ChevyRay

Adding a story would have most certainly made the game worse. The minimal story it has already (or even the larger story that it could possibly allude to) is much more interesting than one written right into the game. Also, I already had enough people complaining about the little bits of text there are already, so more could only have been a bad thing.

I'm not much of an emotional person either, neither am I immersed by games or even convinced at any point that their worlds exist or they even could exist. The fourth wall doesn't matter to me, because it's basically something that always stands between me and a piece of fiction. But what I do know is that there's a different level of immersion that comes through a certain amount of simple insight, and that's my tool of the trade when it comes to really understanding a game's (or movie's or book's, etc.) subtext or deeper meaning. Or even just enjoying it at the level it was designed to be.

Again, excellent work on the Sprites and the platform engine, and in response to the action packed game thing (In CM) not all games have to be action packed. I wasn't trying to say that.

No problem, I would never assume that anybody would mean that. It's a pretty brazen/rare thing for anybody to say. My response didn't infer that that's how I understood your comment anyways.

I appreciate the posts, guys. Also...

Finally, I think you should have added a story or attempted more to immerse the player.

You should follow statements like these with some thought-out examples it makes it much easier for me to respond to them, or even understand what you're trying to suggest. "A story" can mean a multitude of things, some good, some bad, and depending on what you're trying to achieve with a game, you don't always want a story. So I'm wondering what kind of story you're thinking about, how it would/should be told, and how it would improve or elaborate on what Beacon was created to achieve. A lot of immersion comes through in a game's detail, and Beacon could have had more detail in thousands and thousands of ways, many which I unfortunately didn't (or haven't yet had the chance to) apply yet. A guy's imagination can only go so far, but I agree that as long as the details and atmostphere contribute to (as opposed to distracting from) the core game experience, then I totally agree, and sometimes wish more games would lay these kinds of things on thicker, and concentrate more on immersion.

Awesome, zeddidragon. This is actually the 3rd time I've had someone use the Silent Hill games to defend Beacon's game status! Makes me happy, mostly because SH2 was one of my core inspirations while designing the game.

Interesting point of view, thank you for your thoughts! I had trouble reading some of it, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying.

That's the problem, those statements don't mean anything, and anybody who has years of experience designing games is aware of this.

In a nutshell, this is more of an "atmospheric interactive experience" than a full "game"

It's not, though. That's like standing outside of a house, and saying that the house has nothing in it before you walk inside. The other dozens of people who have reviewed the game have given explicit descriptions of their gaming experience. For example, you say...

because there is no sense of progression, no goal to work towards, no winning or losing.

But that's no different than saying, "there's no coins, there's no double-jumping!" So what? Those just aren't things IN this game. When you go outside for a bike ride, do you expect to win or lose? No, you just want to get excercise, enjoy the wind in your hair, watch the sun set, and hope you don't accidentally crash and kill yourself.

Look at it this way: you win if you get to the end and enjoy the experience of getting there. You lose if you don't feel anything when you play the game. Just because the game doesn't explicitly spoon-feed it to you doesn't mean it's not there. And sense of progression? Here are a couple quotes from reviews of the game:

The pacing, in my opinion, is perfect: slow and contemplative to start, it gradually speeds up, and introduces in stages the myriad details that make the game shine.

The beacon will occasionally take a branching path that is out of your reach, and you would have to rely on the light from blue and red crystals just as often to progress.

his interesting concept gives way for some really neat ideas (too many for me to go through), while Chevy gradually increases the challenge waiting in every level.

he difficulty was perfect for me - just as an area started to get frustrating, I'd beat it.

Very nice mood and polish. I love the graphics, and the gameplay is progressively more and more difficult. i haven't played to the end at the moment, but i did get pretty far.

How can one deny, after reading all those comments (many written by seasoned game developers and reviewers), that a sense progression does not exist in this game? I'm forced to disregard such statements because of their contradictive nature, and assume that the people saying them merely, to continue the metaphor, didn't "go in the house". If you didn't feel these things, you most likely just didn't play the game, you merely scratched the surface and are formulating an unfounded response. Judging a book by its cover, so to speak.

I'm very glad you enjoyed the game, especially the aspects that I pushed the hardest. But it is naive to break the definition of "game" down into a distinct set of qualities, and judge every game based on those qualities in respect to all other games. Rating systems like the YoYo one are primitive and amateurish in this way, which most likely has a lot to do with the amount of clones, reproductions, and generally uninspired games in this community.

just that the majority out there expect "more" & with what you`ve given looking & feeling so damn nice

You're definitely wrong here. You say majority, but realize that Yoyo games does not represent the majority. In fact, I had barely even received a single bad word about Beacon until I came here, which is why I've been rather disappointed so far. The Game Maker Community doesn't have to encourage innovation or anything, but judging creations so intensely with a grading system far outside the game's representative design? It's like punishing people for trying new things, instead of giving them helpful and creative feedback, or simply opening your mind a bit when you play a game.

I'm not arguing to defend myself or my game, I'm arguing because if you honestly believe those things about Beacon, you're most likely digging yourself a hole as far as your own creations and interpretations of games go. Beacon was my largest success by far over the internet, and has earned me more praise than anything else I've made to date, and I'm arguing because to simply refuse to see and believe the aspects of Beacon that got it such an overwhelming response is just denying yourself a possible chance at the same thing in the future.

I've been designing games for years now, and I know exactly where Beacon has faults, and how it can be improved as a game. And it is not because it is not a "game" (a naive and silly thing to even say, this is about as intellectually stimulating as Kongregate comments...), and it is not because it lacks "gameplay" or "fun". Those sentences don't even mean anything, those are just YoYo Games categories that can represent a myriad of different things based on the game and audience, and should be considered on a case-to-case basis. Don't ask whether or not "Beacon has gameplay", ask yourself "What is Beacon's gameplay, and where does it lie? What are its merits, and what are its faults?"

I'm no professional game designer, but I know that if you want to make something that reaches out to people beyond this community, expanding the way you think about games and thinking more deeply when making design decisions is an excellent place to start. If you guys were just gamers, I wouldn't be writing all of this, but you're all potential game developers, and some of you have promise I don't want to see wasted.

Thanks!

Things are gettin' pretty spicy in the cage match! I've got people voting against me solely because they don't want to see any more of my big posts in there. That must be some kind of record or something, right? Unfortunately, nobody addresses me directly (Alpha Man did, but still refused to be polite or try to validate any of his points instead of just repeating them) or comes and posts here about it. So until somebody gets the guts to stand up against the masses and explain why Beacon is "not a game", I'll just have to dismiss these empty accusations and instead go read the reviews of the game elsewhere made by folks who actually put some thought behind their words.

Honestly, I'm almost already fed up with being here. I originally avoided this crowd because I figured there was nothing Beacon had to offer them, but after the support it received in the cage match, I thought maybe there was a whole new group of people that I could reach out to with the game. But it's hardly worth it at this point, with the childish and hateful responses I've been getting. I've got bigger fish to fry.