I agree working as a team is better than alone, but this post still seems redunant; your other post was seeking an artist that might "be interested in making a game [as] partners!"
How does that differ from looking for an artist that might be interested in developing the game with you?
From there you should be able to edit the submission and get the description the way you want it... although, weird characters will still stop it from saving. :P
I agree with LDAsh; what you're talking about doesn't fit the definition of asset flipping. It would be asset flipping if, instead of customizing and deriving new assets from a base, you just found some cc0 base here on OGA, then sold it on the Unity asset store unmodified. Technically legal, but it adds no value to the asset already available.
Asset flipping is not typically applied to artists anyway. It's more about developers taking the same stock assets used in a bunch of games, and making a new (albeit feature-poor) game with them without customizing them or adapting the game or asset to truly work well with each other. Also, the negative connotation is often referring to illegal asset rips.
I definitely appreciate your thoughtfulness to the future usefulness of the assets you share, but I would say "when in doubt, just make the asset useful to you. Others will customize your donated assets as they need." Don't worry about what the best sprtiesheet arangement is, or the best neutral color scheme. Arrange the sprites the way you need them arranged. Use the colors you want in your game.
However, if you're making a whole series of small sprites that go together, it's better to edit the first submission to add the subsequent sprites than it is to create a bunch of individual submissions with one new sprite each. :) It will get a lot more favorites that way and end up sticking to the "popular this week" and "featured art" sections.
Yeah, we'll probably have to balance the level of "not driving people away" vs "not having a bunch of dead projects", but I think some level of dead projects at the bottom of the barrel is acceptable in exchange for wider community attraction. We can clean out month-old dead projects fairly easily with an automated script, I'm sure. After all, there is some pretty terrible art here on OGA because we accept pretty much everything. People don't usually see it much because it doesn't get favorited so it doesn't show up in the "popular this week" or "featured art". Never-the-less, the fact that anyone can post art here helps newbs learn their craft and broaden community participation. A lot of artists think they suck but submit anyway because of our open-arms policy. Turns out they're pretty great at it and they wouldn't have discovered that if we had said "proven artists only. novices need not apply."
"I don't think people really view their project as "better" necessarily, maybe more like "I would have done it this way" or "I prefer this style as opposed to that style". Whether it's actually better is a matter of opinion and personal preference..."
I agree. That is much better put.
"...the ability to submit a new game project by individuals ... should be restricted in some way. For instance, within a reputation system, a certain level of reputation must be earned within the community before that function becomes available."
Partially disagree. I think the option to submit a project proposal should be relatively direct. One of the major drivers of the existence of so many similar game projects out there is likely that everyone feels they have a good idea for a project, but aren't aware of other similar projects already out there. When someone has a project idea, you can't tell them "don't tell me your idea until you've listened to my idea." It just drives them away. I think we should say "yeah, tell me about your idea." then we show them the projects that are similar. That doesn't mean all new projects are displayed prominantly immediately, but I feel like much much fewer people would join the community if they felt like they had to wait and prove themselves before they were allowed to participate in that part. Kind of like how Itch.io allows new users to submit games, even if they haven't proven themselves capable of making a decent game yet. There are a lot of total garbage games on itch, but they do a pretty good job of displaying the good stuff up front. You're not wrong, though. Reducing the number of duplicate, nearly-identical, or immature project proposals is a major goal.
"Also, there should be some sort of (at least basic) skill assessment implemented similar to CodeFights to gain insight on a person's actual skills."
Great idea! I'm not sure how to approach a graphical arts or sound engineering skills assessment. At least not automated. Code-fight's method allows the assessment to need no human judging. Is there a way to do the same thing with pixel art, concept art, sound effects production, etc.? EDIT: I think a quick skills assessment could serve the function of "prove yourself before submitting a proposal". It would be direct enough that people wouldn't be turned away. It'd probably only take 5 to 10 minutes. I'm not opposed to disallowing proposal submissions for Donut users, so if they have no skills to assess (game design doesn't count) they don't get to propose game projects yet.
I believe there are plenty of talented people willing to work on a game.
I suspect these people don't collaborate on a game project more often because their own personal idea for the game they want to create is difficult to see from outside existing game projects.
They breifly look around, see some game projects, but don't see their own vision in them, so they start their own project. "I'm making a game. It's kinda like those other game projects, but it has all the things I didn't see in those other projects, so therefore, It's a much better project. Come join my project. I can see very clearly it's the best."
This isn't really arrognace. As far as each person is concerned, they're right. Their own project has that extra thing that will make it better... but it only seems that way because they understand their own idea, but not the other guy's.
Maybe when a new user signs up and clicks the "Submit a game project concept" button, the site first gathers information on the user's various skills: Music composition? what kinds? Chiptune? Orchestral? Modern? Electronica? Graphical art? what kinds? pixel art? vector? concept art? scenery? character portraits? Coding? What kinds? Java? Python? C#? Game design? gameplay concepts? ...and so on until their skills profile is built. A lot of people are going check those last two boxes, but unless they have more than that, the site will know they're probably just Donuts.
Assuming they've got skills to contribute, the site asks them several categorizing questions about the game project they want to propose to the community: Is this a 2D game? 3D? Sidescrolling? 1st person perspective? RPG? what kind of RPG? JRPG? story focused? Action RPG? What makes it special? Unique leveling system? Customizable shoe laces?
Once the site has gathered a fairly detailed set of datapoints on this user's proposal, behind the scenes, the site seaches through all the existing projects looking for a high degree of similarity. If/when it finds some, it proposes them to the user:
"Hey, that's a great concept for a game. We found some people who are interested in making something like that. Check out these similar proposals already under way. If they look close enough to what you're going for, you should jump on board! They are already building momentum and I'm sure your creative input and skills would be valuable! You're much more likely to be successful if you are part of an existing game project."
The goal here is to help make people aware of projects similar to their own vision. It's better to join an existing project with momentum and a team than to just propose yet another game project that is almost exactly like hundreds of others out there. Everyone wants to be a game designer and help create the fun aspects of a game. As long as they have a skill to contribute (other than game design) we let them express their game design ideas. If you're on a team, you get to discuss features that could make the game fun and interesting. The team discusses those ideas and votes them in, out, or needs adjustment.
I agree working as a team is better than alone, but this post still seems redunant; your other post was seeking an artist that might "be interested in making a game [as] partners!"
How does that differ from looking for an artist that might be interested in developing the game with you?
Oh, ok. Then how does this thread differ from https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/java-programmer-looking-for-a-pixel-a... ?
wait... you're looking for a game designer? not an artist, programmer, or composer? But someone to create the game concept itself?
Yeah, weird. Glad it's working for you now! :)
From there you should be able to edit the submission and get the description the way you want it... although, weird characters will still stop it from saving. :P
Does the submission contain any text you've pasted in from the clipboard?
Possibly related: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/unable-to-upload-any-art-have-a-ton-t...
I agree with LDAsh; what you're talking about doesn't fit the definition of asset flipping. It would be asset flipping if, instead of customizing and deriving new assets from a base, you just found some cc0 base here on OGA, then sold it on the Unity asset store unmodified. Technically legal, but it adds no value to the asset already available.
Asset flipping is not typically applied to artists anyway. It's more about developers taking the same stock assets used in a bunch of games, and making a new (albeit feature-poor) game with them without customizing them or adapting the game or asset to truly work well with each other. Also, the negative connotation is often referring to illegal asset rips.
I definitely appreciate your thoughtfulness to the future usefulness of the assets you share, but I would say "when in doubt, just make the asset useful to you. Others will customize your donated assets as they need." Don't worry about what the best sprtiesheet arangement is, or the best neutral color scheme. Arrange the sprites the way you need them arranged. Use the colors you want in your game.
However, if you're making a whole series of small sprites that go together, it's better to edit the first submission to add the subsequent sprites than it is to create a bunch of individual submissions with one new sprite each. :) It will get a lot more favorites that way and end up sticking to the "popular this week" and "featured art" sections.
This might be helpful: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/how-and-when-to-write-a-good-art-request :)
Yeah, we'll probably have to balance the level of "not driving people away" vs "not having a bunch of dead projects", but I think some level of dead projects at the bottom of the barrel is acceptable in exchange for wider community attraction. We can clean out month-old dead projects fairly easily with an automated script, I'm sure. After all, there is some pretty terrible art here on OGA because we accept pretty much everything. People don't usually see it much because it doesn't get favorited so it doesn't show up in the "popular this week" or "featured art". Never-the-less, the fact that anyone can post art here helps newbs learn their craft and broaden community participation. A lot of artists think they suck but submit anyway because of our open-arms policy. Turns out they're pretty great at it and they wouldn't have discovered that if we had said "proven artists only. novices need not apply."
I agree. That is much better put.
Partially disagree. I think the option to submit a project proposal should be relatively direct. One of the major drivers of the existence of so many similar game projects out there is likely that everyone feels they have a good idea for a project, but aren't aware of other similar projects already out there. When someone has a project idea, you can't tell them "don't tell me your idea until you've listened to my idea." It just drives them away. I think we should say "yeah, tell me about your idea." then we show them the projects that are similar. That doesn't mean all new projects are displayed prominantly immediately, but I feel like much much fewer people would join the community if they felt like they had to wait and prove themselves before they were allowed to participate in that part. Kind of like how Itch.io allows new users to submit games, even if they haven't proven themselves capable of making a decent game yet. There are a lot of total garbage games on itch, but they do a pretty good job of displaying the good stuff up front. You're not wrong, though. Reducing the number of duplicate, nearly-identical, or immature project proposals is a major goal.
Great idea! I'm not sure how to approach a graphical arts or sound engineering skills assessment. At least not automated. Code-fight's method allows the assessment to need no human judging. Is there a way to do the same thing with pixel art, concept art, sound effects production, etc.? EDIT: I think a quick skills assessment could serve the function of "prove yourself before submitting a proposal". It would be direct enough that people wouldn't be turned away. It'd probably only take 5 to 10 minutes. I'm not opposed to disallowing proposal submissions for Donut users, so if they have no skills to assess (game design doesn't count) they don't get to propose game projects yet.
I believe there are plenty of talented people willing to work on a game.
I suspect these people don't collaborate on a game project more often because their own personal idea for the game they want to create is difficult to see from outside existing game projects.
They breifly look around, see some game projects, but don't see their own vision in them, so they start their own project. "I'm making a game. It's kinda like those other game projects, but it has all the things I didn't see in those other projects, so therefore, It's a much better project. Come join my project. I can see very clearly it's the best."
This isn't really arrognace. As far as each person is concerned, they're right. Their own project has that extra thing that will make it better... but it only seems that way because they understand their own idea, but not the other guy's.
Maybe when a new user signs up and clicks the "Submit a game project concept" button, the site first gathers information on the user's various skills: Music composition? what kinds? Chiptune? Orchestral? Modern? Electronica? Graphical art? what kinds? pixel art? vector? concept art? scenery? character portraits? Coding? What kinds? Java? Python? C#? Game design? gameplay concepts? ...and so on until their skills profile is built. A lot of people are going check those last two boxes, but unless they have more than that, the site will know they're probably just Donuts.
Assuming they've got skills to contribute, the site asks them several categorizing questions about the game project they want to propose to the community: Is this a 2D game? 3D? Sidescrolling? 1st person perspective? RPG? what kind of RPG? JRPG? story focused? Action RPG? What makes it special? Unique leveling system? Customizable shoe laces?
Once the site has gathered a fairly detailed set of datapoints on this user's proposal, behind the scenes, the site seaches through all the existing projects looking for a high degree of similarity. If/when it finds some, it proposes them to the user:
The goal here is to help make people aware of projects similar to their own vision. It's better to join an existing project with momentum and a team than to just propose yet another game project that is almost exactly like hundreds of others out there. Everyone wants to be a game designer and help create the fun aspects of a game. As long as they have a skill to contribute (other than game design) we let them express their game design ideas. If you're on a team, you get to discuss features that could make the game fun and interesting. The team discusses those ideas and votes them in, out, or needs adjustment.
Thoughts?
Pages