I have this idea that works like this: Say you make a game, then unpublish it to fix it up. then you republish it. Contrary to what it says when you unpublish the game, YOU DO NOT LOSE RATINGS! They remain. so when you republish the game in a better (or worse) condition, the votes are going to be outdated/obsolete.
We can fix this by having a Version System, where you can choose whether or not republish a game under a different version or the same version.
no, i wouldnt. i would rather take the time to do it right the first time around and move on to another story.
nate
But they're not. Matt(h)ias for example, has a huge amount of spelling mistakes. Besides, that is just about the only reason we unpublish them. to fix them up. Having outdated ratings is a blight that must be eliminated. Like tsmpaul's RUSH! people rated that down and have not changed the ratings. Yet it is a masterpiece.
An alternative would be the ability to copy a game, then publish that as a version 2. however, this is open to exploitation.
alexp is rarely on the site. Look. JJJ.
You are the sceptic on the site. You thoroughly bug-test your games. You may not care.
But, If someone makes a game, then realises he/she could do better, fixes it up, gives it new options, more description, etc, then republishes it, is it really fair that their games keep the bad ratings from before which no longer apply?
This will not apply to you. But do have a problem with it apart from that? When we leave comments, they tell people how to improve a storygame.
If they cannot do that without losing the outdated ratings, most will not bother.
There are a lot of small-time Readers and Contributors, who, If they fixed up the game, would make a masterpiece. If you dont like the versions thingy, why not let a member copy a game, fix it, then republish it under the same name, but with the site automatically adding "Version 2".
I rest my case.
Yes, BUT. If this was active you would fix it up to get better ratings, no? This is about encouragement and incentive to fix up a game. Saying "you deserve it" will counteract the Comments Feature (which are meant to give ways to improve a game.)
There will be no point giving advice if the author doesn't fix the game, and if there is no incentive they will not fix it.
ah, but If you dont test and edit and draft first, The author will have to put in that work later, when it will be far tougher.
This was an interesting discussion. I try to fall back on what our work (i.e. storygames) is based upon, and books do indeed have versions. They're called Editions.I'd like to keep the discussion going, because I think it has merit.
Why do books have second editions?
Do works of fiction tend to have 2nd editions?
What changes between 1st and 2nd editions?
personally, i dont think anything should change. the few reasons people have given for not making a complete game are not good enough to justify this concept. (i get too lazy, i dont have time, i get bored with it.) as a "consumer" of your products, i.e. your stories, i expect and want a finished product, not a work in progress. you want to write a series? fine, no problem there, just make the previous story a finished product. thats my main thought about this right now, ill comment more later.
Why are we going to double unfinished works?
Also, the way we are going now means that people will never fix bugs if they already have a large number of ratings. After rating a game, most people never do so again. As well as this, what about the comments screen? This is a way to provide feedback on how to improve/expand a game. This feedback is useless if there is no point using it.
Also, my opponents argue that people who spend time to bug test their games thoroughly will have wasted their effort. This is not true. To fix up a game AFTER you've published it takes more effort, as you may have forgotten the workings of the game.
To my opponents, I say: This is not doing you any harm, all of us make mistakes, and finally saying "x deserved it" is just mean, inflexible and naive.
Rommel, how about you do this, just post on your game the date of updates like 3j does. that way, people who rate your game will know whether or not you have updated it since they rated it.
Geez, so much for the turn "user friendly" <toilet flushes>.
And besides your obvious disrespect for fixed up games, how is this harming any of you skeptics? I posted this thread to try and make a more author/user friendly website.
A lot of people don't agree with me on this either for some reason, but these storygames are closer to text-based computer games than CYAs (because they're on computers and use code, in-built variables, etc...)
That was one type of bug, I had trouble with variables, items and links as well. As for testing, I extensively tested it. After I fixed up all the bugs (after having unpublished it and republished it several times), I had a bunch of ratings from when I had the basic game, which was crap. These are a list of changes:
Original Game: 6 years (chapters) of choices, score, and 2 "hitler madness" items. It had hundreds of bugs.
Changes:
Added "paratroopers" option
Added submachinegun item
Fixed score bugs
Added time travel to 1936 option
Fixed time travel bugs
Fixed spelling
Added WWI and WWIII time travel options.
All these things I added based on the comments I recieved. That is how the comments are supposed to work. But the 10 or so people that did'nt change the rating, who played the first, lousy edition, have stilled rated the game a 1. That is my propostition; to get rid of obsolete ratings.
PS: I'm also thinking of expanding WWI and WWIII a lot more...
1- I only thought of expansions after I published the game.
2- Why not have my suggested system instead?
3- Not many games have people play them over and over again..
4- I want to be rid of the ratings I recieved before I made those hundreds of changes.
1- I have already put updates in the comments.
2- The reason to implement the system is to stop obsolete ratings, thats why.
3- Also, you only get points for rating a game once. but still, this is the souce of the problem. And WWII GS is not linear.
4- I like my storygames getting credit. I don't really care for the comments, they just tell me more ways to improve it.
I agree with October. Just tell people that the game has been updated. I would play a game again if I knew it had been changed. I have replayed games and upped the ratings because I liked it better the second or third time.
My opinion- if you have bad ratings on a game, then even if you fix up the game and change it, you still deserve to keep the bad ratings-- at least until people choose to change their rating. After all, you did choose to publish a game that had a lot of bugs, or wasn't well written, or whatever. It's not fair that you can just erase that and try again with a blank slate.
I understand if it seems wrong that people who aren't on the site any more may have rated you low, and they won't change their score, but we add new members, and they will give you a better rating.
Nobody's even really talked about how good games would be penalized by losing their good ratings. Say thatguy finally came back to add the uberending to Wal-Mart. Should he lose all 48 ratings and have to start over?
My final vote (not that we're voting) Re-published games should keep their previous ratings.
Good games would not lose ratings unless the author chose to make Version 2. Also, my WWII GS was not debugged, but Expanded through positive feedback in the comments section (what comments were intended for in the first place!). I actively improved the game though the advice of my critics. I would also like to point out that it is also my first game. I am even thinking of making another expansion next week (when I get back from aquatics camp).
Also, have you PLAYED WWII GS!?
you cant fault him for being persistant. hes a determined person lol. we have seen many people like that.
Rommel, I did play your game. Check the comments. I liked it. I don't remember off hand what I rated it, but I wouldn't have commented what I did if I didn't like the game.
Sometimes guests rate things low just to be jerks. The Proposal has twenty-one "1" ratings. I don't think 21 people on this site hated that game that much.
lol Nate, I get the hint :P
But comon Rommel. Start afresh we dont want/need this.
