GameDev used to be *much* better at this on the old site, when we had 'Image Of The Day' (instead of the #screenshotsaturday twitter importer we have now).

At that time, all IOTD posts were by actual GameDev users, and carefully moderated and collated by mods/staff, to ensure high-quality, highly relevant content. The old IOTD also allowed one to comment on the posting, so a lot of lively discussion was to be had (I don't think the archive still works for IOTD posts, but you can at least see the comment counts).

Unfortunately, we lost this in the transition to the new site, and there hasn't been a lot of general interest/motivation in bringing it back.

Yes, IOTD was really great. It was community-building also.

The forum had a partially rebuilt one that was semi-WIP after the transition but, as @Mussi mentioned, it wasn't given the visibility it had on the old site.

Currently, the articles have excellent visibility, which is good, but GameDev.net usually has a difficulty in making everything visible enough that should be visible. It took me three separate series of naggings before they even put the GameDev.net donation link somewhere visible.

If they did bring back IOTD, they'd have to make the image more visible, and currently the "GDNet spotlight" does seem to be actually bringing them much-needed revenue, so I doubt they'd move that for the IOTD to take over.

This touches on something that I've been thinking about asking, albeit by a different route: what should one do when one wants general feedback?

Yeah, that is an issue. For my own game, I was going to post a "Combat" demo and a "Exploration" demo separately, to get more specific feedback.

But also, eventually, I'll want some actual playtesters to play through the entire game and give feedback (and so I can gather metrics to see where they stalled and so on), and finding playtesters like that would be hard - but would probably be easier on game playing forums. As a developer, I'd be willing to download a prototype and try it out for 15 minutes and give feedback on it, but I'm less likely to play it for five sessions totally 20 hours or more.

We could create some kind of community-run "feedback club". DeviantArt, a large online art community, has some user-ran groups that do things like constructive critique on other members' works (i.e. critique other group-members works, and other members of the group will critique yours, and etc...).

Other groups, like non-online writing groups, do things like each week (or every other week), a different member of the community gets the benefit of the entire groups' focus on their project, to give them critique. They know when their turn is coming up in advance (say, six weeks in advance), so they can make sure their material is ready for critiquing, and if they don't have anything read at that point (their projects aren't far enough along, for example), they can be moved further down the queue for when they are ready.

We could unilaterally create a community-ran Feedback club, which will benefit the community, not add any extra work to the mods (except for the occasional nagging of Gaidden ), and it'd also create value for the GameDev.net website.

what should one do when one wants general feedback?

As servant said, that's a problem. You can ask "tell me anything" but you won't get very good responses that way (especially if it gets moved to Your Announcements where all the spam goes). Why not ask specific focused questions in dedicated forums, and expect that you will also get spillover/collateral answers?

Thank you all for answers. I have no game to post. I have just registered on this forum and noticed it.

I ask question because on the forum I have been sitting, people make

thread where post their games from alpha and even ealier. They want not only praise, but they want more

criticism about game to make a better game. They make game and on each stage of development they

get feedback and correct bad parts of game(in order to criticism).

Yes, most of games in such threads are released and look like "Buy my game".

To test the game such threads don't suitable, I see.

For the future you told me all I need.

If they did bring back IOTD, they'd have to make the image more visible, and currently the "GDNet spotlight" does seem to be actually bringing them much-needed revenue, so I doubt they'd move that for the IOTD to take over.

It has been so many years since I used a browser without AdBlock, that I'd forgotten the current IOTD wasn't at the top of the page.

I can't speak for the staff, but yes, that would seem to be a barrier. On the other hand, I think we could get enough traffic to spark lively discussion, even with IOTD in it's current hard-to-find location - it's mostly a matter of convincing people it's worth forming the habit of checking IOTD.

This touches on something that I've been thinking about asking, albeit by a different route: what should one do when one wants general feedback?

honestly, you need test-players for that, so:

- ask for for testers here(classifieds)

- release an alpha/beta-version to the public(on the internet)

Maybe for this site it could be good if we had a list of open/beta-games looking for feedback.

it could be good if we had a list of open/beta-games looking for feedback.

Then you'd get a deluge of games looking to make money instead of just helpful market research.

For my own game, I was going to post a "Combat" demo and a "Exploration" demo separately, to get more specific feedback.

Indeed, when feasible that probably is the preferable approach.

As a developer, I'd be willing to download a prototype and try it out for 15 minutes and give feedback on it, but I'm less likely to play it for five sessions totally 20 hours or more.

The former is more or less what I have in mind--in my specific case, the test scenario is very short, and the levels (of which there are three) each both brief and sparse. It's a means of testing the gameplay, and so isn't fully fleshed-out.

We could unilaterally create a community-ran Feedback club ...

I think that I like that idea--such a club could well be rather useful, and at the least an interesting experience.

Why not ask specific focused questions in dedicated forums, and expect that you will also get spillover/collateral questions?

While some of my questions might fit this approach (feedback on the climbing mechanic comes to mind, for one), others seem to me to be either too small by themselves (such as the "looking" mechanic--I don't want to create a "looking prototype"), or too general (such as how well--indeed whether--the various gameplay elements work together as a whole).

honestly, you need test-players for that, so:
- ask for for testers here(classifieds)
- release an alpha/beta-version to the public(on the internet)

Maybe for this site it could be good if we had a list of open/beta-games looking for feedback.

The thing is, at this point I want feedback from fellow game-designers, not from players.

As to an alpha- or beta- version, I'm not yet that far along--indeed, I would like to get feedback on whether the gameplay is working before I put too much work into the game's content.

it could be good if we had a list of open/beta-games looking for feedback.

Then you'd get a deluge of games looking to make money instead of just helpful market research.

Wait, wut ?

Basically, you think people would put their games on such list hoping that it gets sold ?

Make all the games free to download, allow developers to remove their game from the list when it's close to finished..

edit: The games would go on the list for testing of the game, not testing the market.

The thing is, at this point I want feedback from fellow game-designers, not from players.

The difference between those two is arbitrary unless you want them to make changes to your GDD.

The difference between those two is arbitrary unless you want them to make changes to your GDD.

I don't think it is arbitrary. Players primarily comment from the perspective of "did I enjoy this", combined with a healthy dose of "it should be more like <X>", and "if only it had the weapon from <Y>".

Fellow developers tend to provided more slightly more nuanced feedback, based on their own experience of the challenges involved in designing a compelling experience.

The difference between those two is arbitrary unless you want them to make changes to your GDD.

Swiftcoder answered well, I think. Both types of feedback are useful, I do very much believe, but I also believe that they can be somewhat different, as they come from different perspectives. Game designers are, I think, more likely to approach a prototype or demo in terms of game design, and to provide informed feedback on how a design or mechanic might be improved; conversely, I imagine that players are more likely to approach a prototype or demo in terms of the experience of playing the game--whether it's fun, elements that they struggled with, and so on. I feel that during the earlier stages of development feedback from designers is the more valuable, but is superseded at later stages by feedback from players.