- May 7, 2019
- 800
- 899
That's right - for now at least.Isn't that mostly untranslated?
But there are a few well-made jap games aound this theme, like the upcoming RJ292145. Not many, though.
That's right - for now at least.Isn't that mostly untranslated?
1.0 or 0.1a doesn't say anything about the amount of content....well the mixup of art aside a "first release" with Version number 1.0...
I am going to assume that means 0.1 a
It can also mean the % percentage until the game is intended as complete.1.0 or 0.1a doesn't say anything about the amount of content.
The only meaningful thing about version numbers is that they are sequential, i.e. 2.0 comes after 1.0
It also tends to lure in more people expecting a completed game and being disapointed with unfisinished and buged content, considering the first and only release was monthes ago indicate the game is either dead or not an interesting project for the Dev.1.0 or 0.1a doesn't say anything about the amount of content.
The only meaningful thing about version numbers is that they are sequential, i.e. 2.0 comes after 1.0
Then they are misinformed about what version numbers are. Being disappointed will maybe teach them that version numbers are NOT an indicator of how much content there is. Hopefully they learn from their mistake and grow from their ignorance.It also tends to lure in more people expecting a completed game
Definitely not. Where did you get this idea?It can also mean the % percentage until the game is intended as complete.
My thought process to label this version 1.0 was that this game was a proof of concept and, as is it, fully loops meaning there are no dead ends because of incompleteness. The game can be expanded on of course with new monsters, traps, spells, ect. I wanted to get the idea out there and get some feedback before deciding how I wanted to expand on it.It also tends to lure in more people expecting a completed game and being disapointed with unfisinished and buged content, considering the first and only release was monthes ago indicate the game is either dead or not an interesting project for the Dev.
Sadly there is a common practice among Devs useing this kind of release labeling and as far as I can see this one is one of them
Version numbers actually are an indicator of content. Relative content, but completion of content. Labelling your game as "1.0" when it's incomplete is simply wrong. 2.0 indicates additional content that was not in the original outline of the game, or was not able to be included in the 1.0 release. v1.0 means that that version of the game is "complete", or ready for (metaphorical) store shelves.Then they are misinformed about what version numbers are. Being disappointed will maybe teach them that version numbers are NOT an indicator of how much content there is. Hopefully they learn from their mistake and grow from their ignorance.
Thinking that "1.0" means "complete game with plenty of content" is about as stupid as thinking that a game with a name starting with the letter W and being updated on a Wednesday will have more content than a game with an even number of preview images. It's completely tiktoked.
1.0 works then, although I probably would've tacked on a (Proof of Concept) or (V-Slice) to give a more accurate impression, since 1.0 implies you feel the game is finished and may not be working on it any more. Still accurate enough as it is though.My thought process to label this version 1.0 was that this game was a proof of concept and, as is it, fully loops meaning there are no dead ends because of incompleteness. The game can be expanded on of course with new monsters, traps, spells, ect. I wanted to get the idea out there and get some feedback before deciding how I wanted to expand on it.
Also as a small update, the new version is still coming along. It's becoming a bigger project than I was expecting but I am still enjoying working on it. Hopefully I'll be able to get a playable version up soonish so I can get some feedback on the new system, UI, and features.
Just because its complete does not necessary mean it also has "plenty of content".Thinking that "1.0" means "complete game with plenty of content"
No they're not, where did you get this idea?Version numbers actually are an indicator of content.
It's only wrong because you're wrong about version numbers. If you didn't assume that "1.0" means "complete", then it would be fine to release an alpha as "1.0".Labelling your game as "1.0" when it's incomplete is simply wrong.
And there you go: everyone has their own rule about version numbers. You prove my point while trying to say I'm wrong.Personally I tie my version numbers in with my roadmap for the project
That may be the case, but for the most part for most people in most projects, 0.1 - 1.0 "naming convention" makes sense.Maybe if you looked a little bit deeper you would see that version numbering varies wildly:
You must be registered to see the links
No they're not, where did you get this idea?
If you were right, they would be a reliable indicator. But in fact they're not because any dev can choose to release their alpha with just an intro as "1.0". There's no way to enforce that made up rule of "1.0 is a complete game". Therefore it's not an actual rule, it's just a misconception.
It's only wrong because you're wrong about version numbers. If you didn't assume that "1.0" means "complete", then it would be fine to release an alpha as "1.0".
And there you go: everyone has their own rule about version numbers. You prove my point while trying to say I'm wrong.
Maybe if you looked a little bit deeper you would see that version numbering varies wildly:
- Some people use the simple "0.1, 0.2 ... 1.0" (which you think is how version numbers work)
- And then you have the guys who start at 1, then 2, then 3 ...
- And then it gets more complicated, which is difficult to grasp for simpletons: "20.04" = year.month, which is the rule that Ubuntu (Linux) followsYou must be registered to see the links
- Oh but we're not done yet : 3.14 followed by 3.141 followed by 3.1415 followed by 3.14159 ... which is the rule that TeX usesYou must be registered to see the links
- And lastly for my professional project, at work we use 4.0.4.15, 4.0.4.16, 5.0.5.1 ... because we combine 2 version numbers for releases
Sure it would be a wonderful pink rosy world with love and friendship if everyone instinctively followed the same rule, but it's not. We have freedom, we can pick whatever rule we want or make up our own. Therefore it's stupid to assume "1.0" is "complete" or that "0.0.01.a.1.a" has very little content.
Here's a tip when trying to evaluate a game : look at the rating, look at the tags, look at the reviews, look at the changelog, look at the comments on the thread. They are reliable indicators of whether a game has content. The version number is NOT a reliable indicator.
When you try to use an article as proof, you may want to actually read the article to see if it's actually proving your point.Version 1.0 is used as a majorYou must be registered to see the links, indicating that the software is "complete", that it has all major features, and is considered reliable enough for general release.
I was expecting that answer. Because I read that article.When you try to use an article as proof, you may want to actually read the article to see if it's actually proving your point.
The problem is that it's a convention, it's not a rule, it's not followed by everyone, it's not enforced, as we can see with countless examples on this site, let alone in the rest of the world.That may be the case, but for the most part for most people in most projects, 0.1 - 1.0 "naming convention" makes sense.
If the project gets a release then all rules are out and you can do whatever, which all your examples are of post 1.0.
A "Naming Convention" sure isn't an absolute strict rule, but people tend to follow it.