Peer Review Program Proposal

#1 Here here! Provided it can get past all the legal snarls, this sounds great. I'm willing to review, and will certainly be submitting.

Vic-D

#2 This is a good idea. It needs a champion, someone to do the grunt work to get it going, someone like you, Shayne :-)

#3 hey, i would luv to review some work and i would also like to post my game idea, juss to see if im on the right track.
-tricky

#4 Shayne,

I can't quite get my head around this. Strictly from a GG resource standpoint, we do not have enough time to set anything up or even think much about it. But, even if we did, I'm not sure I can see this working.

Instead of turning out better, more polished game ideas, I see a morass of people claiming to have lost their IP. Even bringing NDS's into the equation will not solve this potential problem.

Also, as a designer myself, I simply cannot envision this working. To be honest, I don't care what other designers think. I have usually created products a little off the bubble, so it has been hard for me to put the idea completely into words So, I could envision some of my best products never being made under this scenario.

All that said, there is probably some merit in having other designers/coders/game developers looking at your game at some point. Maybe around late Alpha or early Beta (kind of where DoP is now).

If many of you want to do this, the GG community is a great place to start, but I don't see GG being directly involved.

Jeff Tunnell GG

#5 Thanks for replying Jeff.

I think I understand your argument that games often develop on the bubble and that pre-design work wouldn't have helped them that much. But I also think that probably you have worked on 70 games and so maybe have developed a on-the-fly creative method that only comes from that kind of experience.

However, I think that in order for us to consider ourselves an artistic community, we need to act like one. There are lots of reasons that painters and writers and movie producers belong to guilds. Peer review is one of them.

VG design is an artform, and it has methods to it's design, and rules that can be used to assure it's quality. And these rules and methods do not limit the creative possibilities of the designer, but unlock them. As designers, we don't do enough thinking about pace, impact, characterization, emotional attachment, and all the rest of the artistic elements that are found in every form of communication known. This is obvious in at least 90% of video games released today. This doesn't even mention all the other things that have to be thought about in VG design, including gameplay(a whole science in itself), visual art, auditory art, etc., etc. VGs have three senses to work with: visual, auditory, and tactile and that's already one more than any previous media form in history. And then there's that magical thing we call interactivity where we actually get to listen to the person on the other side of that projection screen. That's a lot to deal with and take it to a high level of communication. The best movie makers in the world spend a lifetime just to learn how to work with the visual and auditory senses and we have to do that and more.

Peer review is one good way to assure that these kinds of things are address to the fullest extent. Up to this point, it is obvious that many game developers within the industry typically do not care about designing well all the elements of video games that are necessary for them to take it to the next level. Just look at any game getting released today. Millions of dollars were spent on it's development and it's probably as shallow as a spring puddle. We assume too often that all the important elements will just end up there in the end rather than developing methods for making sure they are in there from the beginning. Perhaps, this is why the vast majority of games end up playing and feeling like a B-Movie.

Anyways, that's just what I think.

Sorry if it pisses anyone off. We need to have more accountability as artists if we want to make great games.

If anyone else wishes to join a VG Design Peer review program, just post here. We can only reach the sky if we hold each other up.

#6 Gonna add my .02 to this, for what it's worth. For the record, I agree with Jeff.

"VG design is an artform, and it has methods to it's design, and rules that can be used to assure it's quality."

I'd have to say "guidelines" is a more appropriate term. There are many rulebreaking games that end up being groundbreaking at the same time.

"And these rules and methods do not limit the creative possibilities of the designer, but unlock them."

Sorry, but creative "rules" are stifling. I can list many artists who don't/didn't follow conventional guidelines. And thanks to them, art reaches new heights. The status quo does nothing but perpetuate the status quo.

"Peer review is one good way to assure that these kinds of things are address to the fullest extent."

Peer review also has a very negative effect. The true vision is only seen by the artist. The reviewer only attempts (quite feebly) to see the vision based on documents. No amount of paper can qualify a vision. Imagine if Poe or Lovecraft succumed to critics. Or if Geiger succumed to the religious right. Also, an artist true to him/herself would not compromise on their vision.

"Up to this point, it is obvious that many game developers within the industry typically do not care about designing well all the elements of video games that are necessary for them to take it to the next level. Just look at any game getting released today. Millions of dollars were spent on it's development and it's probably as shallow as a spring puddle. We assume too often that all the important elements will just end up there in the end rather than developing methods for making sure they are in there from the beginning. Perhaps, this is why the vast majority of games end up playing and feeling like a B-Movie."

This is the comment that I think bothers me the most. Very rarely should developers catch the blame for poor gameplay. More often than not, this is a result of mis-management, money grubbing, and a complete lack of understanding from the business folks. Given time, there would be many more "Eternal Darkness" quality games out there.

What bothers me most about this comment is that it demonstrates the problem with "artistic" peer reviews. It's painted with an incredibly broad brush, makes assumptions about the dedication of developers, and doesn't account for the tastes of others.

"We need to have more accountability as artists if we want to make great games."

As an artist, I have no accountability to anybody but myself, or those that commissioned the art from me.

I will say that as a developer, I do have accountability to my team. Here is where peer reviews really matter. What is the structure of your code? Are there potential problems (example...undeleted pointers) with your code? Is your UI clunky or unuseable?

I do commend your intentions. It's my opinion that member ratings would be far more useful. Kinda like EBay uses. Does he/she follow through? How does he perform.

As a final note, you seem educated enough. Take a gander into history during the Medici era and you'll find many frustrated artists who were shunned by Salons and Guilds only to be considered masters later.

#7 Madcap, I appreciate your response but I also must disagree with much you have to say because I feel like your attitude reflects that of the game industry. Please realize I do not debate to prove I am right, I debate to better understand things. That said...

1st, we need to define the difference between a guideline, a rule and a method.

First, I think we can all agree that in the end, everything we write, draw or design is an expression, and that these expressions are created to communicate ideas to people. VG designers use code and hardware as their means for expression, much as a drawer uses a pencil, all with the intent of communicating to a player on the other end of the screen. Life is communication.

A method is a technique used for expression of an idea. Using a ruler to draw a straight line is a method. This is typically a better method for drawing a straight line than not using a ruler, at least for 99.8% of the population. It doesn't in any way limit what you do with the straight line, it only makes it easier for you to draw it. Please read deaply into any well-developed artistic or scientific field in the world and you will find that the best artists, animators, scientists etc. have the best methods. Miyomoto has an amazing method that we could all learn a lot from. Michaelangelo had a method. These artists that you spoke of that were excluded from art guilds and then became masters were rejected because their methods were different and humans, especially in the form of a collective society, typically reject change or difference, which is predictable. In the end, those artists ended up being masters because they invented new methods and these new methods happened to be great methods. A goal of ours as artists, especially video game designers, should be to always be searching out new methods of expression.

Now, how many artists rejected from the guilds became masters? Typically, a person doesn't make it into a guild because his or her methods are too inferior, though I agree some are just seen as inferior and are actually new and better. Even still, probably a lot more didn't become masters then did.

However, most artists in the guilds became very good artists that could support a family. Why? Because they shared their methods with each other. Learning a new method only increases your artistic capabilities, it can never limit them.

Saying that, let me also say that nothing throughout the history of the human race has ever been made without a method, whether the creator understood his or her method or not. This is simply the way that our minds work. Denying this does no good. Accepting it frees our minds to imagine all the things we can do with our lines because it frees us from having to worry about how to draw them. Even all those programming issues you bring up are, in the end, methods.

Rules-Rules are agreements between individuals that are used for whatever purpose they see fit. Creative rules can be both good and bad. They can be used to make sure the art is consistent throughout a game or they can limit creativity. However, infrastructural rules can typically escort creativity because they help our minds to deal with the non-creative issues in a understandable way. The kind of rules I'm talking about for the Peer Review Guild are rules that assure that all universal elements of a video game that should be considered, will be considered. These include but are not limited to impact, pace, perspective, visual elegance, auditory elegance, interactive elegance, etc. The maintenance of rules, perhaps by peer review, is important in any artistic discipline for two reasons. One, it gives artists rules to follow so that they can reference the quality and thoroughness of their expression, and two, it gives artists a reference point for discovering new rules by trying to break the old ones.

Guidelines and rules are the same thing. However, humans typically tend to think of guidelines as softer versions of rules. Guidelines help an artist assure quality, but do not inspire deviance as much as a rule typically does. Deviance from rules is good, as long as it has purpose, even if the purpose is to have no purpose. Deviance is fuel for discovery.

You said that developers shouldn't catch the blame for poor gameplay. Where is the logic in this? Who is touching those keys on the keyboard? Who is using the mouse or stylus to make game characters and levels? Who is holding the pencil writing the story? Heck, who is holding the controller during in-house testing. The business folk have one requirement. That you make a game that will appeal to the widest audience because of it's attractiveness as a media form so that they can make money. Sure, you agree to rules to follow, and maybe even some artistic ones. But in the end, the QUALITY of the game is up to you, the developer, not the business person who is angry when you show them a game that is not fun to play. If you raise your level of skill to a point where everything you touch is of the highest quality, then, and only then, you will deserve freedom. Until then, you don't deserve it because you haven't shown responsibility with it. By deflecting accountability, you must be willing to deflect freedom.

And if you have no accountability to anyone but yourself, then why are you making video games? Video games are a form of expression that communicates ideas to the person on the other side of the screen. You start with your idea, move it to your pen and paper design, and eventually it turns into a bunch of ones and zeros that is used to talk directly to and listen to the player. The beauty of all this is that in the end, the person on the other side of the screen can talk back through their controller. Eventually, once the XBox gets their mics out, they will actually be able to talk back directly. No artists in history has ever had such power in their mass-communicative medium. Whether or not the player is telling you that he or she wants to jump, dive, fight, run, or save the princess, it's all still part of the conversation that you must lead. To say that you are not accountable for what you are saying to the person that is listening, despite the fact that you have chosen to initiate the conversation because YOU made the game, explains why what you are saying doesn't make full sense.

A peer review program will do many things, but most importantly it will provide a community where those serious about being accountable as designers and communicators can define the methods and rules they believe will assure the quality of design and creativity I know doesn't exist in our overly egocentric industry, but that I know can be reach.

Ego brings death to creativity. Methods bring life to it.

#8

Quote:A peer review guild will do many things, but most importantly it will provide a community where those serious about being accountable as designers and communicators can define the methods and rules they believe will assure the quality of design and creativity I know doesn't exist in our overly egocentric industry, but that I know can be reach.

Ego brings death to creativity. Methods bring life to it.

I take huge issue with that statement, and with your basic premise.

The act of creation is an act of pure, brazen, unvarnished ego. The purest creations of man are those that are unsullied by the hands of others.

'Methods and rules they believe will assure the quality of design and creativity' . . . what the hell? If I create something, I decide whether it is good or not, and the rest of the world can go fuck themselves. I decide if it is great or good or crap, I decide if I made it right or wrong.

Mind if I borrow a few lines from Ray Bradbury? This is from the Coda to Farenheit 451.

"The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws. But the tip of the nose of my book or stories or poems is where their rights and my territorial imperatives begin, run and rule. If Mormons do not like my plays, let them write their own. If the Irish hate my Dublin stories, let them rent typewriters. If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmilk teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture. If the Chicano intellectuals wish to re-cut my "Wonderful Ice Cream Suit" so it shapes "Zoot," may the belt unravel and the pants fall."

He ends this

"All you umpire, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It's my game. I pitch, I hit, I catch. I run the bases. At sunset I've won or lost. At sunrise, I'm out again, giving it the old try.

And no one can help me. Not even you."

I do not need the approval of any man to create. I do it out of sheer force of will. Whatever I create, I create out of myself. When it comes to what I create, I am God, and you do not exist unless I say it is so.

If you intend to pass off these games as a business, a cottage industry perhaps, chock full of low-quality products and hacks and desperately in need of regulation, fine. In that respect your arguement holds water.

But it won't work if you pretend you're working in the interests of creativity. Pointing fingers at the traditional arts is a foolish excuse for reasoning. Constraints kill the creative process dead. Want an example? How about one from the 'traditional' arts? Look at Nazi Germany and the State art museums. The art may not be bad from a technical standpoint -- all right, at least -- but by any measure those works are dead, devoid of life, a skillfully posed corpse here and a mummy carefully hung, from a hook on the wall, there.

Bear in mind that many of these artists fervently believed in Socialism and the Nazi Party. But that wasn't enough to carry their works when outside constraints were imposed. The works were stillborn, devoid of any creative spark or fire, mechanical and hopeless.

So how do the traditional arts survive? How do you ensure the quality of paintings and sculpture and theatre?

The bottom line is, you don't ensure anything. People will create. You might not like some or most of what they create. How many masterpieces are there? How many daubs?

Let the creative process happen. You can help if you want; jump in and grab a paintbrush and improve the overall quality of design and 'creativity' (how do you measure that, anyways?).

Method is fine. If that works for YOU, go right ahead. Others might get much better results from inspired apparent chaos and complexity, might feel that resolving the creative process to a procedure is to kill the 'creative' part of it, that to define a particular method or to create rules for the act of creation, that to place a value on being a communicator is to steal energy from their soul, that to be accountable to anyone for their creation is to kill, stunt or stifle the creative spark.

#9 P.S. -- I do believe that a system such as you describe would greatly help improve the production valuesof games, the professionalism of games.

But don't touch creativity, don't you dare even speak that word in the same sentence as 'rules', 'regulations', 'standards', 'approved methods', or any other such barren words. A peer review system is only useful from a business perspective, and as a training tool. When it comes to creation, back the hell off.

The problem with your kind of peer review system is that it uses all of those naughty words and then some. You're rubberstamping creation, filing Reuben under 'Master Painter', Andy Warhol under 'Pop Art', Picasso under 'Modern Art', and assuming that your designation actually mean something. And then propose that these designations be the threshhold for 'real' creativity, the standard to which we must attain if we would be taken seriously.

I have no objections to some more organic review system, where everyone's opinions are voiced and where the peer reviewers have no power whatsoever.

#10

Quote:If you raise your level of skill to a point where everything you touch is of the highest quality, then, and only then, you will deserve freedom. Until then, you don't deserve it because you haven't shown responsibility with it. By deflecting accountability, you must be willing to deflect freedom.

I would like to see this applied on a wide scale.

For instance, everyone that wants to be a scientist should wait until they are world-renowned for their work in TRADITIONAL science before they are allowed to make breakthroughs. Even if they disagree with traditional science. If they stray from the path early on, they're out of the Guild, and no labs should be allowed to hire them and no scientific journals allowed to publish their work.

Tom over there likes guys instead of girls. He should only be allowed to hump girls, until such a time as he has proved himself a lover extraordinaire and a master of the sexual arts -- at which time he can be afforded more freedom.

I want to publish a political journal. I should only be allowed to do so if I have views that everyone else agrees with, until such a time as everyone agrees that I'm 'the shit', at which point I can espouse my radical views.

Also, the example of the old 'Art Guilds' is, I think, a very apt one -- since it was more of a trade skill than anything else for the longest time. As you yourself said, the artist would be able to SUPPORT HIMSELF on his works.

I can support myself by drawing portraits. I have never even considered my portraits ART. They're craftsmanship.

Who decides if I am a Master? I do. The rest of the world may not buy any of my paintings. That's their privilege. They may not think much of my paintings (although I'd have to say they generally do), and that's their privilege as well.

Here's the deal: I will let you not like my stuff, and I will let you not buy it, and in return, you won't try to interfere with the Act of Creation.

Quote:The problem is EVERYONE in this community believes that their game is the next great game, and that's just not the case, for whatever reasons.

Thanks for the analysis Dr. Science. You have a little willie. You know, for 'whatever reasons'.

#11 "You said that developers shouldn't catch the blame for poor gameplay. Where is the logic in this? "

Actually, I said rarely and I'll admit it's a bit of an exageration. However, the logic is in the proof. It is a fact that many buggy games (AO, EQ, Morrowind) are pushed to production prior to them being ready due to management. I don't feel comfortable in saying that the developers of Morrowind or AO aren't dedicated to the finer aspects of game design simply because of bugs. AO was released WAY before it was ready. I would be willing the wager that many of the developers/designers of the game voiced their frustration at not being able to refine the game. Why do you think there are so many examples of highly successful games taking 4 or 5 years to develop? Because some managers are realizing that developers really know how to develop, and managers know how to manage. When it comes to development, trust your developers.

I've been a Systems Software Engineer for quite some time. Bugs are absolutely natural due to the complexity of modern systems, including games. I would love to have a dollar for everytime a manager said "Put that bug on the back burner and release, we'll fix it in the next rev." Now if somebody came to my face and told me I didn't know what I was doing because of said bugs, well, they'd be talking with a studder for quite some time and my right hand would ache.

Oh, and as far as accountability to the gamer (artistically) goes, when asked why the designers of EQ didn't probe players for ideas, they responded with something to the effect of players only think they know what they want. If we built what they wanted, we'd be failures.

I wouldn't say EQ is a failure by any means.

@Luc - Thanks for so eloquently and passionately saying what I tried to say in my first post.

#12 Thank you for your response Luc.

If you read the entire thread you would see that I did not measure anyone as a Master artist. I only refered to a post by Madcap that did refer to art Masters and explained why artists rejected from guilds eventually were 'seen' as master's by history and by madcap, not me.

You are making wild assumptions that have nothing to do with what I'm saying, when what I am saying is right there. I never mentioned 'regulations' or 'approved methods'. I simply want to know every single video game related expressive method known to man, and maybe even then some, not just the 'approved ones' as you call them. I think we all should strive for that. Above, I said that every single method we can learn is valuable. This is because every single method gives us a different way to express our creativity. Collectively they just might give us the ability to fully express it. Up to this point in our industry, I'd say very few people, you could count them with your fingers, have worked out enough methods to be great communicators.

That said, I do not believe in measuring an artist's creativity because I believe it's impossible. You would have to be inside the person's head in order to understand his or her creativity. I do believe that in order to fully unlock the real potentials of our creativity, then we need to improve our EXPRESSIVE or COMMUNICATIVE abilities through the learning of artistic methods. NOTE-I said artistic methods, not creative methods, though I do use these words interchangably. I prob shouldn't but my logic is that creative methods are those expressive methods that lead to art because art is the expression or communication of creativity. This is not a limiting definition so don't come back with "Art can't be defined". Yes, any piece of art can't be defined because it's meaning comes from creativity, which cannot be understood. However, find me an example of where art is not some form of expression and I will eat my words. Definitions don't have to limit ideas. Many great philosophers believe that it is only ideas that can unlock ideas.

That painting on your wall is the expression of someone's creativity. What creativity is, I do not know.

Anyways, communication is not easy. Communication is the most difficult thing to master in the world. The refined ability to communicate often leads to wealth, power and fame. Our government leaders, CEOs, and even our great scientists are typically the best communicators in their field. Of course they have to have talent and creativity, but communication is often powerful enough to even overcome that. Witness the power of an insane Hitler, who conquered all of Europe with his ability to get up in front of people and talk. Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Dali Lama = all great communicators. (As a side not, the ability to communicate comes with a lot of responsibility, so you better be responsible with it or you could end up doing more harm than good.) Every great thinker that has ever lived whose name we still know was a great communicator. Try to find one who wasn't. Why is this? Because if you can't express your ideas, then nobody will ever understand the extent of your creativity.

And it's fine if you don't care about whether other people know about your creativity, but then you wouldn't be reading this. To say that we don't care what people think about our creativity and our ability to express and then put in all the effort to make an independent video game, an inherently creative media form that we intend for millions of people to play, is wreckless and irresponsible. All I'm saying is realize that it is our ability to express what we have to say, not what we are saying, that typically determine whether someone will listen.

The ability to create and the ability to express are two separate things, though I believe both can be improved.

Please tell me if I'm not making sense. I am trying to be very clear.

Now it's fine if you think your creative talents will improve by lying on a trampoline staring at the stars, and I might even argue that you are right, but again, while your creativity may improve, your ability to EXPRESS your creativity will not. As VG designers, we must seek to improve our expressive capabilities through the discovery of methods that allow us to worry more about the creativity rather than the expression. Jimmy Hendrix had methods. Musicians call them licks. He could string together licks and create art. He even had methods for creating licks on the fly, but these methods still had structure. Ask any musician. In the end, the creative ability of a person is not just measured by the extent of their creativity, but also by his or her ability to express the creativity that makes us human.

#13 @Madcap

I agree with you that games often get pushed out before they are ready. This is a real problem that often doesn't have a solution because of how things have developed on that game up to that point. However, it typically happens with games where it is clear that the continued development is not justifiable. Games that are well developed before production don't miss deadlines. Games like Halo, or the soon to be released Getaway, take 4 or so years to develop only because the developers somehow justify the further production. Business is a science to some extent and I guarantee you that there is someone somewhere who knows more than us about the business aspect of game production, and these are the people making relatively well-informed decisions.

Now let me ask the question,"Why are games taking 4-5 years to develop?"

In almost every case, poor pre-production design. I will reference code complete on this one and any other software and VG article or book I've ever come across. Why in the hell would a game like Halo take five years to complete? Halo would only take a year or two at the most if it was clearly planned out. I'll just say that of all the post-mortems I've read in the past six months, more than half of then ascribe to the development philosophy of design on the fly and test when it's done. Poor methods if you ask me. And if you say that it's impossible to design ahead of time because you can't predict gameplay, I'd say go talk to Miyamoto and start visualizing your game more. Side note-I do think that in-development design is essential to perfectly balancing a game and control structure, however, I do not believe that it ever makes sense for someone to replace pre-production design with in-production design. 2 reasons most designers rely on in-development design. One, the good pre-development design methods are only understood by a few genius artists in the industry, and two, laziness.

#14 Sorry to anybody else reading this other than Luc.

Luc,

I just read the belligerance of your third post for the first time because I was too busy trying to have a constructive conversation with you about your first two. Well, that's done now. Perhaps you should try learning how to read and write before you try and tell me what I'm saying. It's not my fault if no one likes your art. I would call every one of your concept drawings creative and would bet that the only reason the world has yet to call you a master (something you obviously want since you seem to hark on it so much) is because you've yet to learn how to talk to them. Maybe if you understood what that meant, you wouldn't be so damn bitter about life.

And by the way, I never mentioned any kind of exclusivity in my writings about the peer review program. Anyone who puts together a solid design document can get it reviewed. If you actually read what I wrote, I refer to freedom above as the money that a developer will give you to hire the best artists to make your game. If you can't show them that your ideas are well-developed and that you have reached for the highest quality of work possible by you, then they shouldn't give you money to work with, and you won't have the freedom to make the biggest and best games in the world. That's reality, bud. I know I wouldn't give it to you if I was them. The rest of that shit you said was a creation of your mind, not mine. I do not think like that. Maybe it's time you go take a really long look in the mirror.

#15 My last post in response to Luc's ignorance.

Luc's ironic Methods he uses to try and convince himself he's not using methods.

Method #1-
The act of creation is an act of pure, brazen, unvarnished ego. The purest creations of man are those that are unsullied by the hands of others.

Method #2-
If I create something, I decide whether it is good or not, and the rest of the world can go fuck themselves. I decide if it is great or good or crap, I decide if I made it right or wrong.

Method #3-
"All you umpire, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It's my game. I pitch, I hit, I catch. I run the bases. At sunset I've won or lost. At sunrise, I'm out again, giving it the old try.

Method #4-
I do not need the approval of any man to create. I do it out of sheer force of will. Whatever I create, I create out of myself. When it comes to what I create, I am God, and you do not exist unless I say it is so.

Method #5-
Let the creative process happen. You can help if you want; jump in and grab a paintbrush and improve the overall quality of design and 'creativity' (how do you measure that, anyways?).

Contradiction #1-
Method is fine. If that works for YOU, go right ahead.

Method #6-
Others might get much better results from inspired apparent chaos and complexity, might feel that resolving the creative process to a procedure is to kill the 'creative' part of it, that to define a particular method or to create rules for the act of creation, that to place a value on being a communicator is to steal energy from their soul, that to be accountable to anyone for their creation is to kill, stunt or stifle the creative spark.

Luc, if we are willing to make up after this senseless squabbling, I'd like to list these as the First Six Methods of Expression that we could list if I ever get this peer review program going. You can use whatever method you want to destroy methods, but in the end you are only just replacing them...

#16 As a quality assurance strategy, peer review works greate *only* within the same dev team/group or people who does not have concern over copyright issuses.

#17 There is some good things to peer review and some bad things to peer review. The main problem is that yes, creativity can be stifled, and there will tend to be more problems that arise out of creating a peer review system than any great benefits.

Not to mention, who is going to do it? Who has the time and/or the patience to sit through every wannabe who thinks he can make a game? Anyone with the experience to be a so-called 'peer' would probably better serve the community being a guiding light by exhibiting their talents in a game.

I understand the reason why you see this as a good idea, because you (and to some degree, myself) see games and game design, as an art form. However, the indifference is not a problem that can be solved through peer review; in fact, it would probably discourage more people from attempting their game. It is a lack of discipline on the parts of the people who do get involved for many reasons... distributed teams are hard to inspire with emotion (since this is such an emotionless medium), a lot of people are undisiciplined and find it hard to maintain momentum, lack of experience, et cetera.

While I do see GG as important, I do not see it as an artistic community, at least not in the idealised sense you are suggesting. It is here to foster talent, and to bring together people, but in the end it is up to the artists themselves, whether they draw, code or design, to make their expression. GG provides tools, guides and limited peer review in the form of the forums and IRC.

Anyone's indifference to how their project will not be solved with peer reviews saying your idea is "fantastic". Ideas are everywhere; it is the execution that counts.

Paul.

#18 Art is exactly why peer review won't work. There is no universal rules that can be applied to judge an piece of art as good art or bad art. 'good art'/'bad art' is a highly subjective matter. It's not like source code where one can apply a set of metrics to evaluate the 'good/bad'

#19 Art will be problematic for peer-review, but not all of game development is about art. Peer review can be done on whatever a person wants reviewed. Code, a design, a plan, a map, etc. Informal peer review happens on a daily basis in these forums and via the Dev Snapshot.

I see the proposed mechanism being more formalized approach, that could produce, at the end of the day, a structured critique of ***whatever the submitter wants critiqued***.

#20 I disagree with the entire premise:

"I think, especially in a community like this, there are a lot of really creative people that have problems getting an idea to actually find support within the community because it's so hard to convince people that your idea is creative and unique and capable of igniting a fire in any developer willing to listen to it."

IMO the reason many projects have trouble finding support is that they aren't good projects. Overly ambitious, unfocused or otherwise doomed to failure.

I think the hard part is finding people to listen in the first place, IE information glut.

It sounds like the peer review solution is "well, you might not like the pitch when I make it, but x,y and z all think it is great!" If I don't like the pitch what some other people thought of it isn't going to change my mind. In essence what it sounds like you are saying is that this peer review would help convince people that your idea is worthwhile - that's your job!

The problem is getting someone's ear in the first place IMO.

If you want to convince people that your idea is "the next great thing" you might be out of luck - personally I would never bite on ANY project that claimed that. If you want to convince people your project is worth a look it is pretty simple though:

a: Write a description of the game that is at least a couple of paragraphs.

b: Spell everything correctly.

c: Don't make bold claims about the quality, other than that you will do your best to make it the best you can.

d: Don't claim that your game is "x but better" or "x + y + z (where a, y and z are commercial games) or go into a wandering diatribe about what is wrong with games today. Those are red flags.

Those four simple criteria already rule out 95% of projects here.

I tend to look for red flags. How ambitious is the project, and how qualified are the members? These 2 are often inversely related. The more competent you are, the more you realize that creating "MM Diablo with roleplaying" isn't so easy.

Ambition is great, but some realism is great too. Looking at your profile, you are working on 3 projects simultaneously, and one of them is coming our for "Windows, XBox, Playstation." I would never join a project that said it was coming out for PSX or XBox. You planning on porting Torque to the PS2? And I feel like my progress on Realm Wars is slow, even though I have plenty of people giving me suggestions and nothing else on my plate. (Other than a day job) Designing for one project with lots of help is tough enough for me, and I'm not a dunce. How can you handle three?

This isn't meant to be an attack, I'm just saying that if people aren't buying your pitch you need to look at why they aren't going for it adjut accordingly.