PDA

View Full Version : [Discussion] Thoughts on a Community Project?


Nintendork15
January 17th, 2013, 02:53 PM
It's been floating round my head for a few weeks now.
But some of the fan game here are starting to get really good, due to everyone's skills improving.

But my main thought was, what if we all attempted a community game?
What are your guys thoughts on such a thing?
Do you feel it would be good? Or something bad is bound to happen?
or, some other reason?

DaSpirit
January 17th, 2013, 04:18 PM
I've honestly never seen a community project finish anywhere. They always fail.

I'd be better to just start an open source project.

Sunfished
January 17th, 2013, 04:19 PM
It really sounds like a fun little thing we can get into. And because of the amount of people this board REALLY has and the creativity of some who never got into game developing, we can really steamroll through this kind of project!

If your planning to attempt this, I suggest you begin as soon as possible. Every time a new Pokemon game comes out, this place gets kinda deserted...

I'll support this

Cilerba
January 17th, 2013, 04:25 PM
It really sounds like a fun little thing we can get into. And because of the amount of people this board REALLY has and the creativity of some who never got into game developing, we can really steamroll through this kind of project!

If your planning to attempt this, I suggest you begin as soon as possible. Every time a new Pokemon game comes out, this place gets kinda deserted...

I'll support this

Quite the opposite actually. When a new game is released people usually try and update their games to the latest style as soon as possible.

Maruno
January 17th, 2013, 04:25 PM
I've had this thought too. It'll be very difficult to pull off, though.

If you go for the "one leader/coordinator, everyone else contributes", then it's practically no different to any other fangame being made. The "contributions" will only be vague suggestions, meaning no actual work will get done except by the leader, who will inevitably give up once they realise they're stuck doing everything by themselves. Also, the community will never agree on anything (plot/pacing/Pokémon/mapping/etc.), so no progress will be made there anyway unless someone (the leader) takes charge and defines a direction - in which case, again, it's no different to any other fangame.

----------------------------

There is an alternative, though, and it's one I've been thinking about and which may have potential. One person works on the game at a time, and possession rotates between those who volunteer in turn. There is a strict time limit of 1 week per person, during which time they're allowed to do anything they want to the game (including undoing/redoing other people's work without remorse). At the end of their week, they send a download link to the next person on the list, and post a summary of what they've done for everyone to see. If they fail to do either of these things, their efforts are ignored and the previous week's version gets passed on instead (both the revised game and the summary are required, as it's a team effort and there shouldn't be secrets or hidden information between members; otherwise their work cannot be accepted).

The advantage of this is that people can have a go at a bit of game-making for a week, and will only contribute if they're actually interested enough to volunteer (which means they will do something). The time per person (1 week) is kept relatively short to encourage actual progress, rather than letting it get bogged down with designing new-for-the-sake-of-new systems (not to mention keeping things going relatively smoothly if someone vanishes). Meanwhile, the thread for the project will have discussion about the latest week's changes, collaboration about the story and so on, and will help direct the suggested progress of the game - the current week's developer still has absolute free reign over everything, of course. In the end all the revisions and possessions and discussions should come together to form an actual game.

Obviously someone needs to start things off first, perhaps before even making a thread for this project (so there's something to start from). Or maybe you could say that the Essentials example maps are the starting point, rather than starting with a blank slate like normal, and for starters the aim is to expand/turn them into an actual game (plans can always change later). I don't know whether it's better to let everyone download every week's revision, or whether it should be passed privately between each person as their turn comes round (the project's coordinater should also keep every revision for archiving, which is their only purpose). Everyone should definitely be kept informed of all the changes made each week, though.

Could this work?

Nintendork15
January 17th, 2013, 04:27 PM
I've honestly never seen a community project finish anywhere. They always fail.

I'd be better to just start an open source project.

The amount of people that could work on a community project, when one person leaves, there's always bound to either be someone ready to replace them, or someone who can do the same thing already in the project.

It really sounds like a fun little thing we can get into. And because of the amount of people this board REALLY has and the creativity of some who never got into game developing, we can really steamroll through this kind of project!

If your planning to attempt this, I suggest you begin as soon as possible. Every time a new Pokemon game comes out, this place gets kinda deserted...

I'll support this

I agree, this place has alot of creativity and potential, enough to make a really good game, I'm hoping enough members want to do this! ^^'

I've had this thought too. It'll be very difficult to pull off, though.

If you go for the "one leader/coordinator, everyone else contributes", then it's practically no different to any other fangame being made. The "contributions" will only be vague suggestions, meaning no actual work will get done except by the leader, who will inevitably give up once they realise they're stuck doing everything by themselves. Also, the community will never agree on anything (plot/pacing/Pokémon/mapping/etc.), so no progress will be made there anyway unless someone (the leader) takes charge and defines a direction - in which case, again, it's no different to any other fangame.

----------------------------

There is an alternative, though, and it's one I've been thinking about and which may have potential. One person works on the game at a time, and possession rotates between those who volunteer in turn. There is a strict time limit of 1 week per person, during which time they're allowed to do anything they want to the game (including undoing/redoing other people's work without remorse). At the end of their week, they send a download link to the next person on the list, and post a summary of what they've done for everyone to see. If they fail to do either of these things, their efforts are ignored and the previous week's version gets passed on instead (both the revised game and the summary are required, as it's a team effort and there shouldn't be secrets or hidden information between members; otherwise their work cannot be accepted).

The advantage of this is that people can have a go at a bit of game-making for a week, and will only contribute if they're actually interested enough to volunteer (which means they will do something). The time per person (1 week) is kept relatively short to encourage actual progress, rather than letting it get bogged down with designing new-for-the-sake-of-new systems (not to mention keeping things going relatively smoothly if someone vanishes). Meanwhile, the thread for the project will have discussion about the latest week's changes, collaboration about the story and so on, and will help direct the suggested progress of the game - the current week's developer still has absolute free reign over everything, of course. In the end all the revisions and possessions and discussions should come together to form an actual game.

Obviously someone needs to start things off first, perhaps before even making a thread for this project (so there's something to start from). Or maybe you could say that the Essentials example maps are the starting point, rather than starting with a blank slate like normal, and for starters the aim is to expand/turn them into an actual game (plans can always change later). I don't know whether it's better to let everyone download every week's revision, or whether it should be passed privately between each person as their turn comes round (the project's coordinater should also keep every revision for archiving, which is their only purpose). Everyone should definitely be kept informed of all the changes made each week, though.

Could this work?

The only problem I see with this, and a problem all together with a community project is, someone managing to sign up to this, and get to their turn, and just mess it all up.
Of course we'd have backups but it would be a real let down.

As for the passing it around, it's a well good idea, but privately would work better, but in the Project's thread the last member who worked on it, must post Screenshots of their progress and their summary sheet, and any adaptations they have made to the Design Document, including the Document itself. The private way I can see is something like Google Drive, only people you want can access the downloadables. Which means we'd all have to get Google accounts.

And yes, starting off would be a bit iffy, We'd need to make a story, and features and general plots and thing like that, that usual take a while to generate and write down.

Sunfished
January 17th, 2013, 04:48 PM
Right now, I think that a leader/owner thing is the best way to go. The "pass-the-project" around thing sounds really dangerous, as the one who DID get the game can potentially waste a whole week of progress. And on top of that, I beleive that many people would want to get in to help, which only adds to a waiting list of who gets it next.

Personally, I think we should elect certain people that has access to edit the game. That way the game is controlled and noone gets overhauled with work.

Nintendork15
January 17th, 2013, 04:52 PM
Right now, I think that a leader/owner thing is the best way to go. The "pass-the-project" around thing sounds really dangerous, as the one who DID get the game can potentially waste a whole week of progress. And on top of that, I beleive that many people would want to get in to help, which only adds to a waiting list of who gets it next.

Personally, I think we should elect certain people that has access to edit the game. That way the game is controlled and noone gets overhauled with work.

But then, that's basically the over Game Team.
But we could have different classes like;

Mappers
Scripters
Spriters
Event Makers
Concept Artists
Story and Plotters


and have them form a group every week, So one week is based on mapping, the next is scripting.
But Concepting and Spriting can be done when required as it's not AS big of an job.

Sunfished
January 17th, 2013, 04:59 PM
Ok, your idea of having "leaders" sounds better. So every leader will then lead a group of that particular class, and then let everyone vote for a feature that the class leader wil present to the game developers?

Nintendork15
January 17th, 2013, 05:03 PM
Ok, your idea of having "leaders" sounds better. So every leader will then lead a group of that particular class, and then let everyone vote for a feature that the class leader wil present to the game developers?

We'll have the Classes I mentioned; Each Class group gets a Leader?
Either when with the greatest skill or knowledge, or one we vote for, based on first option.
The leaders will produce the Weekly report, where as the Class Members can give out small updates on what they do during the week if they wish, but still it will all be written down in a Project Weekly Summary.

Maruno
January 17th, 2013, 05:06 PM
There'd be a list of everyone who volunteered to take a week, including the order/dates they go in. This would be public information. If necessary, a banlist could also be made (also public information). Also, if someone decides they want to pull out of their slot, they can; the allocations will just be bumped up by a week or a replacement can be found.

When I said "privately", I meant upload your revision to Mediafire or somewhere and just PM the next person (and the archiver) the link, rather than give everyone the link.

I'm sure someone could get a bit of inspiration and start things off (before even posting it). There's not even a real need for any plot at all at the beginning (except for "8 Gyms, Elite Four, end"). An RBY plot is more than sufficient to start with.

The extra benefit of 1-week slots is that corruption (accidental or intentional) won't have too much of an impact. It's a risk that just needs to be taken. Note that a malicious volunteer won't actually undo any progress (it'll be archived before they get their hands on it); it just means a stall of 1 week.

Deciding who can/should get the game in a particular week could be up for public debate as well, although I don't think it's really in the spirit of things. However, starting off with maybe 6 good contributions from trusted people will certainly boost interest and opinions, as well as result in a decent starting point.

Essentials is good enough to make a game without any script editing. I think this project should take that to heart and, although not expressly forbid script editing, at least suggest that mapping/eventing are the important things.

I see this project also being a chance for people to "have a go" at game-making, by diving into the middle of a project they will have read about but didn't have to spend ages designing beforehand. I think that's an attractive prospect. They'll only volunteer in the first place if they're interested in the project/game itself anyway, so it's not like they won't be able to do anything. And even if they don't want to edit the game itself, they can still play with the "big boys" and help decide on the game's direction through discussion.

Nintendork's suggestion of teams and voting and reports sounds too bureaucratic and boring to me, and too much like any other fangame group. I thought this project might be different (encourage newbies, offer experience of game-making, etc.). You know, fun.

Sunfished
January 17th, 2013, 05:10 PM
Ok then, this sounds like its planned out a bit and has some progress on how it should be handled.

I'll be happy to support the potential this project could have

Nintendork15
January 17th, 2013, 05:18 PM
I'm not 100% sure of settings on Mediafire, whether someone can just google the main words to something plus the word 'Mediafire' So: Pokemon: Pokecommunity Version Week 2 Progress Mediafire' And get the link like that, or if you can set it to private so only given links access it.

We could start with the average RBY plot, and generally add things to it yes, just we'd need to again, have a say in from anyone involved whether the last submitted idea is a good'un or not.

The only need for public debate would be the first few (6... maybe?) people to contribute, then it will be people who submit themselves to the project added to a queue. Bare in mind the queue may get long, if the project got too popular and known.

The only need for script editing would be to add feature to benefit gameplay, but that can wait a along time, till required I guess.

That suggestion would bad, most of mine would be x3 but after 2 years on a game development course, they make you try to see thing in the way a Game Dev company would, the game is passed round between groups when they would.

But, your idea seems to be a bit better, and I hope I've not thrown you off this idea :/ with my idea.

Sunfished
January 17th, 2013, 05:45 PM
Well, I really don't mind as how this is handled. I'm most likely just going to stay by the side lines and help the development progress forwards.

However, here was what I had in mind when you mentioned "leaders":

First off, there would be a main leader, the one who controls how the project be executed. This guy would have to keep an eye on how the project would be doing at all times. then, we have a group of people who are in charge of adding in the content, aka the programmers. The programmers should each have a particular job, mostly something they are good at, like the scripter or the one who adds in content. This small group would pass the game around among themselves, with the main leader being able to see the progress and keep them in line.

Then we have the class leaders, the ones who control a certain "class". These guys would first make some sort of post that gathered up ideas that pertained to their class, then afterwards put up a voting system that anyone can vote in. The class leader would then present what they deemed noteworthy and important from the votes to the programmers to add in.

And of course we need some sort of way to keep track of all thats been approved and in the queue of adding, which i think the leader whould be in charge of.

Doing it this way allows almost everyone to be able to participate and add in only the most popular content, without making the community feel like the project has a strict judgment on content, since its more of a popular vote thing. Doing it the pass-it-around way is far longer and many ranges of content is added, leaving the game more like a random garbled mess.

Nintendork15
January 17th, 2013, 05:51 PM
Well, I really don't mind as how this is handled. I'm most likely just going to stay by the side lines and help the development progress forwards.

However, here was what I had in mind when you mentioned "leaders":

First off, there would be a main leader, the one who controls how the project be executed. This guy would have to keep an eye on how the project would be doing at all times. then, we have a group of people who are in charge of adding in the content, aka the programmers. The programmers should each have a particular job, mostly something they are good at, like the scripter or the one who adds in content. This small group would pass the game around among themselves, with the main leader being able to see the progress and keep them in line.

Then we have the class leaders, the ones who control a certain "class". These guys would first make some sort of post that gathered up ideas that pertained to their class, then afterwards put up a voting system that anyone can vote in. The class leader would then present what they deemed noteworthy and important from the votes to the programmers to add in.

And of course we need some sort of way to keep track of all thats been approved and in the queue of adding, which i think the leader whould be in charge of.

Doing it this way allows almost everyone to be able to participate and add in only the most popular content, without making the community feel like the project has a strict judgment on content, since its more of a popular vote thing. Doing it the pass-it-around way is far longer and many ranges of content is added, leaving the game more like a random garbled mess.

But with the pass-around idea, if someone sees something that looks off, they'll ask, and improve it to a better standard. I've come to realize the group idea would take a long time to organize and put into actions.

Like Maruno said this group would work better if it was simply a sign in, work for a week to try things out and go. Maybe come back if you liked it.
So, more of a taster maybe, for new Developers to try their hands at a Fan game, without the hassle of work on a story and stuff.

Maruno
January 17th, 2013, 06:04 PM
Doing it the pass-it-around way is far longer and many ranges of content is added, leaving the game more like a random garbled mess.
Which will take longer: organising teams of people who are skilled in the various areas (particularly scripting) and who will stick around and continue working on this project, then making many polls about various bits of content to be added, finding the most popular ones, scrutinising them and passing them on to the actual game-makers... or telling the first volunteer: "here's a copy of Essentials, RBY plot, go"?

Which lets the average person feel more like part of the project: voting in a few polls... or being able to own the game for a week and being able to freely discuss ideas in the project's thread?

It won't become garbled, because there will be guidelines developed in-thread (which can be ignored, but will probably in practice be followed). If someone adds something that doesn't fit, the next person can remove it without permission (it no longer belongs to the previous person, after all). The garble will cancel itself out in the end. Some volunteers may even volunteer solely to help tidy things up rather than add new stuff (I know I may well do this).

There are two sides to this project: editing the game, and discussing the suggested aims/plot/whatever. They can be quite separate, although the latter should incorporate whatever the former does (even if just to say "someone please remove factor X") and be quite dynamic, and the former may well depend on what the latter says (if the volunteer that week wants to stick to the suggestions, which they probably will because liking the suggestions is probably why they volunteered in the first place). It's quite an interesting dynamic. People can participate in either/both sides, whatever they want.

Sunfished
January 17th, 2013, 06:06 PM
But realize that this was a community project working together to make a game. unless you decided at the get-go that this should be more of a teaching thing, I only see the inevitable fate of this to be full of fighting on what to keep, lone-wolf type of programming, and just slapping things together.

My earlier post was basically a shortened down version of how real gaming industries really handle projects. And with the classes and leaders thing set up, There would be no waiting times for content to be added in, allowing for a smoother and more controlled input of features.

While it may be longer than expected, it will turn out to be better in the long run.

Nintendork15
January 17th, 2013, 06:12 PM
Two things I'll be curious of:

Who's the 'Leader' going to be?
Of course this will most likely come down to voting (or some other method, feel free to suggest, of course the Leader would need to be fully motivated and prepared to keep track of all this.

Speaking of fully motivated, if the 'Leader' were to bail and get 'out' of the project, we'd need a Co-Leader or Vice-Leader to fill in the gap or if the 'Leader' is absent for IRL purposes, for the week.

But realize that this was a community project working together to make a game. unless you decided at the get-go that this should be more of a teaching thing, I only see the inevitable fate of this to be full of fighting on what to keep, lone-wolf type of programming, and just slapping things together.

My earlier post was basically a shortened down version of how real gaming industries really handle projects. And with the classes and leaders thing set up, There would be no waiting times for content to be added in, allowing for a smoother and more controlled input of features.

While it may be longer than expected, it will turn out to be better in the long run.

This isn't really a 'teaching' thing. Of course members volunteering would need to be able to know the basics of RMXP. It would more or less be a Skill testing group project, making a game at the end, but possibly and hopefully learninging what makes a good game or improving along the way how to make one.
Kind of like my college group, we start with knowing a little of GML (Game maker Language) and improve our skills, while making our own game as a submitable assignment for the end of the year.

Of course it will be long, maybe longer if required, but it'll be worth it, all games take time to be made to a marketable quality standard of course this project won't be marketed, don't wanna be sue'd now, do we?

Sunfished
January 17th, 2013, 07:02 PM
Ah, I just realized how different our views are on this is.(zekrom/reshiram joke set aside)

Your idea is literally the "community" creates a game, putting a whole lot of emphasis on the community as a whole being able to bend the game as they personally themselves see fit.

Mine, however, is more of an emphasis on the "create" part, allowing the community create a game together, not in a literal tense, through the best ideas that the community as a whole decided.

Well, whatever you decide is really up to you, and I agree that the community should cooperate together and make something worthwhile. Its been nice constructively arguing with you.:P

DaSpirit
January 17th, 2013, 07:56 PM
As for the passing it around, it's a well good idea, but privately would work better, but in the Project's thread the last member who worked on it, must post Screenshots of their progress and their summary sheet, and any adaptations they have made to the Design Document, including the Document itself. The private way I can see is something like Google Drive, only people you want can access the downloadables. Which means we'd all have to get Google accounts.
I thought you wanted this to be a community project?

And what happens when two people work on two different things at once or even the same things at once? That could cause headaches. I think the best thing would be a source repository, although I don't know whether it RPG Maker has support for something like this.

Cilerba
January 17th, 2013, 08:04 PM
You guys could always just work off of Dropbox so everyone has access to the game's files and it's constantly updating every time somebody makes a change.

Ayutac
January 17th, 2013, 08:10 PM
I thought you wanted this to be a community project?

And what happens when two people work on two different things at once or even the same things at once? That could cause headaches. I think the best thing would be a source repository, although I don't know whether it RPG Maker has support for something like this.
As with the Java Engine? I agree with the repository, this should be enough to get the evil code deleters out of the way. As for the compatibility with RPG-Maker, one could just write a program for that. As for Dropbox, one deletes something, it is deleted everywhere unless you have a special version of Dropbox.

Sunfished
January 17th, 2013, 08:15 PM
Dropbox, however, only updates the game files once your done editing it. If two people were to have the same files open at once, the one who saved the file last would completely overwrite what the first person did.

DaSpirit
January 17th, 2013, 08:22 PM
It depends on how RPG Maker's format is. If all scripts are saved into separate files, it would be fine. I haven't used RPG Maker so I don't know if it's like that. But if it is, it would be good enough and Dropbox should be able to catch any saving errors.

Catman
January 18th, 2013, 02:09 AM
I'm not that much of a master at Pokemon related stuff but I am good at creating landscapes. I'd be glad to help you out in that regard.

Maruno
January 18th, 2013, 02:45 AM
I honestly think you're over-complicating this. Surly the goal of this project is not to give experience of/insight into the world of game development, but just to make a game with everyone?

As soon as you form a dedicated team to work on the game (which will be difficult), you create a divide between them and the community. The team will have the last word on what happens with the game, which means they can easily ignore the community if they want to. There may also be a degree of elitism about it. To me, this sounds no different from any other fangame, which I've said before is a bad way to go about this. The community as a whole ends up as nothing more than a fringe audience, and ends up not feeling very connected to the game they're supposedly helping to make, which is the opposite of what a community project should be.

No, everyone should be treated as equally as possible, to allow everyone to feel as much a part of the game as everyone else. Hence my pass-it-around idea. It's not a teaching thing, it's a way to get everyone involved. By its nature, it solves the problem of multiple people working on the same/conflicting things at once, as well as (mostly) avoid any possibility of elitism and exclusion, and the problem of malicious/accidental corruption (the archiver archives every week's version by themselves).

I disagree that pass-it-around would be slower than dedicated-team. The quick pass-it-around encourages broader and less complex contributions (e.g. mapping/eventing rather than scripting), which means more maps will be created, which means more of the game itself will be created more quickly. Conversely, have a look at all the fangames which buried themselves in details and stalled/failed. Essentials is good enough to make a game all by itself without needing to re-script things, isn't it? It's supposed to be, after all.

Of course, the community can work on more substantial things than just plot while someone else has possession of the game. Region maps, Pokédexes, tilesets (if desired), perhaps even some scripting can all be done independently, and given to the current possessor to add in. This gets the community even more involved.

FL
January 18th, 2013, 03:08 AM
Maruno rotation idea seems interesting, but I thinks that the big problem are that one week can be too much/little to do certain things, may generates problems with continuity, and is too serial. The most effective (in my vision) are some groups with:

But then, that's basically the over Game Team.
But we could have different classes like;

Mappers
Scripters
Spriters
Event Makers
Concept Artists
Story and Plotters


and have them form a group every week, So one week is based on mapping, the next is scripting.
But Concepting and Spriting can be done when required as it's not AS big of an job.In parallel instead of per week.

Each group have a leader and maybe coordinators, with the main development team and only the main leader of main development (who needs to be very active) needs edit the main project. The key is to make separate and parallel things, like sprites that, with a group leader that manage people to don't do the same thing (rework is a great enemy), works very well in parallel, even with dozens of people. With maps and script may work with copy/paste the file/script changes. The main leader only needs to combine everything and done one thing or other, like events, and even may do with models done for other people. Maybe the leader launch some builds (maybe open source) every 1-3 months to the group have a model to follow. Of corse, some people can be in more than one grop at same time.

The project will remain as long that exist people with interest and a minimun skill to pass the torch forward, keeping an active project holder.

I've had this thought too. It'll be very difficult to pull off, though.

If you go for the "one leader/coordinator, everyone else contributes", then it's practically no different to any other fangame being made. The "contributions" will only be vague suggestions, meaning no actual work will get done except by the leader, who will inevitably give up once they realise they're stuck doing everything by themselves. Also, the community will never agree on anything (plot/pacing/Pokémon/mapping/etc.), so no progress will be made there anyway unless someone (the leader) takes charge and defines a direction - in which case, again, it's no different to any other fangame.Just as I said, the main problem is the lack of interested people with certain skill level. If you divide the work to one people/group to update the tilesets/charsets, one people to update the PBS, one people to do the maps, among others, this can be very more quicker.

As soon as you form a dedicated team to work on the game (which will be difficult), you create a divide between them and the community. The team will have the last word on what happens with the game, which means they can easily ignore the community if they want to. There may also be a degree of elitism about it. To me, this sounds no different from any other fangame, which I've said before is a bad way to go about this. The community as a whole ends up as nothing more than a fringe audience, and ends up not feeling very connected to the game they're supposedly helping to make, which is the opposite of what a community project should be.I disagree, even the biggest wikis have their teams and leaders.

Maruno
January 18th, 2013, 04:11 AM
Maruno rotation idea seems interesting, but I thinks that the big problem are that one week can be too much/little to do certain things, may generates problems with continuity, and is too serial. The most effective (in my vision) are some groups with:

In parallel instead of per week.

Each group have a leader and maybe coordinators, with the main development team and only the main leader of main development (who needs to be very active) needs edit the main project. The key is to make separate and parallel things, like sprites that, with a group leader that manage people to don't do the same thing (rework is a great enemy), works very well in parallel, even with dozens of people. With maps and script may work with copy/paste the file/script changes. The main leader only needs to combine everything and done one thing or other, like events, and even may do with models done for other people. Maybe the leader launch some builds (maybe open source) every 1-3 months to the group have a model to follow. Of corse, some people can be in more than one grop at same time.

The project will remain as long that exist people with interest and a minimun skill to pass the torch forward, keeping an active project holder.

Just as I said, the main problem is the lack of interested people with certain skill level. If you divide the work to one people/group to update the tilesets/charsets, one people to update the PBS, one people to do the maps, among others, this can be very more quicker.
Continuity would be sorted out by people discussing it in the project's thread, as well as the occasional tidy-up volunteer (I said I might volunteer to do that). The allotted time per person could be different, or vary according to what each person asks for (to a limit) - I suggested a week as a starting point, since no one knows what the optimal way of working this kind of idea would be - it hasn't been done before.

I honestly doubt a project like this which requires teams and team members will be able to gather them all, let alone retain them. You said this yourself. I don't think there's any advantage to making teams out of people rather than let people make contributions if/when they want. Committed people will work regardless of whether they're called "part of the team" or not.

I've already said that other people can do things in parallel with the current week's volunteer. I gave examples of town maps, Pokédexes and so forth, and that could quite easily apply to maps too. It'd be up to the volunteers to add those contributions into the game (if they want to). I did notice that you apparently assumed a complete replacement of all the graphics would be required, which is a rather silly thing to assume.

Besides, the point isn't necessarily about speed (not that I think pass-it-around would be appreciably slower than other methods anyway). It's about it being a community project. "Serial" or not, it lets everyone have an equal go at it. Surely that's the point of calling it "communal"? Don't dismiss it just because it's different, because it is different and may well require a different approach to every other fangame.


I disagree, even the biggest wikis have their teams and leaders.
This isn't a wiki, this is a game. Wikis automatically allow everyone to contribute regardless of the leadership structure. If Wikipedia only let nominated staff edit articles, and asked the rest of the world to discuss and propose changes (which could simply be ignored), then it would be more like what you're proposing. It would also be rubbish, obviously, and definitely couldn't be called a community project.

If there is a team and/or leader (preferably just 1 person, if any), then their job should solely be to make sure things don't get out of hand (this doesn't include preventing the game from turning into something they don't personally like). The less intervention on their part, the better.

FL
January 18th, 2013, 05:04 AM
Continuity would be sorted out by people discussing it in the project's thread, as well as the occasional tidy-up volunteer (I said I might volunteer to do that). The allotted time per person could be different, or vary according to what each person asks for (to a limit) - I suggested a week as a starting point, since no one knows what the optimal way of working this kind of idea would be - it hasn't been done before.Continuity that I'm saying is to understand the code/event variables used. To someone successfully does this, this person needs to virtually browse thought several events and keeps a good eye on changes. Of corse, this can be considerably speeds up if this have a good documentation, but some details will be missed. This also will be hard to get ideas and has other people rotation problems.

I honestly doubt a project like this which requires teams and team members will be able to gather them all, let alone retain them. You said this yourself. I don't think there's any advantage to making teams out of people rather than let people make contributions if/when they want. Committed people will work regardless of whether they're called "part of the team" or not.You're right in this point. There also some ways to incentive contributions.

I did notice that you apparently assumed a complete replacement of all the graphics would be required, which is a rather silly thing to assume. I don't assumed that this is required.

Besides, the point isn't necessarily about speed (not that I think pass-it-around would be appreciably slower than other methods anyway). It's about it being a community project. "Serial" or not, it lets everyone have an equal go at it. Surely that's the point of calling it "communal"? Don't dismiss it just because it's different, because it is different and may well require a different approach to every other fangame.But speed is a important element. Slow results may make people (and public) to lose interest.

Like I said, your idea is interesting, but, in my vision, I don't think that is the most effective that with leaders.

This isn't a wiki, this is a game. Wikis automatically allow everyone to contribute regardless of the leadership structure. If Wikipedia only let nominated staff edit articles, and asked the rest of the world to discuss and propose changes (which could simply be ignored), then it would be more like what you're proposing. It would also be rubbish, obviously, and definitely couldn't be called a community project.

If there is a team and/or leader (preferably just 1 person, if any), then their job should solely be to make sure things don't get out of hand (this doesn't include preventing the game from turning into something they don't personally like). The less intervention on their part, the better.It's is only a example that even community projects needs leaders.

nuzamaki90
January 18th, 2013, 05:58 AM
I think this would actually be pretty cool and a lot of fun.

One problem I found though was the fact that we would probably never decide on ideas for stories, Pokemon/Fakemon, certain maps, certain characters, ect.

But then I thought, since it is a Community Project, why not get the Community decide by polls? Anyone who's got ideas for the above stuff could post it in a thread and the community could vote on which one they'd like the most, and it'd get the whole community involved in the community project lol

Nintendork15
January 18th, 2013, 11:53 AM
Maruno's idea, now seems easiest, with week-week-pass-it-around.
It give everyone a chance to eventually do something to the community project.

Have everyone do something at once then just handing it to the leader to compile together will just cause a whole load of confusion.

I'm not that much of a master at Pokemon related stuff but I am good at creating landscapes. I'd be glad to help you out in that regard.

No one said it would have to be a Pokemon game.

But that's just the generic choice on this forum.

Ben.
January 21st, 2013, 08:49 AM
It's a great idea but our community really couldn't handle it. It'd be total chaos.

BlitŻ
January 21st, 2013, 09:39 PM
It's a great idea but our community really couldn't handle it. It'd be total chaos.

I've been going around today advocating use of a revision control system for many projects, and it is all the more important for projects like this with multiple developers. It will be chaos if there is no organization, but if the people involved familiarized with a strong VCS such as Git, Mercurial or Bazaar they an easily handle multiple developers in a project (however, it would not have the same consistency as traditional software project due to lack of native support).

There should be an organizational leader, such as someone who hosts the repository, manages the thread, since there can only be one of those, but due to the transparency of a VCS the community will not see one person as the project spearhead.

p.claydon
January 22nd, 2013, 10:51 AM
sounds like a real good idea if it can be done properly

KingCharizard
January 22nd, 2013, 02:21 PM
There is an alternative, though, and it's one I've been thinking about and which may have potential. One person works on the game at a time, and possession rotates between those who volunteer in turn. There is a strict time limit of 1 week per person, during which time they're allowed to do anything they want to the game (including undoing/redoing other people's work without remorse). At the end of their week, they send a download link to the next person on the list, and post a summary of what they've done for everyone to see. If they fail to do either of these things, their efforts are ignored and the previous week's version gets passed on instead (both the revised game and the summary are required, as it's a team effort and there shouldn't be secrets or hidden information between members; otherwise their work cannot be accepted).

The advantage of this is that people can have a go at a bit of game-making for a week, and will only contribute if they're actually interested enough to volunteer (which means they will do something). The time per person (1 week) is kept relatively short to encourage actual progress, rather than letting it get bogged down with designing new-for-the-sake-of-new systems (not to mention keeping things going relatively smoothly if someone vanishes). Meanwhile, the thread for the project will have discussion about the latest week's changes, collaboration about the story and so on, and will help direct the suggested progress of the game - the current week's developer still has absolute free reign over everything, of course. In the end all the revisions and possessions and discussions should come together to form an actual game.

Obviously someone needs to start things off first, perhaps before even making a thread for this project (so there's something to start from). Or maybe you could say that the Essentials example maps are the starting point, rather than starting with a blank slate like normal, and for starters the aim is to expand/turn them into an actual game (plans can always change later). I don't know whether it's better to let everyone download every week's revision, or whether it should be passed privately between each person as their turn comes round (the project's coordinater should also keep every revision for archiving, which is their only purpose). Everyone should definitely be kept informed of all the changes made each week, though.

Could this work?

for something like this to work you would need a foundation, an agreed story/plot, tiles, and what not. I dont see it working if yu have no foundation to build from, if you don't it'll probably become a huge mess that doesn't make sense

Rolyataylor2
January 27th, 2013, 08:42 AM
I Think that to make a community project you would need a set of tools to collaborate. You should open a GIT repository or use Google Docs to be able to share ideas and such. I would suggest using my site but the tools are not implemented yet. I have had luck using code.google.com and use their project hosting. Maybe use the bug reporting system to take suggestions.

HI nuzamaki :D

Catman
January 27th, 2013, 09:58 AM
I was wondering about the new code doc on Google Drive. What languages does it support? Any syntax checking in it yet?

[Edit]: Looks like it is designed for creating Google Chrome apps, not as helpful as it seemed...

carmaniac
January 27th, 2013, 10:09 AM
This is not that bad of an idea, but note "not that bad." The idea can either go two ways, become unbelievably hard to maintain communication between all the people who like to work on it, or becoming rather organised giving a smooth production. The thing about community projects is, there's always going to be a lack of communication in some point or another, leading to broken scheduled times of who's working on what etc. But if there's enough organisation in the project, I don't see why not. It'd at least bring the community together somehow :)