ragdoll masters prerelease
Community Forums/Showcase/ragdoll masters prerelease
| ||
 http://www.radicalrebound.com/ragdollmasters.exe It should be quite finished... do you think it's convincing enough for people to buy it? What would be the right price? Thx, Matteo |
| ||
| Screenshots? |
| ||
| That quite cool apart from the fact that if you do nothing they still beat the crap out of each other. I don't think anyone would buy this in it's current state, it needs much more work. You need power ups, special moves, and maybe some graphics?! But I love the concept of it, very quirky and fun. |
| ||
| >I don't think anyone would buy this in it's current state, it needs much more work. bah, why not? I cant add special moves because all moves are "special" right now, power ups probably wouldn't help much, good graphics would help but a) I dont have it b)it would be hard to integrate it in the engine. I guess I'll have to release it to know... |
| ||
| Maybe backgrounds? A font? Make it so you're actually in a scene rather than bouncing around a void. Add some gravity so the players actually fall to the ground? If they do fall to the ground make it so they stand up afterwards. Have a run left and right ability I think it's cool, don't get me wrong, I just don't think it's good enough for anyone to spend any money on in it's current state. |
| ||
| Someone to pay for this? I think that would be a crime. The game has nothing, the gameplay even is very vague, the movements are so random and hard to control the player can hardly have any input into winning the match. I won more if i just didnt use controls than if i tried to control it and win. Its very straining to play, and to me, not fun at all. No instructions either. Nag screen so long, i used ctrlaltdel to get out of it and its pretty much why i'm writing this so openly. Sorry, im being honest. Constructive criticism seems like it wouldnt help you because you say you decided that this will be 'it'. |
| ||
| I think it's a very cool demo, but i wouldn't buy it if there aren't more features. You need graphics, sounds and, as rob said, power-ups and more moving abilities. Maybe you can use another game idea and create it on base of this engine? And I need a build for mac os. ;-P Do you give me the source code? Send me an email ( as you might remember, ibd_AT_gmx.ch )! -IBD |
| ||
| Sorry, im being honest. Constructive criticism seems like it wouldnt help you because you say you decided that this will be 'it'. So I assume you believe your destrucive criticism helps, lol! |
| ||
| It would help if you listened to it. I have to agree with the others,... not much more than a proof of concept now. You really need to get better controls, graphics,... something,... anything to make people actually want to play it, and especially if you want someone to spend any money for it. Take a look at the ragdoll kung fu stuff for some absolutely amazing stuff on how you could do this properly. |
| ||
| I agree with Rob and Lenn. Also, I buy games that look good in the screenshots. This doesn't look good from a screenshot. Edit: Forgot to mention that there's absolutely no sound. Even a cheesy background tune would make this less boring. Edit: More -- 8 levels only is just sad. |
| ||
| Agree with all in that there seems to be no rythm or reason to the control system so I don't feel that I'm participating in any way. Sorry mate but as it stands it's no more than a demo and no-one in their right mind would spend their hard earned spondoolies on it. |
| ||
| hmmm... thats interesting... probably it takes a while to get the controls and people are too pissed off by the nag screen to reach that point... Also, I will sell it only at 4.95$, so it's almost free (from the consumer's point of view) |
| ||
| First, let me say that i really enjoy the game. I think its a really cool idea but it also really has to be built up more. I would dissagree with Rob in that i think the "no gravity" idea works great. On the otherhand, it really needs some plot, more levels, and special moves. It seems as if your trying to make them like dragon ball Z characters or something of the like, so why not let them shoot energy balls or somethign similar, or a super punch that would knock the enemy back hugely. Furthermore, i felt as if i couldnt really control my character, let us move his hands, as well as just kinda fling him about. Finally, I would say that by releasing this for 4.95 you will get no purchases (or very few). When I see a game for under 15$ i dont even look at it. A game with a screen such as yours that isnt packed with graphics wont even get a glance. Instead of releasing a half finished product for nothing why not really add to it and make it something special and release it for more? At the moment i must say it feels alot like a simple rigid body demo. Don't get me wrong, i think its a really novel idea.. but finish it.. it could be something really special. |
| ||
| I agree with SSS. |
| ||
| I see what you mean. Are you sure about the 15$ thing? I mean, honestly this game is not worth 15$, but I think it's worth 5$... I tried putting more control over limbs, but it sucks. fireballs? hmmm... I dont know, I try to keep things simple and fun as the good old days, but looks like today's gaming doesnt appreciate... (or at least people in this forum, I've had better comments on gamedev ( http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=319816&PageSize=25&WhichPage=1 )) Anyway, there's always time for a sequel- improved versions (which I'd rather not do if this one sells...): I have to make money otherwise I'll have to find a job :-( |
| ||
| Perhaps a mouse controlled hands thing? It would only work on single player stuff, but may be sort of interesting to try out. |
| ||
| I put music and sounds, halfed the nag time, and unlocked some options |
| ||
| It will be tough to compete against Ragdoll Kungfu... http://personal.lionhead.com/mhealey/screenshots.html When it looks like that... it will sell. |
| ||
| I know. It looks amazing. Yet I believe Ragdoll Kungfu has playability issues: they continue to pospone it, and having to play a beat'em'up with the mouse doesnt feel all this good... even to move you have to grab feet... Lol I think I'll post about my game in their forums ;-P BTW I've done my site: www.ragdollsoft.com |
| ||
| It's a cool game no doubt about that, but I think it's not ideal for PC market. If only you could get this into a cell phone or some other gadget. |
| ||
| The link to the macintosh version ( http://www.ragdollsoft.com/ragdollmasters.sit ) doesn't work. :( EDIT: OT: OMG! Najdorf, maybe you want to check this out: http://www.tntbasic.com/community/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1059 TNT Basic 1.3 is coming! |
| ||
| Are you sure about the 15$ thing? I mean, honestly this game is not worth 15$, but I think it's worth 5$... If people don't think it's worth $20, they generally don't think it's worth paying for at all. Because at $5, you still have to fill in three pages of forms, you still have to wonder if you'll get anything, if the site is secure, etc. You still have to go and dig the credit card out. So it's only worth $5, why bother? And yes, there's a lot of evidence that lowering the price below $20 has no positive effect ( even sometimes negative ) to sales. |
| ||
| I read the same too. And I believed it too, a year ago. But setting the price low is a sign of humilty people appreciate, moreover the arguments you report are not as convincing as they look. Well, the game is 4.95$ now, I sold one copy tonight even before having submitted it to gaming sites, it so I suppose it works. This game will never sell at 15$ or more, simply because it's not "right". Mac version is coming soon hopefully. TNT is back? Well that's great news, at least I wont have to rewrite radicalrebound in max! |
| ||
| I read the same too. And I believed it too, a year ago. But setting the price low is a sign of humilty people appreciate, moreover the arguments you report are not as convincing as they look. And you're basing your counter argument on one sale? Well I stand very much corrected then. |
| ||
| Najdorf, I think you quite misunderstood me and the majority of people who have posted. I do not think that your game is bad by any means, it is fun. On the contrary I think most of the people are saying that we do not believe it will sell very well because it lacks the quality that will make it stand out. Possibly the only reason I even downloaded the demo was because of the "ragdoll" buzzword. It was definitely not the screenshot as I am sure you can appreciate. However, outside of the programming community I would expect very few, if any, people would know what "ragdoll physics" was. When people look through the plethora of games that are available on the net they lookfor pretty screenshots and buzzwords. If yours doesn't have some quality that makes it stand out it probably wont be noticed. If your game was a part of a "pack" of games that cost say 15$ then I could understand. However, as it is now I do not think many people will be persuaded to buy it. If they do, then I renounce what I have said and congratulate you. I would repeat that it is a fun game, it just doesn’t have "enough". It feels a bit thrown together, and a tad random. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with your endeavor. [edit]As I have already stated, I think it is far more effective to sell more at a higher price than less at a lowerprice.[/edit] |
| ||
| Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with your endeavor. thx, only time will tell. And you're basing your counter argument on one sale? No, one sale in the first night the reg system worked and before having submitted it to any gaming site. Sibix, if you dont mind, I'm curious to know how much you sold (nothing realated to our argument, just curious). Anyway, most of you probably don't know that a shareware game is SUCCESFUL if it sells 1 out of 100 downloads. So if 99 people say it sucks and one sais it's cool and he will buy it, that's a succesful shareware. |
| ||
| No, one sale in the first night the reg system worked and before having submitted it to any gaming site. Hmm, then you probably don't want to hear my experience and research with regards to submitting to gaming sites either. Sibix, if you dont mind, I'm curious to know how much you sold (nothing realated to our argument, just curious). Sorry, I was brought up to believe that discussing one's earnings in public was crass. I know it's not the way of the world these days, and most people are happy with discussing it, but we're all a product of our upbringing. All I can really say is that it's my only source of income, and I'm not starving yet. |
| ||
| Sorry Sib, didnt want to sound arrogant. It's just that people here are crashing my game while I think (in my creator bias) that it can sell as it is, and I'm prowd of my "1 sale", since people here betted that "no-one in their right mind would spend their hard earned spondoolies on it" and that "buying it would be a crime" and that " by releasing this for 4.95 you will get no purchases" Obviously it's useless to discuss if it will sell as only time will tell, and I'm going to try to sell it anyway. I admire people like you that make a living selling games, obviously I'm pretty new to the business, I would love to know your experience and research with regards to submitting to gaming sites, since I only have experience with Mac games. |
| ||
| Don't worry, you didn't come across as arrogant. Well I haven't tried your game, so I really can't comment on whether it would sell. I was merely making the comment that - based on my experiences and the experiences of many others I have spoken to - games that won't sell at $20 won't sell at $5 and games that will sell well at $5 will sell at $20. My experience with download sites is fairly depressing, I'm afraid. They don't deliver downloads. If you want it to sell ( again, purely from a marketing perspective, without having played the game ) I'd suggest some lateral thinking and focus your efforts on getting exposure on sites that are likely to have potential customers for this type of game. The generic download sites take a fair amount of time to submit to ( even with something like Shareware Tracker or Robosoft ) and 99% of them just don't deliver significant downloads. If you remain intent on submitting to as many download sites as possible, check out Robosoft. I think they have a cheap service to submit for you. Well worth the cash if you're going to go for a brute force as-many-sites-as-possible approach. |
| ||
| games that won't sell at $20 won't sell at $5 and games that will sell well at $5 will sell at $20 It's a theory. My experience with download sites is fairly depressing, I'm afraid. etc That's sad. On the mac, you get easy exposure: For every new version you release, you get 500-1000 downloads on versiontracker, 500-1000 downloads on macupdate, 500-1000 on macgamefiles, 2000 downloads on the apple website and easily you get in download.com for free and get another 1000. Which are the PC sites you advice? average downloads (if you know?) I'm sure if you make a freeware you get much more exposure. The trick should be to release some good freeware to promote your shareware |
| ||
| Najdorf: I did a lot of research on the indiegamer forums and many people said they experimented with price and lowering it from $20 right down to $5 made no difference to the number of sales. But these were "full" games not mini ones. Certainly I can understand the idea that after finding a decent demo and playing it, as a 30 year-old man with not much spare time, I just want to buy the game and don't care much about the price. The sort of people who'll buy it for $5 are either broke (fair enough) or teenagers who'll just as soon find it on a warez site. I am in the same situaton as you as I have put a bigger project on hold for a little while so I can try some mini "casual" games, and like you I don't feel I should sell then at $20. Perhaps the thing to do would be to make several and release a game pack at $20? Keep posting as I'm interested in your outcome. |
| ||
| Certainly I can understand the idea that after finding a decent demo and playing it, as a 30 year-old man with not much spare time, I just want to buy the game and don't care much about the price I can't... And yes, you're right, a "full" game should be sold for 15-20 bucks. I mean, the price should look "right" to the buyer: if you have a game that looks like 20 bucks and is sold at 5 people will get suspicious. But if a game looks as $5 it should be sold at $5, because no-one would pay more. And releasing a game pack is a bad idea because you will get much more traffic by releasing them separately. I heard some people that said they're going to buy it because the price is right (3 or 4), many appreciated that. I would never buy this game for 20$, because it's way too simple, but I could consider buying it for 5$ because it offers some elements that are not in any other game and the physics are cool. I still have to decide which sites to submit it to: If you could submit it to 5 sites only, which would they be? |
| ||
| Sorry to say, but I don't find the game any fun. Please don't be insulted, I'll try explain why I say this. You only provide WASD controls and this seems a little bit limited. I love simple-to-play games, but perhaps this is just a bit too simple. The gameplay right now is just about colliding with the other player. I don't have the possiblity to apply tactics, defend my self, because it's just about two ragdoll figures colliding with eachother. Making "head collisions" seems like coincedence, there's no sense of being in control in the game. |
| ||
| ok, dont worry, I've heard much worst... :P |
| ||
| I thought the game was a pretty cool simulation but I also found it hard to do anything deliberate. I seemed to get head shots, double hits, triple hits and other such things but I could not discern what exactly had happened to make this occur or how to repeat it, and it seemed that it happened by chance. I think maybe this is one of the downsides of real physics. Physics presents a model for how things should behave kind of `by themselves`, interacting with their environment or other objects. Physics doesn't have much to do with the player controlling things. The physics of the real world determines how matter interacts on various levels with various forces and properties and interactions. It doesn't require any human intervention to make it work. I think that if you base your game almost purely on the fact that it has some cool physics, and like someone else said, focussing on the `ragdoll` buzzword, you aren't really presenting anything useful to the player other than a simulation that's out of their control. It's all very well that the characters interact with `correct` physics reactions, which might be the case if it were a real person doing those moves, but real people can also counteract the effects of inertia, gravity and other forces by applying muscle contraction, balance and control. You don't have enough of that kind of control to put the player in the hotseat, so the game is almost playing itself. IT has good novelty value, only because the physics hasn't been seen all that much before, but beyond that I think it's lacking anything else. Just because real matter in the physical world interacts with `physics` and laws of motion etc, doesn't mean that human beings think or act on that kind of level. I think and operate on a more abstract higher level. The control I have over my physical body lets me interact with matter and cause it to do certain things, and granted the matter reacts by itself with its own laws and physics, but I at least have some semblence of `input` and control to what goes on. A ball doesn't get up off the floor unless I pick it up, even if it's able to roll and bounce by itself. Maybe if you heightened the amount of control that the player has over what happens, and let the physics do what they do with less priority, it would be more interactive for the player. It's all very well being proud that you've got the ragdoll physics code in there, but the world doesn't revovle around that and people can't relate to your design which implies that it does. Okay, so get the physics right, but you need to then step away from that and give the player more to do on a higher level. I could do physics to make balls bounce around the screen and collide with each other, it wouldn't be a whole lot different. But if I were able to exert some kind of other behavior on the balls which counteracts the physics, not just being able to move the balls eventually with some acceleration, and I have some options to express my will in various different ways, that would make it more interesting. Getting the engine right and getting it to do the right physical simulation is only one thing. The universe has its own physics simulation but that isn't what makes it interesting. What makes it interesting is our ability to use the physics for some advantageous purpose, to counteract it and apply our own personal force to what is going on. People are creative and they want their `human physics` of consciousness to be expressed in and have an affect on the material physics of the world around them. If you deny them that by only simulating the material world and hoping they'll enjoy watching it, they're going to get bored. Maybe you could think of it in terms similar to a `beat em up` game, which it is close to being. When the players get close to each other maybe you can press some other button combinations to do `moves` like swing the arms and legs, recoil in a `stand-off` move to avoid a hit, duck to avoid a flying limb, swing the legs to do a scissor kick, adopt a straight drop-kick posture, whatever. You need to give the player more creative freedom and control. The physics of the material world are boring without the ability of us humans to `play` with it. My advice to you is, make it a really cool engine, get all your physics working, be proud of it, then step back, hugely de-emphasise focussing on showing off the physics engine and put your focus on the real game content, USING the engine as a tool but not in an end to itself. What makes a game engine good isn't that it has xyz feature but that it has xyz feature PLUS it shrugs off that feature as if it's well within its repertoir. What would make this game good is having this real cool ragdoll physics, but then ALSO having this whole bunch of other cool stuff. If you make the physics the sole most important focus of the game, that's all very well but at the same time it says to everyone "I have this one cool feature, but that's all I have". They see the limitation of it. If you downplay the feature, be humble about it rather than brag about it, and put it in its proper place way down on the list of things to focus on, people will appreciate how cool the overall game is and the physics becomes an invisible and integral part of making the overall game happen. If you do the physics and make it so obvious by focussing on it so heavily, as you have done, making it the center of attention, people won't appreciate it as something elegant and complementary. The physics has to work TOGETHER with the rest of the game, not stand out. It has to be a small supporting aspect, not a glaring limitation. If your game is going to stop at the physics, there is no game. It seems like you've only just begun to give the ragdolls any control, I can barely notice that the head moves when you press the keys and that eventually this makes you slow down or speed up in a certain direction, but if I were living in a human body where that was the only control I had I'd be in almost total paralysis. To make your game more cool, you need to express in it a more dismissive `oh that's nothing` kind of attitude about the physics. Shrug it off. Be modest about it. This will imply to the player that the fancy physics are well within your abilities, which in turn implies that your abilities are much greater and grander. They will subconsciously assume that there is more in the game that is bigger and better even than the amazing physics. Do this great thing, have your ragdoll physics, but then have more beyond that. That will give a better impression than just saying "here's my amazing physics, aren't I great?". TELL them you are great by showing that you have even more to offer than these amazing physics. That makes the physics look a whole lot more cool than if you focus on them with an egocentric approach. It also makes your game have a more mysterious quality which is attractive. If you try to shove things into the players face, like with putting your physics on a pedestal, you will narrow their focus and they will get bored. Make it so that they see more of the bigger picture, where the physics is just a PART of a great overall game experience. Get your ego out of there and create a bigger world with greater flexibility for the user. You want the user to be being aware of a whole bunch of amazing cool things at once, not narrowing their focus down to this one little feature. That's my 2p. |
| ||
| 2p? It's $200.000.000! |
| ||
| Thanks for the compliment ;-) |
| ||
| I'm glad you haven't posted any huge replies like that in any of my threads! I'd be stuck reading for weeks. |
| ||
| Haha, thx for the ideas Angel. |
| ||
| Just seen your game announced on download.com. You should get tons of downloads! Front Page Coverage! Sweeeeeeet! Hope you sell plenty! CONGRATS! |
| ||
| Thanks! Yeah that was a crazy surprise this morning. It sent my adrenaline rushing I just could not concentrate on the exam I had to take :P |
| ||
| Does getting the game on there also provide some kind of payment method? |
   |