- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 383
- Reaction score
- 114
OK I hear alot of double talk and plenty of labeling, when it comes to vidio games and gane design. I am not a vidio game designer, nor am I even remotly skilled in programing. but even idiots who spend thier free time on something and feel pasionately about it, can learn enouph to understand how it is logistically achieved.
game design is a diffacult process and takes alot of skilled people to do it. no one person can build a game all by themselves. If that were possible we could all be millionare software engineers. sadly it isnt, and this is not at the fault of those who have tried, many have and very few have suceeded, and even they had some outside help. that brings me toward my point.
An Alph phase of game design is something that is built upon a framework that dosnt actually work yet, basically alpha is when nothing actually works. This is an example of an alpha phase game, http://steamcommunity.com/app/244850. this Isn't like labeing it, or negatively calling it a broken game, its simply pointing out it isnt yet ready for full play. there are hundreds of objects in this game that either serve no function, or just plain arent working. you can tell just by looking at it what its suposed to do, but it just dosnt work yet. there is nothing wrong with any of that, the developer by calling it an alpha, is just letting you know up front dont buy this unless you know what you are getting into.
starmade, mite be more of an example of a beta product, while it it also unfinished, it is playable in a full sense. all of the basic features are already functional, while they can only get better over time, they are at the least working enouph for you to play with without preventing you from enjoying the game. this is the point where most games start to show thier potential. Im not saying that games should not be shown untill they reach this phase, im simply pointing out the difference between the two.
ok now that ive discussed what the difference is, lets get really philosophigal, what would you rather have a barely functional alpha? or an at least playable beta product? and which do you think starmade is?
game design is a diffacult process and takes alot of skilled people to do it. no one person can build a game all by themselves. If that were possible we could all be millionare software engineers. sadly it isnt, and this is not at the fault of those who have tried, many have and very few have suceeded, and even they had some outside help. that brings me toward my point.
An Alph phase of game design is something that is built upon a framework that dosnt actually work yet, basically alpha is when nothing actually works. This is an example of an alpha phase game, http://steamcommunity.com/app/244850. this Isn't like labeing it, or negatively calling it a broken game, its simply pointing out it isnt yet ready for full play. there are hundreds of objects in this game that either serve no function, or just plain arent working. you can tell just by looking at it what its suposed to do, but it just dosnt work yet. there is nothing wrong with any of that, the developer by calling it an alpha, is just letting you know up front dont buy this unless you know what you are getting into.
starmade, mite be more of an example of a beta product, while it it also unfinished, it is playable in a full sense. all of the basic features are already functional, while they can only get better over time, they are at the least working enouph for you to play with without preventing you from enjoying the game. this is the point where most games start to show thier potential. Im not saying that games should not be shown untill they reach this phase, im simply pointing out the difference between the two.
ok now that ive discussed what the difference is, lets get really philosophigal, what would you rather have a barely functional alpha? or an at least playable beta product? and which do you think starmade is?
