Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

879722 Posts in 33001 Topics- by 24376 Members - Latest Member: xnothegame1

May 24, 2013, 06:58:35 PM
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGeneralIGF Thread 2012
Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 119
Print
Author Topic: IGF Thread 2012  (Read 68272 times)
biomechanic
Level 2
**



View Profile
« Reply #1320 on: February 26, 2012, 10:19:34 PM »

Fader got an honorable mention for visual art in a game festival, so I guess the jury wanted to acknowledge good minimalistic visuals that complement the gameplay rather than high res pretty pictures.
Logged
ortoslon
Level 6
*


man of few words and many videos


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1321 on: February 26, 2012, 11:34:19 PM »

yeah, paul, seiklus looks awful

Same except years of experience goes with Fader, why would we award someone for going easy (no effort) way with gfx?

effort gone into picking a fitting style and tweaking visuals is invisible
Logged
Matthew
Rapture
Administrator
Level 3
******


Milling About


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1322 on: February 27, 2012, 12:09:20 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprezzatura
Logged

Matthew Wegner
Founder, Flashbang Studios
Partner, Indie Fund
Editor, Fun-Motion
Co-Chair, IGF
AndySchatz
Level 2
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1323 on: February 27, 2012, 12:19:55 AM »

I should have known better than to enter this battle
Logged

Pocketwatch Games - Monaco, Venture Arctic, Venture Africa
Paul Eres
Level 10
*****


Also known as RinkuHero.

RinkuHero
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1324 on: February 27, 2012, 02:05:28 AM »

Yah, fader is much more interesting visually. You're confusing simple with minimal.

could you elaborate on why you find fader more interesting visually than seiklus? for reference, he's a seiklus playthrough (so that you can see it in motion): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-qVq4ElvTk

naw dude, the burden of proof is on you. i want you to explain, in detail, why you think seiklus deserves a visual excellence honorary mention over Fader.

first off i never asked for proof, i just asked for someone to explain what they saw in it (which is non-obvious if you see nothing in it). it's fair to ask that in return, sure, but i'd still like to hear more abut why people like fader's visuals

also, seiklus never entered the igf, and the game is from many many years ago (i think like 2002), so i didn't claim it deserves a visual excellence honarary at all. i merely used it as an example of a "simple" style of visuals that i feel is more interesting to look at than fader's style

as for why specifically i like it, the main thing is, as i mentioned, that it's a simplification of reality. you can still clearly recognize trees, snails, clouds, leaves, the player, and so on, even though they are single-color filled line art

in fader by contrast, nothing looks like anything recognizable; there are squares and slopes which represent the ground, an animated outline that sort of looks like a person, and that's it -- there's nothing else to look at (at least in the trailer). at least seiklus has actual things in it, so that new areas are distinguishable from old areas in more than just color

i have the feeling that after playing the game for more than (ahem) five minutes, everything will come to feel the same in fader, with the only difference between different colors. whereas after playing seiklus even for an hour, you'll continue to see new visual elements in the new areas you discover. changes in color *alone* don't really interest me (even though color is very important), i'd prefer changes in representation of things. if you're able to appreciate color for color's sake alone, without changing the things that are colored, then i can sort of see why you'd like fader, but i can't really appreciate color choice in the abstract, at least not without becoming bored after a while of it; it's fun to watch for five minutes, but i wouldn't want to play that game for hours if nothing changed visually besides colors
Logged

Paul Eres
Level 10
*****


Also known as RinkuHero.

RinkuHero
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1325 on: February 27, 2012, 02:38:03 AM »


thanks, reading through it now. specific comments follow

Quote
A giant wall of text. This seems obvious, but games still do that. Nobody wants to read a giant wall of text in the start of a game, and if you make it optional people WILL skip it expecting to be able to learn for themselves. The same applies to a long cutscene before the game begins, though a cutscene can be more easily made compelling than a wall of text.

actually some of my favorite games begin with walls of text, at least in the sense of a couple of pages. xenogears, final fantasy 4 (when you're crossing the bridge and it's talking about baron and the crystals), zelda 1's intro where it has a few paragraphs about the story and then a list of items, photopia and pretty much any visual novel, etc.

but it isn't clear what you mean here: do you mean text in the sense of plain narration (written in third person), or do you also mean dialogue? because almost any jrpg begins with a lot of dialogue, so it'd be weird to suggest that jrpgs not use dialogue in their intros, since how a character speaks is one of the best ways of introducing a character

this also feels as if it's true for some players, but not others. some players aren't turned off at all by text, even if a good chunk of players are. but the key thing here is: the players that like text would be turned off by a game without any text in the intro, because they're playing the game for a good story

if you tried a textless final fantasy or dragon quest or persona intro, it'd fall flat with fans of final fantasy or dragon quest or persona. so i don't think you can generally recommend that a game not use text in its intro, because it depends so much in the game's audience and genre; it's not something that can be universally applied to game intros: if a game's audience is people who play games for their stories and characters and imaginative setting, removing text from an intro would make the game *worse*

the points on jargon and repetition are good, though -- i agree with both of those. some jargon is okay if it's explained, but i don't like when a game, or even a book, overloads it in the front so quickly. i almost stopped reading dune (the novel) because of how much jargon there was at the start, but that'd have been bad since it's one of my favorite novels now

Quote
- No intro, suddenly complicated mechanics. I played one game which was some weird simulation thing, where you were supposed to be able to program AI's with a weird abstracted interface and they would walk around and do stuff. I assume the game was pretty neat if you could figure it out (screenshots and trailer certainly made it look neat), but instead it thrusts you right into a really complicated game with a complicated and unpolished interface that was just... impossible to figure out, and a lack of feedback made it not feel worth it to  keep trying at it.

don't most turn-based strategy games begin like this though? i mean some, like the civilization games and even alpha centauri (which is notorious for a complex gui) have some form of helper/guidance, which is pretty mandatory in complex gui's, but it's not clear what you are suggesting here as an alternative: do you suggest that complex guis only gradually appear, when you need their functionality, and that the gui is introduced one part at a time, with the rest greyed-out or something? or do you suggest just having mouseover explanations over everything, so that you can hover a mouse over something and it'd explain what it does, like complex non-game programs do?

the rest of the article is okay, but still felt kind of incomplete; as you mention in the article i'd have liked a longer list of good intros and bad intros, something more exhaustive, but hopefully the comments will cover that soon. here's my own list:

good intros: lufia 1, dragon quest 2, revelations persona, final fantasy 4, symphony of the night, fallout 1, metal gear solid 1, ultima 4, final fantasy adventure, suikoden 2, lunar 2, wild arms, digital devil saga

bad intros: dragon quest 3, persona 3 and 4, final fantasy 8, planescape torment, baldur's gate 1, fallout 2, jagged alliance 2
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 02:50:44 AM by Paul Eres » Logged

st33d
Guest
« Reply #1326 on: February 27, 2012, 02:49:45 AM »


Quote
So, first off what makes a BAD intro? This is an immensely easier question to answer than what makes a GOOD intro, so it's here first.

- A giant wall of text...

Sorry, I found this ironically amusing. For an article that above the fold is a giant wall of text.

I agree with your argument though. If your audience is inundated with games to try then you really should open with your strongest punch.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 05:18:25 AM by st33d » Logged
Paul Eres
Level 10
*****


Also known as RinkuHero.

RinkuHero
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1327 on: February 27, 2012, 02:52:43 AM »

yeah i think that's a key thing: that there are so many games nowadays that intros are more important now than they used to be. back in the 80s and 90s, they didn't matter as much because if you bought a game, you are going to play through it, because you don't have any other choice; there's not much else to play and you get maybe 3 new games a year to play. today some people buy more than 3 games per day (on steam sales) let alone per year
Logged

mirosurabu
Level 4
****


View Profile Email
« Reply #1328 on: February 27, 2012, 05:40:43 AM »

my first impressions of Glum Buster, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, DoomRL and Battle for Wesnoth (all favorites of mine) were negative. i persisted with playing them because of others' recommendations

Yes, that happens, but if you consider intros important, it won't happen.

The point being, by forcing judges to play fixed amount of time you're telling them how to judge games, and that's like telling them what tastes they should have.
Logged
Paul Eres
Level 10
*****


Also known as RinkuHero.

RinkuHero
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1329 on: February 27, 2012, 06:15:31 AM »

why do you keep saying "force"? as mentioned previously nobody is saying we should force judges to play games longer. the alternatives aren't "force judges to play longer" vs "force developers to make better intros"
Logged

mirosurabu
Level 4
****


View Profile Email
« Reply #1330 on: February 27, 2012, 06:35:10 AM »

Your quotes:

Quote
since i believe the vast majority of people who enter the igf expect that judges should play their game for more than 5 minutes. if a person puts a year into a game, a judge can put an hour into playing it

Quote
i think that any and all controversy revolves around these instead:

* some people have their game only played by judges for a few minutes, or not at all
* instead of admitting that those judges should have put more effort into their evaluations, the igf stance is that games can be judged in a few minutes, and that if a judge doesn't want to play your game for more than 200 seconds, that's your fault

To insist they should do is to force them.
Logged
PaleFox
Guest
« Reply #1331 on: February 27, 2012, 07:51:32 AM »

if you are an igf judge you are probably a cockmoose or an idiot


PLAYED A GAME FOR TEN SECONDS

UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING ABOUT IT




for fucks sake, even the IFCOMP requires you to fucking try to play their games. igf's official stance? probably trying is not important
Logged
hanako
Level 1
*



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1332 on: February 27, 2012, 08:07:01 AM »

Quote
even the IFCOMP requires you to fucking try to play their games. igf's official stance? probably trying is not important

The IGF as an entity tries quite hard to ensure that all games are played by multiple people. This has been pointed out time and time again.

There are many contests that LITERALLY do not bother playing the entries. (Heck, look at your average 'game of the year' award on any shitty game website. They take the five most popular games in the genre for the year and call them finalists, then (generally) take the one that sold most and call it 'best'.) The IGF is comparatively a paragon of virtue.

What the IGF does not do is ensure that all games are played to completion by all the assigned judges, or that all games are played as long as the developer who submitted them might have wanted them to be.

If you want someone to play your game through to the end and give you detailed feedback, hire a playtester.
Logged

PaleFox
Guest
« Reply #1333 on: February 27, 2012, 08:14:37 AM »

sorry then what is the 100 dollars you pay to enter buying then


if i was hired to judge a writing contest where people paid to enter, i'd try to at least read a fucking chapter, but i guess that is just TOO DIFFICULT for these judges
Logged
Christian Knudsen
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1334 on: February 27, 2012, 08:33:14 AM »

As was already stated in this very thread, there were $57,000 in entry fees this year and there are $53,000 total in prizes, leaving just $4,000 to organize the whole thing (I'm assuming none of those $53,000 are sponsored?).

"This kind of crap is why I don't bother with the IGF. $57,000 in fees pocketed

prizes are $53,000 total this year, it wasn't pocketed...
Logged

Laserbrain Studios
Currently working on Hostile Takeover (TIGSource DevLog)
Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 119
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic