Annual Comp Question.
Gregg V. Carroll
to the Comp, or is it simply that judges must vote after a two hour playing
period? The rules seem to state the latter, but I've seen references to
people saying they didn't submit X game of theirs because it was long. Is
that because of a rule, or is it in fear of being judged unfairly (because
of the two hour voting limit and the possbility that the game won't be
expereinced fully enough for it to be judged on its full merits).
I ask because I'm wondering if I should push myself to finish this IF I'm
working on to be bug-free and ready for the Comp next year, or if I should
just release it whenever, as a non-comp release. It's obvious to me at this
point it is going to be longish, and although I'm certain it could be
finished in 2 hours with a walkthrough, I'm starting to have doubts that it
could without one. I'm not the greatest puzzle inventor, so that could vary
depending on a player by player basis, of course.
Thanks,
Gregg
Adam Thornton
Gregg V. Carroll <gr...@midcoast.com> wrote:
>To clarify, is there a strict or implied rule against submitting long games
>to the Comp, or is it simply that judges must vote after a two hour playing
>period? The rules seem to state the latter, but I've seen references to
>people saying they didn't submit X game of theirs because it was long. Is
>that because of a rule, or is it in fear of being judged unfairly (because
>of the two hour voting limit and the possbility that the game won't be
>expereinced fully enough for it to be judged on its full merits).
It's the latter, but...
>I ask because I'm wondering if I should push myself to finish this IF I'm
>working on to be bug-free and ready for the Comp next year, or if I should
>just release it whenever, as a non-comp release.
I think you should release it as a non-comp release.
>It's obvious to me at this
>point it is going to be longish, and although I'm certain it could be
>finished in 2 hours with a walkthrough, I'm starting to have doubts that it
>could without one. I'm not the greatest puzzle inventor, so that could vary
>depending on a player by player basis, of course.
It sounds as if it's likely to be longer than Comp games should.
Release it when it's done.
Adam
Gregg V. Carroll
> It sounds as if it's likely to be longer than Comp games should.
> Release it when it's done.
Well, the fact that it might take me until next year to finish it is because
it's my first and it's probably going to take me that long to code it all,
not because it's nesc. *that* long a game to play. Like I said, the puzzles
won't be ferocious, but the game space itself could be something of an
obstacle to finishing in 2 hours.
Okay, non-comp release. It's probably the right thing to do.
Gregg
Magnus Olsson
>to the Comp, or is it simply that judges must vote after a two hour playing
>period? The rules seem to state the latter, but I've seen references to
>people saying they didn't submit X game of theirs because it was long.
The letter of the rules is that long games are allowed, but the spirit
(and intention) is that they shouldn't be entered. Many judges feel
that they cannot do a long game justice in two hours, and that their
score would have been higher had they had time to complete the game.
The reason there's no explicit rule against long games is, by the
way, that there's no absolute way of measuring game length.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, m...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~mol ------
Gregg V. Carroll
>> To clarify, is there a strict or implied rule against submitting long games
>> to the Comp, or is it simply that judges must vote after a two hour playing
>> period? The rules seem to state the latter, but I've seen references to
>> people saying they didn't submit X game of theirs because it was long.
> The letter of the rules is that long games are allowed, but the spirit
> (and intention) is that they shouldn't be entered. Many judges feel
> that they cannot do a long game justice in two hours, and that their
> score would have been higher had they had time to complete the game.
I'm actually not all that concerned with scoring. I mean, it would be a perk
if it did well of course, but the main reason to enter it for me would be
for the exposure for reviews. I'm not writing it to win any prizes or
anything. By the same token, I'm not writing it in a vacuum, but I don't
want to do anything rude in the process. That's pretty much why I asked.
> The reason there's no explicit rule against long games is, by the
> way, that there's no absolute way of measuring game length.
Right, I figured as much. That's why I was wondering if it was a widely
accepted unwritten rule ("If you think it'll take someone reasonably
familiar with IF significantly longer than 2 hours to play the game, it's
prefered that you not enter it in the Comp," type of thing).
Gregg
mattF
"Gregg V. Carroll" <gr...@midcoast.com> wrote in message
news:B83D3D11.1130%gr...@midcoast.com...
> Okay, non-comp release. It's probably the right thing to do.
>
> Gregg
>
As a word of encouragement: Speaking only for myself, games released
independently of any competition often warrant a certain amount of quiet
awe. I love reading [ANNOUNCE] in the newsgroups. Tres classy. I hope to
do it myself one of these days. But let's not hold our breath or anything.
-mattF
=======================================
"I believe in just about everything: pure evil, true love, fate,
and free will. But I don't believe in that Good Times virus.
That one's a crock."
-Dr. Bernard Bustoffson
http://home.iprimus.com.au/tarturus
=======================================
Gregg V. Carroll
>> Okay, non-comp release. It's probably the right thing to do.
> As a word of encouragement: Speaking only for myself, games released
> independently of any competition often warrant a certain amount of quiet
> awe. I love reading [ANNOUNCE] in the newsgroups. Tres classy. I hope to
> do it myself one of these days. But let's not hold our breath or anything.
That might be kind of fun. I've never had a reason to announce anything on a
newsgroup before. I think I'll pretend I'm entering it in the Comp anyway,
just to force myself to stay on top of things. A little self-deception goes
a long way.
Gregg
Magnus Olsson
>> (and intention) is that they shouldn't be entered. Many judges feel
>> that they cannot do a long game justice in two hours, and that their
>> score would have been higher had they had time to complete the game.
>
>I'm actually not all that concerned with scoring. I mean, it would be a perk
>if it did well of course, but the main reason to enter it for me would be
>for the exposure for reviews.
This is a bit of a problem with the system at the moment: people
feeling that they have to enter the Comp to get exposure. I'm not
blaming you or any other individual author - for each individual, it
makes sense to jump onto the bandwagon. The collective effect is a bit
of a vicious circle, though.
Note: I'm not criticizing your decision or saying that you shouldn't
enter.
>I'm not writing it to win any prizes or
>anything. By the same token, I'm not writing it in a vacuum, but I don't
>want to do anything rude in the process. That's pretty much why I asked.
>
>> The reason there's no explicit rule against long games is, by the
>> way, that there's no absolute way of measuring game length.
>
>Right, I figured as much. That's why I was wondering if it was a widely
>accepted unwritten rule ("If you think it'll take someone reasonably
>familiar with IF significantly longer than 2 hours to play the game, it's
>prefered that you not enter it in the Comp," type of thing).
It's widely accepted in the sense that lots of people seem to say,
"Sigh - another game that's far too long for the Comp." I don't
think it's considered rude, though.
The real risk you're running is that people will play your game
for two hours, see only the first N% of it, and then put it aside -
so you'll get the exposure, but only partial exposure, as it were.
I'm not at all sure that Comp games are played more than other
games *outside* of the comp, and the judges may be reluctant to pick
it up to finish it afterwards (being tired of the Comp etc).
J. D. Berry
> "Gregg V. Carroll" <gr...@midcoast.com> wrote in message
> news:B83D3D11.1130%gr...@midcoast.com...
> > Okay, non-comp release. It's probably the right thing to do.
> >
> > Gregg
> >
>
> As a word of encouragement: Speaking only for myself, games released
> independently of any competition often warrant a certain amount of quiet
> awe. I love reading [ANNOUNCE] in the newsgroups. Tres classy. I hope to
> do it myself one of these days. But let's not hold our breath or anything.
Once in a great while, there's even an actual GAME attached to the
beloved [ANNOUNCE].
Usually it's a...
[ANNOUNCE] Oh, tee-hee, this isn't a game, so sorry to burst
your little bubble, but this is vaguely game related if you count
a comp organization thingy or obscure library patch as game
related, and people actually READ articles that begin with an
[ANNOUNCE] so here you go.
Yes, yes, yes. Those things are important, too. No flames,
you bastards. ;D I'm just game greedy, 'sall.
How about a [GAME-ANNOUNCE]. Yeah, yeah, yeah, cuz we need
one more administrative thing to worry about in our lives.
But if you wanna talk class, monsieur F., that would have it
en cosses.
Let the breath holding begin!
Jim
"Good old H20" -- Amazon Women on the Moon
Gregg V. Carroll
>>> The letter of the rules is that long games are allowed, but the spirit
>>> (and intention) is that they shouldn't be entered. Many judges feel
>>> that they cannot do a long game justice in two hours, and that their
>>> score would have been higher had they had time to complete the game.
>> I'm actually not all that concerned with scoring. I mean, it would be a perk
>> if it did well of course, but the main reason to enter it for me would be
>> for the exposure for reviews.
> This is a bit of a problem with the system at the moment: people
> feeling that they have to enter the Comp to get exposure. I'm not
> blaming you or any other individual author - for each individual, it
> makes sense to jump onto the bandwagon. The collective effect is a bit
> of a vicious circle, though.
>
> Note: I'm not criticizing your decision or saying that you shouldn't
> enter.
I've pretty much decided that I won't, but I understand what you're saying.
I'd had considered that without saying so much in this thread. I think
someone else brought that issue up in passing somewhere else, so it was in
the back of my mind (it was between the lines of my etiquite question; if
I'd tick people off by submitting a long game, because people do it for the
reasons you mention above).
Now that I think about it, going against the grain as far as length could be
counter-productive anyway. If a fair number of judges are sufficiently
annoyed that it's too long for the Comp, you'll get reviews of a "it seems
interesting, but it's too long for the Comp" nature, which is of no help in
seeing what people liked or didn't like about it. Or it could get rated a 1
just based on the length alone, regardless of its merits. Along the same
lines as a game with too many bugs. Rush it for the Comp, but it winds up
not helping because people are ticked they can't get through it.
>> I'm not writing it to win any prizes or
>> anything. By the same token, I'm not writing it in a vacuum, but I don't
>> want to do anything rude in the process. That's pretty much why I asked.
>>> The reason there's no explicit rule against long games is, by the
>>> way, that there's no absolute way of measuring game length.
>> Right, I figured as much. That's why I was wondering if it was a widely
>> accepted unwritten rule ("If you think it'll take someone reasonably
>> familiar with IF significantly longer than 2 hours to play the game, it's
>> prefered that you not enter it in the Comp," type of thing).
> It's widely accepted in the sense that lots of people seem to say,
> "Sigh - another game that's far too long for the Comp." I don't
> think it's considered rude, though.
>
> The real risk you're running is that people will play your game
> for two hours, see only the first N% of it, and then put it aside -
> so you'll get the exposure, but only partial exposure, as it were.
>
> I'm not at all sure that Comp games are played more than other
> games *outside* of the comp, and the judges may be reluctant to pick
> it up to finish it afterwards (being tired of the Comp etc).
It's more a feedback issue with me than exposure (they're related I
suppose), it would be nice to get as much feedback as possible from a wide
range of people. I know that RAIF regulars write non-Comp reviews and so on,
but I like the idea of getting feedback from people who perhaps just
happened to wander into R*IF around Comp time (that happened this year if
I'm not mistaken) and are either IF newbies or just fans from the 80's and
haven't played since then, and so on. It's just a slightly different
perspective. Sometimes "fresh eyes" see what "seasoned" critics miss, or at
least have a different take on a similar point.
Gregg
Adam Thornton
>It's widely accepted in the sense that lots of people seem to say,
>"Sigh - another game that's far too long for the Comp." I don't
>think it's considered rude, though.
*I* consider it rude.
Not quite as rude as a game that's obviously been submitted with little
or no testing, that has fatal bugs that are very easy to wander into,
but kind of rude nonetheless.
>I'm not at all sure that Comp games are played more than other
>games *outside* of the comp, and the judges may be reluctant to pick
>it up to finish it afterwards (being tired of the Comp etc).
I generally don't play Comp games at all outside the Comp, except for
those that placed really high, got a lot of positive buzz on r*if, and
that I missed during the Comp. None this year. Metamorphoses last
year.
Adam
Gregg V. Carroll
>> In article <9v9or2$hqa$1...@news.lth.se>,
>> Magnus Olsson <m...@df.lth.se> wrote:
>> It's widely accepted in the sense that lots of people seem to say,
>> "Sigh - another game that's far too long for the Comp." I don't
>> think it's considered rude, though.
> *I* consider it rude.
Hush. I'm still pissed at you for posting that picture.
Gregg
Adam Thornton
Well, that's revisionist history if ever I saw it.
I posted no picture.
I posted a URL, which, if you entered it into a web browser, would take you
to someplace offensive.
I didn't even do it
<a href="http://www.disney.com">
As a hyperlink, like this (WARNING: this is really offensive, so DON'T
CLICK, OK?)
</a>
but instead just wrote the URL in plain text, so even if you have a
newsreader which interprets HTML--which is, in itself, an
abomination--it probably shouldn't have let you just click there,
although I won't be surprised to hear that there are newsreaders which
helpfully create hyperlinks around anything that even looks vaguely like
a URL.
It is not as if I dumped a binary of the Goatse.cx man into the
newsgroup, and it's not as if the context--that it was one of the images
towards the end of Stiffy Makane--shouldn't have given you at least some
indication that it probably wasn't family-friendly.
The name might have been a clue too.
No one made you click there, and until someone offers me convincing
evidence otherwise, I don't believe that you were simply sucked there
entirely volitionless.
Adam
Robb Sherwin
wrote:
>In article <B83E8437.115F%gr...@midcoast.com>,
>Gregg V. Carroll <gr...@midcoast.com> wrote:
>>Hush. I'm still pissed at you for posting that picture.
>Well, that's revisionist history if ever I saw it.
Yeah, really -- next time you should make it a link and at least get
your money's worth.
What's missing, I think, is the big picture -- those of you that have
had your goatse cherry busted... can now plant it upon other
unsuspecting net denizens yourself! For good rather than evil! (Oh,
hell, for evil, too.)
Robb
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Robb Sherwin, Fort Collins CO
Home Page: http://www.joltcountry.com
Reviews From Trotting Krips: http://joltcountry.dreamhost.com/trottingkrips
Gregg V. Carroll
>> Hush. I'm still pissed at you for posting that picture.
> Well, that's revisionist history if ever I saw it.
>
> I posted no picture.
>
> I posted a URL, which, if you entered it into a web browser, would take you
> to someplace offensive.
Oh, don't get your feathers all ruffled, I was just ribbing you. I forgot
the obligatory ;) at the end. My bad.
Gregg
(Who would argue that posting a URL to a picture on a non-binary ng is
effectively the same as posting the picture, but that is neither here nor
there.)
david carlton
> The letter of the rules is that long games are allowed, but the
> spirit (and intention) is that they shouldn't be entered. Many
> judges feel that they cannot do a long game justice in two hours,
> and that their score would have been higher had they had time to
> complete the game.
I'd been thinking of posting a question similar to Gregg's, though
from the point of view of a player rather than that of a author, so
I'm glad to see this thread.
My background is that I used to play adventure games (primarily but
not exclusively Infocom games) years/decades ago, and then took a
break, but have been reading this newsgroup (and its companion) for
the last couple of months. I still haven't gotten around to playing
many games written within the last decade, but I did play 10 (I think)
games in this year's comp. (And I have read some web pages about the
history of the comp and the history of interactive fiction in
general.)
I'm glad I played those games; but my experience with the comp would
have been somewhat improved if the two-hour rule weren't there, for
two reasons.
1) I prefer longer games to shorter games, in general, if the quality
is the same. The comp had several games which seemed to me to be
well-enough done but didn't last very long. So I wished that the
comp weren't implicitly discouraging longer games. And, for that
matter, implicitly discouraging games with many and/or difficult
puzzles: if a game is relatively free of puzzles, then you'll spend
most of the time typing and reading and comparatively little time
thinking, so you can work a lot more story into your game without
running into the two-hour limit. Since I like a fair amount of
puzzles in my interactive fiction (though maybe that will change as
I play more interactive fiction that is low on puzzles), I wish the
comp weren't encouraging puzzleless fiction. As it is, I can't
necessarily finish a game with even a single tricky puzzle within
the two-hour constraint without resorting to a walkthrough; and,
tricky puzzles aside, the constraints tended to force games to
either be quite linear (i.e. you have to solve the puzzles in a
given order) or extremely non-linear (i.e. the puzzles were more or
less all available at once), rather than a more pleasing (to me)
structure of, after the initial puzzle or two, having several
puzzles that you can work on at any given time until you get to the
final puzzle or two that they all lead to.
2) When playing a game, my first goal is my own enjoyment; getting a
rating for the game for the comp is only secondary. With most of
the games, I could carry out both of those goals at once within two
hours: within two hours I could either finish the game without a
walkthrough, decide I didn't care about the game enough to finish
it at all, or decide I didn't care enough about solving every
single puzzle in the game myself that I didn't mind looking at a
walkthrough where necessary in order to finish it within two hours.
But there were some games that didn't fit within those parameters:
in particular, when playing _The Gostak_, I had to decide whether
to look up the hints in the game or to grade the game even though I
wasn't particularly close to finishing the game. And, of course, I
chose the latter; but I found grading a game early somewhat
frustrating. (For all I knew at the time, _The Gostak_ might have
gotten a 10 from me, but I didn't feel right giving such a score
without seeing more of the game.)
So I would have preferred the two-hour rule not to be part of the
rules: replace it with text that makes it clear that you don't have to
finish a game to grade it, and that you shouldn't feel compelled to
play the game out to the end if you don't want to (perhaps even
suggesting that you normally not play games for more than two hours)
but not mandating that you assign your score after playing for no more
than two hours. Honestly, I don't see why this should be too much of
a problem: for most games, I should be able to figure out within two
hours (actually, within a good deal less than two hours) whether or
not I would enjoy playing the game to the end without a walkthrough,
so the practical effects of my proposed rule would be the same as the
current rule. The effects would only differ on the games that were
particularly good (as well as long enough to take more than two hours
to solve, of course), and that seems to me to be a fine place for the
effects to differ. I can understand how the rule would have arisen
historically, but my experiences don't support a need for the rule.
Of course, if long games that came out at other times got as much
attention as comp games do, there would be no need for such a rule
change (though that wouldn't be an argument against such a rule change
either). My impression is that that's not the case: I've only been
reading this newsgroup for a couple of months, but I've already seen
multiple exchanges where one person says "the comp was never intended
to be the dominant venue for interactive fiction releases" and another
person says "yeah, but it's turned out that way in practice". I was
quite impressed by the volume of attention and reviews that comp games
garnered; would a decent but unspectacular game released at another
time really receive the same amount of attention?
One solution, of course, would be for me to start a "longer games
comp" of my own. Indeed, I doubt that anything else I can do would
have any effect: if Stephen Granade agreed with me, he'd already have
changed the rules himself.
Out of curiosity: in a typical year, how many comps are there? (I was
surprised to see so many other comps announced after the main comp was
over; does that normally happen, and will all those other comps that
have been announced actually take place?) And, in a typical year, how
many games are released that wouldn't fit comfortably within the
two-hour time limit? (One goal of a "longer games comp" would be to
increase the number of such games, of course; on the other hand, if
the answer is "two" then there's not much point in hosting such a
comp.)
david carlton | <http://math.stanford.edu/~carlton/>
car...@math.stanford.edu | Go books: <http://math.stanford.edu/~carlton/go/>
The Osmonds! You are all Osmonds!! Throwing up on a freeway
at dawn!!!
Adam Thornton
>the obligatory ;) at the end. My bad.
If my feathers were truly ruffled, my Alter Ego would have Taken
Measures, and your Cheerios would have been in an Unfit State.
>(Who would argue that posting a URL to a picture on a non-binary ng is
>effectively the same as posting the picture, but that is neither here nor
>there.)
Yikes! Absolutely not! Posting the picture itself on a non-binary
group is rude (regardless of the picture's content) Posting a link to
it is the mannerly thing to do.
Adam
Gregg V. Carroll
>> Oh, don't get your feathers all ruffled, I was just ribbing you. I forgot
>> the obligatory ;) at the end. My bad.
> If my feathers were truly ruffled, my Alter Ego would have Taken
> Measures, and your Cheerios would have been in an Unfit State.
Ok. I'll go back to my side of the playground now.
>> (Who would argue that posting a URL to a picture on a non-binary ng is
>> effectively the same as posting the picture, but that is neither here nor
>> there.)
> Yikes! Absolutely not! Posting the picture itself on a non-binary
> group is rude (regardless of the picture's content) Posting a link to
> it is the mannerly thing to do.
No, no. When I wrote "...you posting that picture..." you took me too
literally, as if I was implying that you actually attached said picture to
your message. In the above, I was simply pointing out that on newsgroups
where posting binaries is looked down upon - prohibited, whatever - posting
a link is equivalent to "posting a picture."
Now, if you want to get all technical about it...
Gregg
(Who's eagerly awaiting being called a troll any moment now.)
Adam Thornton
>literally, as if I was implying that you actually attached said picture to
>your message. In the above, I was simply pointing out that on newsgroups
>where posting binaries is looked down upon - prohibited, whatever - posting
>a link is equivalent to "posting a picture."
I see.
>(Who's eagerly awaiting being called a troll any moment now.)
Oh, good heavens. Would I do that, when we have such a fine actual
example of the species infesting Our Fair 'Froup even now?
Besides, it'd give me much more satisfaction to simply shriek,
***WARNING! POTENTIALLY OFFENSIVE STATEMENT AHEAD! I MEAN IT! DON'T
READ FURTHER IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE OF, UH, SENSIBILITY!***
(No, that's not what I'm shrieking. Sheesh. What I'm shrieking is
farther down.)
FUCK YOU! You're in my killfile! NEXT!
Ahhh. That felt *good*.
Adam
Gregg V. Carroll
> FUCK YOU! You're in my killfile! NEXT!
Congratulations, you have achieved a perfect score of 100 points!
Thank you for playing ADAM'S KILLFILE.
[Hit any key to exit.]
Gregg
L. Ross Raszewski
>I'm glad I played those games; but my experience with the comp would
>have been somewhat improved if the two-hour rule weren't there, for
>two reasons.
Oh joy.
>
>1) I prefer longer games to shorter games, in general, if the quality
> is the same. The comp had several games which seemed to me to be
> well-enough done but didn't last very long. So I wished that the
> comp weren't implicitly discouraging longer games. And, for that
THe comp is discouraging long games *from the comp* not *from
existing*. At least in part, the competition exists *for the purpose
of* promoting *short* games.
The claim, if one could make it, is this: When a long game is
released, it tends to fare well of its own accord; it's played about
and talked about, often for quite some time after its initial release.
Short games released otuside of the competition are more liable to
slip under the radar.
> matter, implicitly discouraging games with many and/or difficult
> puzzles: if a game is relatively free of puzzles, then you'll spend
> most of the time typing and reading and comparatively little time
> thinking, so you can work a lot more story into your game without
> running into the two-hour limit. Since I like a fair amount of
> puzzles in my interactive fiction (though maybe that will change as
> I play more interactive fiction that is low on puzzles), I wish the
> comp weren't encouraging puzzleless fiction. As it is, I can't
This is a fallacy. You're assuming that longer==better, and therefore
a puzzle game of equivalent quality to a puzzleless game cannot be
entered into the comp, as it must, perforce, be longer.
> necessarily finish a game with even a single tricky puzzle within
> the two-hour constraint without resorting to a walkthrough; and,
> tricky puzzles aside, the constraints tended to force games to
> either be quite linear (i.e. you have to solve the puzzles in a
> given order) or extremely non-linear (i.e. the puzzles were more or
> less all available at once), rather than a more pleasing (to me)
> structure of, after the initial puzzle or two, having several
> puzzles that you can work on at any given time until you get to the
> final puzzle or two that they all lead to.
Um... This is not true, in general, of past high-ranking games.
>
>2) When playing a game, my first goal is my own enjoyment; getting a
> rating for the game for the comp is only secondary. With most of
I think you're onto something here. A long game should be played for
enjoyment. A game in the comp should be played (at least, during the
comp) with the playing experience flavored by the fact that you are
rating the game. You cannot really do justice to a longer game by
playing it for the purpose of rating it.
> the games, I could carry out both of those goals at once within two
> hours: within two hours I could either finish the game without a
> walkthrough, decide I didn't care about the game enough to finish
> it at all, or decide I didn't care enough about solving every
> single puzzle in the game myself that I didn't mind looking at a
> walkthrough where necessary in order to finish it within two hours.
> But there were some games that didn't fit within those parameters:
> in particular, when playing _The Gostak_, I had to decide whether
> to look up the hints in the game or to grade the game even though I
> wasn't particularly close to finishing the game. And, of course, I
> chose the latter; but I found grading a game early somewhat
> frustrating. (For all I knew at the time, _The Gostak_ might have
> gotten a 10 from me, but I didn't feel right giving such a score
> without seeing more of the game.)
>
I suspect that you're falling into something I consider to be a trap.
You keep saying "finish", as if finishing the game is linked to your
ability to rate it. I declare this to be an illusion.
(But then, I would. I have heard, several time, that my own humble
submission in this year's competition was "too long to finish". This
seemed obvious to me, since "finish" was ambiguously defined. One of
my intentions was to create a game which one could play for two hours,
and see enough things to enjoy the game. It's impossible to see
everything in the game playing it a single time, and I didn't really
expect anyone to (at least, for the purposes or rating it) go back and
replay the game exhaustively, to see everything in it; in fact, I
suspect I was, in a way, counting on the two hour limit; if you
replayed Moments until you'd seen everything, there's a lot of thngs
you'd see quite a few times. It may well get boring if you
tried. I sort of like the analogy of going to a museum. Perhaps I'm
uncommon in this, but I tend to go to museums which have much more
stuff in them than I have time to look, so I wander around for a bit
and see the things that interest me most.
To what extent I accomplished this is not entirely clear to me yet.)
>So I would have preferred the two-hour rule not to be part of the
>rules: replace it with text that makes it clear that you don't have to
>finish a game to grade it, and that you shouldn't feel compelled to
>play the game out to the end if you don't want to (perhaps even
Well, this is absolutely true.
>suggesting that you normally not play games for more than two hours)
>but not mandating that you assign your score after playing for no more
>than two hours. Honestly, I don't see why this should be too much of
>a problem: for most games, I should be able to figure out within two
>hours (actually, within a good deal less than two hours) whether or
But this is unfair. Experience has shown that it is unlikely that any
short game will win if it's compared to a megalithic game, and you are
given infinite time to play both.
>not I would enjoy playing the game to the end without a walkthrough,
>so the practical effects of my proposed rule would be the same as the
>current rule. The effects would only differ on the games that were
>particularly good (as well as long enough to take more than two hours
>to solve, of course), and that seems to me to be a fine place for the
>effects to differ. I can understand how the rule would have arisen
>historically, but my experiences don't support a need for the rule.
>
As usual, the answer is "Yeah, but That's Not What The Comp Is For"
>Of course, if long games that came out at other times got as much
>attention as comp games do, there would be no need for such a rule
>change (though that wouldn't be an argument against such a rule change
>either). My impression is that that's not the case: I've only been
They do. In fact, they usually get more. People still post about
Jigsaw. When was the last time you saw a post about Babel?
>reading this newsgroup for a couple of months, but I've already seen
>multiple exchanges where one person says "the comp was never intended
>to be the dominant venue for interactive fiction releases" and another
>person says "yeah, but it's turned out that way in practice". I was
>quite impressed by the volume of attention and reviews that comp games
>garnered; would a decent but unspectacular game released at another
>time really receive the same amount of attention?
Yes.
In fact, the increased visibility of comp games is a double illusion;
only the highest ranked games actually get that much more
attention. If, say, five comp games get increased public attention,
then 45 do not. To contrast, I'm fairly sure that more than 10% of the
non-competition "serious" releases each year (to exclude SpeedIf and
minicomps) get heavy newsgroup traffic.
>
>One solution, of course, would be for me to start a "longer games
>comp" of my own. Indeed, I doubt that anything else I can do would
>have any effect: if Stephen Granade agreed with me, he'd already have
>changed the rules himself.
>
So do it.
>Out of curiosity: in a typical year, how many comps are there? (I was
>surprised to see so many other comps announced after the main comp was
>over; does that normally happen, and will all those other comps that
>have been announced actually take place?) And, in a typical year, how
>many games are released that wouldn't fit comfortably within the
>two-hour time limit? (One goal of a "longer games comp" would be to
>increase the number of such games, of course; on the other hand, if
>the answer is "two" then there's not much point in hosting such a
>comp.)
>
In order:
- There is no such thing as a typical year. in 1993, there were
exactly zero comps. Over the first few years of the ifComp,
there was exactly one. The minicomp came into existance a few
years back, and there seems to be an exponential increase in the
number of competitions since then.
- Probably about six. THing is, it takes a *long* time to write a
long game. There are people who enter the ifComp almost every
year, and they can do that because they're writing short games.
The average turnaround time for a uberGame is at least a year,
usually more. Frankly, I wouldn't want to spend four years
working on a game and then enter it in a competion only to find
that this was the year that Graham Nelson, Zarf, Adam Cadre, and Emily
all finished their long games too. More to the point, I've always
felt that "this is for the comp" is something that should color the
creation process of a work. you can't really write a game over the
course of several years with the fact that it's for a compeition
hanging over your head. Historically, many of the worst games in
earleir comps claimed or implied that they were written on a lark, and
were entered in the competition as an afterthought
Magnus Olsson
>In article <B83EC6DB.116E%gr...@midcoast.com>,
>Gregg V. Carroll <gr...@midcoast.com> wrote:
>>Oh, don't get your feathers all ruffled, I was just ribbing you. I forgot
>>the obligatory ;) at the end. My bad.
>
>If my feathers were truly ruffled, my Alter Ego would have Taken
>Measures, and your Cheerios would have been in an Unfit State.
For some reason, I'm glad that I'm immune to micturism: I don't
eat cheerios.
>>(Who would argue that posting a URL to a picture on a non-binary ng is
>>effectively the same as posting the picture, but that is neither here nor
>>there.)
>
>Yikes! Absolutely not! Posting the picture itself on a non-binary
>group is rude (regardless of the picture's content) Posting a link to
>it is the mannerly thing to do.
The reason posting pictures to a non-binary newsgroup is considered
rude is mainly that they take up a lot of bandwidth. Of course, in
this case the picture itself is rather rude...
Lucian P. Smith
: My background is that I used to play adventure games (primarily but
: not exclusively Infocom games) years/decades ago, and then took a
: break, but have been reading this newsgroup (and its companion) for
: the last couple of months. I still haven't gotten around to playing
: many games written within the last decade, but I did play 10 (I think)
: games in this year's comp. (And I have read some web pages about the
: history of the comp and the history of interactive fiction in
: general.)
OK, pull up a chair, lemme share my perspective on the history of the comp
and what it's done to and for our little IF subculture.
The basic problem is that if you look at the state of things, there seems
to be a lot of feedback and discussion of comp games, and much less
feedback and discussion of longer, outside-the-comp games. People worry
that this means that authors will spend their energies writing smaller
comp games and no longer write the long games.
In '98, I went through the stats pages at GMD and compiled lists of games
that had been released each year. My post about it can be found at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6l9ir0%2470j%241%40joe.rice.edu
The statistics themselves are still available from:
http://www.bioc.rice.edu/~lpsmith/IF/stats/
Of particular interest are the "Overall.stats.txt", "Games.each.year.txt",
and "big.games.txt" files.
My basic conclusion was that the same number of 'big' games are getting
released every year--from 5 to 7. I think this number has been pretty
consistent up through now. I think the reason for this is because the
following hasn't changed:
-The sheer amount of work that goes into writing a bigger game (lots)
-The typical volume of response one gets from writing a bigger game (not
so much)
Now, while I claim that the volume of response to bigger games hasn't
changed, I'm talking raw amount of feedback. The percentage has clearly
gone down, but that's because of the dramatic increase in response to
other games. I'd have to fish through google's new archives to back up
this claim, but it fits with my general observations, and is testable if
someone wants to do the grunt work (I may do this myself, after the
holidays).
So, this means that the comp hasn't done anything bad to larger games, but
it hasn't done anything good for them either. (Though one could argue
that the comp is a testing ground for new authors--there are at least a
few large games out there who's authors entered their first game into a
comp.)
The simple conclusion a lot of people make is that, hey, if the comp has
been so good for small games, let's change it so it's good for large
games, too! Maybe this could be accomplished. I personally don't believe
it can. I think the comp should stick to doing what it does well--promote
small games.
But what *can* be done for larger games? Clearly we have more people than
we used to, so there must be some untapped power out there that we could
steer towards getting more feedback for those authors who have spent the
vast amounts of effort needed to produce large works of IF. All I can say
is, we keep trying. Everything has helped some, and I hope we'll
eventually find something that helps a lot. Some of our efforts in this
direction:
-The IF Bookclub. I pick a game, try to get people to play it then
talk about it. This worked great for 'Losing Your Grip', but dwindled
thereafter. I don't think it's really feasible in the long term without
someone at the helm willing to put a whole lot of effort into it (ie not
me, at least not now). I have an idea for a different direction to take
this; we'll see what happens after the holidays.
-The IF Review Conspiracy. Submit your game, get a guaranteed review or
two. This seems to have received moderate success. I'm not privy to the
inner workings here--are authors still submitting games to get reviewed?
Do all new games get submitted? I still see reviews coming from here,
some of which generate discussion, so that's good.
http://plover.net/~textfire/conspiracy/
-"IF-Review" $10 to review a work of IF. This has gone in fits and
starts; Mark tries to get one review a week, and is up to 28 reviews in
about 50 weeks. Not bad. http://www.ministryofpeace.com/if-review/
-SPAG. Semi-monthly 'zine chock full o' reviews. This has been going on
the longest, and has been quite successful, despite whoever's at the helm
constantly having to coax reviews from people. It's interesting to note
that Whizzard started both SPAG *and* the annual comp.
http://www.sparkynet.com/spag/
-The XYZZY awards. Annual awards for the best IF of the year. By all
counts, a success story, though it's only once a year so might not
contribute tons to the overall feedback volume for games. Works great
in concert with everything else, though. Also, the magazine itself has
lots of interesting articles, though they're coming out less frequently
now than they used to. http://www.xyzzynews.com/
-SpringComp. More formalized and regulated comp for somewhat larger
games. Hasn't happened yet, so who knows, but it's received a bunch of
intents. http://adamcadre.ac/springcomp.html
and, finally:
-posting to the newsgroups. Hey, some people actually have responses to
games they play and talk about them here! Who knew? It's pretty fitful,
again, and there's little permanency to it--nobody is systematically
archiving and cataloguing these types of posts. They're the most likely
to generate feedback, though--web-based reviews are great, but are
difficult to follow up on. Also, people forget that this is
encouraged--maybe we could add something about this to the FAQ? Or is it
already there? And anyone want to volunteer to start archiving ng game
discussions?
So, those are seven things that already have as one of their purposes to
encourage longer games. If you want to change/improve/contribute to
something, I'd suggest you start with one of those, instead of changing
the comp, which already works as is, and was never supposed to encourage
long games in the first place.
I keep meaning to revisit those statistics and update 'em. Maybe some
time...
-Lucian
david carlton
(L. Ross Raszewski) writes:
(lots of interesting stuff)
In article <9vd822$42h$1...@joe.rice.edu>, "Lucian P. Smith"
<lps...@rice.edu> writes:
(lots more interesting stuff)
Thanks much to both of you for taking the time to fill in my
background knowledge; I really appreciate it.
david carlton | <http://math.stanford.edu/~carlton/>
car...@math.stanford.edu | Go books: <http://math.stanford.edu/~carlton/go/>
I'm EMOTIONAL now because I have MERCHANDISING CLOUT!!
D. Jacob Wildstrom
J. D. Berry <ber...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>How about a [GAME-ANNOUNCE]. Yeah, yeah, yeah, cuz we need
>one more administrative thing to worry about in our lives.
>But if you wanna talk class, monsieur F., that would have it
>en cosses.
I may be being pathetically naive here, but it strikes me that
library/new language/nifty feature announces would be on-topic for
raif, and new game announcements on-topic for rgif (comps strike me as
kind-of on topic for both, but more so for raif). So the
administrative division you're suggesting seems to already, to a great
extent, exist.
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+