Ok, I hope it's clear then why some may find it a bit unfair to call all fan game creations crap, and decide that all fan games (or amateur games) are bound to be crap. Because you have, admittedly, not played all of them. And certainly haven't played games yet to be created.

[QUOTE=Jeysie]AlleyCat: Er. While I am kind of dismayed at the amount of vitriol being slung around here, the problem isn't the fact that he's disagreeing, but the fact that he's doing so in an unproductive way.

Making lots of sweeping generalizations and assumptions and throwing around your opinion as if it were objective fact is not a productive way to give a point of view. Ignoring people when they point out reasons why your generalizations are untrue, or thinking up double standard reasons why those exceptions don't count isn't productive either.

On the other hand, taking specific examples and pointing out specific parts of those examples and what you think is wrong with them *is* productive. And being consistent with your critique, pointing out specific criteria, and stating why you have that criteria is also productive.

QUOTE]

His point is that he thinks the concept of fan games are bad,
he is- as he said himself- a bit arrogant in his way of making the point, but the main reason he seems to have gotten himself so unpopular is because he is critical of something most of you seem to like.
Would you freak out if someone made the generalisation that all fan games are GOOD, even though that someone hasn't played them? Like hell you would.
Look, I'm all for productivity and all that- in real life at least, I hardly think it's something to start preaching about in a little game forum.
And I honestly think it's good that some people have extreme opinions and don't choose to tip-toe around subjects because they're afraid to step on somebody's toes.
But hey, I think this has been an interesting little study, compared to the usual "So who's YOUR favorite hero :Z "

Hey, this thread is like the Energizer bunny! :D

Before I comment again, I'll repeat myself from 263 pages ago and say that I also find most amateur games to be lacking in enough key areas to not really warrant my attention. So I not only take none of this personally, but agree with part of it. (And before anyone brings up Christmas Quest, believe me that those of us involved are the MOST aware of the areas it lacked - usually intentionally, sometimes not.)

Okay, so after all this, I still see this thread as having two main themes:

1) Amateur games suck
2) Amateur games will ALWAYS suck because they're made by amateurs

Where I see the problem is in the two issues overlapping. Every time someone argues point two, AudioSoldier hides behind point one. And when someone challenges the specifics of point one, he resumes arguing point two with no actual basis for his claims. It's entirely predictable by now.

Seems to me that point one is merely representing a personal preference, and this thread would have been significantly shorter if it were worded "I don't like amateur games." Point two, however, is just plain wrong, and will always be wrong. A lack of resources is undoubtedly as much a challenge in game development as any other field, but quality is dependent on talent alone. And while talent WITH money is ideal, talent WITHOUT money is probably far more common. Whether someone chooses to devote that talent to independent game making is not actually subject to opinion one way or the other.

The funny thing discussing this in terms of adventures is that many commercial games ARE actually "amateur" games. The fact that a publisher picks up a completed game and gets it on store shelves does not make them "professional" games. They're still independently financed and created by amateurs (amateurs being unpaid positions, after all). Take Scratches as an example. Sure, they PLAN to sell it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a two-man game being created out of pocket by amateurs. The game doesn't suddenly become professional when a publisher picks it up for distribution. So it's pretty ironic to use amateur games as the standard for criticizing amateur games. ;)

Uh, no. What people around here tend to dislike the most is a lousy argument, or a lack of argument altogether. Repetitive rhetoric generally does earn this kind of response, regardless of the position. (And anyone who claimed that all fan games are good would probably be told to have their head examined.)

And no one will ever play all the fangames in existence. Sure, you take liberties with a generalization, but that's how it is. Based on the several amateur titles I've now played, I see no reason for the quality of the games to improve since the lack of funding means they can't make use of ever-increasing technology and will invariably lag behind in the writing department.

Edit: I think it's far easier to throw arguments at someone - in this case, me - than to defend yourself. Oh, and I can think of the inevitable replies: "Well why did you start this then?"

I'll leave that hanging since I don't know myself.

Edit 2: Incidentally, if someone said that all fangames were good, there'd be a general round of agreement with a few protestors. No one outraged, a few amused, and many in agreement.

1. Not making use of the latest technology doesn't make a game bad.
2. Claiming that lack of funding will invariably lead to the writing "lagging behind" is absurd. Quality of writing depends on talent, experience and effort. There's no reason why some amateur creators can't be as talented and, in time, experienced as professionals (after all, most of the writers of professional games are really programmers who learned how to write by trial and error), and if they can't afford to put in the same amount of effort, that primarily limits the length of the game, not the quality.

You're on crack.

lack of funding => can't make use of latest technology
lack of funding => lag behind writing department
poor use of technology and writing => poor game

You make many assumptions.

Let me get this straight. So an amateur needs funding to use increasing technology to prevent lagging behind in the writing for the game. Thus, the latest technology is a prerequisite for good writing? Wow, that really does a number on any English language literary classics, doesn't it?

I believe good writers realize that technology has little to do with the creative process.

Secondly, you're admitting an unrepresentative sample, part of a common fallacy known as the hasty generalization.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/hastygen.html (see this to learn)

On the practical side, what have you done that gives you such insight into both the creation of video games AND gives you this critical authority?

I think Jackal and Snarky are winning this conversation now. :)

Just in case you missed it due to posting overlap, Audio, I want to call attention to Jackal's post up there, since he makes a lot of good points. Anyhoo...

AlleyCat: I dunno, I try to always take communication seriously, whether it's formal matters or shooting the breeze about a hobby. At the very least, I take it seriously when I'm providing criticism about something in a venue where people who are involved in that thing are known to gather. If I'm going to march into a forum frequented by amateur game makers and their fans and say I think their work can never be anything but crap, I think people are entitled to request some justification of my opinion.

It is true that people usually don't ask for qualifications about praise... but then, generally if you're doing something correctly (as implied by getting praise) you don't need to worry about it as much (since you're likely going to just want to keep on doing whatever it is you're being praised about). It's usually only when you're doing something wrong that you need to worry about exactly what's wrong, why, and how to fix it.

Having said that, I agree with Jackal's statement that anyone who said all fan games were good would likely "be told to have their head examined". Drooling fanboyishness is generally frowned upon even by people who also like the same thing the fanboy does.

Audio: While I think generalizations from past experiences are useful as guidelines for future behavior choices (I generally operate that way myself), it's important to always keep an open mind for signs that your generalization may be faulty... not to mention making sure that your generalizations actually stem from what you think they do. As many people have said, quality of talent has jack all to do with whether you're getting paid for your work or not, and having a work be for sale instead of free does not automatically make it "professional" (at least by your seeming definition of the term).

After all, having games being made by corporate employees is a fairly new phenomenon anyway... back in the "old days", even people creating "commercial games" were often young folk who started out hacking away alone in their basements. (And indeed, that seems to becoming more common again recently as well.)

Example from the other end, I know the KQIX fangame staff has some individuals who have paying jobs in their field of talent, and are plying their trade for a free game simply for the love of it. The question of exchange of money doesn't mean much.

Peace & Luv, Liz

Wow, I thought you'd get me wrong, but not by this catastrophic margin.*

Many of the fan games I've played have been created by foreigners. Thus, they don't possess the English ability to reel off a good script. And those who do speak English as they're primary language; well, many aren't very good. It's true that commercial games are largely written by programmers with copious amounts of experience. You or someone above you mentioned that through experience fan game makers could become better game writers. Well, right now, they have little to no experience save for the few crack jobs that slave away at these things for years. And even these people don't have the skills to save their games from the proverbial mire.

*To return to my first sentence, the technology point was unrelated to the writing segment. Now get off my nuts.

Edit: I'm glad Jackal has a few more snub-nosed, snooty admirers. It's good to know that authority can still have this effect on people.

You're falling into the same boat. Well done.

It would appear that yours isn't very good either.

Dale

Well done for noticing. That didn't take long. Applause everyone.

Edit: Did you think I had made that mistake mistakenly?

It certainly crossed my mind :shifty:.

Frankly - and I say this as a native English speaker - I'm rather insulted by your casual assumption that those who learn the language as a second/third/nth tongue can't possibly write a good script. I'm perfectly happy to admit that there are people on this very forum that are better at writing in English than I am; equally, a lot of non-native speakers will get someone to proofread their writing, as that really doesn't require money.

Agreeing with someone is not the same as sucking up to them, and the number of times people have disagreed with Jack over individual ideas on these forums should adequately disprove your theory that we're all a load of "snub-nosed, snooty admirers". I'm also not entirely sure what you're trying to achieve by slinging around insults like that. And I find the idea that you're commenting on his position of authority slightly galling when you're actively choosing to set out your standing as a journalist in your signature. Presumably you'd like us to respect your views, as someone who, I would assume, has a reasonable amount of experience in the field of writing about gaming?

Er... no. More like the fact that he made the same sorts of points people have been making in this thread, in a clear and non-vitrolic way, (and thus, that's why people are agreeing with him) and which you're still ignoring with petty insults and snide remarks instead of offering civil and logical arguments as you why you feel those rebuttals of your points are incorrect or non-applicable.

Which I suspect is part of why people are getting frustrated with you, and why people were complaining eariler about the conversation "not going anywhere".

Peace & Luv, Liz

How do I talk about an argument made with big generalizations, without generalizing myself? :shifty:

As I've said, I agree with you on the quality of released fan games. I agree to a bit lesser degree with you on amateur creations, with original ideas. But I've yet to play an amateur game that held my interest long enough to play it all the way through.

I don't agree that with no funding you're never going to be creating something of equal quality to this generations games.

The industry's ever-increasing technology is available for them. Amateur developers can, and are, using Half Life 2's Source engine to create mods. As we saw, when the first Half-Life came out there were some pretty big mods created, among which a top-selling game now.

Of course, these were first person shooter mods, but there's nothing stopping adventure amateur developers developing games on this platform. Why aren't they being developed, then? I have no idea. There's enough programmers out there, with knowledge on Source. And we've seen, from the Sam & Max cancellation hooplah, that there are still fans out there, outside of the niche. I'm not predicting anything about when this might happen. Mostly because there's a good chance this might never happen. But there's certainly a possibility. Who knows? I can't tell the future.

But you, being so absolutely certain, apparently can.

As far as writing goes, I'm not saying anything. I'm not a writer, and haven't got a wide experience with books. Modern day adventure story-writing(amateur and commercial) doesn't really impress me a lot. It serves me fine, as long as the puzzles and interaction aren't sh*t.

I don't see, though, why it should make a difference, as far as story goes, whether the writer is native english speaking or not. We have translators for a reason..

EDIT: As far as amateur adventure graphics go, I think this screenshot looks fantastic.

Concluding that all amateur games suck based on a handful of samples (not even thoroughly played to boot) is statistically (and logically) unsound. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. This discussion should've ended on page one.

And so it, hopefully, ends for you. Don't wanna add something worth saying, then don't bother checking this thread.

Hey, that was my exit cue and now you've ruined it!

Whoops, I forgot one above:

3) Random asides to create misdirection in lieu of relevant response.

See, now... since I've specifically pointed out the areas WE agree each time I post, comments like these just don't seem to be the smartest idea.

Next time you post, try not to simply repeat #'s 1-3.

As for "authority", I personally believe that the game makers themselves have far more cachet here than myself. And since we've had at least two professional adventure developers post here, and a soon-to-be third, along with a handful of freeware amateur devs, I'm way the hell down on the totem pole. (Christmas Quest aside, which, as we all know, was brilliant if low-res and unreadable. :P)

That's right, it's not. Now go spit shine my boots, Lacey! :pan:

*grumbles*

Yes... sir... :shifty: