next »

[esc]

braid was entered once before it won a prize i believe

incorrect. made in 2005, entered that year, won game design award in 2006, released in 2008.

[fatso]

This could easily lead to the kind of stagnation issues we see in the mainstream game industry at the moment.

This.

Indies have their heroes now. Those that started when the indie scene was in its infancy get a lot of coverage now no matter what they do. And they earned that.

But we should be careful that the glorification of established names doesn't impact the exposure of new ideas. IGF is the primary outlet for for an indie to get that exposure. Established names who are creating games we all know and love because of the IGF should step aside and honour someone else's shot at it. Stop being fucking babies, grow up and pass the torch.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

braid was entered once before it won a prize i believe

incorrect. made in 2005, entered that year, won game design award in 2006, released in 2008.

ah, i keep forgetting this, thanks

wasn't there a game which was entered and didn't win and then entered again and won some prize? i remember something like that but i don't remember what it applies to

[Matthew]

wasn't there a game which was entered and didn't win and then entered again and won some prize? i remember something like that but i don't remember what it applies to

Gish was a finalist twice (winning its second nomination).

[Fallsburg]

@Fallsburg: I'm not going to take sides in this Fez thing, but I really disagree with that last thing. Many people create several games with potential, it'd just be horribly mean to disallow retries.

Why is it horribly mean?  If you don't think your game can win, don't enter. It's not mean, it's simple, and what every other similar competition in the world does (to my knowledge, I don't know of any other festival that allows something like this, certainly nothing on the importance of the IGF [in its respective field]).  Maybe the IGF should be honored for trying something new.  But maybe the IGF should see that it isn't working out as planned.

And this isn't necessarily about Fez (I got out my sarcastic meanness about that with my two jokes).  I just think this is a poor way to run the contest(I can start my own, I'm not in their shoes, whatevs).  Maybe my idea is even worse, and I just don't realize it, but I think the fact that this argument (in the rational, classic sense) is reason enough to doubt the way it's being handled currently)

*edited for grammar

[Hangedman]

If you don't think your game can win, don't enter.

I don't know if my game can win. Should I not enter?

[XRA]

I was planning on entering a project into IGF this year, but because of the new rules going into effect for 2013 regarding no re-entry of prior submissions, I'm not going to enter this year.  
It saved me some stressful nights of crunch, it comes down to the decision of being truthful with your goals and where the project is at, not just throwing anything to IGF when knowing it could be made even better. I know that next year the project will be in a much better position, so I will wait until it is ready.  

If the rules for re-entry hadn't changed it is likely that I'd submit the project this year and not have found myself thinking so seriously about my goals for the project.

In some ways- yea that probably was nice for people being able to try again each year, but I support the stricter stance on re-entering submissions because it makes it a bit more of a serious decision for the creators.  I know that can make it tougher for creators when it comes down to time equaling money though.

*edit* looks like I misjudged the new rule as it seems to only apply to finalists

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think entering multiple years in a row is just a reflection of how excruciatingly long indie game dev time often is. fez has a 4 year dev time; my own game is a 4 year dev time as well. cave story took 5 years. aquaria was 3 years. iji was 4 years

so indie games (at least the kind that try to win igf prizes) on average probably take longer to make than movies and novels take to make. considering that, i think being able to enter a game a couple years in a row makes sense, especially if you've added significantly to a game since the last entry

anyway, is the 2013 rule change that they have planned for *all* re-entries, or just re-entries of finalists/winners?

[Nix]

I see no problem with taking a few tries to win an award, but I do think there's a bit of a problem with resubmitting a game that has already won. Basically you know it's winner material, so it's not much of a competition against the games that are brand new. You could say "then it just encourages next year's games to be EVEN BETTER!" but that doesn't seem to be much in the spirit of people making games for the sake of making games.

[Daniel Benmergui]

I will be submitting Storyteller this year, which is unfinished.

But last year I was a judge for IGF, and there are a couple of things I noticed would have helped many entries:

* Many many (would guess most) judges didn't start judging until quite a while after the deadline, so I will update compulsively all along until the end.
* If your game is complicated to learn but has cool stuff about it if you do, make a video showing how to do some of the cool stuff! If I made a game like SpaceChem, would totally do that to avoid the risk of being dismissed as "another hard game with poor UI and tutorial and ultimately bad gameplay".
* Would not make a wall of text in the form that has info about the game for the judges. I've seen games include the whole backstory, hoping it would increase its value somehow, burying important info. I will focus on briefly explaining how to make the game work, and what's supposed to be interesting about it.
* (very) Short but impactful works *much* better than long and "less than great" (this goes specially for unfinished games). I will be trimming the doubtful levels out of my game, even if it makes it extremely short. I might add some of the experimental levels at the end, clearly marked as "Experimental".

[Fallsburg]

If you don't think your game can win, don't enter.

I don't know if my game can win. Should I not enter?

Nobody knows if their game can win, but you have to have some thought as to whether you think it can win.
Also, I want to make it clear, I think a person can enter as often as they wish, but a given game should only be entered once.

[simoniker]

anyway, is the 2013 rule change that they have planned for *all* re-entries, or just re-entries of finalists/winners?

As Brandon Boyer mentions in his 'welcome to this year's IGF' post - http://igf.com/2011/06/letter_from_the_chairman_welco.html :

One of my strongest beliefs is that none of us here at the IGF should act as gate-keepers, rejecting developers as they file in to enter their games, for any reason. I believe that's one of the strengths and the best utilizations of our judge and jury system, allowing the community to set its own tone for the outcome of the festival.

That said, we would like to see the games coming into the festival being prepared for the festival, just as it operates in other creative fields. While some IGF finalists have gone on to win IGF awards when entered in a more complete state, we're making an official stance that finalists of IGF 2012 will be discouraged from re-entering their game in 2013.

The idea is to leave those finalist slots (not to mention judge & jury assignments) open for new works. As this is a transitional year, 2011 finalists will not be discouraged from re-entering any games -- we only add that we're all looking forward to seeing new creations each year, and hope that you, the developers, are confident that your game will shine through amongst the other entries.

Surprised nobody has quoted this yet, given it directly pertains to the matter at hand.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@simoniker - thanks for the info

I will be submitting Storyteller this year, which is unfinished.

But last year I was a judge for IGF, and there are a couple of things I noticed would have helped many entries:

* Many many (would guess most) judges didn't start judging until quite a while after the deadline, so I will update compulsively all along until the end.
* If your game is complicated to learn but has cool stuff about it if you do, make a video showing how to do some of the cool stuff! If I made a game like SpaceChem, would totally do that to avoid the risk of being dismissed as "another hard game with poor UI and tutorial and ultimately bad gameplay".
* Would not make a wall of text in the form that has info about the game for the judges. I've seen games include the whole backstory, hoping it would increase its value somehow, burying important info. I will focus on briefly explaining how to make the game work, and what's supposed to be interesting about it.
* (very) Short but impactful works *much* better than long and "less than great" (this goes specially for unfinished games). I will be trimming the doubtful levels out of my game, even if it makes it extremely short. I might add some of the experimental levels at the end, clearly marked as "Experimental".

i don't really agree with this approach (particularly your last bullet point). while it is true that these changes may make a game more likely to win or become a finalist, i don't believe that one should make majors changes in one's game *just for* the IGF. one should only add things to the game that you think make it a better game for your players, not things that you think make it a better game for IGF judges, otherwise you're compromising your vision and such

however, if those changes are reversible, or if they're for an IGF-specific build, then that's fine. but i'd hate to see everyone making games they think IGF judges will like rather than games they want to make or games their players want

[Daniel Benmergui]

@simoniker - thanks for the info

* (very) Short but impactful works *much* better than long and "less than great" (this goes specially for unfinished games). I will be trimming the doubtful levels out of my game, even if it makes it extremely short. I might add some of the experimental levels at the end, clearly marked as "Experimental".

i don't really agree with this approach (particularly your last bullet point). while it is true that these changes may make a game more likely to win or become a finalist, i don't believe that one should make majors changes in one's game *just for* the IGF. one should only add things to the game that you think make it a better game for your players, not things that you think make it a better game for IGF judges, otherwise you're compromising your vision and such.

however, if those changes are reversible, or if they're for an IGF-specific build, then that's fine. but i'd hate to see everyone making games they think IGF judges will like rather than games they want to make or games their players want

Yes. No compromises on vision and such. But I've seen many unfinished games assume judges would see through the unfinished sludge.

[Geti]

A week of polish would go a long way, I expect.

How about people entering posting screenshots or something? I'd love to see a bit what kind of stuff is going to be entered!

Good point.


Here’s me atop my freshly created stack-o-workshops a few builds ago.

[MattG]

I will be submitting Storyteller this year, which is unfinished.

But last year I was a judge for IGF, and there are a couple of things I noticed would have helped many entries:

* Many many (would guess most) judges didn't start judging until quite a while after the deadline, so I will update compulsively all along until the end.
* If your game is complicated to learn but has cool stuff about it if you do, make a video showing how to do some of the cool stuff! If I made a game like SpaceChem, would totally do that to avoid the risk of being dismissed as "another hard game with poor UI and tutorial and ultimately bad gameplay".
* Would not make a wall of text in the form that has info about the game for the judges. I've seen games include the whole backstory, hoping it would increase its value somehow, burying important info. I will focus on briefly explaining how to make the game work, and what's supposed to be interesting about it.
* (very) Short but impactful works *much* better than long and "less than great" (this goes specially for unfinished games). I will be trimming the doubtful levels out of my game, even if it makes it extremely short. I might add some of the experimental levels at the end, clearly marked as "Experimental".

you just spelled out exactly why I dont enter. short glossy things beat out the deep innovators every year

[moi]

If you're not already a media darling or a "known face" , don't bother entering IGF.
Anyway what's an indie game? I think indie game don't exist anyomre today in 2011. Everybody is at the same time indie and  whatever is the oppposite of indie.
The biggest number of devellopers nowadays is for smartphone. Where do these people fit into the equation? What's the indieness difference between rovio and flashbang ?
What's the difference between an XBLA published game like Limbo and a "non-indie" game? Is it the budget?
All this is a big joke. At the expense of us, the audience.
Why would I give a flying crap about a caste of people wh spend their time autocongratulating themselves in festivals and chosen media channels. ALL THE TIME.

[Daniel Benmergui]

I will be submitting Storyteller this year, which is unfinished.

But last year I was a judge for IGF, and there are a couple of things I noticed would have helped many entries:

* Many many (would guess most) judges didn't start judging until quite a while after the deadline, so I will update compulsively all along until the end.
* If your game is complicated to learn but has cool stuff about it if you do, make a video showing how to do some of the cool stuff! If I made a game like SpaceChem, would totally do that to avoid the risk of being dismissed as "another hard game with poor UI and tutorial and ultimately bad gameplay".
* Would not make a wall of text in the form that has info about the game for the judges. I've seen games include the whole backstory, hoping it would increase its value somehow, burying important info. I will focus on briefly explaining how to make the game work, and what's supposed to be interesting about it.
* (very) Short but impactful works *much* better than long and "less than great" (this goes specially for unfinished games). I will be trimming the doubtful levels out of my game, even if it makes it extremely short. I might add some of the experimental levels at the end, clearly marked as "Experimental".

you just spelled out exactly why I dont enter. a shined up one level nothing will beat the fucking mozart of gaming all day everyday.

Well, it can't be THAT short either. It would not have worked for me if the game felt like it didn't go very far in exploring its own ideas, even if it was a good initial attempt.

I did find lots of games with many levels that were not very good. Some were filler and others felt far too clunky.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

one thing that glaiel suggested last year was that if your game is really big and starts off slow (like aquaria) you should give judges a save file that's further into the game, so that they can see what the game is like after you get into the heart of it. the same may work for games with lots of levels

but i think mattg's point is that you shouldn't judge by how fun the game is in the first few minutes, because that discourages people who work on the whole game rather than people who work just on the start over and over. but that bias isn't just limited to igf judges, it's also pretty common among players and games journalists as well. games that only get good a few hours in are usually destined to become cult classics rather than mainstream successes

it is however a bit disappointing when you learn judges only played 5 or 15 minutes of a 30+ hour game; i'd think that since they were assigned a game, only have a half dozen to a dozen games assigned to them, and have 3 months to play the games, that they'd give it more time than a few minutes

[MattG]

Anyway what's an indie game? I think indie game don't exist anyomre today in 2011. Everybody is at the same time indie and  whatever is the oppposite of indie.
The biggest number of devellopers nowadays is for smartphone. Where do these people fit into the equation? What's the indieness difference between rovio and flashbang ?
What's the difference between an XBLA published game like Limbo and a "non-indie" game? Is it the budget?
All this is a big joke. At the expense of us, the audience.
Why would I give a flying crap about a caste of people wh spend their time autocongratulating themselves in festivals and chosen media channels. ALL THE TIME.

dude that is so on point