[Bjorn]

Something I wish to discuss with the community. As of now, you can enter both a summary and a full description in your general project information. What I am proposing is to remove the summary field and auto-create a replacement by taking out the bbcode of the full description and cutting off all text after the first x (say 200-256) characters.

The newly added search functionality already shows what that would look like.

[Ninkazu]

Sounds good, don't forget the lovely "..."

[Bjorn]

I won't, I've even made sure it doesn't cut away in the middle of a word. :-)

[Ninkazu]

It's amazing how much cleaner things can be with just a little added effort ;)

[Nephilim]

Sounds like a step back in functionality to me. The text you'd want to write as an abstract for your game is different from the text you'd write for specific info, and if the person is interested enough to read more about your game, they'd just end up reading the same text twice.

Besides, you'd end up with people trying to write their first 200 characters so it works as an abstract anyway.

I vote to keep abstracts in there.

[DrunkenCoder]

why not make it optional?
if no abstract is entred use the 200something first words of the project info
_________________
If there's life after death there is no death, if there's no death we never live. | ENTP

[PoV]

:)

You know what would be great? An "other" type under RPG Types, 'cause some people just might think outside tradition. :) :) :).

[Quickbeam]

I'd have to agree with Nephilim, I don't think that's a good plan. I think it's fine the way it is, this way you can make sure the viewers see all the basics when they're scrolling through the project list.

I agree with povrazor too, we need an other category! PIG really isn't traditional at all, I just threw it there because I didn't know where to put it. A non-linear category, maybe? Heh.

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

I agree with DrunkenCoder, let it be optional. Have it like:

"Description: [field]
Summary (optional): [field]"

and if no summary is entered, just auto-create one. It's best for everyone, right?

My main problem with forcing the creation of a summary from a description is that the description can be used for storing links in addition to the website and download links (I think I've even seen this done for some projects). This seems practical, as you can then release, say, a standard, and a developer's version, or release the source code, or something, without having to create a web-site. If you strip the BB code, you get non-functioning URLs in your summaries; and if you don't, you get people using the links provided in the summaries to skip the project pages entirely.

Regarding the different categories, this has already been discussed ad nauseam: http://forums.rpgdx.net/viewtopic.php?t=453. If you want to re-open the topic, that's fine, but start a new thread, please, because it'll take over this one like a match to a pile of dry leaves.

[Bjorn]

Ok, thanks for everybodies opinion! I'll leave it as is for now and might decide to make it optional later.

About the categories, back then we decided to sit and wait for a while. I think we've sat and waited for a while now and in my opinion the added categories are not used enough to defend their existence and the traditional category is plainly overused. Adding an "other" category is certainly a good idea because not everything will fit inside a certain category. This will make the following list of categories: traditional, action, strategy, adventure, engine, other.