The staff doesn't like it because "anyone" can combine art and sound assets with script to make a game and this is a respectable website where something isn't worth knowing about unless not "anyone" can make it.
"The staff doesn't like it because "anyone" can combine art and sound assets with script to make a game and this is a respectable website where something isn't worth knowing about unless not "anyone" can make it."
Anyone can install XNA and release a game for PC or 360. Anyone can install Python or C++ and "combine" some art, sound and code to make a game.
Those games actually should not be there, according to Jeff.
EDIT: But You Have To Burn The Rope might have been allowed because it's the best game of all time. EDITEDIT: Also, Passage doesn't seem to be a flash game.
"Yeah, we currently don't want browser-based games on the site. This may change down the line, but you're exactly right in that we have to draw the line somewhere and at the moment there doesn't seem to be enough interest in this category to warrant giving them their own section. Additionally, our games/releases taxonomy is currently setup to primarily handle commercial products.
I think the other key thing is that we'd never want to have every Flash game on the site. The barrier to entry is so low there that it would just lead to us having a ton of bedroom developers cluttering up the site with links to the games they've made. Until there can be a meaningful distinction between quality Flash-based products and "DUDE CHECK IT OUT I MADE ASTEROIDS EXCEPT WITH BUTTS INSTEAD OF ROCKS," we'd be biting off more than we could chew with that stuff.
We also don't want any BBS door games or standard cell phone games, for the record.
"Yeah, we currently don't want browser-based games on the site. This may change down the line, but you're exactly right in that we have to draw the line somewhere and at the moment there doesn't seem to be enough interest in this category to warrant giving them their own section. Additionally, our games/releases taxonomy is currently setup to primarily handle commercial products.
I think the other key thing is that we'd never want to have every Flash game on the site. The barrier to entry is so low there that it would just lead to us having a ton of bedroom developers cluttering up the site with links to the games they've made. Until there can be a meaningful distinction between quality Flash-based products and "DUDE CHECK IT OUT I MADE ASTEROIDS EXCEPT WITH BUTTS INSTEAD OF ROCKS," we'd be biting off more than we could chew with that stuff.
We also don't want any BBS door games or standard cell phone games, for the record.
"
"
Well I think 'You Have to Burn the Rope' deserves its own page as it was nominated for an IGF award. I think that this shows it actually is a quality flash game and has been recognised as such by a reputable award.
I played You Have to Burn the Rope without knowing what it was.... It blew my mind!!!!!!!!! I finished and im like... thats it? THATS IT! OMG that was amazing! Best 2-3 minutes of my video game playing life.
But anyways i can see why they wouldnt like Flash games because theres a million of them and rarely is a ton of effort put into them. However You have to Burn the rope won some sort of reward didn't it? That kinda seperates it. But if you could i'd put Fancy Pants Adventure on a page, you can't play that game and be upset. Google it if you havent played it you'll see.
But even if we did start allowing Flash-based games, what would we list as the platform? PC? PC/Mac? What about the Wii and PS3? Flash and other browser-based games are platform-agnostic. That creates problems when you've got a game database. And that's why GameFAQs and MobyGames use a separate platform for this type of game.
What if guidelines were set up for flash games. For example, they could be added to GB if:
-They were nominated for an IGF award
-They recieved news coverage
Stuff like that. I think there are some flash games should be on the site. But like Jeff said there needs to be a distinction between them and not just any flash game could be on the site....
" But even if we did start allowing Flash-based games, what would we list as the platform? PC? PC/Mac? What about the Wii and PS3? Flash and other browser-based games are platform-agnostic. That creates problems when you've got a game database. And that's why GameFAQs and MobyGames use a separate platform for this type of game. "
Flash is not a gaming platform. Some sites have a platform specifically for web-based games, but Giant Bomb does not. The site's rules dictate that web and Flash based games are not permitted. If the rules were to change then yes, they should get their own separate platform because web-based games can theoretically be played on any platform with a web browser and are not specific to PC and Mac.
I can see the reasons for the decision but it is a shame. You can't reflect the history of a medium while ignoring such a significant contributor to that history.
I agree with the current decision, and desktop tower defense has commercial releases. I don't think the platform thing is the real issue is the lack of registered releases. Let another site categorise flash games if they really want. Plus at this point in time we arent up to the point where you need a wiki for a flash game. I can see this in the future but not right now.
" @Alex_V: Web-based games aren't really that significant in the history of video games. "
True - I didn't mean to sound so dramatic about it :). At the same time they are games, and a lot of people play them, and I think they could become more significant in time. I think the equivalent of the browser-based game in 10 years might look and feel like a full console game does today.
I think we just need to draw the line somewhere. Browser games just can't be in here, I don't think they count as 'video games.' So we should take down You Have to Burn the Rope, no matter how cool it is.
I believe a mod (perhaps MB) said that there was some discussion about this rule going on behind the scenes. I might have dreamt it, or invented it within the realms of my insanity driven mind, so don't take my word for it, but I'm sure I remember hearing something along those lines.
The Jeff quote is a bit out of context, since we made some points in that discussion that there were already a bunch of browser-based games, and flash based games, on this site, which are recognized as legitimate. I don't think it's as cut and dried as it looks. ANY Flash game probably would swamp this place with a bunch of useless games, but there are, I think most people would agree, some pretty exceptional flash games out there that deserve attention here (or already have pages anyway).
At this time nothing has changed in regards to this rule. Browser games are still not allowed, though we're aware that some have slipped through. If this changes in the future then believe me, we'll let you all know.
Runescape is a bit of a funny beast. If I recall correctly it was originally judged as allowable because you need to pay a monthly fee for some of the content. We've never gotten an "official" ruling on that though, so it's in a grey area where we all point at it and make faces.
@ahoodedfigure: Just because they haven't been deleted doesn't mean they've been "recognized as legitimate".
Yeah, web games can be great. But for now, the official position is that they are not allowed. If you want to try to convince the staff otherwise go ahead and do that. But until then, no web games are allowed.
Right, but I figure they've passed through, they've already got information attached, it shows that there's been an investment in time and effort in them, and that's part of the argument for keeping them, and possibly a few others which pass muster in a heretofore unnamed policy of exceptions that discussion might help bring about.
I get what the official position is, and I get that everyone likes repeating that that's what the official position is. Now that it's pretty well established what the official position is, I still see room for debate on the nature of this thing being forbidden vs. allowing some of it in legitimately, since I believe at least that there could be some future for this stuff.
I get that some folks don't like this to be debated, that they'd prefer we just stop talking about it, but that position is fairly well established. I realize there will be people that will still need to be informed about the official policy, but I don't see the harm in continuing the discussion for those of us who already know.
Log in to comment