual Mode to recruit and get to know all of the characters. Then when I play Classic Mode, I don’t feel like I’m missing anything important when a character dies.

Originally the game I’m currently working on was going to have permadeath with no “Casual Mode,” and I’m reconsidering that because I want to reach a wider audience. This becomes more difficult because several playable character deaths influence the storyline of the game, and characters can die based on your choices outside of the maps. Still, I’d like to find a way to incorporate some sort of easier difficulty or "Casual Mode."

 

[TheoAllen]

As a longtime Fire Emblem fan for the last decade, I see both sides of this argument.

This is why my original sentence was never been as advice. And I never wanted to defend it. It is just an option for the dev to choose whether to stick to the vision and wanted the players to play the game as it is intended to be (essentially gatekeeping, some did this for good reasons) or potentially bring a wider audience. Neither is a wrong choice, just a choice that has consequences.

 

[The Stranger]

"The Dark Souls we know today"— or perhaps more precisely, the Dark Souls I know —is a f**king blight to videogames as an artistic medium, just like how Call of Duty was until Spec Ops: The Line came along.

While I wouldn't describe it as a blight, I do think it's annoying how so many devs seemingly want to turn all RPGs into Dark Souls clones. I don't enjoy Dark Souls, and so don't like it when new RPGs come out that are poor imitations of said game.

 

[FirestormNeos]

I should probably clarify that my issue with Dark Souls is purely with the "vocal minority" within the fanbase that jumps at people's throats for wanting an easy mode/accessibility options, and throws a tantrum when someone mods one of the games to be more accommodating. Unlike Call of Duty, I have no ill-will towards the series itself; that was a false equivalence on my end, and I apologize.

With that said, I will not tolerate what was at best jumping to asinine and unhinged conclusions, and at worst actively twisting my words into a strawman.

 

[The Stranger]

fanbase that jumps at people's throats for wanting an easy mode/accessibility options, and throws a tantrum when someone mods one of the games to be more accommodating.

I remember this happening to a journalist or some such. They wrote about how they only enjoyed Sekiro once they had installed a mod that made the game easy enough for them. For whatever reason, people took this as a slight against them and raged hard. Who gives a toss how a stranger plays a game in private? Even gaming journalists are allowed to play games as they see fit on their own time.

I also recall reading some really stupid comments from Dark Souls players about how these games teach good work ethics, and that nothing worth while is easy. All I thought was "it's a game. It's not work. Many people don't play games because they're challenging or resemble work." Not saying games can't be challenging, just that easier games are still legit experiences.

 

[Iron_Brew]

I remember this happening to a journalist or some such. They wrote about how they only enjoyed Sekiro once they had installed a mod that made the game easy enough for them. For whatever reason, people took this as a slight against them and raged hard. Who gives a toss how a stranger plays a game in private? Even gaming journalists are allowed to play games as they see fit on their own time.

I also recall reading some really stupid comments from Dark Souls players about how these games teach good work ethics, and that nothing worth while is easy. All I thought was "it's a game. It's not work. Many people don't play games because they're challenging or resemble work." Not saying games can't be challenging, just that easier games are still legit experiences.

Well said! Not everyone has time to "git gud", it's a complex and nuanced issue, for sure. Personally, I don't care if other people cheat in single-player games. It has literally nothing to do with me

With that said, I will not tolerate what was at best jumping to asinine and unhinged conclusions, and at worst actively twisting my words into a strawman.

Not sure what you're referring to here, but if you're gonna be throwing out allegations like these it's better to be specific rather than vagueposting about it.

 

[The Stranger]

Well said! Not everyone has time to "git gud", it's a complex and nuanced issue, for sure. I don't care if other people cheat in single-player games. It has literally nothing to do with me

Yeah. The only time I disagree with cheating is in multiplayer games, especially pvp ones. When you cheat in those you're just ruining other people's fun.

 

[Redeye]

As a Souls-like fan myself, the "git gud" part of the community can definitely be obnoxious sometimes. Accessibility is fine and I'm all for it if that means more people can experience these games. The Souls series is an interesting case where accessibility is really tied to how you build your character and your ability to explore. If you know what you're doing, or if you can find a good playstyle that also happens to be quite powerful, you can definitely make the games easier for yourself...

Dark Souls 1: Pyromancy is overpowered and can be used by literally everyone because it requires zero stat investment.

Dark Souls 2: Magic in general is incredibly powerful (especially Hexes), Twinblades melt enemies in seconds, and speedrunners use Rapiers for a reason.

Dark Souls 3: Warden Twinblades. Sharp infused. Super fast moveset that quickly inflicts Bleeding. Use buffs according to the enemy's weakness and you'll cut through everyone like butter.

...and so on. The devs also made sure to reward you greatly for exploring the world. Sekiro is probably the biggest contender here, since it threw away a lot of its RPG mechanics in favor of tying progression, such as HP upgrades and new abilities, to exploration. If you're stuck on a boss or area, just leave and go somewhere else! Maybe you'll find something cool that'll give you an edge in that place you were stuck in. That right there is peak non-linear design in my eyes.

(Oh yeah, and if you're ever in a bind in Dark Souls, Co-op is always an option. There's absolutely no shame in asking for help!)

Elden Ring is gonna be even more promising, since the devs explicitly stated in a recent Q&A that they designed several mechanics for the purpose of reducing player stress (ie Statues of Marika, Spirit Summoning, Stealth, etc). And since it's an open world game, if you're struggling, you have a PLETHORA of ways to become stronger (as you can tell, I'm gonna have one hell of a February).

 

[ericv00]

Not so much of advice given to me but I hate when I see people justify charging 0.99 - 2.99 to others for their game because its built on RPG Maker. A Game is a game, the engine its built on doesn't dictate the enjoyment a player may experience, consumers pay for the promise of fun/experience, not the promise of graphics and 3D rendering. if your comfortable charging cents for the project you spent a year+ on AND its not even your first game, that sounds more like self-consciousness to me and that mindset has been shared around our intimate community as logical reasoning (RPG Maker has a bad stigma because of the crappy games released on steam for X amount of years, etc) for far too long.

Pricing is hard. There are a lot of factors. If the reasoning is only that it was made in a certain engine, that is bad advice. Often, though, people give advice on many more factors than one, then proceed to fail in articulating the full reasoning for their advice.

The truth is, some people don't like the default graphics of RPGMaker. For them, they will not spend much on a game featuring them. This effects the sales. Now, this all is very complicated. There may be enough people that will accept the higher price that the bottom line is still better with a higher price. But it's all a balance that requires a lot of thought and data from many different angles. There are many $19.99 RPGMaker games out there that I am personally not willing to buy if they are made with default graphics, or have nice original graphics but are 4 hour games, or have nice graphics and decent length but feature a type of story I have no interest in. If you ask someone who is not sitting on piles of data, they are just going to give you their personal impressions on what what they would be willing to spend on your thing, and that is but one data point. It is still a valid one, but it is just one. (you can't even completely trust it unless they have spent that money on it)

Additionally, there are a lot of people who overvalue their work. I mean, to undervalue your work is worse, but overvaluing it isn't good. Still happens a lot, and it leads people to have a false impression of how much others value their creations.

TL;DR Pricing is difficult and complicated. People do buy things with the promise of good graphics. And don't sweat it too much. As always, just do your best.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Not sure what you're referring to here, but if you're gonna be throwing out allegations like these it's better to be specific rather than vagueposting about it.

Very well. Let's unpack your previous post, then.

In your post, you jumped to no less than three baseless assumptions with no evidence to any of your claims. You:

1) Presumed that I argued that "I was being forced to play it." Evidence in bold:

Eh? Dark Souls is objectively great, and nobody's forcing anyone to play it. Designers are allowed to make games however they want and it is peak entitlement to want every game in the world to cater to you.

2) Presumed that I argued that "developers aren't allowed to make games however they want." Evidence in bold:

Eh? Dark Souls is objectively great, and nobody's forcing anyone to play it. Designers are allowed to make games however they want and it is peak entitlement to want every game in the world to cater to you.

3) Presumed that I "want every game in the world to cater to me." Evidence in bold:

Eh? Dark Souls is objectively great, and nobody's forcing anyone to play it. Designers are allowed to make games however they want and it is peak entitlement to want every game in the world to cater to you.

If these were not directed at me, then you shouldn't have said it in response to me.

In my initial post...

GOOD.

"The Dark Souls we know today"— or perhaps more precisely, the Dark Souls I know —is a f**king blight to videogames as an artistic medium, just like how Call of Duty was until Spec Ops: The Line came along.

AT NO POINT in this post did I criticize-- much less attack the character of --any relevant individual; not you, not the person I responded to, not the people who enjoy any of the referenced games, and not any of the people who created any of the referenced games. Admittedly, the thing I was criticizing was unclear until I elaborated in a follow-up, but it's understandable if such clarification is irrelevant.

So when I say your post was unhinged and asinine, it is because that post shows complete and utter disregard for the truth. It is attacking an argument that was never made in the first place.

 

[Iron_Brew]

Very well. Let's unpack your previous post, then.

In your post, you jumped to no less than three baseless assumptions with no evidence to any of your claims. You:

1) Presumed that I argued that "I was being forced to play it." Evidence in bold:

2) Presumed that I argued that "developers aren't allowed to make games however they want." Evidence in bold:

3) Presumed that I "want every game in the world to cater to me." Evidence in bold:


If these were not directed at me, then you shouldn't have said it in response to me.

Not everything that's said to you has to be a counterpoint to something you've said. My advice would be to stop being so defensive, none of these were meant as personally directed towards you. Sure, they were addressing a point you'd made, but all statements are pretty clearly in the abstract and getting pissy about it and then vagueposting isn't a particularly mature way of dealing with it.

For example: How do you get "Presumed that I argued that "I was being forced to play it." from "Nobody's forcing anyone to play it." Reading that and being like 'this is a personal attack!' is such a baffling choice to make, I don't see why you'd even make it.

A statement like "developers are allowed to make whatever game they want", or even what I said about people demanding difficulty modes being an act based in entitlement is not predicated on you having said or argued the opposite. They are a statement of my thoughts on game design as an artform, and I think it shows a pretty hefty dose of ego that you think me saying what I think about a subject is in some way an attack on you.

 

[JohnDoeNews]

What are some common advice you see in the RPG Maker communities or game development communities that even if they sound nice, are ones you usually don't agree with and why? It's something that popped in my head, especially seeing how varied some people's advice can be.

First of all: Awesome question!

One piece of advice I see A LOT and can actually get devs in huge trouble:
"If your game is free, it is okay to use copyrighted content."

This is absolutely 100% false and giving this advice is actually dangerous. The most common penalty is your project being taken down by the copyright holder... Yes, that is what those people say too, and that is true... But it is not by far the worst thing that can happen.

If the company owning the copyrights loses money (like when your game becomes so popular they experience a decrease in sales) the maximum penalty in the USA is $150.000,- fine per image and jail!! (Yes, $150k! Per image! Feel free to look it up if you think I'm wrong... I sure did.)

Chances are very, very, VERY tiny this will happen for a fan game... But not impossible.

Luckily I do not see this false and dangerous advice here on the RPGmakerweb forums, but in huge facebook groups this is actually one of the most common mistakes I encounter. And there are even developers who purposely spread this false advice. Over the years I have been threatened more than a few times, just for warning people about copyrights. (It is not the people I warn who attack me... But the people who tell them it is okay actually threatened me. But I am still alive and no-one ever showed up on my doorstep...)

Fan games are fun, but technically not allowed in by far most of the cases. It is up to the copyright holder to decide if you may or may not use their assets, their designs, their story and everything else they own.

I did a lot of online research on the subject, but I am not a lawyer. Want to be sure if you can use certain assets? Ask the owner. (Sega might say yes, while Disney or Nintendo will laugh in your face.)