next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

This logic is weird.  Take some totally uninteresting or monodimensional game.  Person-as-player would either pass over this game completely, or form a durable initial impression.

Yet somehow, person-as-judge is supposed to form a different opinion of the game by forcing themselves to scrutinize it for some unknown but longer duration?

My personal belief is that the IGF judging process should be through the experience of the player, just as most other mediums are channeled through something:  A lens, or speakers, or words on a page.  If your novel sucks I don't really care that you might have clever outlining notation, and if your movie doesn't make me feel anything I won't care about your unique dolly shots.

* I think Nuovo is an exception, and warrants meta-discussion about the medium, boundaries with the audience, and so on.

i do think that critics experience things the way something's target audience does, but at the same time they do not

if you're a movie reviewer, like ebert, you evaluate movies very differently than the average guy who is looking to go to the movies for fun, if only because it's your job, you treat evaluating the movie more seriously (you pay more attention to details of it that others would not notice), and because you've seen so many more movies. it's the movie reviewer's job to provide a broader understanding of a movie

but as you said, basically it's the same thing. a critic does exactly what the average person watching a movie does when they recommend that a friend watch/not watch a movie, the critic just spends more time and effort on it, and treats it more seriously, and with more impartiality, and from the standpoint of a greater knowledge of movies

a list of the 100 best movies from movie critics will generally overlap with a list of the 100 best movies as chosen by the general public, but with the exception that movies whose quality only really shines when you know a lot about movies and watch movies more intently will tend to be more represented in the critics list than in the popular opinion list

[Glaiel-Gamer]

I only find it interesting that the same characters emerge out of the woodwork to defend the good name of the IGF every time somebody criticizes it. Any coincidence that these otherwise inactive members are all former or current nominees??

My first entry (Aether) didn't get into the IGF, despite thinking it had an extremely good shot, rather than blame any sort of external factor such as IGF judges or the judging system or indie elites, or even blaming and feeling sorry for myself, I just took a step back and thought rationally about the IGF, took a look at the games that did get in, what made them special and what made them worthy, and then took that kind of stuff into consideration for next year's submission (Closure).

So perhaps I defend them from a standpoint of being a previous winner, or perhaps the "don't blame the IGF" attitude ends up helping you make better games in the end if you take a step back and look at your work and ask why without looking for someone or something to blame.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I've entered the IGF and lost before, for a game that I thought was more interesting (maybe not more fun) than other games that were nominated.  I'm fine with that.

I grew up on a lot of losing soccer teams.  I learned how to lose at a very young age

I can see why one might assume that my position is what it is because of Monaco, but if you want to claim bias, I had this bias long before Monaco.  I care deeply about the IGF and believe in the mission, if not always the process and the results.

to be clear i wasn't claiming bias in your particular case, i just said that it could be perceived that way by people (i myself have no opinion on it, and haven't thought about it). i just thought it was a true observation of phubans that most of the igf's stalwart defenders are people who won it, or work for it (and it's also likewise a true observation that most of the people criticizing it are people who entered it and didn't win it)

i don't think the issue is *entirely* just with people "not knowing how to lose", though, cause a lot of the igf's critics never entered the igf and have no plans to (like allen)

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

My first entry (Aether) didn't get into the IGF, despite thinking it had an extremely good shot, rather than blame any sort of external factor such as IGF judges or the judging system or indie elites, or even blaming and feeling sorry for myself, I just took a step back and thought rationally about the IGF, took a look at the games that did get in, what made them special and what made them worthy, and then took that kind of stuff into consideration for next year's submission (Closure).

So perhaps I defend them from a standpoint of being a previous winner, or perhaps the "don't blame the IGF" attitude ends up helping you make better games in the end if you take a step back and look at your work and ask why without looking for someone or something to blame.

i have a thought on this -- isn't it possible that creating a game specifically to be 'the type of game that wins the IGF' (as you did with closure) can make a game worse for non-IGF audiences? since the IGF values certain things, and developers other things, and niche audiences yet other things

for instance, the IGF hates RPGs (as discussed earlier in this thread), in the sense that "self-described" standard RPGs have rarely been nominated and have never won, would it be a good idea for someone not to make RPGs if they love RPGs and if their fans love RPGs? i think spiderweb software's approach has worth too: make the games you like to make and that your audience likes, and ignore what the IGF considers to be a good game

and it's not like what the IGF considers to be a good game is what the mass market considers to be a good game (in the sense of strong sales), otherwise blueberry garden would never have won the grand prize

[Glaiel-Gamer]

i have a thought on this -- isn't it possible that creating a game specifically to be 'the type of game that wins the IGF' (as you did with closure) can make a game worse for non-IGF audiences?

It didn't

[Glaiel-Gamer]

i have a thought on this -- isn't it possible that creating a game specifically to be 'the type of game that wins the IGF' (as you did with closure) can make a game worse for non-IGF audiences?

It didn't

to clarify: closure wasn't made specifically "to win the IGF", it was made to be a good game, taking inspiration from other good games, and there's a suspiciously weird amount of overlap there

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i have a thought on this -- isn't it possible that creating a game specifically to be 'the type of game that wins the IGF' (as you did with closure) can make a game worse for non-IGF audiences?

It didn't

maybe, but i don't think you can fully know that until it's on sale. it's still possible the original closure that you made in a few months will remain more popular than the remake you spent years on, no? even if you don't expect it to

[Glaiel-Gamer]

We didn't have to sacrifice anything to make new closure better, paul. You're misinterpreting what it meant to "take stuff into consideration".

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think any difficult choice is a sacrifice of something for something else. everything you add to a game will be good for some people who like it and bad for some other people who don't like it. the most interesting decisions in designing a game are like that

the decisions where one choice is clearly better than another (like fixing bugs or balancing difficulty curves or polishing something) are easy decisions, the tough ones are choices like 'do i make this game a non-linear world or do i use stages, and if it's non-linear, how much backtracking will the game require'

but it's hard to know what you mean without you being more concrete. could you give specific examples of what you changed in the new vs the old closure? i mean a list of things (not even asking for a long list, just some examples), just not some pat answer like "everything"

[Rob Lach]

Guys guys. Throwing some dirt at each other is one thing, but we're stepping on unfairly trashing other's games (which I think this forum is uniquely apt to appreciate the harshness of that).

- Rob "IGF 2012 NUOVO HONORABLE MENTION" Lach

[Blademasterbobo]

HOWEVER, I'm totally willing to defend the idea that some games don't really deserve more than 5-10 minutes.

it's not the *games* that deserve the time, it's the *developer(s) of those games* who deserves that the judge spend that time on the game, because they spent 95$ and the time it takes to make the game and enter the IGF on it

This logic is weird.  Take some totally uninteresting or monodimensional game.  Person-as-player would either pass over this game completely, or form a durable initial impression.

Yet somehow, person-as-judge is supposed to form a different opinion of the game by forcing themselves to scrutinize it for some unknown but longer duration?

My personal belief is that the IGF judging process should be through the experience of the player, just as most other mediums are channeled through something:  A lens, or speakers, or words on a page.  If your novel sucks I don't really care that you might have clever outlining notation, and if your movie doesn't make me feel anything I won't care about your unique dolly shots.

* I think Nuovo is an exception, and warrants meta-discussion about the medium, boundaries with the audience, and so on.

Even if you completely disregard Paul's point, what you're saying should be the case is obviously not what is currently going on. The post addressed this, as real players played the game (on average) for far longer than any of the judges did.

I asked around and it seems like the number of games is ~18 games per judge? (sorry if this is incorrect) 18 games @ 5minutes is 90 minutes total. 18 games @ 20 minutes is 6 hours. 6 hours over 3 months is NOTHING, especially if you signed up to do this, and especially when the people being judged paid $100 for the "privilege." Even 20 minutes per game seems like it'd be way beyond what many games are getting now, as this isn't the first time someone's had a story like this. I can understand dropping an obviously shitty game in 5 minutes, but when some of the judges don't even bother playing it, quality isn't really a factor. This is just people being fucking lazy, and there should be a system in place to weed out judges who don't even try.

(Not talking about the final judging, that's an entirely different subject.)

[Blademasterbobo]

im sort of playing devil's advocate here, though. those judges are shits, but the new system seems to be working a lot better, overall.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Guys guys. Throwing some dirt at each other is one thing, but we're stepping on unfairly trashing other's games (which I think this forum is uniquely apt to appreciate the harshness of that).

- Rob "IGF 2012 NUOVO HONORABLE MENTION" Lach

if that was a reference to the closure discussion, i don't think i was unfairly trashing it, i'm a big fan of the flash version of closure (i haven't played his new remake of it); i feel that closure was one of the most innovative puzzle-platformers of the last 10 years

i have no opinion on the remake since i haven't played it, but i'm looking forward to trying it out. what i said was that it's at least *possible* that the changes someone makes to a game, based on the IGF judging standards, might sometimes make a game less appealing to play for niche audiences; it wasn't even specific to his game, except that he mentioned it as an example of a game improving because of the IGF judging process

besides, you didn't object when matthew declared that i should give up SD after 5 years of work and a bunch of pre-orders

[phubans]

No, Andy, I don't mean you should stop posting, I just think it's interesting that I never see you posting except in defense of IGF... Same goes for Tyler (though you both might be in parts of the forum where I don't hang out)

Honestly, I don't really care. I've entered IGF 3 times now with no luck. I don't think my games lack quality, I just don't think they're "indie" in the sense that IGF seems to go for. It's clear they'd choose a technically impressive or unconventional/"nuovo" gameplay gimmick over a game that's highly polished but more traditional in terms of gameplay, the latter of which is the approach for all my games.

That said, I don't plan on giving any more of my money to IGF. $300 is quite an investment for a few sentences worth of feedback in return (I literally got 2 sentences of feedback for Madhouse in 2007, much better feedback for Sword of Legends in 2009, and no feedback so far for Spunk & Moxie) There are other competitions to enter besides the IGF, and they pay out more, such as the one Tyler entered and recently won the $100K grand prize.

I don't think that IGF should be seen as the "end-all, be-all" for indie developers. In fact, I look forward to market success with the release of my mobile game and I'm actually looking forward to saying, "Look how well this IGF reject did" and then laugh heartily while sitting on piles of money and sipping champagne with Miyamoto and my other rich and successful friends who will reply, "What's IGF?"

[AndySchatz]

I don't post much because I don't frequent these forums much, your impression is perfectly accurate.  But this is the best place to come for a lively discussion of the IGF, which I heartily enjoy, and which is why I pop up here a few times a year

[Rob Lach]

Guys guys...

if that was a reference to the closure discussion, i don't think i was unfairly trashing it

Ah, I didn't mean anyone was. I meant I see it coming.

[Blademasterbobo]

the honorable mentions are the best awards

[Oddball]

Picture the scene. It's the winter Olympics. New skater 'Kale in Dinoland' takes to the ice rink. The judge for igfland stands up and says "Bah! I can tell I'm not going to like this routine, because of the amateurish costume she's wearing.". As he walks to the exit he turns back and says "I'm off to the pub. Call me back when that Fez I've heard so much about is ready to skate. She looks hot.".  Kale, now distraught, asks "But shouldn't I be given a fair chance to impress you." The igfland judge replies "Nah! I only volunteer for this so I'll decide what deserves my time.". Door slams shut!

[Manuel Magalhães]

My view of the time used: Like someone mentioned I think it depends on the game itself (a game like Canabalt needs less time than a JRPG) and the judge. That said not playing the game in the first place (which was at happened the most with Kate in Dinoland) is despicable. I simply can't believe that the judges don't have that amount of time to play the games. Plus I think it should be obligatory to give feedback, that way they can explain why they liked/disliked the game. 
But anyway I'll do like phubans: try my luck on other competitions and try to 

[Fallsburg]

I think one of the biggest problems in this thread is that the IGF Defense Force is unwilling to suggest that things might be wrong.  I'm not saying that Kale would have won, but I would hope that the fact that it didn't get installed by a judge assigned to it would ring a warning bell. 
Every argument defending the IGF falls into one of these categories:
1) The results wouldn't change, so the process doesn't matter.

2) Judging all these games is a lot of work. I'd like to see you try it.

3) Things like this will happen.

To which I think the proper responses are.
1) That's a horrible attitude, and I find it hard to believe you live the rest of your life using this principle.  If I can invest my money and I'm looking at 2 investment firms, Firm A and B. Firm A reads tea leaves to make investments. Firm B does detailed analysis on all levels. Up until now Firm A and Firm B have made the exact same investments.  That doesn't mean I'm not putting my money with Firm B.

2) No one said slogging through lots of bad games was easy.  But allen's "If you don't have the time for it, don't do it" stands true.

3) Perhaps. But that doesn't make it right. And it doesn't mean that efforts shouldn't be made to fix it.


Note: I'm not really defending Rotten Cartridge.  I don't think airing dirty laundry on the internet ever leads to anything good. And their declining the phone call offer was bad.  But to turtle up and try to defend what happened just makes the IGF look worse.