next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

We are talking about two different things.  I am talking about the "quality" of the jury discussion.  It is lengthy, and involved, and hotly debated in various points.  When I am speaking of the quality of a judge's interaction with a game, I am talking about the depth of their understanding of that game.

You seem to be speaking about "accuracy" of the jury system; asking, "how can it be correct, when Game X or Game Y are overlooked?"  There is no objective measure of games.  So yes, a jury--especially something like an art jury--is going to produce a set finalists that may differ from your tastes.  That's kind of how the world works.  I get it; you like pixel art and anime.  Not everybody agrees with you.

the quality of the jury discussion seems irrelevant to me. it'd be important if it were publicly available to read, but since the purpose of the jury discussion is to select finalists, what really matters to anyone who isn't a jury member or an igf organizer is the finalist selection, not the discussion quality.

and i never thought of dust as anime; it's more traditional western animation (of furries), similar to disney stuff. i also don't like pixel art in general, but the iconoclasts has particularly good animation for its characters. it's strange though that you feel the need to say things like "how the world works", when i said things like:

besides, this is exactly why i feel your desire for examples of what games people felt should have won instead of other games is besides the point: because it always is going to come down to different tastes. but i suspect that at least in *most* people's tastes, an elysian tale looks like it has more impressive visuals than bittrip runner

the responses to my links to the trailers of those games all seemed to agree with me (sometimes expressing shock at how it worked out for those games); i haven't yet seen say they think fader looks better than those two games. majority tastes don't make it right, fader could very well be showing more aesthetic sophistication than those two games, but if someone thinks it does, i'd like to know who they are and why they think so

But with the IGF, I am satisfied that the jury process is thorough.

i'm not so satisfied (since i can't read their discussions): do you mean that the jury itself discussed among themselves whether fader was more deserving of an honorable mention than the iconoclasts and dust, and collectively decided to go with fader? or were those games not even part of the discussion?

And, no, I absolutely don't agree with Rotting Cartridge.  Their own summation is focused on a meaningless stat (because judges are redundantly assigned to games exactly because many judges can't squeeze in all assignments during the holidays):

i agree that how many judges judged a game is a meaningless stat (as long as it's positive number above 2 or 3), but i don't think how long those judges played the game on average is a meaningless stat -- even were it true that the average igf judge can accurately judge a game in all igf categories (audio, art, technical, overall, etc.) in a few minutes and without seeing 99% of a game's content, it is still not a meaningless stat to the developers of the game, since it's insulting to them to work so hard to get a game ready for the igf and then not have the judges even see most of what they worked on

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Paul:  You frustrate me, because despite your ability to post endlessly, you very rarely enter into a mutual brainstorming mode.  My last big diatribe was about:  "Hey, I think this other way of thinking about the IGF might be more productive", followed by a bunch of "How do we...?", "What does this look like...?", and so on.  You ignored all that, which is a shame, because I think you would have some ideas if you stopped looking at everyone's posts for attack points and focused more on contributing.

most of it seemed to deal with the igf backend, which is not really the topic here. i ignored it since i haven't used it and am not familiar with how it works. so the ways you were suggesting to improve it are "invisible" things to me that i have no opinion of

but i think you're mistaken; i'm not interested in the least in attacking you, i'm interested only in making the case for the hard-working indie game developers who have been overlooked by the igf judges. i'm not trying to convince you that i'm right, though, if that's what you are getting at. but i'm also not really interested in how you are rationalizing away their concerns. the main reason i'm interacting with you is to figure out either how to improve the igf or how to replace it

[Bennett]

fader could very well be showing more aesthetic sophistication than those two games, but if someone thinks it does, i'd like to know who they are and why they think so

I'm not very excited about Fader as a game, but as a modern interpretation of Bauhaus design, I think it's beautiful. It has an unusual sensitivity to colour.

Just basing this on the trailer though.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Accessible Indie Games Festival: what's wrong with that? Why do inaccessible games need to have an equal chance? Suppose we give all the prizes to games that only serious videogame fans could enjoy - how does that help the scene, or the artform as a whole?

i think it's because a huge segment of indie games are niche games: roguelikes, interactive fiction, visual novels, turn-based strategy, crpgs, bullet hell games, and so on. i don't think the finalists should always be niche games, but they should *sometimes* be niche games, instead of almost never

i feel that if the igf never has any niche games represented, it's missing out on a big part of what makes indie games great (the ability to appeal very well to specific small audiences rather than the necessity to appeal to a huge audience)

[Glaiel-Gamer]

roguelikes...
...
i feel that if the igf never has any niche games represented

DESKTOP DUNGEONS WON DESIGN LAST YEAR

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'm not very excited about Fader as a game, but as a modern interpretation of Bauhaus design, I think it's beautiful. It has an unusual sensitivity to colour.

Just basing this on the trailer though.

i'm more excited about it as a game; it seems like it's fun to play, even though it's visually boring

but thanks for the explanation at least. but do you believe it was intentionally an interpretation of bauhaus? incidentally, yes, but i'd be surprised if that were intentional

also, do you also feel that its sensitivity to color is *better* than the other two games mentioned? it feels as if those other games carefully chose their colors too (even if there are more of them and a wider spectrum). it feels as if it is much harder to balance a wider spectrum. if you only use about three shades instead of three thousand shades (even if those three thousand are grouped), it's not particularly difficult to achieve good color balance

[Schoq]

roguelikes...
...
i feel that if the igf never has any niche games represented

DESKTOP DUNGEONS WON DESIGN LAST YEAR

he said roguelikes not puzzle games

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

yep, you beat me to it

[Glaiel-Gamer]

spelunky?

[Steve Swink]

Sorry, late to the party here.

Paul: did I miss the post where you described your alternate vision for how the IGF judging process should work?

Bennett: same question.

(Note that in both cases, this is curiosity not snark.)

[cynicalsandel]

I'm not very experienced in indie games, so my opinion isn't very important, but I think part of the reason there is so much drama is because we don't know what happens behind the scenes. Matthew has that point of view. He knows what occurs. I know even less than most people because I don't enter. What I do know about are stories like Rotten Cartridge's. I don't, and many others don't have the advantage of knowing what is actually going on with the IGF. We only see the end results. We see the finalists, honorable mentions, and eventually the winners, but we don't see the process except for what is revealed by certain people about their own entries. I don't think that the IGF necessarily needs to share this information, but I think it partially explains the drama and why certain people hold the views that they do.

I think that Rotten Cartridge's story is scary to some of us. The IGF is very important to indie games. Most people would agree that the IGF has a lot of influence on the success of indie games. Sure, it isn't the only way to be successful, and it definitely isn't a good idea to rely solely on the possibility of winning it, but it has a huge impact. Because of this, any possibility of unfair judging is scary. The IGF is a big deal. The reason there is so much drama is because of how important it is to developers. Everyone cares because there is a lot at stake. It is so important to success that of course there is going to be drama. We are never going to get rid of that. Developers are passionate about their games, and I think some just don't have the best way of expressing it.

Regarding accessible short-form games, I think what people find fun is subjective. I prefer slower games. That is what I find fun, but others find boring. I don't enjoy a lot of the front-loaded experiences that others do though. I know I'm probably in the minority, and most that complain about it probably feel along the same lines that I do. The judges probably just have different taste, and while it isn't a bad thing, it can mean that certain games don't get the chance they deserve. This is only theoretical of course. I have no actual evidence of bias against long-form games. I'm just saying it is a possibility.

Sorry if my post doesn't make much sense. I'm not good at putting my thoughts together, and I'm not as informed as most. So, you can just disregard this post if you like. I've spent more than 15 minutes on it already, so it probably isn't even relevant to the current discussion anymore.

[Matthew]

most of it seemed to deal with the igf backend, which is not really the topic here. i ignored it since i haven't used it and am not familiar with how it works. so the ways you were suggesting to improve it are "invisible" things to me that i have no opinion of

but i think you're mistaken; i'm not interested in the least in attacking you, i'm interested only in making the case for the hard-working indie game developers who have been overlooked by the igf judges. i'm not trying to convince you that i'm right, though, if that's what you are getting at. but i'm also not really interested in how you are rationalizing away their concerns. the main reason i'm interacting with you is to figure out either how to improve the igf or how to replace it

Replace away!  There should be more festivals, more places to show games, more ways to highlight the best and shine a spotlight on the new.  But it turns out that actually doing those things is really hard.  Your own talk of running a niche-focused awards show has been on here for years.  I absolutely think you should do it, too (although I don't think you ever will).

About drama and decisions:  Drama isn't real.  Yeah, we're all hunched over our laptops on a Sunday afternoon, typing away, but this just words on a forum that not very many people read.  It feels like the whole world to us sometimes, but it's really not.  I do care about improving ways for entrants to submit and update games, and judges to view and discuss them, and for jurists to better see what judges are focusing on.  I care about the IGF selecting a great finalist batch and showing them to 10k+ game developers every year.  Whether or not some words are typed on the Internet somewhere is a lot more ethereal, and a lot more prone to bullshit.

I focused on the backend because that's how I would improve the IGF.  It's a real, practical thing, and there are certainly opportunities to improve all kinds of things by changing the way judges see and interact with game data in the system.  I also brought it up because this entire Rotting Cartridge controversy was quite stats-focused to begin with, and I'm in a unique position comment on that because I actually wrote the IGF backend that's still in use.  I've spent a lot of time on the numbers and making sure minimums are met.

And at 500+ games, the IGF must use a backend of some kind.  Most of the decisions related to filtering and fairness must therefore boil down to some kind of real implementation.  So what should that stuff look like?

You sure comment on a lot of other things are invisible to you already.  It's a useful skill when applied to brainstorming!

I don't think you're attacking me, but you certainly attack the presentation of an argument or an idea (and not the point behind it).

Also, Dust is a beautiful game.  I like it a lot, as personal tastes go.  But even then, I would have a hard time swapping any of the finalists for it.  I doubt any One True finalist lineup is possible, where everyone is happy.  Many people react very negatively to non-finalist status.  Back when finalists were score-based, I would look up placement for "IGF IS BROKEN BECAUSE GAME X ISN'T A FINALIST" mentions.  Many times they were literally a rank or two below the finalist cutoff.

I've mentioned this before, but jury members eventually do an approval vote (they vote for any number of games, most tallies are the finalists).

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Sorry, late to the party here.

Paul: did I miss the post where you described your alternate vision for how the IGF judging process should work?

Bennett: same question.

(Note that in both cases, this is curiosity not snark.)

yes, it's much earlier in this thread. i don't remember the exact pages, but here's a link:

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=22256.msg677133#msg677133

that post alone is not the full idea. you'd have to read the posts for a few pages above and below it -- but that post is an example of an alternative idea

[Bennett]

but thanks for the explanation at least. but do you believe it was intentionally an interpretation of bauhaus? incidentally, yes, but i'd be surprised if that were intentional

That's pretty rude, mate. The author of Fader has a background in visual arts. Why should it be surprising if that were intentional?

roguelikes...
...
i feel that if the igf never has any niche games represented

DESKTOP DUNGEONS WON DESIGN LAST YEAR

And this year, Dear Esther is a niche game - it's a game where you walk around and think about emotions (as I understand it, haven't played it yet). To The Moon is a crpg. At a Distance and Mirage are wild experiments.

Sorry, late to the party here.

Paul: did I miss the post where you described your alternate vision for how the IGF judging process should work?

Bennett: same question.

I don't have a problem with it, it seems pretty robust to me.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

I prefer slower games. That is what I find fun, but others find boring. I don't enjoy a lot of the front-loaded experiences that others do though.

The word is engaging, not "show everything really fast"

If your RPG starts off with some character explaining *every* single asset of the battle system in text, expecting you to remember how it works or to even pay attention to it (and using lingo that the game has before you are emerged in the universe "this is your djungo bar you can use to convert pleonfibers to kai energy"), that just sucks for anyone trying to learn your game who wasn't already interested in it from the start.

You don't need to start off with everything, just put some sort of mystery or cutscene or little gimmick early on that encourages the player to keep playing and assures them there will be variety rather than giving up after fighting 10 of the same enemy in a row.

[Manuel Magalhães]

I agree with Bennett about the "niche" game situation. The graphic style from the Visual Art finalists are niche visual art styles, and Dear Escher is a finalist for the grand prize. So I can't see a problem there.

[cynicalsandel]

roguelikes...
...
i feel that if the igf never has any niche games represented

DESKTOP DUNGEONS WON DESIGN LAST YEAR

And this year, Dear Esther is a niche game - it's a game where you walk around and think about emotions (as I understand it, haven't played it yet). To The Moon is a crpg. At a Distance and Mirage are wild experiments.

With Dear Esther and At a Distance (I don't remember Mirage), they make sense in the context of the IGF. I don't know if they are they "niche" he was talking about. They fit into the art game style that essentially has a whole category dedicated to it. The Nuovo award always has experimental games in it, which I think those two games fit in with.

I prefer slower games. That is what I find fun, but others find boring. I don't enjoy a lot of the front-loaded experiences that others do though.

The word is engaging, not "show everything really fast"

If your RPG starts off with some character explaining *every* single asset of the battle system in text, expecting you to remember how it works or to even pay attention to it (and using lingo that the game has before you are emerged in the universe "this is your djungo bar you can use to convert pleonfibers to kai energy"), that just sucks for anyone trying to learn your game who wasn't already interested in it from the start.

You don't need to start off with everything, just put some sort of mystery or cutscene or little gimmick early on that encourages the player to keep playing and assures them there will be variety rather than giving up after fighting 10 of the same enemy in a row.

I think one problem with this discussion, and it is partially my fault, but no one ever has examples. I never know what specific games people are talking about. So, I wouldn't know if those games are just boring or if they are fun but a long term investment. So, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. But engaging is still rather subjective.

I agree though that having to learn a very in depth battle system would be a tough thing for IGF judges to deal with, and I don't know if we should expect them to invest that much time. I personally wouldn't blame them for not wanting to.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Replace away!  There should be more festivals, more places to show games, more ways to highlight the best and shine a spotlight on the new.  But it turns out that actually doing those things is really hard.  Your own talk of running a niche-focused awards show has been on here for years.  I absolutely think you should do it, too (although I don't think you ever will).

it's been even longer than that actually. i remember asking manifesto for funding for it back when manifesto games still existed (they refused because they could barely pay for their own site). for a while edenb was working with me on the idea and she was heading it, but she eventually grew disillusioned with indie games and left the community, and i don't have the time to head it myself because of other obligations. eventually i may get around to it when the opportunity presents itself, or i may not if it doesn't. but regardless of whether my own idea does take off, i think expressing how i think an indie game awards system would best work is important, in case anyone else wants to make one in the future

About drama and decisions:  Drama isn't real.  Yeah, we're all hunched over our laptops on a Sunday afternoon, typing away, but this just words on a forum that not very many people read.  It feels like the whole world to us sometimes, but it's really not.  I do care about improving ways for entrants to submit and update games, and judges to view and discuss them, and for jurists to better see what judges are focusing on.  I care about the IGF selecting a great finalist batch and showing them to 10k+ game developers every year.  Whether or not some words are typed on the Internet somewhere is a lot more ethereal, and a lot more prone to bullshit.

to a degree, but as i mentioned, there are major indie game developers refusing to enter the igf because of these issues. so it's not just ethereal, it has a real effect in talented indies not entering the igf because of a perception that it's pointless. for example, here's cliffski's comment on my facebook about it:

"This kind of crap is why I don't bother with the IGF. $57,000 in fees pocketed, and games aren't even being played? last years winners eligible to win again? being an IGF judge doesn't disqualify your own entry? the whole thing is riddled with problems."

I focused on the backend because that's how I would improve the IGF.  It's a real, practical thing, and there are certainly opportunities to improve all kinds of things by changing the way judges see and interact with game data in the system.  I also brought it up because this entire Rotting Cartridge controversy was quite stats-focused to begin with, and I'm in a unique position comment on that because I actually wrote the IGF backend that's still in use.  I've spent a lot of time on the numbers and making sure minimums are met.

And at 500+ games, the IGF must use a backend of some kind.  Most of the decisions related to filtering and fairness must therefore boil down to some kind of real implementation.  So what should that stuff look like?

You sure comment on a lot of other things are invisible to you already.  It's a useful skill when applied to brainstorming!

i'm not sure what's invisible to me that i've commented on -- but i really would have to know a lot more about the igf backend to comment on it

i already did offer a suggestion regarding it earlier, though: make the judge/jury discussions of games public at some point after the finalists are chosen. that would give developers a lot of insight into how the igf works, and help them improve their games. there'd be no need then even for "feedback" in the old sense, since they can see exactly how the discussions went, and the judging process would be less nebulous to outsiders that way

but since you asked me to comment on invisible things, here's another random brainstorm-style thought on it: you could perhaps make it easier for judges to download, install, and run games by integrating that with the backend somehow. there could be a button for 'download all my assigned games', for instance

[Glaiel-Gamer]

I agree though that having to learn a very in depth battle system would be a tough thing for IGF judges to deal with, and I don't know if we should expect them to invest that much time.

I never said an in depth battle system is a bad thing, I said one where its taught with a MASSIVE TEXT BOX or string of dialog right in the beginning is a bad thing (more than one of my assigned games had this...), if you can teach it in an engaging way that isnt boring, that goes a long way into making sure people don't give up after 5 minutes.

That's what the discussion people had was, judges giving up after 5 minutes. No judges start a game and think "I'm just gonna play this for 5 minutes then IMMEDIATELY STOP", it just happens if a game shows no signs of variety or anything compelling/fun/entertaining/engaging in the first 5 minutes, with other judges confirming that nothing happens/changes later on, and a trailer that shows nothing to look forward to later in the game that would be an encouragement to keep playing.

[Matthew]

but since you asked me to comment on invisible things, here's another random brainstorm-style thought on it: you could perhaps make it easier for judges to download, install, and run games by integrating that with the backend somehow. there could be a button for 'download all my assigned games', for instance

Yup, this is a great idea!  It's embarrassing that the IGF still relies on an FTP, especially since it barfs all over itself every year on the deadline.