/digipen/ - DigiPenitentiary

i have not heard the news, dish it out spicy

>>982
Four percent of what? What about PAX?

>>985
They received a 4% on their grade, and still got an offer to go to pax, while the triad plus Mr Ellen shit on everyone else's games, including good ones like Moongame and Vessoul

>>986
That is ridiculous, both the part about Yarbus and the part about Moongame being good (unless it suddenly got ridiculously better since last milestone). Also who is Mr Ellen :P

>>986
what the fuck is happening. surely they must have thought - in a passing moment - "hey we are sending this team to pax and yet we evaluated them as subpar (read: subray), maybe we have our priorities fucked up"

seriously, fuck the triad, i dont know about favoritism but it sure as shit aint a meritocracy or my name isnt Ayn Rand

They were not offered a slot in pax. No teams are, until after the final games are all in. Typically 2 to 3 weeks after gold.

>>987
Are you kidding? Ugly art aside moon game is solid.

>>987
Mr. Ellen is Steven Beeman

All I see are ass-hurt kiddies. You need to learn a few things:
- game grades mean nothing. They are there because they need to be and don't reflect upon a games quality very well.
- Yarbus looks good, and that's all that matters for games going to PAX. It's a 3 day event where people walk by and DigiPen wants the best looking game to show.
- Stop being ass hurt about other people and make something good. Being mad that the other guys shit is graded better than your steaming hunk of rythym game is stupid. Try harder.

Fuck you [REDACTED]. Fuck you you ass hurt child. Maybe if you dedicated a small amount of time to not being the dumbest programmer since monkeys touched the leyboard, you'd be able to make something that wasn't a flaming peice of hot shit.

EDIT: Removed name of person(?) –Board Owner(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>997
The frustration comes from the fact that games that LOOK nice are praised as being the greatest thing ever, shown off at PAX, and put on the monitors in the school hallways, but games that are actually good, fun, games to play are not only not encouraged to be made, but are pushed aside in favor of these pretty-tech-heavy games. This also goes for games that have a neat gimmick, like Perspective, TAG, and Narbacular Drop.

Many people, myself included, feel that DigiPen does not encourage people to make games that are pleasant audiovisual experiences that are also fun to play. It encourages you to either have an innovative idea for a gimmick (and "thinking of an idea for a gimmick" isn't something you learn in game design class, so people who try hard in game design class are screwed here too, unless they happen to have a good idea), or have raw programmer manpower put into making a game LOOK very nice, but have it not necessarily be fun to play (see: Subray).

People such as me came to this school to design and program amazing fun gameplay experiences for players to enjoy, and seeing the school jerk it over things that look really nice or otherwise have some crazy "woah never even thought about this as a game design concept before ever lol" mechanics really bums me and others out.

What you're saying is, game grades mean nothing, all that matters is your game should look nice like your game (I'm assuming you're a Yarbus dev) and that everyone should ideally make a game like yours if they want the recognition you do. That if we want to get talks with real game devs about joining their company, we should just make things that look flashy, because that's what attracts the eyes of people.

Yeah fuck that and fuck you. I'll keep making my games fun first, pretty second, and you can keep having the Triad jerk you over your presumably shitty game that looks good. Enjoy having your game be used as an advertisement for a school that encourages this endless loop of making shit games that look nice.

>>997
Damn dude, what'd he do, eat your doritos?

>>997
Bro, do you even know who you're talking about? He's not on Beat Downs.

Is going to PAX really that big of a deal that people get this sensitive over who gets chosen? I'm sure after industry people play the games they will realize that the "pretty" games are just that, pretty with no substance and will appreciate the "ugly" games that are enjoyable to play.

Also, not all games are meant to be "fun". Games that are supposedly poetic experiences try to portray a certain emotion to players and if the devs can do that succesfully, why not go to PAX? Maybe that's why the triad felt this team Yarbus seemed like a contender?

We don't eat Doritos. Only Cheez-its.

Im glad Yarbus is going then just to make this dood cry harder. If your game can't attract more positive attention than another, see what you are doing wrong. Consumers don't care if your game plays well if it looks like ass.

If you think only good looking games go to PAX then why wasn't Arc there last year? Quality of gameplay matters a lot.

>>998
100% agree. A fun game shouldn't be looked at 'Oh it's a simple idea, -10% for design choice.' Why are simple ideas frowned upon? Because they've been done? Why is it that it's taboo to make a super mario world clone for your sophomore year game? Minecraft for your JR year?

>>998
>>1019
That's so true. Narbacular Drop, Tag and Perspective are shitty games that get undeserved attention; I mean, all they did was come up with a unique idea, where's the big deal in that? Why can't the fuckin Triad be impressed with our Mario clones?

hhuihihi

Man, am I glad I missed presentation week. As if there wasn't enough shit to deal with already…

>>988
A poor grade on a presentation means that they are behind schedule. It doesn't mean that the game is subpar.(read Yarbus backward).
And if you want your game on PAX so bad, then you seem to know exactly how to achieve that. So go do that or keep making your 'good' game that won't get noticed.

Wait…is this for real? They don't have a game…they barely even have a tech demo. How are they getting any offers?

I personally think there would be a valid reason why the triad saw potential in them. The triad has a lot of experience in their respective fields. Leave the judging to them. I think yarbus got a great opportunity to work more on their project no matter what people think about their game or tech. I can't really judge based on the fact that I haven't seen their game. But I can state this for a fact that no matter where the state of their game is, it would definitely motivate them to reach the high expectations set on them.

I'm not here to play devil's advocate, but I want you guys to consider the following:

Ben and Rachel (probably less so the Beemans since they haven't been here as long) know what they're doing when they say something. Maybe they don't have the best GAM lectures (Read: Literally worst lectures in school), but when it comes to presentations, Rachel knows EXACTLY what it takes to inspire students to work hard. Ben knows EXACTLY what a game will take to succeed at PAX.

Ben's constantly FUCKING SHIFTING definitions of game design are retarded, but he knows exactly what makes games fun. Rachel expects you to deliver a game as popular as the bible and follow her advice to the letter, but she knows exactly what to say to make a game team turn positivity side up and start working for real.

I'm 99% certain that the whole reason Rachel offered them the PAX thing (Which is only if they actually make the damn game in the first place, btw) is to inspire them to start working in overdrive mode and getting it done.

In both of the Team on Ones Rachel had for our team, we were stuck in a rut and she knew exactly which team member to compliment in exactly the right way to get that team member more productive. It only worked for about 2 weeks, but it was a godsend. When Ben and Rachel give feedback on a presentation, I, for one, think they're probably giving the teams exactly what they need to be hearing.

>>1055
I respect that. Personally I've never gotten any value out of my team on ones with Rachel, but if you have, good on you!

For me it has been inane suggestions and formalized syntax for having conversations at a snail's pace. If my team members didn't enjoy it I wouldn't even participate.

For my last presentation(my team has yet to present this milestone), we got no useful feedback from the triad minus Peters, and were told vaguely to keep working. I honestly felt worse after the presentation than before, and couldn't bring myself to touch or game for way longer than I care to admit. Maybe they can offer tailored feedback sometimes, but your mileage will definitely vary.

This is very useful info about the team-on-ones. Thank you.

Wait, you are telling me favoritism is at play when choosing who goes to PAX and which games get more attention than others? No way! /sarcasm

It's almost as if giving people you like preference over the most qualified individuals is industry standard!

>>1106
Well also you get paid for your work in the real world, so your equivalence is pretty false. This is a school, not a job. Good job of being brainwashed though.

>>1107
I dunno, it's pretty true that it's more about your connections than your skill level(though the latter IS important).

>>1107
Did I say anything about that excusing it? The industry as a whole has serious issues, and is unwilling to bring in new individuals that doesn't fit it's definition of "valuable" employees. DigiPen is a pretty prime example of chasing out individuals that don't fit into a very narrow definition of that.