I'm liking the old school keyboard in the top pic.

I suggest trying Wings3D for modelling. It's easier to get a hang of I think.

Any good Wings tutorials?

@gliaiel - fair point, but, i don't think the people who are disappointed by vvvvvv not being there are only a vocal minority. i suspect that if you took a poll and asked the forum which games they'd have liked to see as finalists, we'd see totally different results (and sure, this is a popularity contest, but that's my point).

If you feel that TIGF gives better results or at least results that are different enough to be valuable, why not start the "tiggies". I'm sure many people would get enraged at those too, but it would still be a fun experiment.

Just because your game isn't a finalist doesn't mean it didn't score well or the judges didn't like it.  It was simply not in the top 5 out of 300 scores in that category.  Keep making awesome games and one of them will be nominated eventually.

Success (damn that word sounds self-helpy, but whatever) in anything seems to be a combination of talent and perseverance. The breaks will come up every so often, and if you're ready for them when they hit, good things happen.

I know it seems like I might be spiting but I just don't get the reasoning and how the audio in our submission Kaleidoscope was so criminally overlooked. One judge mentioned he liked it, the other (who wrote 2 pages btw) added it in the summary that it was good. The rest didn't mention it at all.

Alright, I'll bite. Not having played your game, what makes the audio in it such that it would be criminal to overlook it?

P.S. Is there somewhere I can play it?

The point still stands, I think. Sure, there will always be negative feedback. But as Matthew pointed out, it's not always very specific and can often be hard to discern.

To illustrate, would you rather have feedback on your games that said "I didn't have fun playing this game" versus "I didn't like the controls". Already we're into territory where we understand better what we could change to please those people.

But what is even better is "I don't like the controls because I wanted to grab the thing and I kept missing."

Honest, clear, well thought-out negative feedback is better than "I didn't want Super Meat Boy to be nominated". Statements like that have to be read into, and we could read into them any number of ways.

e.g.
1) poster thinks games that reach a certain level of press should be disqualified
2) poster doesn't like edmund
3) poster doesn't like the overabundance of platformers
4) poster's father died from tainted meat and is scarred for life

Even better is to say "I didn't want Super Meat Boy to be nominated because it is too popular. To avoid this in future I would do ____ ". Although, I can't imagine a way to finish that sentence that would make sense without being entirely subjective.

Additionally what is implied is that if you personally, dear reader, want to make a more useful contribution to the discussion, you could suggest positive alternatives.

Vague negative feedback only indicates that a certain group of people are upset. Specific negative feedback indicates that a group of people have a problem with a specific thing. Specific negative feedback with positive suggestions leads to even more clarity and potentially positive actions.

Of course in reality, with things that involve many people, you have to take into account many groups of opinions, not just one group.

why is this false, could you give some evidence of it, or explain why you think it's false? intuitively, i highly doubt that if nobody had complained in 2007 and 2008 that they had no feedback at all or one-line feedback that anything would have changed. you wouldn't even have known there was a problem if people didn't complain about it.

Rather than complaining that "things aren't as good as they can be" - putting forward a good example for "here's how it could be better" is more likely to get positive results.

I'm guessing that there was negative feedback mixed with "hey I didn't like this, but here's another way you could do it that would alleviate my woes"

If the system right now really is a mix (main competition entries being statistically sound: voted on by random samplings of a larger judging pool, whereas the nuovo category is more like a discussion/group consensus as i understand it) then isn't that the best of both worlds?

It seems like the only people who get royally pissed off are the ones at either extreme ("we should filter out all opinion-bias" vs. "it should be more opinionated"), yet it seems we already have a pretty decent compromise in the works.


Etc: Also there seem to be some people arguing from both extremes at the same time, which is very confusing. How can something be both more statistically impartial and yet favour certain opinions over others?

Agree. I'll probably still enter the IGF in the future if I have a game I think they'll like, but I will never expect anything out of it again and I'll pretty much be treating it as a crapshoot. It's not really relevant to me anymore I guess - time to go find exposure elsewhere and leave it behind.

Again "a game they'll like": who is "they?" They is a group of judges that changes every year. Odds are there will be even more judges next year. How do you know what each of those judges likes?

I'd be curious to hear the specifics of why you consider it a "crapshoot". Is it a "crapshoot" because you weren't nominated, or for some other reason?

Your first statement answers your second. It's a crapshoot because "they" could be anybody, and maybe "they" won't like my game. You're right, there's no way to know what each randomly assigned judge likes. I guess the solution is to make games for "everybody", whatever that means?

Well no, it's not a "crapshoot". It's the evaluation of a group of judges. It's not like a lottery. (which is random number selection)

What you're upset about is that you don't have prior knowledge of the judges' tastes. (but just because you don't know the tastes, doesn't mean there aren't any)

I think it's weird to expect to know the tastes thoroughly. If you knew the judges liked a particular type of game more than others overall, would you change your design to match it? I think the fact that there isn't an easy way to "game" the system is a good thing, and likely makes the process more "fair". (i.e. less biased towards any one particular opinion)

Why would you want to build a game to try to win a specific competition? It's likely far more rewarding to build a good game first, in your own voice, and submit it to the competitions that seem appropriate. I don't see why anyone would choose "winning the IGF" as their primary goal.*

* edit: I can see why people would want to be nominated in the IGF as a goal, but it's far more prudent to have a number of other plans in place to promote your game. (assuming that's the objective) I can understand and relate to people who'd idealize that goal on an emotional level, but from a logical perspective - have a backup plan.

If the competition provided interesting, alternative selections to the IGF it could be a very valuable asset to the community. It could also eventually grow to gain the ability of projecting the "little guys" into a larger spotlight.

And eventually there could be enough independent game festivals that we could have an IGFF (independent games festivals festival) where we grant awards to the best festivals.

(please do not take this post seriously, I just couldn't resist)

Nice!

I guess I'm applying "survival of the fittest" to the idea of competing competitions. If there's a particular niche for a competition and it handles that niche well, it will thrive. If another competition enters that niche, the lesser competitions might "die off".

Here I think one could make a good case for a competition separate from the IGF that fills a specific need - such that it would thrive in spite of the IGF being "larger".

Now I'm not really disappointed I didn't make it, because of that element of randomness. I'm just feeling like the IGF isn't really a measure of my abilities as a artist anymore.

Thanks for explaining.

I don't think awards shows are ever a 100%-accurate objective means to evaluating artistic ability. (the Oscars anyone?) They might be okay at determining what is appealing to a certain group of people at a certain time or occasionally projecting an underdog into the spotlight.

How would you set up a competition that evaluates "artistic ability?" Since nobody can agree on what art is, let alone what "good art" is - I think we'd find it hard to come up with a failsafe way to do it.

But what might be a positive outcome from all these discussions is the starting up of a new competition.

All the folks that are upset enough to write essays about how they think indie game competitions could be run - could funnel that energy into starting their own. Maybe it would have a more specific set of criteria for judging games, or maybe it would be focused on showcasing games that come from humble origins. Maybe it would have a very small panel of judges who agree on particular tastes rather than a large group.

If the competition provided interesting, alternative selections to the IGF it could be a very valuable asset to the community. It could also eventually grow to gain the ability of projecting the "little guys" into a larger spotlight.

Yes, accepting payment before the game is "done" seems to be a good idea in some cases.

As a gamer, it feels kind of rewarding to vote with my wallet on which games I'd like to see finished. (and also get early previews, extras in the final version, etc)

I think one way to divert (some) piracy is to have a meaningful "connection" with the people who buy your stuff.

The better someone knows you and the troubles you went to to entertain them, the less likely they'll be to take it for granted.

Twitter, Blogs, Podcasts, Responding to Feedback, Good Customer Service... can all help.

Like you said: as the amount of judges increases, the games that win are more likely to be ones with mass appeal.  I don't necessarily see my games as having tons of mass appeal so no matter how good I think my game is, it's just a matter of if its good qualities happen to also appeal to a mass audience, which to me is a crapshoot I guess - or at least I don't have the skills to predict that.

I actually see it as a balancing act between "mass appeal" (the IGF certainly doesn't have mass appeal, but it gets more attention than say TIGSource competitions) and "novelty/unique/innovative". (I lump those together, because innovative is really hard to define in any kind of objective way)

But regardless of that, how can you enter a competition and expect to win? I guess I find that attitude weird.

If I'm reading you wrong, please let me know...
but I get the impression that a few folks in this thread really expected to be nominated for something. With the sheer number of quality entries and the diverse tastes of judges, I don't know if anyone can expect a "guaranteed spot".

Agree. I'll probably still enter the IGF in the future if I have a game I think they'll like, but I will never expect anything out of it again and I'll pretty much be treating it as a crapshoot. It's not really relevant to me anymore I guess - time to go find exposure elsewhere and leave it behind.

Again "a game they'll like": who is "they?" They is a group of judges that changes every year. Odds are there will be even more judges next year. How do you know what each of those judges likes?

I'd be curious to hear the specifics of why you consider it a "crapshoot". Is it a "crapshoot" because you weren't nominated, or for some other reason?

Simon and the other organizers rely on self-censorship on these matters. A judge had written a note on one of the games in my list saying, "I shouldn't judge this since I am their teacher" (not exact words). Simon had replied to that saying "Thanks, we'll assign you a different game."

Sure, and I would have too if it'd come up, I'm just saying that I don't recall much in the way of official guidelines being actually presented. Official guidelines may or may not be desirable; I don't know.

From what I remember of judging (not this year, but the two years previous) there was a rough guideline statement on the first page of the judging interface. I don't remember the specifics, but it was pretty open-ended.

However, if the guidelines were more strict, I doubt it would make much of a difference. A large number of people would still pick whatever they felt was best. It'd be hard to argue that that was objectively a bad thing, though.

The IGF is the single chance many of these developers will ever have to have one of these games hit the big times and what do you do? Nominate all the games that already have a marketing budget and a tag in Kotaku.

Notice how you said "You". This is the God delusion of the IGF. There is no great IGF God that watches over all the entries and selects the one that "most deserves" it. A large group of people vote. The larger the group, the more bias there will be towards games that appeal to a larger group of people.

What I'm saying is that I feel extremely unmotivated to give more of my money next year so that Super Meat Boy or whatever new game with physics gimmicks is sold to a few more thousand people.

I kind of agree with you. It does seem like the IGF is in the position to give games that wouldn't otherwise be noticed a "mainstream spotlight". I'd be happy if the IGF could continue to shine a spotlight on great games that haven't been discovered, made by small-time developers.

On the other hand, the IGF is also about picking the "best" game. And "best" is an entirely subjective term.

So there are two main competing agendas to the IGF. 1) showcase the "best" indie games 2) showcase games that benefit greatly from being showcased.

(1) is important, because the festival is about a "mainstream spotlight". This spotlight wouldn't be very bright if the showcase only featured games that very few people wanted to play.

(2) is important, because the IGF has the potential to catapult a select few developers closer to a larger audience.

I think the cases where people get upset is when they're only expecting the IGF to be (1) or (2). Unfortunately for these people, it is both - and Simon / the organizers seem to be trying to ride this line as best they can.

I'm not sure how you could totally remove one of these elements and still have the IGF be as "important" as it is.

That said, there are many other indie competitions. This isn't the only game in town. It's not the be-all and end-all of everything. If your only marketing plan for your game is to win the IGF, then it's not a terribly comprehensive one.

There are a myriad of other ways to get attention other than winning the IGF or complaining about it.

Maybe it would be time for a human hug? Maybe? Anybody?

I'm a fan of hugs.

It's easy to bitch about things. It's harder to come up with good ways to improve them.

Like Matthew said, positive ideas about how to make things better go a long way. I doubt there's going to be an easy, clear solution to this "problem", partly because there's disagreement about whether or not it is actually a "problem".

Ultimately some group of humans will have to judge some group of games, and some bias/personal taste/diversity of opinions will make it so that the resulting selection doesn't mesh 100% with the views of some people.

I'm not opposed to story-heavy games, but I do think some types of games lend themselves better to storytelling than others. In my opinion, if you want to use your game as a vehicle for storytelling in a convincing way, the story has to be adequately represented in gameplay, even if the gameplay isn't that good or interesting. For instance, in a game like Puzzle Quest, the story (an epic heroic fantasy tale) and the actual things you do in the game (matching crystals) have very little to do with each other, and consequently, it feels a bit in insubstantial, like they just made a Bejeweled clone and somehow draped a fantasy story over it.

^ this

I wonder if having more judges means a higher number of stupid judges.

Of course it does, that's what a democracy is!