I had a game request rejected recently with the reason being [quote]We are currently not accepting games that show no reasonable level of effort has been put into development from a functionality standpoint.[/quote] How would I dispute/avoid this sort of rejection in the future? It's not clear to me what aspect of the functionality is the issue.
Also, are we not getting emails for game request rejections anymore?
I've seen worse. Yeah, what does "no reasonable level of effort has been put into development" mean? How do you measure that exactly?
@WhatsFrog The description of the game clarifies that it is a jam game. It doesn't help that the creator hasn't updated the game since.
It's kind of a vague reasoning since it might be difficult to find criteria that work for all games. I think it's more of the little things; no acceleration in movements, for one, is immediately suspect.
My favorite speedgame hasn't been updated since 1993. Sometimes jam games go further than their slapped together debut, sometimes they don't. If it's a functioning game that meets basic speed criteria (has an actual ending, isn't pvp, etc) and is over the 5 minute mark that seems to be established on SRC, then what's the hold up?
My two cents: I've never heard about this game at all. It doesn't seem to be noteworthy, given the little relevance it has, therefore, it's considered trivial.
@Walgrey If they had said the game doesn't meet the notability standards, I wouldn't have made a thread about it. But that was not the reason given.
@Walgrey I never heard of a lot of games on the Wii, including Skylanders. By your logic, I declare that game to be trivial! Now seriously, popularity of a game rarely has anything to do rejections - there are lot of obscure games on the site.
@hahhah42 It seems that because this is a game from a game-jam, then the developer didn't had time to put sufficient effort into it (from the sr.c site-staff point of view). But, as Komrade said, if it's a functioning game that meets all other criteria, then I don't see any problem with it either. I would love to see some explanation for this rejection message, or how you measure it.
[quote]I would love to see some explanation for this rejection message[/quote] We're all wasting our time, elo would rather delete the forums and they might as well at this point lol.
A lot of rejections for reasons like trivial/noteworthy/level of effort and so on are very subjective so I doubt you can get a satisfying explanation for it. But they (have to) draw a line somewhere to not put literally every game on the site (which they basically used to do before realizing that that would just be too much at some point for the site to handle)
@Laxxus I know a lot about the "short/trivial/notable" stuff, because I've seen many posts and discussions about this, and also had several games rejected for being short/trivial. I don't argue that the site has to draw a line somewhere, but the point of this thread is that "games that show no reasonable level of effort has been put into development from a functionality standpoint" is not very clear.
Honestly i dont really think the "to much for the site to handle" is now a problem with the new ownership. I see the problem with "to many dead and irrelevant games".
And to rejections there need to be some hard criteria when series and games should be accepted. Currently this is a basically not understood process. we know some nogoes but thats it.
Hey there, dev of the game here. If I may add something, this game was indeed made in 48 hours, as are most of my games (I only work well during jams). I'd understand if that was a reason for rejection, however there is another game I made with runs submitted to this site which I also made in 48 hours (Universal Thief) and this one has been accepted.
My guess for the actual rejection reason is that this game looks ugly because I drew the graphics myself (had an artist who bailed out on me after a few hours), while for the other one I had a good artist on board.
[quote]My guess for the actual rejection reason is that this game looks ugly because I drew the graphics myself (had an artist who bailed out on me after a few hours), while for the other one I had a good artist on board.[/quote] Right. The graphics of a game have more weight than people realize, and site mods probably passed on it for that reason, which is incredibly lousy.
graphics are important. they are the first impression of a game and you cant really change it. calling the mods out for it is just wrong.
It's just a guess, I could be wrong! I've seeen it happen before. Graphics are important.
Graphics are important yes. By modern standards games that came out 30+ years ago have terrible graphics. Are we really going to use that to measure what is and isn't allowed on SRC? I guess so.