Muz was posting the other day about click dying, and that conversation ( http://www2.create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=151895 ) got me thinking. Why couldn't there be a massive click supergroup, with loads of people in? Often click groups start, get about 4 members and sort of, die. It happened with the click group I was in before, and it happens all the time. That Muz post, along with this ( http://www2.create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=151898 ) has brought me to offer you a proposal:
The Proposal:
- We start a click group, a supergroup, which is amalgamated from existing click groups, individuals, whoever wants to join. Obviously not everyone could join, for example LIJI.
- Create a website, with a proper domain (no freewebs) made with php or asp so we can have a database with members, games, previews etc. We could get an unlimited bandwidth/space host so that there'd be no running out of space or any annoying messages.
- Have a Vitalize arcade on the site, with highscore boards.
- Call it something cool.
The Advantages:
- People have a place to host all their games.
- People's games will be well advertised because the site would be well visited and linked.
- Group projects could be easily created and overseen. There'd be no trouble in getting lots of people working on a game, and communication would be easy (via forums, MSN addresses).
- Certain people could have different roles, like if someone was really good at GFX but rubbish at coding they could focus mainly on making GFX. Obviously these roles don't have to be stuck to.
- Beginners at klik could learn off the more experienced of the group.
Now paying for the hosting and domain could be done with a mixture of donations and members paying a small fee. But if we get a unlimited host for 2 years it costs about £80/$120, which isn't that much if you consider how many people this project could gather up.
Now obviously if no-one wants to do this then it would be implausible starting anything.
So my question to you is:
Do you agree with any of this, and would you (or your group) be willing to participate? Is there anything you would change?.
Actually that's two questions; never mind. Please add anything you can to this topic, except penises. Also admins, please don't move this to the Solitaire Club, nobody reads that!
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
20th April, 2006 at 22:54:24 -
I think this is a pretty good idea, but I'd like to suggest there be multiple levels of the group. For instance, tier 1 for the elitists, tier 2 for the competent, tier 3 for the others... or something like that. So people can at least get reconition for their work, and not be brought down by something not as good.
Edited by the Author.
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
If there's a group someone needs to be over it all. Everyone in the group vote on a leader other than themselves. People in the group can propose games they wanna make and members can decide if they want to help. Also maybe have ranks where people work under each other, again based on the group voting who they think would be best in the division. If you plan on the idea working there needs to be something stable and organized so the group doesnt fall apart. I wouldn't mind joining if the idea works.
I'm in favour of this idea! It sounds ace, cool, fab!
Alas, it will require the utmost dedication and commitment from all those who express an interest to create and maintain such a team.
By a route obscure and lonely,
Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named night,
On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly
From an ultimate dim Thule
From a wild clime that lieth, sublime,
Out of space
Out of time.
Well I mean obvious things. If you do graphics, be ranked under the graphics department in the group. Same as for coding and so on, and maybe have semi groups out of the main group if one part makes their own game series.
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
20th April, 2006 at 23:12:05 -
Maybe no ranks... how would we decide on who gets in and who doesn't? Strict test?
Edited by the Author.
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
I've experienced this in TDC online game team - the project has stayed still simply because of people being lazy or not having enough time. But then again there will be more people in this group, so more chance of not having lazy members I guess.
This is a signature. Have this one on me.
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
20th April, 2006 at 23:21:18 -
There'll still be individual projects, and DC mails... there should be leaders to solve disagreements.
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
Yes, it's true these problems occur, but these could be solved by discussion/compromise. The time difference thing could be sorted by working with people mainly of your timezone, and if someone's being lazy without good reason then somebody else could do that part of the game. Obviously if somebody never ever completes a game then we would think twice about letting them join yes?
Good point though Flava, what's your opinion about it?
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
If you plan on the idea working there needs to be something stable and organized so the group doesnt fall apart. I wouldn't mind joining if the idea works.
