There's no reason why players wouldn't take replayability into account when they are voting for the maps. That's why it's also important to publish your map before the deadline and gather a following while you work on it.
That's why it's also important to publish your map before the deadline and gather a following while you work on it.
Unfortunately this is also a double-edged sword. Based on my experience with the Arcade thus far, if u release your map too early in development it might end up giving it a bad reputation for your map as players might get turned off by the initial experience of your incomplete map. This is especially true if your map has a lot of features that you're planning to release in stages, or is vastly experimental(meaning it takes time to get the right fit). It is just unfortunate that the majority of players have no real understanding of a game that is in "Development Phase". They'll automatically treat it as the "complete product".
You DO NOT want to launch off your map with less than 3 star ratings.
Unfortunately this is also a double-edged sword. Based on my experience with the Arcade thus far, if u release your map too early in development it might end up giving it a bad reputation for your map as players might get turned off by the initial experience of your incomplete map. This is especially true if your map has a lot of features that you're planning to release in stages, or is vastly experimental(meaning it takes time to get the right fit). It is just unfortunate that the majority of players have no real understanding of a game that is in "Development Phase". They'll automatically treat it as the "complete product".
You DO NOT want to launch off your map with less than 3 star ratings.
I don't agree.
I would publish a map the moment that the core mechanics are completed.
If a map doesn't get to page 2-3 with just it's core mechanics, then it probably isn't very fun and no amount of polish or features is going to change that.
If it does reach page 2-3, then you can start adding features. This has the added benefit of introducing new features to players that already understand the basics of your map. It's less confusing to them, and they are the people you need to push a map on to page 1.
People get very vocal when you add a bad feature to a good map. They don't care if you add a good feature to a bad map.
That is assuming that you're not trying to make a better version of an existing map. If so, then the core mechanics already work so you don't need to test them, and ensuring all your added features are fully realised before release becomes an important factor.
I partially disagree and you're still missing my point. It depends on what you mean exactly by strong initial impact. In industry that could mean the first trailer video you see, hype created by fans, screenshots, or playing the first 10 minutes of the game. I'm not disagreeing that good first impressions, in any form, can reflect a high quality game but there are also games that don't have the quality but make a good first impression.
I don't think it's hard for companies to exaggerate how awesome they want you to think their game is (through advertisement or other means). Unfortunately you have things like first person shooter clones which try to rip-off the popularity of the original or most innovative game.
Imo, the most reliable way to judge the quality of a game is to play it from start to finish so you're familiar with everything. Maybe even do another play through. If the game was able to keep your attention all the way through, it's likely high quality. If it only kept you around for the first few minutes or 1 hour, that's prob too much first impression showing off it did and too shallow of an entire game (like using pretty latest tech graphics or trying to copy/clone another game). It's easier to judge sc2 arcade games because they're typically much shorter than the average industry game.
Imo I believe the same applies to the sc2 arcade. People could fairly easily put alot of effort into the load screen or first few minutes of the game because it's the 'first impression'. Then if the game turns out not so good with balance issues or unsatisfying game play then people won't play anymore. I'm fairly certain people are very good at finding out the quality of a game by playing it from start to finish. If I want to save myself from playing a game before judging it, I try to learn what is unique about that game compared to similar games in that genre and use my own interest to get started. I'm a huge fan of newly invented games or innovations.
I don't think it's hard for companies to exaggerate how awesome they want you to think their game is (through advertisement or other means). Unfortunately you have things like first person shooter clones which try to rip-off the popularity of the original or most innovative game.
If you dont think its hard, then you are wrong. Creating a successfull hype wave for your game is a part of marketing and it is an art in itself. Creating hype is not easy and every company that manages to create a large amout of hype and publicity around their game through their promotional material has won a victory by that in itself, even though it does not necessarily reflect the quality the actual game is.
Imo, the most reliable way to judge the quality of a game is to play it from start to finish so you're familiar with everything. Maybe even do another play through. If the game was able to keep your attention all the way through, it's likely high quality. If it only kept you around for the first few minutes or 1 hour, that's prob too much first impression showing off it did and too shallow of an entire game (like using pretty latest tech graphics or trying to copy/clone another game). It's easier to judge sc2 arcade games because they're typically much shorter than the average industry game.
Wrong again. Each game is a seperate entity and needs to be judge on its own. What you say in this paragraph only reflects your own personal taste and what you are looking for in the games you play. However, that is something entirely different from quality. Not every game warrants a second playthrough, even though it could have been an amazing experience on the first playthrough. That is not a sign of quality, but rather a sign of a creative direction. If someone wants to tell an enticing and awesome experience that only really manages to click once, because everything is new and falls apart on a second playthrough, it still means its a great game, its just not one that is made to be played more than once. And it doesnt have to be if thats not what the creator was going for.
Only because a game doesnt suit your personal taste, it doesnt mean its not a quality game. Art is not for everyone.
Imo I believe the same applies to the sc2 arcade. People could fairly easily put alot of effort into the load screen or first few minutes of the game because it's the 'first impression'. Then if the game turns out not so good with balance issues or unsatisfying game play then people won't play anymore. I'm fairly certain people are very good at finding out the quality of a game by playing it from start to finish. If I want to save myself from playing a game before judging it, I try to learn what is unique about that game compared to similar games in that genre and use my own interest to get started. I'm a huge fan of newly invented games or innovations.
Now lets get down to the whole "initial impression" issue. First of all, the things that apply to actual games do not apply to most maps on the SC2 Arcade, very likely including yours. SC2 Arcade maps usually dont have marketing behind it.
Also, when I refer to "initial impression", I refer to what kind of an initial impact the game has on you when you first start it up and play it for a few minutes. Marketing is not taken into consideration here, marketing and the actual game should always be measured as two different things.
Again, I have to tell you that you are dead wrong when you say its easy to create a great initial impression. Because its not, its a very challenging and hard thing to do and takes alot of experience. Seriously, try it, Im pretty certain you will fail miserably. There are very very few maps on the Arcade that have a great initial impression, the only one I can think of was an earlier version of that one top-down Tank Shooter map (forgot the name).
Also, you seem to completely fail to understand that the initial impression, the first impact a game has on you, needs to be considered when judging the overall quality. Additionally to that, the phrase "quality game" is completely meaningless. You cant be like "that game had a great initial impression, much wow, but then I played more of it and its not a quality game", because that makes no sense at all. If the initial impression left you in awe and had an impact on you, then that means that is a quality that game has to it. The rest of the game may not be good, but you still have to give the game credit for doing something great. Does that mean its not a "quality game"? It doesnt matter, because that term is meaningless because everyone judges the overall quality of a game on different things. Some may really value the initial impression a game has and when that impression is great and the rest is not, he might still considere it a game worth playing, even though you would not. Its personal preference, not quality.
I, for one, would really welcome a few more games on the Arcade that had a really outstanding great moment that leaves one in awe (be it the initial 5 minutes or some other moment), because its something that I really value when playing games. Im tired of all these colorless maps on the Arcade that have no personality, even if they may have some decent mechanics. Often times, I might even forgive bad mechanics if the game is presented in an outstanding fashion. I might not play it again and again, but maybe the game wasnt supposed to be played again and again, but instead leave an impression.
I am not really like the idea of this Blizzard Arcade Contest. The current prizes and criterion is some kinds of limit and misdirection. Which map should be the 1st Class winner? The map which has the most players or the experimental map which has the brightest ideas? Or the map contains the best assets like models, textures and musics? The custom maps have their own variety and therefore it's partial to say one kind is better than another.
I think it would be a better idea if there are independent prizes for different kinds of maps, such as "the best story", "the best Multiple player battles", "the best music", "The most creative technology",and so on. It's short - sighted if an arcade contest tries to elect "The Best Map" while there is no such a standard about which should be the best.
By the way, I am a 3D artist of Starcraft2, I loved this game and do created wonderful works like other mapsters. But I don't see any respect in this contest, and I think the composers and dramatists may have similar ideas.
Fun Fact: I was the first one to rate lottery defense on EU with 1 star and a review that said the map is a no-brainer. Thats why now its called Lottery Defense *EU* cause no one played it and he had to reupload it...
I think it's ok for the first try to have a simple general "best map" vector of competition. Maybe they are just testing how this works. And there is a chance, that the next competition will have different nominations.
I think that "balance" brings up a really great point. IMO, it makes me think about how games will make it to the finals.
First: Blizzard will select a bunch of maps entered into the contest. I am pretty sure that most finished maps will make it into this pool; possibly limiting to game type pool (so there aren't more than a few tug of war games, for example). First impressions are what will give maps an edge here (see the long discussion above). Blizzard will most likely play each game once with a few people; to make sure the game is actually something worth entering.
First Impressions take the gold.
Then: Players will select from that pool; the games they like the most. This is where content plays a strong role. You need to have a large enough player base; that during the weeks that these finals are going on, they are going to keep playing your game and bringing in more players to support it and vote for it.
Content/Replayability will win you the gold here.
Finally: Blizzard gets to pick from the final pool of 5. Blizzard is trying to support their new art tools, and as you can see with any game they have released since WoW, graphics, art, cinematics, ect, are their favorite. Polish is going to go a long way here; much more than replayability. These guys are only going to play your game once or twice. First impressions will still work here.
While i strongly advocate balance, when we are talking about such a small time frame, you dont need perfect balance. You need players to want to play your game, and you need some good graphics. If your game isnt broken in half due to balance issues, I think you should do fine. Which should be a relief for most people; as balance is the hardest thing to fine tune.
I am thinking a mini game, like run zergling run, or the sorts, would stand the best chance. Maybe blasterbots? A classic style hero arena might do good; but they have all been too fast paced and pvp based. A slower, more "rpgish" hero arena might keep a playerbase around long enough to get bored. almost anything with a learning curve that takes more than a game to understand, will be too much. "Flappy Mutalisk" would do well, I assume.
Again, some generalizations and theories to this. I am just suggesting through observation of past and present events what will hold weight in this contest.
I am thinking a mini game, like run zergling run, or the sorts, would stand the best chance.Maybe blasterbots?A classic style hero arena might do good; but they have all been too fast paced and pvp based.A slower, more "rpgish" hero arena might keep a playerbase around long enough to get bored.almost anything with a learning curve that takes more than a game to understand, will be too much."Flappy Mutalisk" would do well, I assume.
Again, some generalizations and theories to this.I am just suggesting through observation of past and present events what will hold weight in this contest.
Well Warships won their last contest, and that's a very slow-paced hero area of sorts.
SCU came second and it wasn't even really available yet. SCU certainly isn't a mini-game.
Mini-game type maps tend to really not do very well on the arcade, surprisingly. There are some very polished mini-games out there, and none are particularly popular.
@DeltaV: Go I get the feeling they might already know which maps are going to win, or at least have a fairly good idea by now, and maybe some of these prizes have already been made.
@DeltaV: Go I get the feeling they might already know which maps are going to win, or at least have a fairly good idea by now, and maybe some of these prizes have already been made.
I doubt it. 3 weeks is a long time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's no reason why players wouldn't take replayability into account when they are voting for the maps. That's why it's also important to publish your map before the deadline and gather a following while you work on it.
Trieva pretty much summed up what I was trying to say there.
Unfortunately this is also a double-edged sword. Based on my experience with the Arcade thus far, if u release your map too early in development it might end up giving it a bad reputation for your map as players might get turned off by the initial experience of your incomplete map. This is especially true if your map has a lot of features that you're planning to release in stages, or is vastly experimental(meaning it takes time to get the right fit). It is just unfortunate that the majority of players have no real understanding of a game that is in "Development Phase". They'll automatically treat it as the "complete product".
You DO NOT want to launch off your map with less than 3 star ratings.
I don't agree.
I would publish a map the moment that the core mechanics are completed.
If a map doesn't get to page 2-3 with just it's core mechanics, then it probably isn't very fun and no amount of polish or features is going to change that.
If it does reach page 2-3, then you can start adding features. This has the added benefit of introducing new features to players that already understand the basics of your map. It's less confusing to them, and they are the people you need to push a map on to page 1.
People get very vocal when you add a bad feature to a good map. They don't care if you add a good feature to a bad map.
That is assuming that you're not trying to make a better version of an existing map. If so, then the core mechanics already work so you don't need to test them, and ensuring all your added features are fully realised before release becomes an important factor.
I dont miss your point. I disagree with it.
Lets pick this post apart piece by piece.
If you dont think its hard, then you are wrong. Creating a successfull hype wave for your game is a part of marketing and it is an art in itself. Creating hype is not easy and every company that manages to create a large amout of hype and publicity around their game through their promotional material has won a victory by that in itself, even though it does not necessarily reflect the quality the actual game is.
Wrong again. Each game is a seperate entity and needs to be judge on its own. What you say in this paragraph only reflects your own personal taste and what you are looking for in the games you play. However, that is something entirely different from quality. Not every game warrants a second playthrough, even though it could have been an amazing experience on the first playthrough. That is not a sign of quality, but rather a sign of a creative direction. If someone wants to tell an enticing and awesome experience that only really manages to click once, because everything is new and falls apart on a second playthrough, it still means its a great game, its just not one that is made to be played more than once. And it doesnt have to be if thats not what the creator was going for.
Only because a game doesnt suit your personal taste, it doesnt mean its not a quality game. Art is not for everyone.
Now lets get down to the whole "initial impression" issue. First of all, the things that apply to actual games do not apply to most maps on the SC2 Arcade, very likely including yours. SC2 Arcade maps usually dont have marketing behind it.
Also, when I refer to "initial impression", I refer to what kind of an initial impact the game has on you when you first start it up and play it for a few minutes. Marketing is not taken into consideration here, marketing and the actual game should always be measured as two different things.
Again, I have to tell you that you are dead wrong when you say its easy to create a great initial impression. Because its not, its a very challenging and hard thing to do and takes alot of experience. Seriously, try it, Im pretty certain you will fail miserably. There are very very few maps on the Arcade that have a great initial impression, the only one I can think of was an earlier version of that one top-down Tank Shooter map (forgot the name).
Also, you seem to completely fail to understand that the initial impression, the first impact a game has on you, needs to be considered when judging the overall quality. Additionally to that, the phrase "quality game" is completely meaningless. You cant be like "that game had a great initial impression, much wow, but then I played more of it and its not a quality game", because that makes no sense at all. If the initial impression left you in awe and had an impact on you, then that means that is a quality that game has to it. The rest of the game may not be good, but you still have to give the game credit for doing something great. Does that mean its not a "quality game"? It doesnt matter, because that term is meaningless because everyone judges the overall quality of a game on different things. Some may really value the initial impression a game has and when that impression is great and the rest is not, he might still considere it a game worth playing, even though you would not. Its personal preference, not quality.
I, for one, would really welcome a few more games on the Arcade that had a really outstanding great moment that leaves one in awe (be it the initial 5 minutes or some other moment), because its something that I really value when playing games. Im tired of all these colorless maps on the Arcade that have no personality, even if they may have some decent mechanics. Often times, I might even forgive bad mechanics if the game is presented in an outstanding fashion. I might not play it again and again, but maybe the game wasnt supposed to be played again and again, but instead leave an impression.
I am not really like the idea of this Blizzard Arcade Contest. The current prizes and criterion is some kinds of limit and misdirection. Which map should be the 1st Class winner? The map which has the most players or the experimental map which has the brightest ideas? Or the map contains the best assets like models, textures and musics? The custom maps have their own variety and therefore it's partial to say one kind is better than another.
I think it would be a better idea if there are independent prizes for different kinds of maps, such as "the best story", "the best Multiple player battles", "the best music", "The most creative technology",and so on. It's short - sighted if an arcade contest tries to elect "The Best Map" while there is no such a standard about which should be the best.
By the way, I am a 3D artist of Starcraft2, I loved this game and do created wonderful works like other mapsters. But I don't see any respect in this contest, and I think the composers and dramatists may have similar ideas.
@Kildare88: Go
Fun Fact: I was the first one to rate lottery defense on EU with 1 star and a review that said the map is a no-brainer. Thats why now its called Lottery Defense *EU* cause no one played it and he had to reupload it...
@Delphinium1987: Go
I think it's ok for the first try to have a simple general "best map" vector of competition. Maybe they are just testing how this works. And there is a chance, that the next competition will have different nominations.
you guys wanna win ? "Flappy Mutalisk" that is all.... gl
Pro tip: Add achievements and you will surely win with Flappy Mutalisk.
Actually I'm really tempted to make one just for jokes, considering how easy it is to reproduce the gameplay on SC2. LOL
Look, you do what any good map maker would do. You suck up to the players, then suck up to blizzard.
AKA: Make flappy mutalisk with Dustin Browder's face getting its murder on.
@SoulTaker916: Go
I have heard Dustin Browder's name. : )
I think that "balance" brings up a really great point. IMO, it makes me think about how games will make it to the finals.
First: Blizzard will select a bunch of maps entered into the contest. I am pretty sure that most finished maps will make it into this pool; possibly limiting to game type pool (so there aren't more than a few tug of war games, for example). First impressions are what will give maps an edge here (see the long discussion above). Blizzard will most likely play each game once with a few people; to make sure the game is actually something worth entering.
First Impressions take the gold.
Then: Players will select from that pool; the games they like the most. This is where content plays a strong role. You need to have a large enough player base; that during the weeks that these finals are going on, they are going to keep playing your game and bringing in more players to support it and vote for it.
Content/Replayability will win you the gold here.
Finally: Blizzard gets to pick from the final pool of 5. Blizzard is trying to support their new art tools, and as you can see with any game they have released since WoW, graphics, art, cinematics, ect, are their favorite. Polish is going to go a long way here; much more than replayability. These guys are only going to play your game once or twice. First impressions will still work here.
While i strongly advocate balance, when we are talking about such a small time frame, you dont need perfect balance. You need players to want to play your game, and you need some good graphics. If your game isnt broken in half due to balance issues, I think you should do fine. Which should be a relief for most people; as balance is the hardest thing to fine tune.
I am thinking a mini game, like run zergling run, or the sorts, would stand the best chance. Maybe blasterbots? A classic style hero arena might do good; but they have all been too fast paced and pvp based. A slower, more "rpgish" hero arena might keep a playerbase around long enough to get bored. almost anything with a learning curve that takes more than a game to understand, will be too much. "Flappy Mutalisk" would do well, I assume.
Again, some generalizations and theories to this. I am just suggesting through observation of past and present events what will hold weight in this contest.
Skype: [email protected] Current Project: Custom Hero Arena! US: battlenet:://starcraft/map/1/263274 EU: battlenet:://starcraft/map/2/186418
Well Warships won their last contest, and that's a very slow-paced hero area of sorts.
SCU came second and it wasn't even really available yet. SCU certainly isn't a mini-game.
Mini-game type maps tend to really not do very well on the arcade, surprisingly. There are some very polished mini-games out there, and none are particularly popular.
Check out the new prizes!
@DeltaV: Go I get the feeling they might already know which maps are going to win, or at least have a fairly good idea by now, and maybe some of these prizes have already been made.
I doubt it. 3 weeks is a long time.