New Reply
Name
×
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files50MB total
Tegaki
Password
[New Reply]


Keep at it, Anon!


agdg.png
[Hide] (620.6KB, 470x750)
Aching to post but don't want to pollute the progress general with nonsense? Post here instead.
1636307981230.jpg
[Hide] (51KB, 480x467)
Good god I'm going to have an existential crisis just looking at playtesters for other games, I won't be able to handle watching someone play my game. I'll lose my fucking mind and go on a shooting spree or something.

I can completely understand why games put yellow paint everywhere and make someone constantly give you voice lines telling you what to do and force you through overbearing annoying tutorials. There are absolutely fucking braindead zombies out there pretending to be humans. Like the game's primary menu has 3 things in it and people wont look at it long enough to understand what to do nor will they try to interact with any of the UI elements.

They will make a critically important discovery about game mechanics, they will even vocalize that discovery like "oh if you do X then Y", but then, I don't fucking understand how, they will play as if they never made that discovery and get fucked over and over and over and will not at all attempt use the information they just learned 5 seconds ago.
Replies: >>2139 >>2144
>>2138
this is because most people are taught to be mindless slaves, just think about it like this: it makes it more likely you can profit off of them. That should put your mood back to positive.
Replies: >>2140 >>2141
>>2139
>just think about it like this: it makes it more likely you can profit off of them. That should put your mood back to positive.
Well-spoken, am I right ((( fellow White man )))?
Replies: >>2142
>>2139
>it makes it more likely you can profit off of them
It doesn't if your goal is to make a good game. A good game respects the player's ability to think and play the game and make decisions. If you want to sell your game to golems then you have to make the game worse to humans who have a soul.

The best way to solve this would be to create your game as you want and then add a retard mode later, but the problem is that you can't get people to pick the correct mode. If you call it "retard journalist mode", nobody wants to think they're the retard so nobody will pick it. If you call the retard mode "normal mode", and call the normal mode "gamer mode", then a lot of people will think the gamer mode is a special challenge mode and will pick the retard mode instead, and a lot of retards will think they're "gamers" and pick the gamer mode instead of the retard mode.
Replies: >>2142
>>2140
I fully admit it sounds kiked but the fact that kikes can take advantage of so many people proves that people are susceptible to it. Might as well benefit as well, right?

>>2141
or just make a good game and a soulless cashgrab and make both something good and something profitable
Replies: >>2143
1222r3df2rrr3MEM030723.jpg-2.jpeg
[Hide] (351.7KB, 2000x1829)
12292r3df2rrr3MEM280823.jpg.jpg
[Hide] (77.5KB, 640x370)
>>2142
>Might as well benefit as well, right?
"Corrupt is as corrupt does", they tell me.
Replies: >>2145
>>2138
discerning whether you suck at explaining things to players or whether the playtester is actually braindead is a  skill in itself. when i playtested my game i'd tell them my job is to sit back, shut up and watch them play, then i just take notes on my phone of what they did, any bugs they encountered, where they got stuck and how it can be resolved, etc. i'd only help them if they explicitly asked them or if they were about to do something that i knew would softlock them. you might want to playtest it with people that know vidya works and then work back from there.
Replies: >>2146 >>2147
>>2143
Knowing the difference between taking advantage of a system that you can't change and having a moral obligation to abstain from participating in a system to stop perpetuating it are two different things. If I personally don't make games that exploit tendencies in people I'm just gimping myself. I mean if I wanted to fight the system at all I'd be being a terrorist or something right? But I don't want to do that, I want to make games. So just, add stuff to your games that makes it more likely to sell. Well how do you do that? Well, you take advantage of the plethora of idiots. Does that make me bad? Does it mean I love devil worshippers who rape children in DC? No, it means I wanna make games and I know that gullible idiots are a dime a dozen and they like it when games have a pet the dog mechanic or proximity chat or childishly cartoony horror mascots or whatever. What's the harm in adding those? Does making a deckbuilder roguelite autobattler with cute girls mean I'm supporting the bignose tribe in their dominion of the world? No it means I made a game that appeals to people, dummy. It's like refusing to drink alcohol in europe fifteen hundred years ago on moral grounds; No you dummy, it's safer than water right then, right there. You can still drink water if you're careful and know it isn't from some polluted river but it doesn't mean you're better off doing it as a rule, even if in an ideal society all the water is clean. Because you're more likely to be imperiled by that decision. And you don't even have to become an alcoholic, you can just drink a little bit! You see what I mean?
>>2144
this is good advice. Bonus: You can positively respond to advice from good playtesters and negatively respond to advice from bad playtesters to benefit from both. If a good playtester suggests an addition, you could try that addition out; if a bad playtester suggests an addition, you could try removing complications from what they were trying at the time. Just like how when you look at reviews for products and a well-thought-out review you can take at face value, but a poorly-written review you can read between the lines and see what they did wrong and if they just misunderstood an intended function of the product or something.
>>2144
>discerning whether you suck at explaining things to players or whether the playtester is actually braindead
Sometimes there's just no ambiguity. If the player shoots a shield-holding enemy and the bullets just make "clink" sounds and the enemy just won't die, then they try melee and the shield flies away, then the player says, out loud, "oh you can destroy their shield with melee", but then continues to shoot at shielded enemies and losing for the rest of the playtest, there's no other way to interpret that than the player not being a human.

>i'd only help them if they explicitly asked
That's exactly what you're NOT supposed to do. You're only allowed to talk to the player if they're getting blocked by some bug or obvious game design mistake or ambiguity that you'll fix/improve later and already know how you're going to do it, that blocker would not actually happen in the final game so watching them struggle with it isn't useful to anyone.

The player isn't going to have the developer giving them advice or comments in a real gameplay scenario, the moments of struggle are exactly what you want: to learn what the players struggle with and how, and what kinds of things they try to do as a result, for example there might be a specific menu where they try looking at. There's a lot of things that players don't understand at first and it might seem like a mistake from your part, but that's just because they're new and they'll soon learn as they play more. The more you interact with the player the more you distort the whole playtest into something unnatural and unhelpful, in fact the ideal playthrough would not even have you watching because people act differently when they know they're being watched.

Also, as soon as you start helping the player, you're conditioning them to think less and pay less attention, and they become more likely to rely on you. This is why streamers suck at games despite playing them all day every day, because they condition themselves to look at the chat for answers instead of using their own brain to problem solve. It's also why yellow paint and quest markers and minimaps are counter-productive, because you're teaching players to be handheld through the game instead of learning to pay attention to the actual game world.
Replies: >>2149
3679a8781a85325ea11b6b197d8fa73ed954c084b77556766a926a98a66ab8dd.png
[Hide] (30.6MB, 9843x5906)
How are you, anon?
Replies: >>2150 >>2151 >>2155
>>2147
>there's no other way to interpret that than the player not being a human.
then write them off as being retarded. if several other people make the same mistake then it means you're not communicating the mechanics clearly enough, or (unlikely) you got a huge batch of retards and you'll have to use your best judgment to discern.
>everything else
you're overthinking it
stop splitting hairs and work on your gaem and use your best judgment
you are working on a gaem right?
>>2148
(assuming you're addressing it to whoever)
pretty good, got a great many of checks taken off my to-do list today, regardless of their irrelevance to making games, but whatever I'm happy.
>>2148
sometimes i feel like the game will never be done, but i am continuing regardless
i will become yesdev and the next todd howard/yoko taro/kojombulous but actually good
Replies: >>2152 >>2153 >>2154
>>2151
not him but I believe in you
never_give_up.gif
[Hide] (705.5KB, 500x211)
>>2151
>>2151
All of those were good at making friends and making people work for them.
2249147_2262_3216_1172571.jpg
[Hide] (1.1MB, 2262x3216)
>>2148
I just want to work on a game or some other project, but all of them have obstacles that I can't surpass. Maybe this is as far as I can go. You guys go on without me.
Replies: >>2156
>>2155
Take a break if you need to, but don't give up on your dreams.
They will never come true unless you're the one who cares for them.
How long does it take to make something brilliant like Outer Wilds? Apparently the game was in development for seven or more years.
Replies: >>2162 >>2164
>>2161
Seven or more years, obvs. Stay the course, Anon.
>>2161
you need a team to even attempt it
[New Reply]
22 replies | 7 files
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.7.0