NOTES:

If it is a Single Player Game . . .
Then it is a "Guideline" to be able to Play with any Controller ... NOT a REQUIREMENT.

The Starter Kits are available for anyone to use and are able to be Extended however is seen fit. (As stated by MS in Every Starter Kit DOC).

Keep in Mind, Not Everyone is a Super-Guru Programmer like some of You Folks, Sometimes a Game can be Made from just Graphics/Ideas alone.
-> Star Trek Voyager Elite Force was just a Re-Skin of an existing Mod. (That Game made the Big Time for a While).

Another Example is BOKU . . . (Mostly Visual / Concept Based - Not Hard Coded Programming)

http://research.microsoft.com/projects/boku

It is Totally OK with MS that Folks Use their Starter Kits to Make Games From - That is Why the Starter Kits Exist.

The "Community Games" Section is supposed to be for us "Hobbyist" as well You Know.

A Hobby - You Know, something "FUN" to do.   ... Remember ?


Not Starting a Flame War - Just NOTES to think about.


 - Have Fun !

You are perfectly allowed to mod and upload starter kits. However you have not realised that they need extra code to make them of a quality for community games. You keep uploading the same thing without taking advice.

Supporting multiple controllers is a guideline but that also means that reviewers who use other controllers are free to reject the game as unplayable for them.... remember the millions of people out there who you expect to buy your games will not all be using controller #1 and neither are the reviewers. See this post for why you can't just say 'its a single player game' and then only support #1

In addition you are putting your games into playtest for just a few hours (hopefully to get feedback) and then uploading the same binary for review multiple times. People are tired of seeing the same thing with the same issues.

Trial mode on Community Games does not have access to Xbox Live so your Fuel Buster game cannot be played becuase there is nobody to shoot. People will downoad the trial and declare it unplayable.

Its not 'just something fun' when you are publishing a game on a service that charges people money to play the games. Remember there are no free plays on XBL CG.

ECHS BACHS:

NOTES:<br />

The Starter Kits are available for anyone to use and are able to be Extended however is seen fit. (As stated by MS in Every Starter Kit DOC).

It is Totally OK with MS that Folks Use their Starter Kits to Make Games From - That is Why the Starter Kits Exist.<br />

The &quot;Community Games&quot; Section is supposed to be for us &quot;Hobbyist&quot; as well You Know.<br />

A Hobby - You Know, something &quot;FUN&quot; to do.   ... Remember ?<br />

Yes, the starter kits are for people to learn from and extend, but frankly there's not much extension that I can see so far. The Starter Kits don't really stand up to some parts of the guidelines or requirements (many of them produced well before the announcement of the fully fledged XBLCG service). They are not examples of robust titles and can easily be rejected without additional hard work. Unplayability due to poor joypad support has been accepted as a point of failure by many of our community here. It's up to you to raise the standard to meet the community's expectations of a passable title, not for the community to lower theirs, especially as this is not beta any more. When you upload to peer review you're declaring your product to be of an acceptable standard to the potential millions of people out there. I personally think it's a big responsibility to offer your products to other people for their money and I, as well as many others here, treat it as such.

Pop your titles for Peer Review and the community will willingly help and advise - as long as you communicate back to the community. Ignoring rejections will only end up with people resenting you and your titles which isn't what anybody wants to do.

http://creators.xna.com/en-US/education/bestpractices

- This is a "Guideline" List of "Nice to Haves", but, NOT a "REQUIREMENTS" List of "Must Haves" . . .

As stated in the DOC itself . . .

"These best practices are meant to be suggestions, not requirements. They are not necessary to pass peer review, and reviewers should not use these guidelines to pass or reject games."

Community Games are supposed to be for Hobbyist too. (!)

Just because a Game is Made "Visually" without a lot of Code, doesn't mean it isn't Good.

CG Allows for Games to be Downloaded and Time Trialed by the Public for "FREE" ! - So, it Doesn't Cost anything to take a Look. Then, if Someone Likes it then they can buy it. XBLA has been working like that forever.

If Everyone Here Fails Every Game because they Simply don't "Like" the Game, then there won't be very many Titles in C.G. (To Try or Buy) at all.


If the Game Doesn't "CRASH" then it should be able to PASS. Let the Public decide if they "like" a Game or Not.


- Once agan, I am NOT Starting a Flame War, Just Responding to Posts.

ECHS BACHS:

If the Game Doesn't "CRASH" then it should be able to PASS. Let the Public decide if they "like" a Game or Not.

That is not true, even remotely. A game can be completely unplayable without crashing. Consider a game with complicated context-sensitive controls and no help options. Or a game with control bugs. Or bugs that prevent you from accomplishing the game goal. There are a million ways in which a game can be unplayable and not "crash".

Community games will sink or swim based on the games available at launch and the months shortly following it. We should feel obligated to provide a decent level of quality. I am hopeful that there are enough people interested in seeing Community games succeed that the peer review process will overcome the belief that "my game doesn't crash, pass it" .

ECHS BACHS:

If Everyone Here Fails Every Game because they Simply don't "Like" the Game, then there won't be very many Titles in C.G. (To Try or Buy) at all.

From the comments I've seen no one has done that. Rejected games almost inevitably have "issues" other than what they're rejected for. Those issues are discussed in the game thread by reviewers to help developers make their game better. As a game developer you need to be able to handle criticism.

End of line.  <-- (you old-timers should know where this comes from :D)

The thing is, I don't see anything about controllers on the list we're supposed to pick from.

Here's that list:

Game Defects

    * Code Defects - Crashes Make Game Unplayable
    * Grossly Misrepresents Game in Game Info
    * Inappropriate for Xbox LIVE

Prohibited Content

    * Advertising (Alcohol, Tobacco, Gambling)
    * Crimes vs. Humanity/Distasteful Violence
    * Encourages Illegal Activities
    * Direct Threats Against Person or Group
    * Human Excretion
    * Nazi Content or Symbols
    * Collecting Personal Information
    * Racist or Discriminatory Language
    * Full Nudity
    * Strong Sexual Content
    * Child Pornography
    * Unauthorized Content

Then the next page covers game ratings.

Point Taken, but, this Game is Playable.

So Maybe it was a bit of a Broad Sweep with "Doesn't Crash, then Pass" - but, UNPLAYABLE means "Can't Play", NOT "You don't like it because it is a "Re-Skin", so, You'll find some other Reason to Fail it because it is NOT Worthy by Your "Opinion".

If there are No Games to Download in the Service then it will fail. There should be ALL Kinds of "Casual" Games here.

You can't "FAIL" because you don't "Like" it's "Look".

Most of the Games Available on XBLA currently don't meet the Insane High Standards You are trying to SET here, so, by Your Standards XBLA is a Failure too.

C.G. is For Hobbyist Too ! - MicroSoft Says so itself !

Echs you are missing the point here.... the reviewers represent the end users, if one of them finds a game unplayable then they are free to reject it.

It doesn't matter that you are a hobbyist, it doesn't matter that your game is visual... it matters that your game is of a good enough quality to to satisfy the reviewers that its playable. Right now it appears not to be the case.

XBLA does NOT work like that. Firstly you need to find a publisher... they get to choose if they like the idea, if they like the demo, the art style and if they think it will make money. Then the publisher shows it to Microsoft. They also have to like the idea, the gameplay and the game. None of those things happen with community games. Of course both the developer and microsoft have extensive test teams - Microsofts is called certiication - these are the things similar to Community games. Playtest is like the developer test team. We know as a hobbyist there is not much time or money for testing so Microsoft give you an opportunity to let other creators club members test it. The Review process is a kind of community driven certification - it looks for crashing bugs and unplayable games.

As I've pointed out in other threads personally I don't like Bloc I've told Nick and he's not mad about the feedback but I would still pass it. I do think its one of the most polished and well done games out there and here's why. Nick wants his games to sell - he puts them out there for anyone to test and when someone raises something valid he fixes it.

You choose not to do that and your games will continue to fail. You need to take the criticism and do something about it instead of quoting from the FAQ in here. Someone has even offered to fix your games for free - why not take them up on that offer? You certainly need to stop uploading the same binary every day in the hope that someone will hppen to pass it.

"Inappropriate for Xbox LIVE" - so we can fail these "games" because they are, in our opinion, inappropriate for Xbox Live? Excellent.

criticism and "FAIL" are 2 different things.

If The Game is "PLAYABLE" and Doesn't Crash, then it should PASS ...

criticism is fine if it is Constructive. Some Negative Comments are just to be Negative.

If The Game is PLAYABLE and it Doesn't Crash - PASS...

It does matter that Hobbyist are using this service, it is one of the CornerStones of its existance.

You can't "FAIL" because You don't Like the "LOOK".

I think you're also missing a point Echs Bachs about reviewers. None of use are paid to be reviewers, it's all volunteer, a hobby you might say. And as a hobbyists reviewer, I have limited time to review games. And when I look in a thread and see one of the samples, I just move along and never review it. Which means it never gets approved, which in itself is like getting a rejection.

So sure, keep releasing starter kits with no changes and having fun as a "hobbyist", but I'm certainly not wasting my precious "hobbyist" time reviewing those game and I plan on writing several blog posts about that. I want to remind people that they are perfectly within their rights as a hobbyist reviewer to spend their time reviewing games that interest them.

So yeah, you're forgetting you have to make me even want to review the game. And so far, you're failing in that for me and I'd have to imagine others as well.

ECHS BACHS:

criticism and "FAIL" are 2 different things.

If The Game is "PLAYABLE" and Doesn't Crash, then it should PASS ...

criticism is fine if it is Constructive. Some Negative Comments are just to be Negative.

If The Game is PLAYABLE and it Doesn't Crash - PASS...

It does matter that Hobbyist are using this service, it is one of the CornerStones of its existance.

You can't "FAIL" because You don't Like the "LOOK".

I am trying to read your post, but I am confused as to what the quotes mean. Are you trying to emphasize something?

Also, I think George hit the nail on the head with his comment. Ultimately, people will continue to reject your games if you do not fix problems outlined in the comments. You have two options:
A) Fix the problems
B) Release your game somewhere else
You can huff and puff as much as you want about it, but if the game doesn't pass peer review, it won't enter XBLCG.

I was thinking of writing an article (perhaps for the ziggyware contest) entitled "How to get your Community Game to pass peer review (and why that shouldn't even be your goal!)".  The point of it is that you should strive to meet all of the best practices and treat them as requirements and you should care a lot about that - not to pass peer review - but to be a decent product.  I would be very embarrassed to release something that wasn't following standard xbox practices, whether it was hobby or professional work.   

Perhaps if one desires to publish product that is 100% completely unregulated, they should consider PC development. 

I also wanted to say that people shouldn't really worry about these games getting passed.  The starter kits are like peer review "time bombs" - they don't pass the criteria established by the majority of the reviewers thus far.  So maybe all of this is just a non-issue?

ECHS BACHS:

You can't "FAIL" because You don't Like the "LOOK".

Again, I don't think anyone has. They've been rejected for other reasons. The fact that people don't like the look or gameplay is secondary and pointed out to you so that you can make a game people will want to buy. If we, as gamers, would't buy it there's a good chance not many others will either.

My suggestion - stop complaining about it, make a good that that gamers will want to play, and get it out there. You could be creating instead of wasting time here.

this Game is Playable.

If someone picks up their controller, and tries to play it, but it doesn't work for no obvious reason, then the game is not playable. I think that's pretty self-evident, and if you refuse to see that, then you're just being immature.

You have your choice of making your game respond to the active controller (not very hard), or adding a detection-and-instruction page where it will detect whether controller 1 is working or not, and if not, tell the user what to do to use controller 1. You can implement either one of those two solutions, and that failure reason will go away.

Making your game use the active controller is very simple -- change PlayerIndex.One to some static variable, and while the game is in Attract mode, make it scan all four controllers. Once you see a button-down event on Start or A, set the static variable to the value of the controller that had the button down, and you're done.

Thanks for ALL of the Remarks Positive or Negative.

I have Pulled ALL of My Games from Playtest / Review ...

I won't Re-Post them until they are "FIXED" . . .

I might even try making some Actual New Ones instead of just "Re-Skins".

I might have to reach out to some of the Actual Programmers around here, since making a Game "Visually" doesn't seem to be Working.

As I Stated Several Times in My Posts - I was Never trying to Start a Flame War.

I'll go get some Actual XNA Programming Books and Maybe find a Class about making Games Nearby.


I'll be back, hopefully with a better product next time.