From what you've said: it got to the point where basically a few old timers were doing everything, which totally defeated what the project was all about in the first place

It sounds like you cold have bennefited from designating responsibility to newbie team members in relevant fields to the old timers.

Well, it's not that we didn't have lengthy discussions on management and all of that. Things just never came together. I just had to make the decision that not enough progress was being made and there was really only one active newbie. And it's not that I didn't manage things some. The interest just never seemed to be there to make it happen in a timely manner. It was supposed to be a fun learning project, but towards the end, it just didn't turn out that way.

@ A.Russell

I had an intermediate or expert team member matched with each each newer member in each field. One expert Level Designer, one new level designer, etc.

I really think the project stalled because I had the team go through the process of deciding the game game type, style, etc. I should have had it all laid out so everything was ready to go. By the time the team had decided on the game type, and began the story line, etc, the newer members seemed to loose interest or didn't like what was choosen. Looking back at it now, I should have had the game choosen, concept art done, documentation ready, etc, then I think it would have gpne much differently. That way, the members would have known exactly what they were getting into and could have started immediately. As it turned out, the story line, which is pretty good actually, is still coming together, concept art is still in limbo, and all the newbies haven't been heard from in weeks, except for one, lol.

Anyway, I am not going to beat a dead horse here. Things just didn't work out.

oh well Loco

i always say.... "s... happens and the life goes on"

Same here Loco, becuase of time restraints. Maybe some other time me, Bilbo, and Tachys can try again. And this time, I will have everything lais out.

McLaren

@Locoweed
I wonder why you didn't simply drop the weak, newbie "slackers", gather "new blood" to replace them, and keep on truckin. After rinsing and repeating a few times, the "lazy", "half-arsed" newbies would have been weeded out, and you would been left with your small group of dedicated, dependable newbies. There's probably a little taint in every experiment. Just wash out the beakers.

You couldn't have really expected every volunteer to "stick". Some people will join anything at a drop of a hat.
Is it really fair to the newbies that invested their time, stuck with it and got their hands dirty, to let the unmotivated "bad apples" bring the project down. When necessary, a "leader" cuts and removes the cancer from the good healthy tissue, so that the group as a whole prospers. If the project had been spawned by a company, the "weak" members might have been quickly fired and replaced. A project's success as a whole can easily be more important than any of its members.

Teachers are leaders too. In class, when teaching a lesson, do good teachers let a few "bad apples" terminate the lesson completely, or are these few "bad apples" merely "left behind" or "removed" as a disturbance. You had stated that the project was an "experiment", but that implies that its purpose was to "prove" something. It might have proved that some do not want to learn or invest a significant time in that project. It also might have proved something about the "character" of the project's leader. I would rather have thought that the purpose of the project was to teach...to teach those that want to learn and to prove that when those that want to learn, do learn, and work hard together, they can succeed.
Code:

---

tryToTeachAgain:
try {
	teach();
} catch (UnMotivatedStudentException _umse) {
	drop(_umse.getStudent());
	goto tryToTeachAgain;
}

---

Code:

---

tryToTeachAgain:
try {
	teach();
} catch (UnMotivatedStudentException _umse) {
	drop(_umse);
	goto tryToTeachAgain;
}

---

NEVER use goto if possible... That is what I learned from a C++ coding book XD.

i agree with testdummy 100% i would of even joined this experiment team if i had the chance

@Silent_Assassin: No, you wouldn't. Unless you would love have no oppinion at all (except for the minor things), have a ditactor as a "manager" who complains all the time and point no directions at all, stay stopped for 2 weeks waiting one people works in its "original" story (which, btw, was already filmed, and it was named "mad max"), then you'll love to join the "experiment".

Well, you would love to join the experiment, too, If you want just to wait for the game script - after all, nobody could help our writer (pulitzer prize winner), or point some problems with the story. You would love search the forum threads and think: "oh my god, they didn't move one step forward with this?". But, maybe you would prefer to chat with the godfather in the msn and read from his: "the story is fine, the game story is almost ready, we are not stuck on this, everything is just perfect".

But I think I know what you would love the most: see, when the project finishes, some irresponsible messages, point the "damn newbies" as the real responsible for the failure of the experiment. Kennedy was shot; let's blame the driver.

This is ridiculous.

I know what I did right and wrong in this project. One thing I didn't do: I didn't put my mistakes on other people's shoulders.

I swear to god I will not write in this thread again. If you - no just you, Silent_Assassin, but everybody who belived in godfather's words without listening the both sides of the story -, if you, I repeat, want to belive in this, fine to me.

But, one advice. Always be aware of someone who talk bad things from other people behind their back. Just because he has 120 000 posts is he right? This is a fallacy. Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Asssuming that nunofontoura was part of the experiment, he has conclusively proven that:

"No good deed goes unpunished".

"Damned if you do; Damned if you don't".

"Between a rock and a hard place".

And all those other cliches that basically point to an ungrateful population of newbies who

"Want their cake and eat it too".

I had nothing to say about this until now. Loco tried and failed; he said that his major mistake which was to let the crowd control the project and not having more prepared work done up front. This is him owning up to a failure in leadership BUT NOT him saying that it was the newbies faults. And it makes perfect sense. You NEED a dictator in charge of a project...you can't have 10 diffrent people with 10 diffrent opinions about how to make ONE game....that's why most project have ONE Game Designer.

So who do I believe? Loco of course. Why? Because nowhere did he blame the newbies like you allege for one and your post is a truely pathetic display of lack of class and gratitude.

In the past, Loco has tried and succeeded; his MP tutorial is still the defacto introduciton to 3DGS MP. Here, he tried and failed. Which is more than I can say for all the rest of the whiners on this board.

And this is the gratitude he gets? I truly hope that you speak only for yourself, nunofontoura...I don't want to believe that the rest of the Experiment were as ungrateful as you!