next »

[hanako]

if a person puts a year into a game, a judge can put an hour into playing it

It will never happen that every game gets played by multiple judges for an hour each, not unless the IGF hires paid interns to play the games as a job - which probably means hugely increasing the entry fees and capping the number of entries allowed into the competition. These changes would drastically alter the character of the IGF, not 'save' it.

(I am obviously not privy to the finances and am simply guessing here, but very few people are going to put in twenty hours unpaid work in a three-week time period, and the overhead of actually hiring playtesters is not cheap.)

How about the IGF just improve the judges.

Keep some metrics on them. Weed out the bottom percents.

They do that already. Aren't you paying attention?

Why not require a short write-up (50-100 words) that gets sent to each entrant. Just some direct feedback in a critical environment like that is worth $100 (to me at least). Then you can have the entrant review the feedback so they can tell you if they actually played the game or not.

They did that previously. Aren't you paying attention?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

if a person puts a year into a game, a judge can put an hour into playing it

It will never happen that every game gets played by multiple judges for an hour each, not unless the IGF hires paid interns to play the games as a job

i already gave an estimate previously for this. let's say a judge is assigned to 18 games. 18 hours in the span of one month is half an hour a day. thats's hardly a job -- even a part time job. so i'm not sure what you mean here

[st33d]

What if you submitted a game that was ten seconds long? Would they have to play it for an hour?

But of course no one would be that mean 

[JMickle]

i dont think anyone would spend $95 for that.

but as part of a pirate kart...

i wonder how much play that got

[Dragonmaw]

Keep some metrics on them. Weed out the bottom percents.

Don't really like this.

Instead of assigning a list of games to people, just have their current assigned games show up and nothing else when they log into the judging page (until they complete their assigned games). I fathom some judges just exploit the opportunity to play some unreleased indie games.

This is actually what happens. Judges have to find a tiny little link if they want to see all of the games.

Why not require a short write-up (50-100 words) that gets sent to each entrant. Just some direct feedback in a critical environment like that is worth $100 (to me at least). Then you can have the entrant review the feedback so they can tell you if they actually played the game or not.

They did this my first year, then stopped. I liked it, but I guess it wasn't working.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

What if you submitted a game that was ten seconds long? Would they have to play it for an hour?

But of course no one would be that mean 

'to completion or one hour' is what i meant. although any good 5 minute art game has multiple endings / outcomes, too

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Keep some metrics on them. Weed out the bottom percents.

Don't really like this.

yeah, i don't either. i think it's better to change the attitude and setting a more positive tone, expelling bad judges as examples to the rest of them, and having a general guideline to give each game a fair shake -- not tracking people

[phubans]

So in light of this issue with the judges, is it possible that people will be seeking (and receiving) refunds?

[:^)]

har har har har

seek and ye shall recieve an email telling you "no"

[cynicalsandel]

It is all a conspiracy by the IGF to get less entries next year. 

[Manuel Magalhães]

So in light of this issue with the judges, is it possible that people will be seeking (and receiving) refunds?

I second this question. I reed in this thread that the submission price was only to set a "bar" on the game's quality, the IGF has other sources to get their founding. Besides that giving money to a game that was poorly judged is the least that IGF could do.

[ham and brie]

It is all a conspiracy by the IGF to get less entries next year. 

More like less volunteers for judging, seeing how they're vilified.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't think anyone is vilifying judges in general at all -- only the bad judges who don't put in the effort, which is a small percent of them

[Blademasterbobo]

if you actually read their responses (and didn't just react to their tone), you'd realize that you're all blowing this out of proportion by quite a bit

[:^)]

what it looks like



what it is



relevant:

[Blademasterbobo]

On a different note, since the IGF guys are asking for examples of overlooked gems: where are The Iconoclasts and Dust: An Elysian Tail in the finalists? Both are single-dev games and they both look awesome. Not that they were necessarily "under-judged," but still

[JMickle]

Dust really needed a visual nomination. i mean, come on.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Dust really needed a visual nomination. i mean, come on.

ya, it didn't even get an honorable mention, even though it has like a team of animators and better animation than most AAA games

[:^)]

at first whenever anyone mentioned dust i was like,

"The game that looks like pokemon rule 34, fan art culture, furry stuff??"

but now i like it.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i just want to point out that this game got an honorable mention for visuals, whereas dust or the iconoclasts both didn't:

fader:



c.f.

dust:


iconoclasts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv8-RZ3vljw

my theory is that the visual jurists are mostly modern artists; there can't be any other explanation