What Should I Do With The Xmas Game Submissions…?

I don’t mean to rush anyone, and I was about to close the submission possibility now. There’s so many games that in the following days there’s definitely more than 1 game per day to appear in the xmas site.

My idea is that… I would allow submissions, but only the ones that have been submitted so far would be shown in the site before 24th day. And… on the 24th day there would be a big icon list of ALL games that were submitted. This icon list would stay there for people to test.

I think this could be a nice compromise, as I would hate to close the submissions possibility as you guys clearly are putting new games there.

Hmm. It’s good to think out loud. In the beginning of this blog post (as you can guess from the title) I wasn’t sure how to deal with the submissions but by the end of this blog post (as you can probably guess if you’ve read this far) I now know what to do.

Thanks for your help!

This wasn’t the first time something like this happens. I talk with a collegue, ask out loud what to do with thing A and feature Y and continue talking… and finally I have the decision made before the other guy has even said anything. I’m sure you’ve experienced the same. This was probably the first time this occurred during writing a blog post though.

The Guide On How to Approach People

Words are important. Words and how one expresses himself have a big meaning. For example, whether I use a word “I”, “you”, or “one” it gives a different feeling to what I’m saying.

For example, whether you use a word “I”, “you”, or “one” it gives a different feeling to what you are saying.

For example, whether one uses a word “I”, “you”, or “one” it gives a different feeling to what one is saying.

I’ve noticed that when sharing your experiences (through a blog for example), it’s quite safe to use the word “I”. I tell what happens to me. If I’ve done something, it’s my experience and I can tell about it. No preaching, no teaching. Just sharing my experience. No big deal.

Preaching and teaching
Whenever I use the word “you”, the tone of my blog might change to preaching/teaching. You have to be careful with words.

See, there it goes again – who am I to tell to you that you should be careful with words? I can only speak about myself.

And if I use the word “one”, I go into a bit more neutral zone. There one can wander quite safely. (As you can see). One has to be careful though, this form might sound little… odd. At least to my ear.

How do you approach people? Do you preach/teach and point out how the other needs to do something. Or do you express yourself differently – by using yourself as an example, leaving the other to decide whether he will accept your thinking?

Is it about “you” or “me”?
Think of the following examples, which one are you using when you are delegating a task to somebody else:

  • 1) “… and this final graph here shows the flow of the actions, and the end result needs to produce a gadget X. Do you understand the task?
  • 2) “… and this final graph here shows the flow of the actions, and the end result needs to produce a gadget X. Have I expressed the task understandably here?

The first one is probably okay, but there’s a slight challenge in the air: by asking whether the other guy understands the tasks, you might be automatically suggesting that “if the other guy is not understanding the task, it’s his fault”. This doesn’t necessarily leave room for the thought that there might be (A) something wrong with the task description, (B) or something wrong in how you’ve explained the task description. In some workplaces (I’d guess) this might be even offending. The guy could say that “yes, he understand the tasks” just for the sake of defending himself – he understands everything.

The second point removes the “do you understand” part, and this means that even if the other guy doesn’t get the task, his professionalism isn’t in any way questioned. You have removed the threat and there’s no need for defense. The other guy can then more willingly say that there’s some unclear point. He has no need to defense himself.

I’m exaggerating here a bit you know, I’m not saying that using words as in example #1 would automatically mean questioning the other. This might not be a big deal. People might not even notice this. In some workplaces… this might be an issue. Or maybe people would see you in a different light if you’d approach them differently. (I dunno. Maybe.)

This might not be a big deal
I’m not trying to say here that you’d need to be a wimp and be careful that the people will shatter to pieces from anything.

Just a thought on something that might be useful.

GP Xmas Calendar 2009 – Door 8 (The Indie Secret)

I’ve touched the subject of “why do games” in the past. I’ve written about what reasons I have, and pondered reasons what others might have. I happened to trespass in the fine site of gapingvoid and saw a cartoon pic that kind of summarized why some (hopefully many) indies make their games.

Check here to open Door 8.

(The thing is expressed quite strongly in that pic I must say, but I can think of all that in a very positive way. Being totally in control and deciding what you do.)

Social Gaming Is Not the “Next Big Thing” – It’s Been Here For Decades

Some developers think that the social gaming will be the big thing. They say how Farmville or World of Warcraft gets so many players. Little Big Planet is marketed with the “social aspect” of games. I’ve discussed with some people who praise the social media and explain how twitter is like the next big thing after Jesus. Luckily I’m hear to shout from my tower and correct these hopeless stupidities.

There’s two things why social gaming is the next big thing.

  • Single player gaming is going to be there forever
  • Social games have been here like decades

I don’t think social gaming is that big thing. Or at least a new thing. Sure… you might see more online highscores in new games and more ways to “share” your stuff with others, but in the end people who wanna play solo wanna play solo.

Which brings me to my first point:

People who wanna play solo wanna play solo

Here’s some news you might not want to hear:

  • Farmville might have social aspect but my hunch says that 98% of the time you play it alone.
  • Sure, World of Warcraft is played online… but did you realize that there’s tons of people who play solo. These guys don’t want to belong to any clan or meet other people. They play WoW as a single-player game. And developers have catered for this as well. It’s actually massively single-player game to be accurate.

Most players probably don’t want to have social aspects or other human players to play with them. Many people want to experience a fine story that evolves. They want to be in charge.

Players want single-player. Sure, there’s more and more multiplayer games and options (which is good for me) but majority will still stick with single player gaming. Or they play multiplayer games alone.

Have you ever heard of a book that was “read co-op”? Same will be with many, many games.

Social games have been here for ages

Now, to the second point. Little Big Planet – the PS3 hit “social” game – has player made levels. Like 98% of those levels are crap*. It’s also played solo (or home with friends). Sharing tracks sure is easier when you have internet, but think of the following.

About 15 years ago I played some car game where you could create tracks. We created tracks and used floppy disks to bring those levels to our friends. That was social gaming.

* Based on a reliable figure that I just pulled out of thin air.

We player some football manager game. It was supposed to be 1-player game but we played it with my brothers. And same happened for Bruce Lee (C64) and many other games. That was social gaming too.

I have been playing stuff like MUDs, online multiplayer shooters for decade or so. We shared things with our friends and asked people to join. Some people modded. I even drew maps and shared other stuff. It was social gaming, but we didn’t call it that. It was simply called “fun”. We didn’t need to call it “fun 2.0″.

Now, somebody invented stuff like “share” and “2.0” and “social web” and soon this new fad is embraced by the game development community.

Famous Quote by Abraham Lincoln: “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don’t make it a leg.”

Social aspect in games is important, but it has been here like forever.

(Will be really interested to read this article in the end of 2010 and see how wrong I was. Oh well. Your thoughts? We can check those too in the end of 2010…)