next »

[Cymon]

Now I realize this is more than somewhat subjective. I just ran through almost all of the entries and it seems to me, tho I haven't charted this, that there are some entries that if I were asked to pick the "best" I'd have a hard time choosing between, several that if I were asked to pick the "worst" that I'd have a hard time choosing between, and not a lot in between. The "best" category is filled with games that no amateur would ever be able to duplicate, some of which seemed in production before the contest.

I don't know if there's a point to this, but I just thought I'd bring it up.

[agj]

Are you jealous of people being good at working with 3D? Hmm?

I think that this is the most technically accomplished compo I've seen so far. Still, I haven't played that many entries yet.

[Mikademus]

I'd say that some games were done in existing frameworks, and that there is nothing wrong with this. Had I had time to participate I would have made my entry in my own already existing one. If you want to make a complicated game, especially for 3D, in a short time you basically have to have an pre-existing system. And when I make my personal judgements of entries I always take the point of origin into consideration, which I think is fair.

[Chris Z]

Right, if we had to do everything from scratch for every compo I don't think we'd get much done.  It's really no different than using Game Maker, etc. for your entry in terms of the amount of time you save by having some framework/engine/codebase in place.

[Don Andy]

I don't really think any of this truly matters in a competition where nobody really wins. Or rather, where nobody really loses.

All games made get some attention here, the good ones just more than others.

I'm personally never really voting what game impressed me the most technologically or which game was the most polished one, but which game I ended up enjoying the most in the end.

So, all of those cutting edge 3D things may be really nice and all, but the real winner may end up to be more simple game, simply because I'm having more fun with it.

[Cymon]

Are you jealous of people being good at working with 3D? Hmm?

Maaaybe.

Na, I was stating an observation. Quite frankly I'm thrilled at what came out of this compo.

[GregWS]

I usually don't play many until voting is over and don't vote myself...yeah, that's me contributing to the community for you...

But anyway, I did play that one by 0rel, and I loved the graphical style.  The gameplay was pretty fun, but I think he needed to tweak it a bit, because if you were just trying to finish the level, that was usually quite easy.  I ended up just destroying all the enemies before winning the level to outweigh this.

[nihilocrat]

The fact that we can use pre-existing engines is one of the reasons I'm particularly interested in TIG compos. It's also particularly important because, as said before, many people are already starting with a pre-existing engine in the form of Game Maker or MMF or Construct or what-have-you.

Where I 'come from', pyweek, any pre-existing code you use needs to be a library that was made publically available one month before the compo begins or sooner. It makes you good at re-engineering stuff over and over again, but it limits the scope of your game quite a bit when you know you are spending 50-80% of the week writing and testing code you've already "finished" in other games.

As for the original topic, there are always going to be different levels of quality in compo entries, which are greatly influenced by experience, spare time, scope of the entry / ease of execution, and such.