next »

[jonbro]

I think Andy's list would qualify as a metric fuckton of games to play by any reasonable person, especially if you have to come up with an opinion that you are willing to back up about the games. Even for judging something like LD, that would be a bunch of games to play.

Even if you made a list of all the games you played in the last 6 months, 63 would be an amazing number.

[st33d]

It's like his avatar is scanning the games.

[eyeliner]

I think the only true role-playing game is this thing I like to call "real life." The only problem is that its status as a "game" is debatable, so even that may or may not be a role-playing game.

...howabout we just accept that terms such as "RPG" aren't to be taken literally? That just made me wonder how the term came about in the first place.

"Life" is like a rogue-like with perma death and limited inventory space.

[Zack Bell]

In Andy's support, it's worth pointing out that numerous finalists do not appear in Andy's list:
WAY
Proteus
J. S. Joust
Prom Week
Mirage
Lume
Botonicula
Pugs Luv Beats

Though I imagine Andy has played Joust and Proteus already and could nominate them based on experience.

You make a good point. Plus, we have the same last name.

[John_wallFour]

If it makes anyone feel better I doubt our game (Renga) got played by any of the judges   We submitted a 100 player co-operative game, that requires custom hardware, cameras, laser pointers to play it.  And a cinema screen!

The game also requires a Game-jockey (a much cooler version of a GameMaster) who controls elements of the game as it runs.

We didn't supply any of these - so they only had a video (with almost no gameplay in) and a really old picture that I couldn't change on the IGF site   Definitely needs to be experienced to be understood!  I think the judges job is tough enough - although we made it almost impossible - it would have required serious dedication to play and understand it.

We think it's pretty original and had an outside chance of a Nuovo finalist if it could be played But it wasn't a huge shock. 

I would love to see some feedback on it and whether it was even mentioned on the judges forums (Andy?) - I would just imagine a lot of 'WTF type' posts

http://www.igf.com/php-bin/entry2012.php?id=467

[brog]

John_wallFour: Your game was one of the ones that stood out to me browsing the list, very cool concept!
(Also: GlitchHiker got an honorable mention and is properly IMPOSSIBLE to play.  But it was made by well-known developers, YMMV.)

[AndySchatz]

I would love to see some feedback on it and whether it was even mentioned on the judges forums (Andy?) - I would just imagine a lot of 'WTF type' posts

I don't want to speak for other judges, but I will say that I saw your game in the list and was absolutely intrigued, though I had no way to experience it.  Several other games had similar problems (joust, deep sea), in those cases, having it permanently on display or having been shown at previous festivals helped.

EDIT: If your game gains more exposure over the coming year, I'd encourage you to enter again next year!

[copernicus]

Based on what I've read from judges/past judges in this forum, if I submit a game to IGF again I'd have to make a custom build that shows off everything the game has to offer in the first 30 minutes (and completely ignores/breaks the regular progression/presentation in the game).
I have a sneaking suspicion that my game would have been a lot better off if the build I sent had everything unlocked from the get go.

[AndySchatz]

People always ask me what the best strategy for winning the IGF is, and usually I tell them its an impossible question to answer.  But I do think there's one thing you can do that helps: release your game before the deadline or get a ton of press.  Judges might only spend 30-60 minutes with your game during the judging period, but if your game is out (and its good) they will likely have given it more time before judging even begins.  The impression of that judges would have of Spelunky, for instance, would probably be hugely different if many hadn't already spent a bunch of time with the game.

There are instances, however, of games that I had never heard of that I spent hours with.  MacGuffins Curse, FTL, Scoundrel were three of those for me.

I have a sneaking suspicion that my game would have been a lot better off if the build I sent had everything unlocked from the get go.

It is a good idea to make a custom build that frontloads more features, but then I think that's often good for the final game too.  Often a slow unlock progression is a sign of padding (I know, I've done that myself).  And games with higher density often are more impressive/fun IMO.

Remember that as an entrant, the honus is on you to shape the judge's opinions.  Use every tool at your disposal to do so!

[brog]

get a ton of press.

It's a Catch-22 innit?

[AndySchatz]

get a ton of press.

It's a Catch-22 innit?

It is, though I got a (relative) ton of press for Monaco before it was nominated, simply from the videos I was putting out.  So that's what I meant by that comment.

[Matthew]

Based on what I've read from judges/past judges in this forum, if I submit a game to IGF again I'd have to make a custom build that shows off everything the game has to offer in the first 30 minutes (and completely ignores/breaks the regular progression/presentation in the game).
I have a sneaking suspicion that my game would have been a lot better off if the build I sent had everything unlocked from the get go.

Should your IGF build be interesting and compelling within 15 minutes of play?  Absolutely.

Should your game itself be interesting and compelling within 15 minutes of play?  Doubly so.

I think a lot of people fall down here, or have weird expectations about IGF judges somehow ignoring the holistic experience of encountering and interacting with your project.  IGF judges see a screenshot and a game name on a list, then read a description and watch a video, install your game, configure it, learn how to play, and finally play it for awhile.  This is the same process a player would go through--and indeed IGF judges are just players (albiet biased players, depending on their personal focus with art/audio/design/whatever).

Nobody's going to wade through a shitty experience and go, "my goodness, that weapon upgrade structure was brilliant--design nomination!"  Things just aren't that microscopic and compartmentalized.

[PTibz]

Based on what I've read from judges/past judges in this forum, if I submit a game to IGF again I'd have to make a custom build that shows off everything the game has to offer in the first 30 minutes (and completely ignores/breaks the regular progression/presentation in the game).
I have a sneaking suspicion that my game would have been a lot better off if the build I sent had everything unlocked from the get go.

Should your IGF build be interesting and compelling within 15 minutes of play?  Absolutely.

Should your game itself be interesting and compelling within 15 minutes of play?  Doubly so.

I think a lot of people fall down here, or have weird expectations about IGF judges somehow ignoring the holistic experience of encountering and interacting with your project.  IGF judges see a screenshot and a game name on a list, then read a description and watch a video, install your game, configure it, learn how to play, and finally play it for awhile.  This is the same process a player would go through--and indeed IGF judges are just players (albiet biased players, depending on their personal focus with art/audio/design/whatever).

Nobody's going to wade through a shitty experience and go, "my goodness, that weapon upgrade structure was brilliant--design nomination!"  Things just aren't that microscopic and compartmentalized.

I wish I could up-vote/bump this post to the damn moon. Many of my problems were whether or not a game gets really good an hour in it's absolutely horrid from the start and that kills it.

[brog]

Should your IGF build be interesting and compelling within 15 minutes of play?  Absolutely.

Should your game itself be interesting and compelling within 15 minutes of play?  Doubly so.

I'm very suspicious of any claims that "all X should do Y".  Should every game be interesting and compelling - at any point?  Should every game be fun?  Maybe append "if you're trying to win IGF / make money off it" (and these goals, though related, are not identical).

It is, though I got a (relative) ton of press for Monaco before it was nominated, simply from the videos I was putting out.  So that's what I meant by that comment.

But obviously that's not everyone's experience.  I've found that nobody but close friends gives a damn what I'm working on until I actually release it - regardless of whatever I do in terms of blog posts, videos, etc.

[AndySchatz]

Should your IGF build be interesting and compelling within 15 minutes of play?  Absolutely.

Should your game itself be interesting and compelling within 15 minutes of play?  Doubly so.

I'm very suspicious of any claims that "all X should do Y".  Should every game be interesting and compelling - at any point?  Should every game be fun?  Maybe append "if you're trying to win IGF / make money off it" (and these goals, though related, are not identical).

It is, though I got a (relative) ton of press for Monaco before it was nominated, simply from the videos I was putting out.  So that's what I meant by that comment.

But obviously that's not everyone's experience.  I've found that nobody but close friends gives a damn what I'm working on until I actually release it - regardless of whatever I do in terms of blog posts, videos, etc.

Very much agree with your point to Matthew, though, to be fair, his point stands for 95% of games, and it's tough to expect the IGF not to trend towards games that reveal their strengths early.

As for my experience with Monaco, it's true, not everyone will have the same experience.  There's no silver bullet, no magic potion.  Make a great game and roll the dice!