Forums > Game Forums > misplaced priorities
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 1/19/2010 6:13 PM · Permalink · Report
Their is no in-game scoring system and most of the net is broken, meaning the ball just goes straight past it
So let me get this straight: this is a ball-bouncing simulation with no actual gameplay? It seems to me that this is what the prohibition on games in beta is included to keep out, except that there is no intention of this game ever being more finished; the brokenness is its essence: ha ha, I tricked you into clicking, now here's my software middle finger.
I've posted a handful of similar titles in the past, largely for reasons of historical significance, philosophical intrigue or sheer unmitigated hilarity, but they've been needles in the haystack amidst large quantities of legitimate submissions for games that are actually playable games, the things that this database is intended to document.
I am an inclusionist, but my blue sky scenario for documenting even the most inconsequential of pseudo-game prototypes (we have this but not Dangerous Dave in Copyright Infringement?) presupposes an unlimited amount of approvers to effortlessly process everything. Until such time, I'd like to mount my soapbox and hypocritically discourage any encyclopediac documentation of the Guillotine Games ludography, since a) we shouldn't encourage the trolls and b) with as little effort as is needed to throw these together, I doubt we could keep up.
Sciere (930490) on 1/19/2010 6:26 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
It's a valid entry, but it's the kind of browser game I hoped (when it was introduced) no one would care about to submit. It is broken and has no significance worth documenting - yet here it is with an audience after all and how on earth could we justify excluding it...
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 1/19/2010 6:41 PM · Permalink · Report
I think to what extent it can be considered a "game" is debatable: player interacts with object on screen? My screensaver goes away when I jiggle the mouse, but that doesn't mean it belongs here.
In any case, I'm hardly lobbying for its removal... I just want to give the contributor a hard time and encourage everyone else to join me in steering them toward candidates more worthy of documenting for the ages. That said, who knows, perhaps the user will make these kinds of games their chosen beat and will catalogue them with rigorous, encyclopediac zeal. (Then I know whose game entries to skip over and avoid wasting my time reading 8)
vedder (70822) on 1/19/2010 6:51 PM · Permalink · Report
If there's no game element, that would be a good reason to exclude it. Just plain awful quality should never be a reason, however.
This is basically just a physics demo. And it's not like we would approve a physics-demo-gone-wild like Phun. The basketball and the net might imply a game. And people could play a game inside this demo. But you can also play a game in MS Word if you make up some simple rules. That doesn't make MS Word a game.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 1/19/2010 7:20 PM · Permalink · Report
Their "game"s include such winners as three stickman paper doll programs and a "make a button in Flash" tutorial. We may not be able to take their word at face value 8)
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 1/19/2010 7:19 PM · Permalink · Report
My suspicion is that the contributor might well be the game's developer trying to drum up business (which ain't no crime, provided what's at the other end is a game.) Now it's been pulled, so I don't have the info I need in order to check 8)
For what it's worth, any future submissions of Guillotine Games releases shouldn't be accepted unless they're "Puzle maze" or "Tank Assault" -- nothing else they've done can really be considered a game, though there are a couple of tech demos that might someday lead to games 8)
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 1/19/2010 7:22 PM · Permalink · Report
Now it's been pulled, so I don't have the info I need in order to check 8)
Never mind, it's back.
MZ per X (3017) on 1/19/2010 8:27 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]My suspicion is that the contributor might well be the game's developer trying to drum up business [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] I don't think so. sgtcook is the guy who wanted to contribute the uber-successful Facebook game apps, but couldn't due to the beta policy.
This may well be a slap in that direction. :o)
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 1/19/2010 8:31 PM · Permalink · Report
I retract my libellous comments. Strange that the pendulum would swing so far unless they are a pointed comment as you suggest...
Sciere (930490) on 1/19/2010 8:47 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
From a message he sent me, assuming he is fine with me pasting it here:
Well, i submitted them after some of the "proper" games (like FarmVille, Bandit Bites, some cat game, educational ones, some maze ones in the approval (admittedly these are also quite crap little first time games)) and saw these and thought they would be some easy points (although i did put on the company entry i wasn't sure if they counted as proper games).