next »

[___]

I disagree with people who think Q Games have nothing to gain. Its very difficult to get publicity for these smaller games; many mainstream gamers still haven't heard of Castle Crashers, Braid or the Pixeljunk series.

I'm going to have to disagree there (specifically on the Castle Crashers and Braid parts.)

http://kotaku.com/5123138/these-were-the-most+played-games-over-xbox-live-in-2008

Also listed were the twenty most popular Xbox Live Arcade games, Castle crashers taking top honours despite being widely unplayable over Xbox Live Arcade for much of the year. That's one hell of an achievement.

1 Castle Crashers
2 Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2
3 Braid

I'm pretty sure Castle Crashers and Braid have reached the top of the food chain.  I don't know where I can grab any sort of stats of PSN, but I wouldn't be surprised if Pixeljunk isn't near the top as well.

Edit: Found some, I think.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/19/top-10-downloaded-psn-games-of-2008/

   1.  Pain
   2. High Velocity Bowling
   3. Super Stardust HD
   4. PixelJunk Monsters
   5. Flow
   6. Warhawk
   7. Aquatopia
   8. Tekken 5 Dark Resurrection
   9. High Stakes Poker Edition
  10. Ratchet & Clank: Quest for Booty

Right, so pixeljunk eden isn't up here -- but there sure is a pixeljunk game, and it beat out the likes of Flow and other bit games.

I think it comes down to what you think the meaning of the IGF is, and I absolutely agree that a big chunk of it (even if the IGF does not admit this, or state this publicly, or even agree with this) is getting exposure for people that need exposure, and winning money that can help fund the development of their game.  The value of Alec and Derek winning the grand prize, and Petri winning the grand prize, is going to far outweigh the value of a company like Q-Games winning any of the prizes because they've already completed the game, published the game, and sold the game.  They don't NEED the IGF at that point, and I feel like it's against my own personal "honor code" for them to submit their pixeljunk games.  I mean, if I were them I wouldn't have submitted anything.

[dc2005]

I entered the forums today to find many many posts about Pixel Junk Eden and Q-Games.

IMHO (and this is something from a developer who has received critics for being participating in the IGF, remember we are using the source engine) this issue is (as some people have already said) of wheter you need the exposition or not.

Remember Introversion? The last of the bedroom programmers (as it says on their website)? Wen they entered Darwinia I didn't see all this attitude against them, they had already made another game (Uplink), if I remember right Darwinia was already released when they entered it, yet people gave them a lot of love. Why? I think it's because they tried to make a personal, innovative game, they tried to push boundaries, and they needed the spotlights to be able to show the world what they did, and maybe in the process sell a few more copies, enough to keep on going.

I don't know if Q-Games is swimming on money of if they are tight; being independent, its probably closer to the second option, so if they think that they need the boost to spread the word about their games, then I see nothing bad with that.

And about the IGF judges, I'm sure they take "indie spirit" in account, even if Pixel Junk made it to the finalists, being "succesful" is something that probably will weight against them when choosing the winners of each category.

[sillytuna]

I'm going to have to disagree there (specifically on the Castle Crashers and Braid parts.)

http://kotaku.com/5123138/these-were-the-most+played-games-over-xbox-live-in-2008

You'll find that the IGF played a role getting those games there, and also that if you go into a game store most people still won't have heard of those games, or the Pixeljunk series. This is partly down to platform holders not being very good with promoting PSN/Wii content (user ratings, presents for friends, poor initial offerings, etc).

There is a difference between what they achieved and a game entering the mainstream consciousness, ala Fable, Fallout, etc. Castle Crashers is definitely moving in that direction though, and the point I was making is that the IGF is a way to help make this shift happen.

Still, you are right in that these games have done well and it's a really good thing too.

In terms of "what is indie" - it can be discussed forever because it means different things to different people. What's important is that the IGF judges take everything into account in their process.

Given that Sony have been very supportive of Q Games since the PS3 launched, I'm surprised they got nominated (so much too), but that's the judges' perogative. Q certainly have the right philosophy...

[Edmund]

i just posted this on the front page but i felt it also fits here.

if the way the judging was setup in a more democratic way then, all the arguments about YHTBTR and Eden would be more valid.

but the fact is the games that got in are only the opinions of 2-6 people and not a combined score of all, or even a majority of judges. I think the only real valid issue with every bitch and moan people have about the igf can be traced back to the fact that their judging system is extremely and obviously flawed.

when only a few people are judging a game often times your running into very polarized opinions and personal taste of the people involved.

if you have 3 people judging your turn based strategy game, and 2 of those judges arnt fans of that genre.. then your fucked. Judging something by its average score is only valid when its a consensus of all involved.

now i realize that having 200+ games and only 20 judges working on them is a big reach.. but it doesn’t mean keeping the way its setup now is the best.. because its very obviously not.

[Alec]

I'd be interested in finding out how many judges reviewed more than their alloted games. I think I maybe reviewed an extra 5-10 beyond my assigned 11 games.

I'm kind of upset that "You Have to Burn the Rope" got nominated for innovation. I've got nothing against the game or its creator, but I don't see any reason for it to be nominated in that category... it actually seems pretty silly. I'd be curious to hear the rationale from the judges that rated it up.

Judging IGF games is kind of annoying, because of the high rate of crap to non-crap. AFAIK, judges don't receive anything for judging. Most people assume that judges get a free GDC pass, but that's not true. I'm kind of confused about that attitude, its like the funders don't consider judging an important part of the process that deserves to be rewarded.

I'd like to see more guidelines coming from the IGF organizers about judging. For example, a basic rubric, so that the scores can be more consistent. I think more debate and communication between judges would be good. I'm not sure how you would encourage that.

Maybe one solution to the problem is to throw more judges at the games so there is more overlap.

[Alec]

Though I do think there needs to be some clarification in the IGF, I don't blame the IGF or the judges for putting it through, though had I been a judge of Eden I would have said..."Uhh..this game doesn't need our help"..but again that's me and my personal views on what I feel the IGF should represent...but it isn't my festival so I don't call the shots or set the guidelines. I'm actually not sure what guidelines, if any aside from the title of the category the game is being judged, the judges are required to follow when scoring an entry. I don't think Eden should have been submitted in the first place. It's a cool game, but it just seems out of place in the IGF. I don't quite understand Q-Games motives here and I hope this isn't becoming a trend for other more successful developers to slide in and take spots from independent developers trying to make a name for themselves.

There aren't really any guidelines for judges, that I'm aware of. (other than explaining the basic concept) Its up to each judge to interpret based on their personal beliefs. (which is generally a good thing, it would be scary to lock people into a certain way of thinking)

I've been party to a discussion involving a few judges. There is a debate on whether the focus should be purely about quality or some combination of quality and "indieness".  I'm not really sure where I stand on the issue. I definitely feel like the IGF has been quite effective at supporting and promoting indies that otherwise would have a hard time getting noticed. I'd like that trend to continue... it seems like its a Good Thing for the independent games scene.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i just posted this on the front page but i felt it also fits here.

if the way the judging was setup in a more democratic way then, all the arguments about YHTBTR and Eden would be more valid.

but the fact is the games that got in are only the opinions of 2-6 people and not a combined score of all, or even a majority of judges. I think the only real valid issue with every bitch and moan people have about the igf can be traced back to the fact that their judging system is extremely and obviously flawed.

when only a few people are judging a game often times your running into very polarized opinions and personal taste of the people involved.

if you have 3 people judging your turn based strategy game, and 2 of those judges arnt fans of that genre.. then your fucked. Judging something by its average score is only valid when its a consensus of all involved.

now i realize that having 200+ games and only 20 judges working on them is a big reach.. but it doesn’t mean keeping the way its setup now is the best.. because its very obviously not.

I made many of these exact same points last year on these forums. I think one of the people who runs the contest responded, you could probably search for his rationale in the forum's archives.

I think it's safe to say that no judging process for 300+ games can even approach being fair, since it's prohibitively time-consuming for people to play all those games and score them fairly. So instead they have to break it down, with each game getting only two or three judges, so it's the luck of the draw whether those few judges appreciate the games they're assigned or not.

[Tanner]

NIGHT GAME NIGHT GAME NIGHT GAME

 

[Zaphos]

I think it's safe to say that no judging process for 300+ games can even approach being fair, since it's prohibitively time-consuming for people to play all those games and score them fairly. So instead they have to break it down, with each game getting only two or three judges, so it's the luck of the draw whether those few judges appreciate the games they're assigned or not.

One approach in a case like this is to have two phases of judging -- for example perhaps judges play their assigned games 'in depth', rate and comment on them (as in the current system), then a group of judges sits down in a room and goes through all the reviewed games and decides based on cursory exposure to the game, and the ratings and comments the judges gave, whether the game should make it or not.  Optionally, games with a low enough review in the initial phase will not make it to the second phase.

This should improve the consistency of the results because all the final decisions are made at once, by the same group of people, in the context of a fuller set of submitted games.  It allows people to champion games which might have been unfairly neglected by their reviewers, or to reject games which have been bizarrely overrated, by giving a chance for discussion.

[Michaël Samyn]

Regarding PixelJunk, I personally welcome the variety that they bring to the selection. Not all games have to be of the amateur hobby kind. Let's allow indie games to be a big field. Let's be inclusive rather than exclusive.

It's  also one of the few games that people outside of the indie games elite have heard of. So it will draw more interest to the competition. Which is good for all indie games.

And while thinking about opportunism, also consider the risk that PixelJunk are taking. Eden wouldn't be the first big budget big team game with a publishing contract to loose against some guy who made a game in his mother's attic on his nephew's 286SX.

[Alec]

Tale of Tales have outdone themselves again. Bravo!

[Michaël Samyn]

Tale of Tales have outdone themselves again. Bravo!

It's a hobby. 

[Alec]

It's a hobby. 

Waaaait, I thought hobbies were for amateurs? 

You and me are going to have a couple beers at GDC, my friend. 

[Derek]

Most people assume that judges get a free GDC pass, but that's not true.

Wait, we don't?  Uh oh. 

[Alec]

Most people assume that judges get a free GDC pass, but that's not true.

Wait, we don't?  Uh oh. 

I don't think judges do? (I would be happy to learn I was wrong about that)

Speakers do, so I'm covered that way... but yeah. 

[Alex May]

If you need a ticket, finalists get a few exhibitor passes which we can hand out on the sly to chums. don't tell matthew though

Alternatively if you register prior to Feb 12, the Expo Pass is $175 and includes the IGF. Pretty good value compared to the tickets that cost $1500+.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

One approach in a case like this is to have two phases of judging -- for example perhaps judges play their assigned games 'in depth', rate and comment on them (as in the current system), then a group of judges sits down in a room and goes through all the reviewed games and decides based on cursory exposure to the game, and the ratings and comments the judges gave, whether the game should make it or not.  Optionally, games with a low enough review in the initial phase will not make it to the second phase.

This should improve the consistency of the results because all the final decisions are made at once, by the same group of people, in the context of a fuller set of submitted games.  It allows people to champion games which might have been unfairly neglected by their reviewers, or to reject games which have been bizarrely overrated, by giving a chance for discussion.

I still don't think that'd work because judges may rate a game very low that is actually a good game for others, just due to it not being to their tastes. Remember how bad some reviews of Aquaria were when it was released, how many people thought it was boring and slow? If a few judges like that were assigned to it back then (when was it, 2006?), it would have been disqualified from the contest it won. So your method is probably better than the current method (where the finalists are just the top-scorers from the judges that were assigned to that game), but it'd still be just as subject to luck.

I think a better method, and the one I'd personally go with, is to have fewer but more dedicated judges. If Tim W can play 20 new games a day for his blog, there are people out there who could play all 300 games over a long enough period. If you extended the judging time to around half a year or even a year, playing all the games that were entered would be possible for a few dedicated and qualified judges. You wouldn't need a whole lot of them, even five or seven would do.

[dc2005]

One approach in a case like this is to have two phases of judging -- for example perhaps judges play their assigned games 'in depth', rate and comment on them (as in the current system), then a group of judges sits down in a room and goes through all the reviewed games and decides based on cursory exposure to the game, and the ratings and comments the judges gave, whether the game should make it or not.  Optionally, games with a low enough review in the initial phase will not make it to the second phase.

I still don't think that'd work because judges may rate a game very low that is actually a good game for others, just due to it not being to their tastes. Remember how bad some reviews of Aquaria were when it was released, how many people thought it was boring and slow? If a few judges like that were assigned to it back then (when was it, 2006?), it would have been disqualified from the contest it won. So your method is probably better than the current method (where the finalists are just the top-scorers from the judges that were assigned to that game), but it'd still be just as subject to luck.

What I find unfair is that Seumas McNally finalists are decided so early in the competence, leaving all other finalists unable to compete for it. I think that finalists for the big prize should come out from a second phase (Wether from the finalists in other categories or from a second phase where most judges play most of the games that got that far)

[Michaël Samyn]

It's a hobby. 

Waaaait, I thought hobbies were for amateurs? 

Where did you get the idea that I'm not an amateur? 

You and me are going to have a couple beers at GDC, my friend. 

Belgian beers, I hope! 

[Alec]

It's a hobby. 

Waaaait, I thought hobbies were for amateurs? 

Where did you get the idea that I'm not an amateur? 

 Your fancy top hat...

You and me are going to have a couple beers at GDC, my friend. 

Belgian beers, I hope! 

 The scanner can only see Belgian beer!