next »

[deathtotheweird]

Ask brandon to be a judge for next year, and play all the games you are assigned to completion

Why would anyone volunteer to be a judge if they didn't have the time to play all the games?

If I volunteered to be a judge and I was tasked with completing 20 games, I would complete them. If I knew I wouldn't have time, I wouldn't volunteer. It's not exactly rocket science.

[AndySchatz]

BTW, I actually agree that its a problem that some judges aren't giving any time to their assigned games.  I do think that the past two years of the IGF have suffered from a shift in bias from too much randomness to too much predictability (due to the jury system).  And I think one of the reasons for this problem is that judges aren't giving enough time to unknown games.

HOWEVER, I'm totally willing to defend the idea that some games don't really deserve more than 5-10 minutes.  Also, in some cases, technical requirements make judging difficult, especially in the mobile space.  I did not play one of my assigned games because it required an ipad 2 to play, while I have an ipad 1.

There are way too many games to try, and judges need to be able to focus their attention on the upper eschalon of games.  IMO the best way to improve the discovery process is to improve the social/discussion process of the judging backend.  Applying a bit more pressure on judges to play all of their assigned games will help too.  But I wouldnt go anywhere close to saying that the IGF is broken -- that seems a bit dramatic... I know, it's the internet, everything is dramatic here!

[Dragonmaw]

Given the reduced importance of judges over the past few years, I don't know how to feel about judges not playing games. That being said, i try to play the game until I feel like I want to stop. Some games that means for a long time (or in bastion's case, until the end of the IGF demo; boy, that was abrupt) and some games that means a woefully short period of time.

While you can bemoan that people should always play the game to completion before making a judgement, there's definitely some validity behind playing until you feel like you can't play it any more because it sucks, is boring, you've seen all you need to, etc. Games should reveal at least a portion of their character fairly quickly and be paced well enough to show the player its secrets. Players should not have to wade through hip-deep garbage to find the single, poorly-cut gem in the sewer that is your game.

But since the jury has far more importance than the judges, and they play games to completion (presumably), there's less importance on judges not playing the game to completion.

[bento_smile]

It would be unreasonable to expect judges to play a game through to completion. But it is reasonable imho to expect more than 5 minutes of play.

[Uykered]

Having a strict amount of time that someone has to play a game for is dum (although I do find this whole competition pretty dum anyway lol). Some people are more experienced in particular genres and will be able to quickly tell if a game is low quality or not, so the time for someone to make up their mind will vary from person to person.

[The Monster King]

Why would anyone volunteer to be a judge if they didn't have the time to play all the games?

yyeah no shit I don't get it either

and if somehow you have all these life's little things that prevent you from playing a few video games why don't you just tell someone and ask for someone to replace you?? "oh hey I won't be able to test this GAME I'M ASSIGNED can you get someone to do it for me???? THANKS I AM BEING RESPONISBLE")

let's just all make "you have to burn the rope" it seemed to click with judges!!!

[FrankieSmileShow]

I don't really see how the IGF judging could be "fixed". There is no way to force judges to play their games without making the whole process transparent, which would have its own hosts of problems.

But... I feel that if a judge is completely uninterested in my game, so much that he or she doesn't even install it after seeing the screenshot, name, description and video... That sucks, but I guess that's kind of part of what "judging" is. The game doesn't look fun, so much the judge isn't even willing to try it. That says something about the game, right? Though it means instead of rewarding innovation, this really shifts the focus to "rewarding innovation that looks impressive on screenshots."

Making me pay 100$ for that though... kind of sucks.
(I didnt participate in the IGF in years though. Back in my day I think it was 75$....)

[Blademasterbobo]

Then they should be able to pass the game onto another judge. After so many passes, don't use that person as a judge again. Or maybe just give them the games other people passed on.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

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

in other words, if you're just joe game player playing random games for fun, sure, some games don't deserve more than 15 minutes of your time. but an igf judge isn't just a random game player, they aren't playing the IGF entries for *pleasure*, they're playing them to evaluate their merits and demerits, and that requires study and some impartiality/objectivity (e.g. you have to be able to hate jrpgs and yet give a good jrpg a good score to be a competent judge)

example: there are some books that don't deserve to be read all the way through, because they're boring or written badly. but if you're writing a book report on a book for a class, it doesn't matter how bad or boring the book is, you *have* to read it all the way through, just reading the first chapter and writing a book report on that is cheating

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yknow, I think there's a valid criticsm here, but I always return to the actual finalist results.  Propose which games shouldnt have been nominated and which ones should have.  If the results aren't broken then the process isn't either.  If the results ARE broken, then the IGF should take specific steps to fix those problems.

this part is a little subjective, since the games that people judge to be high quality games are largely based what other people tell them are high quality games. e.g. "this novel won a pulitzer? it must be good... maybe i just don't get good writing..."

that said there are plenty of people who feel the results are broken, just read every thread and comments section for frontpage post for previous IGF award/finalist announcements. among the indie game developers i speak to regularly it's just assumed that the IGF selections for their winners/finalists are either random or a joke

[AndySchatz]

Yknow, I think there's a valid criticsm here, but I always return to the actual finalist results.  Propose which games shouldnt have been nominated and which ones should have.  If the results aren't broken then the process isn't either.  If the results ARE broken, then the IGF should take specific steps to fix those problems.

this part is a little subjective, since the games that people judge to be high quality games are largely based what other people tell them are high quality games. e.g. "this novel won a pulitzer? it must be good... maybe i just don't get good writing..."

that said there are plenty of people who feel the results are broken, just read every thread and comments section for frontpage post for previous IGF award/finalist announcements. among the indie game developers i speak to regularly it's just assumed that the IGF selections for their winners/finalists are either random or a joke

It's not constructive to say that the IGF is a joke.  It IS constructive to say that "You have to Burn the rope" shouldn't be a finalist.

I think that nomination probably served as a catalyst for change in the IGF, as the jury system was introduced afterwards. (I think there's merit in the discussion of the value of YHTBTR in the context of its time, but I would agree that it shouldn't have been a finalist).

In all this discussion I very rarely see people say what should be nominated in the place of games.  What are the false positives and negatives.  What are yours Paul?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

my constructive posts, including suggestions for how to fix the igf judging process, and which games should have been nominated / should have won in my opinion (but again, that's subject to taste, it's the least of my IGF worries which games win or are nominated) are all contained in this thread and other threads about the igf. i've repeated myself too many times previously for it to even be worth bothering looking up those posts and re-re-quoting them. that's what the search feature is for

but i think at some point we have to realize the people in charge of the igf doesn't care about fixing itself or changing it, they care more about how it's perceived than what it is (as evidenced by that 'please call us before posting a bad post about us' email), and there's not really much the community can do to change that reality. all the constructive criticism in the world is pointless if someone feels that things are generally fine

[Glaiel-Gamer]

they aren't playing the IGF entries for *pleasure*, they're playing them to evaluate their merits and demerits, and that requires study

No, they're playing to find the top 5 (10, honorable mentions) for specific categories. THis doesn't require careful study for 80% of the games entered, it'd fairly easy to trim off the bottom half or 3/4ths of games right away (quick sessions that lead to a "not a good game" decision), so that the judges effort can be focused on the top 20/25 in a category to determine which ones really deserve a nomination (partially what the jurying is for).

andy schatz put it this way

There are way too many games to try, and judges need to be able to focus their attention on the upper eschalon of games.

[phubans]

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??

[Glaiel-Gamer]

otherwise inactive members

uh...

[AndySchatz]

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??

OK, if you really don't want me to post on the subject, I'm happy to stop bothering.  But I figured I have a unique perspective, and (really) I'm a pretty honest and forthright person.  If you really doesn't think my voice is valuable... well... okay...

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

No, they're playing to find the top 5 (10, honorable mentions) for specific categories. THis doesn't require careful study for 80% of the games entered, it'd fairly easy to trim off the bottom half or 3/4ths of games right away (quick sessions that lead to a "not a good game" decision), so that the judges effort can be focused on the top 20/25 in a category to determine which ones really deserve a nomination (partially what the jurying is for).

this is a fair point, but remember that one of the categories is "overall" -- you can't always know how good, overall, a game is without spending time with it, because sometimes the whole outweighs first impressions. my favorite movie of all time, ikiru, is pretty boring for the first half hour

andy schatz put it this way

There are way too many games to try, and judges need to be able to focus their attention on the upper eschalon of games.

judges are assigned what, 12 games? that's not "too many to try". they don't need to play all 500+ entries. playing games for 5 minutes each would be justified by having to play 500 of them, but not 20 of them, especially when you're given like 3 months to do it

these arguments are the same as we've had 4 years ago, though, and the points (on either side) haven't changed much each year

[Matthew]

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.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

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??

OK, if you really don't want me to post on the subject, I'm happy to stop bothering.  But I figured I have a unique perspective, and (really) I'm a pretty honest and forthright person.  If you really doesn't think my voice is valuable... well... okay...

i think your voice is valuable, and your posts are good to read even when i don't disagree with them

but at the same one thing he said does have a point: you do have to realize that your voice can be seen as biased by past results, right? if monaco was never nominated to be a finalist, and if you had a time-recording system in it and saw that someone only played it for 3 minutes, and nobody tried it coop, you might be on the other side of the argument, no?

[AndySchatz]

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.