[IF COMP 2003] Predictions
LucFrench
break a streak.
So, in honor of myself, let's get it on!
IF COMP PREDICTIONS 2003
HEADLINE PREDICTIONS:
Size of IFComp2003.zip: 7 megs
Size of IFComp2003_Multimedia: 200 megs
More then 30, but less then 50, entries will be entered into this years
competition. Paul O'Brian's head will collapse in on itself shortly before the
competition wraps up. There will be no trivial connection between these two
events.
This year's big surprise: We have a tie! There will be a tie for thirteenth
place.
This year's smallest surprise: Calls for a new rule.
The winning game will: 1. Have a name of the form <verb noun>. 2. Feature a
deconstruction of an IF standard (dungeon crawling, puzzles for the sake of
puzzles, Giant Flaming Heads, you know; the usual cliches). 3. Consist of more
then 10,000 rooms (of which less then 30 are distinct). 4. Have three objects.
5. Have two NPCs. 6. Be written by a "first-time entrant" who is really HarryH
of Cask fame.
PLOTS:
Plotless games abound this year; four will be of the Rybread mold (plot that
has absolutely no bearing on the game itself and makes no sense), two will be
Puzzle Boxes (where the plot is actively irrelevant), six will be experimental
to the point of lacking a plot, and two will just be poorly implemented crud.
And then there's the three games that require the player to die in order to
reach the "optimum" ending (or any ending at all).
PUZZLES:
Climbing a mountain.
Win a card game.
Cheat at a card game.
Defuse a bomb.
Find some duct tape.
Fix a robot.
Sneak around.
A special container will figure into a puzzle in some way.
PCS AND NPCS:
A monkey.
A card shark.
A shark.
A land shark.
A cute kitten.
A dead puppy. (He isn't much fun, either.)
Three PCs will suffer from Amnesia.
There will be one multi PC entry.
PLACES:
An empty room.
A single room game.
A Bank.
A garage, complete with band.
Philadelphia. (As two rooms.)
A labyrinth.
The Memory Bank.
The deck of a ship, but not the inside of one.
A spaceship.
OBJECTS:
A cardboard box filled with junk.
A sword.
A can of mace.
A can of spray paint.
An impossibly large jewel.
A key.
The Elixir of Eternal Youth (fake).
A map.
TITLES:
The words "Ace", "Add", "Alpha", "Beta", "Barter", "Black", "Carpet",
"Crime", "Crunch", "Dapper", "Delta", "Dig", "Easy", "Enemies", "Escape",
"Epsilon", "Eradaaslich", "Eta", "Eternal", "Final", "Fight", "Freedom",
"Gamma", "Green", "Grunt", "Horrible", "Internal", "Iota", "Jack", "Jerk",
"Jump", "Kappa", "King", "Killing", "Lamda", "Like", "Limb", "Man", "Many",
"Mu", "Murder", "New", "Nothing", "Nu", "Oak" "Oil", "Omikron", "Omega",
"Open", "Phi", "Philippine", "Phind", "Pi", "Ping", "Pong", "Psi", "Queen",
"Quiet", "Road", "Rod", "Rho", "Saw", "Sew", "Scent", "Sigma", "Sign", "Sleep",
"Slide", "Tau", "Time", "Times", "Tome", "Thought", "Upsilon", "Variable",
"Verified", "Xi", "Young", "Youth", "Zeta", and "Zipper" will appear in titles.
There will be five games that have titles longer then 5 words.
There will be eight one word title games.
MULTIMEDIA:
The largest game of the Competition that actually gets in will weigh in at 23
megs.
You will see, as graphics: A map, a bongo, an eerie glow, a fountain, a word
in a fictional language, a key, a stairway, and an explosion.
You will hear: Lots of bad music.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Expect a lot of conspiracy games, along with a few college frat games and a
couple of games set in ancient Greece.
There will be one game that blatently violates the two hour rule.
There will be a conflict in Asia.
There will be three first time authors entering this year's comp.
Aliases will be used by the authors of sixteen games.
None of these predictions will come true.
EPILOG:
You know my predictions; what are yours?
Thanks
Luc "Book of Revolutions" French
Peter Lansford
been beta testing.
the Peter Lansford
David Thornley
Anson Turner <platyp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 8:37:48 -0400, LucFrench wrote
>(in message <20030817083748...@mb-m20.aol.com>):
>
>> There will be one game that blatently violates the two hour rule.
>
>
On the other hand, I think LucFrench's meaning was perfectly clear:
there will be one game that cannot be adequately judged in anywhere
near two hours. It's a formal rule for voters, and a rule of thumb
for game authors (i.e., if your game cannot be finished in less than
two hours, people are likely to vote lower on it).
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
davidw
will finish it in anything like two hours. Two weeks maybe...
Why the two hours requirement exactly? Is the IFComp deliberately
encouraging people to write either very, very small games or games that are
so easy they can be completed in less than two hours?
"David Thornley" <thor...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f40fc36$0$176$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
Andrew Plotkin
> Looks like my game won't be getting high votes then because I doubt anyone
> will finish it in anything like two hours. Two weeks maybe...
>
>
> Why the two hours requirement exactly? Is the IFComp deliberately
> encouraging people to write either very, very small games or games
> that are so easy they can be completed in less than two hours?
It's encouraging small games. It is, theoretically, a competition for
short games. There are other competitions for longer games.
It's also true -- at least somewhat -- that a large game will get
attention if it's released on its own, not part of any competition,
whereas a small game might be ignored.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Adam Thornton
davidw <m...@dwhyld.plus.com> wrote:
>Looks like my game won't be getting high votes then because I doubt anyone
>will finish it in anything like two hours. Two weeks maybe...
>
>Why the two hours requirement exactly? Is the IFComp deliberately
>encouraging people to write either very, very small games or games that are
>so easy they can be completed in less than two hours?
Yes.
Why?
Because there are going to be somewhere on the order of fifty games
entered.
If each of these games takes two hours to judge, that's a hundred hours
right there. Which is a lot to do after-hours in a six-week period, at
least for those of us with jobs and lives and things.
If you're entering a 40-hour game, not only are you going to get judged
on the first 5% of it, but you are also being rude and selfish.
Big games do not belong in the IF Comp. Release them on their own.
Adam
davidw
"Adam Thornton" <ad...@fsf.net> wrote in message
news:bhrgao$nid$1...@news.fsf.net...
Er... "rude" and "selfish" because I've decided to write a big game that
won't be finishable in the space of 5 minutes?
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>Er... "rude" and "selfish" because I've decided to write a big game that
>won't be finishable in the space of 5 minutes?
>
>
No, 'rude' and 'selfish' because you entered it into the
competition. Why does everyone keep forgetting that the competition is
not the group, and that it's possible to release a game outside of the
competition?
Adam Thornton
davidw <m...@dwhyld.plus.com> wrote:
>Er... "rude" and "selfish" because I've decided to write a big game that
>won't be finishable in the space of 5 minutes?
No, rude and selfish because you've decided to release that game in the
IF Comp, when the judges have to play it, as well as fifty other games,
in a short time.
Adam
Rexx Magnus
> Er... "rude" and "selfish" because I've decided to write a big game that
> won't be finishable in the space of 5 minutes?
>
Rude and selfish in the way that one might enter a painting done by an
artist with a diploma into a childrens colouring competition.
The rules are there for a reason (limits) - anything that doesn't conform
to those limits won't be possible to judge on a fair footing.
--
UO & AC Herbal - http://www.rexx.co.uk/herbal
To email me, visit the site.
Joe Mason
> yet that claim has already been topped. Now, we are told, it is actually
> "rude" and "selfish" to spend months or years on an ambitious work of IF and
> enter in it the Competition for the chance at a mere $500 in recompense. The
Yep. It is. If you don't like it, please go away again - we're doing
fine without you.
Joe
A.P. Hill
J.I. VQFF
F = L
Jessica Knoch
>
> Now, we are told, it is actually "rude" and "selfish" to spend
> months or years on an ambitious work of IF and enter in it the
> Competition for the chance at a mere $500 in recompense.
The quoted statement is true if that ambitious work takes much, much
more than two hours to play. The quoted statement is false if the
game takes right about two hours to play. (I say "about" because
some anecdotal evidence exists to show that a significant number of
people who play/judge games in the Comp don't pay strict attention
to the two-hour judging limit.)
It seems that if you wanted to enter a game in the comp, some of
your months or years of work should go toward making the game
playable in two hours.
--
Jess K., my profs always told me it was harder to distill everything
down to a three-page paper than to pour out twenty-five pages of it.
David Thornley
likely to get the game rated bad and the game and author talked about
unflatteringly. Of course, this changes if the author starts demanding
special treatment for his or her game so that it can be judged "properly".
Quintin Stone
> Er... "rude" and "selfish" because I've decided to write a big game that
> won't be finishable in the space of 5 minutes?
You do understand the difference between 2 hours and 5 minutes, right?
I personally don't see why it's rude or selfish to enter a 40-hour game in
the competition. It's not. I would, however, consider it unwise.
Judges likely won't get very far at all in 2 hours if it's really that
big, and I know that I probably wouldn't score a game very high if I felt
like I hadn't even scratched the surface of the game. How can I feel
confident in giving a high rating if I don't know what the rest of the
game holds?
/====================================================================\
|| Quintin Stone O- > "You speak of necessary evil? One ||
|| Code Monkey < of those necessities is that if ||
|| Rebel Programmers Society > innocents must suffer, the guilty must ||
|| st...@rps.net < suffer more." -- Mackenzie Calhoun ||
|| http://www.rps.net/ > "Once Burned" by Peter David ||
\====================================================================/
Papillon
>Now, we are told, it is actually
>"rude" and "selfish" to spend months or years on an ambitious work of IF and
>enter in it the Competition for the chance at a mere $500 in recompense.
Hey, if you've spent months or years on an ambitious work of IF and it's
quite long - release it on its own. Sell it if you want some recompense.
Offer it for 10 or 20 dollars. You don't need to try and make a whole
publishing company, you can just sell it as a download through any of the
services that indie game developers generally use.
If it's big and ambitious and exciting, several people will be willing to
pay a small price to play it. Will it add up to $500? Maybe, maybe not - ask
the Pentari people for sales figures. :) But you'd certainly have a better
chance of making your $500 goal that way than by hoping to win the
competition with a game that cannot fairly be rated within the competition
rules.
If you have made an enormous masterpiece, *you do not need the Comp*. The
Comp is not *for* enormous masterpieces. What is it for? Well, "the
promotion of smaller games" was stated as a goal when it started, iirc, but
to many people it's also a place for experimentation. You can put a small
strange experiment in the Comp and be guaranteed that a bunch of people will
play it and comment on it - and that you will therefore learn from it, much
more than you would trying to release such an experiment on its own.
But I don't know why I'm bothering to say all this, it's not like you're
listening anyway. :)
---
Hanako Games
http://www.hanakogames.com/
Bernhard B
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, davidw wrote:
>
>
>>Er... "rude" and "selfish" because I've decided to write a big game that
>>won't be finishable in the space of 5 minutes?
>
>
> You do understand the difference between 2 hours and 5 minutes, right?
>
> I personally don't see why it's rude or selfish to enter a 40-hour game in
> the competition. It's not. I would, however, consider it unwise.
If I were creative enough I'd write a thrilling 2 hour introductory
but complete chapter to a long game for the comp, win the price, get
everyone hooked and charge 500$ for the rest of the game :-)
Bernhard
Quintin Stone
> Actually, I'd say stupid rather than rude and selfish, since it is
> likely to get the game rated bad and the game and author talked about
> unflatteringly. Of course, this changes if the author starts demanding
> special treatment for his or her game so that it can be judged
> "properly".
Exactly. Look everyone, as stated previously, the 2 hour rule is for
judges, NOT authors. How is it rude or selfish to enter a really long
game when the judges aren't supposed to spend more than 2 hours on it
anyway? If some of them do, that's entirely their decision to make. For
the rest, it's entirely their prerogative to temper their score based on
how little of the game they feel they've seen so far.
THERE ARE OTHER IF COMPETITIONS WITHOUT TIME LIMITS. Or have we all
forgotten? The SpringThing has absolutely no time restraint on judging.
Neither does the IntroComp, which can be used to show off the beginning of
a large game and generate more interest for when you release it to the
general public.
Is all of this pissing and moaning (from both sides) really necessary?
Jacek Pudlo
> Not only have my reasons for hating the Competition come flooding back to
me,
> so have my reasons for leaving this "community" over a year and a half
ago.
>
> It was mere days ago that I was unpleasantly shocked when someone openly
> claimed that it was "ludicrous" to want people to be "nice" or "fair." And
> yet that claim has already been topped. Now, we are told, it is actually
> "rude" and "selfish" to spend months or years on an ambitious work of IF
and
> enter in it the Competition for the chance at a mere $500 in recompense.
The
> fact that the rules explicitly allow the entry of games of any length is
> obviously irrelevant, and I'm sure in a matter of moments someone will
have
> thrown together a little skit to ridicule me for mentioning it again.
Perhaps
> there should be a footnote to the rules mentioning that entering a long
game
> will earn one the contempt of the vaunted author of _Stiffy Makane: The
> Undiscovered Country_.
[...]
Speaking of the kind folks of rec.arts.int-fiction, there's a "game" in the
IF Archive whose only purpose is to kill a certain "Tnson Aurner". The
"game" is aptly named "DEATH DEATH DEATH DEATH".
Boluc Papuccuoglu
>In article <bhs5vv$293$1...@news.fsf.net>, Adam Thornton <ad...@fsf.net> wrote:
>>In article <6uc0b.8519$z7.10...@wards.force9.net>,
>>davidw <m...@dwhyld.plus.com> wrote:
>>>Er... "rude" and "selfish" because I've decided to write a big game that
>>>won't be finishable in the space of 5 minutes?
>>
>>No, rude and selfish because you've decided to release that game in the
>>IF Comp, when the judges have to play it, as well as fifty other games,
>>in a short time.
>>
>Actually, I'd say stupid rather than rude and selfish, since it is
>likely to get the game rated bad and the game and author talked about
>unflatteringly. Of course, this changes if the author starts demanding
>special treatment for his or her game so that it can be judged "properly".
How about if they ask that the players do a bit of "background
reading" to further enrich the euphoric experience that is their game?
:-)
Hee Hee.
Harry
<bolucPERIOD...@REMOVETHISaknet.com.tr> made the world a
better place by saying:
Watch it, now. No need to redo *this* particular argument as well...
Harry
-------------------------------------
"Nostalgia isn't what it used to be."
http://www.haha.demon.nl
(To send e-mail, remove SPAMBLOCK from address)
Magnus Olsson
Papillon <papillo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>If you have made an enormous masterpiece, *you do not need the Comp*. The
>Comp is not *for* enormous masterpieces.
I'm afraid that people feel - or at least fear - that "enormous
masterpieces" *do* in fact need the comp. They have seen too many large
games being released outside the Comp only to, if not exactly sink without
a trace, at least generate rather little interest. Compare this to the
Comp, which seems to generate as much discussion in a few weeks on the
IF newsgroups as all other topics do the rest of the year.
This is of course not what the Comp is *for*, and entering large
games in the Comp is IMHO not a good thing; not for the audience, not
for the judges, and not for the long games (which do get attention
but not the playing time they deserve, and may be marked down by
frustrated judges).
But the cruel fact is that not very many people are interested in IF
at all, so authors will continue to leap at any chance of attention.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se)
PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol
L. Ross Raszewski
>It was mere days ago that I was unpleasantly shocked when someone openly
>claimed that it was "ludicrous" to want people to be "nice" or "fair." And
>yet that claim has already been topped. Now, we are told, it is actually
>"rude" and "selfish" to spend months or years on an ambitious work of IF and
>enter in it the Competition for the chance at a mere $500 in recompense. The
>fact that the rules explicitly allow the entry of games of any length is
>obviously irrelevant, and I'm sure in a matter of moments someone will have
>thrown together a little skit to ridicule me for mentioning it again. Perhaps
>there should be a footnote to the rules mentioning that entering a long game
>will earn one the contempt of the vaunted author of _Stiffy Makane: The
>Undiscovered Country_.
Dude. You're being an asshole.
Can't you see the flaw in what you've just said? You're proposing that
someone who's written this giant 40-hour game thinks he 'deserves' to
win the comp in 'recompense'.
The letter of the law is, indeed, that you can enter a game of any
length. However, the *purpose of the comp* is to encourage games of a
certain length. If you enter a supergiant game, you are *subverting
the comp* just because you think you "deserve" to make some money.
The rules to lots of things allow one to be an asshole. Don't go
shouting "but the rules allow it!" to insist that something isn't rude.
>
>I do hope you remembered to e-mail Graham Nelson, Laura A. Knauth, and god
>knows how many others to inform (ha ha) them of their rude and selfish
>nature.
As far as I can recall, Dr. Nelson has entered two games in the
competition, and neither of them were in flagrant violation of the two
hour rule.
>Presumably, those who slap together a game in 15 minutes are in the clear. I
>note that there is also no limit on how many games an author may enter. Hint,
>hint. Are you out there, Rybread?
It's rude to enter a crap game too, because it wastes the judges'
time. Everyone knows this. Those who say in their about text 'I know
this game sux I just wrote it to learn inform but I thought I should
enter it because hey who doesn't like to win' have never escaped
scathing criticism.
But anyone who can put together a game collosal in scope should know
better.
L. Ross Raszewski
>On 19 Aug 2003, David Thornley wrote:
>
>> Actually, I'd say stupid rather than rude and selfish, since it is
>> likely to get the game rated bad and the game and author talked about
>> unflatteringly. Of course, this changes if the author starts demanding
>> special treatment for his or her game so that it can be judged
>> "properly".
>
>Exactly. Look everyone, as stated previously, the 2 hour rule is for
>judges, NOT authors. How is it rude or selfish to enter a really long
>game when the judges aren't supposed to spend more than 2 hours on it
>anyway? If some of them do, that's entirely their decision to make. For
>the rest, it's entirely their prerogative to temper their score based on
>how little of the game they feel they've seen so far.
It is rude because it subverts the purpose of the competition and
distracts from games which were written in the true spirit of the
comp.
It is selfish because it is borne entirely out of a notion that "I've
written this game. I should get some recompense, so I'll stick it in
the comp."
OKB (not okblacke)
> Now, we are told, it is actually
> "rude" and "selfish" to spend months or years on an ambitious work
> of IF and enter in it the Competition for the chance at a mere $500
> in recompense. The fact that the rules explicitly allow the entry
> of games of any length is obviously irrelevant, and I'm sure in a
> matter of moments someone will have thrown together a little skit
> to ridicule me for mentioning it again.
Even assuming, as others in the thread have done, that by
"ambitious" you mean "takes longer than 2 hours to play, I disagree
with the idea that it is rude or selfish to enter a long game in the
comp. Judges are free not to judge it, have no obligation to play the
whole thing, and in fact are more or less obligated to NOT play the
whole thing (since to do so would require more than 2 hours).
But! In light of the above, I cannot fathom why you would WANT to
enter a long game in the comp! To do so would virtually guarantee
that no one plays the whole thing, at least during the judging period.
It would also irritate those who do subscribe to the "it's rude and
selfish" camp. If the game is really quite good, it will presumably
be played and appreciated, but few people are going to play it during
the comp judging time, so you may as well release it after the comp
and avoid all the ire on both sides.
As for the money: we were just having a discussion about this on
ifMUD last night. My opinion is that if you are entering the comp
primarily as a means of winning money, you are not working in your own
best interests. Is $500 really adequate compensation for "months or
years" of work? Moreover, if you have really spent months or years on
it, how did you know there was a $500 prize at all? Did you write the
game and then coincidentally decide after completion to enter it, just
because of the money? If so, the money is simply a "freebie" anyway,
since you wrote the game without any expectation of recompense.
Finally, perhaps most importantly, if you DO write a long game and
enter it in the Comp, your chances of winning that $500 are SEVERELY
DIMINISHED because you have entered a long game in the comp, thereby
annoying many judges and depriving ALL of them of the ability to play
your game to its conclusion.
--
--OKB (not okblacke)
"Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is
no path, and leave a trail."
--author unknown
davidw
"L. Ross Raszewski" <lrasz...@loyola.edu> wrote in message
news:bfs0b.14855$kK4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
What next - death threats? Woo, let me go hide!
I wrote my game specifically for the IFComp and I'm going to enter it. Got a
problem with that? Tough shit. Deal with it.
I don't expect people to spend longer on my game than on the others in the
Comp. If they want to play it beyond the two hour requirement that's fine.
If they want to play it for 10 seconds that's fine, too.
Just out of curiosity, L. Ross Raszewski, are you connected to the IFComp in
any way, shape or form? Are you the person who organised it, who donated
prizes, who decides on the rules? I kind of doubt it.
davidw
"Quintin Stone" <st...@rps.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03081...@yes.rps.net...
> On 19 Aug 2003, David Thornley wrote:
>
>
> Exactly. Look everyone, as stated previously, the 2 hour rule is for
> judges, NOT authors. How is it rude or selfish to enter a really long
> game when the judges aren't supposed to spend more than 2 hours on it
> anyway? If some of them do, that's entirely their decision to make. For
> the rest, it's entirely their prerogative to temper their score based on
> how little of the game they feel they've seen so far.
>
Good point.
I also seem to recall there were quite a few games entered last year that
would never have been finished in less than two hours unless you sat there
with the walkthrough and entered your input straight from there. Are all
those authors "stupid", "rude" and "selfish"? Or did they just write a game
that they wanted to enter into a comp?
If the organisers of the Comp felt it was "stupid", "rude" and "selfish" to
enter a game that couldn't be completed in two hours, wouldn't they have
made that a rule set in stone and banned any games that didn't follow it?
davidw
"Rexx Magnus" <tras...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93DC6B16544...@130.133.1.4...
You know, that almost sounds like you're complimenting me. You're saying
that my game will be of the standard of an artist whereas the other games
will be the standard of children's games?
davidw
Fair point. But then I wrote this game because I *wanted* to write it. Maybe
it won't get judged as fairly as if I had written a smaller game but then
I'm sure I can live with that. I don't expect to win anyway (though I'm
secretly hopeful of a reasonably high placing...)
davidw
"Anson Turner" <platyp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BB672DB4...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:26:48 -0400, Adam Thornton wrote
> (in message <bhrgao$nid$1...@news.fsf.net>):
>
> > If you're entering a 40-hour game, not only are you going to get judged
> > on the first 5% of it, but you are also being rude and selfish.
>
me,
> so have my reasons for leaving this "community" over a year and a half
ago.
>
> claimed that it was "ludicrous" to want people to be "nice" or "fair." And
> "rude" and "selfish" to spend months or years on an ambitious work of IF
and
> enter in it the Competition for the chance at a mere $500 in recompense.
The
> fact that the rules explicitly allow the entry of games of any length is
> obviously irrelevant, and I'm sure in a matter of moments someone will
have
> thrown together a little skit to ridicule me for mentioning it again.
> there should be a footnote to the rules mentioning that entering a long
game
> will earn one the contempt of the vaunted author of _Stiffy Makane: The
> Undiscovered Country_.
>
> knows how many others to inform (ha ha) them of their rude and selfish
> nature.
I
> note that there is also no limit on how many games an author may enter.
Hint,
> hint. Are you out there, Rybread?
>
>
> >XYZZY
>
> *poof*
>
At last, the voice of reason!
davidw
"Jessica Knoch" <jessan...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:bht5bl$n04$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> Anson Turner wrote:
> >
>
> It seems that if you wanted to enter a game in the comp, some of
> your months or years of work should go toward making the game
> playable in two hours.
>
In two hours you can probably get a fair way into my game. It all depends
how you play it and how carefully you stop to examine items, interact with
characters, etc. In theory, the game "could" be finished in two hours but I
doubt anyone would manage that short of sitting there with the walkthrough
and typing in the commands straight from there.
Rexx Magnus
> What next - death threats? Woo, let me go hide!
>
> I wrote my game specifically for the IFComp and I'm going to enter it.
> Got a problem with that? Tough shit. Deal with it.
You'll probably complain though, when people get a certain amount through
it and then have to end the review. If it gets a bad review, I'm sure
you'll say "But they haven't got to the good bit yet!"
Rexx Magnus
> You know, that almost sounds like you're complimenting me. You're saying
> that my game will be of the standard of an artist whereas the other
> games will be the standard of children's games?
Not quite. :)
More along the lines of entering a novel for a short-story competition. I
picked a bad analogy with the art comp.
Gene Wirchenko
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:27:11 GMT, davidw scrawled:
>
>> Er... "rude" and "selfish" because I've decided to write a big game that
>> won't be finishable in the space of 5 minutes?
>>
>
>Rude and selfish in the way that one might enter a painting done by an
>artist with a diploma into a childrens colouring competition.
>
>The rules are there for a reason (limits) - anything that doesn't conform
>to those limits won't be possible to judge on a fair footing.
So what rule prevents someone from entering a game that takes
longer than two hours to play?
If I were playing a game for two hours, and I found that it
played well, it would be a bonus if it were not over. I could rate it
highly based that I had a lot of fun and that there was still more to
look forward to. What exactly, I would not know without going past
the two hour point, but I could still look forward to it.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, davidw wrote:
>
>> Er... "rude" and "selfish" because I've decided to write a big game that
>> won't be finishable in the space of 5 minutes?
>
>You do understand the difference between 2 hours and 5 minutes, right?
>
>I personally don't see why it's rude or selfish to enter a 40-hour game in
>the competition. It's not. I would, however, consider it unwise.
>Judges likely won't get very far at all in 2 hours if it's really that
>big, and I know that I probably wouldn't score a game very high if I felt
>like I hadn't even scratched the surface of the game. How can I feel
>confident in giving a high rating if I don't know what the rest of the
>game holds?
Simple. Because the rating is based on the first two hours.
Gene Wirchenko
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 05:28:31 GMT, Anson Turner <platyp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>It was mere days ago that I was unpleasantly shocked when someone openly
>>claimed that it was "ludicrous" to want people to be "nice" or "fair." And
>>yet that claim has already been topped. Now, we are told, it is actually
>>"rude" and "selfish" to spend months or years on an ambitious work of IF and
>>enter in it the Competition for the chance at a mere $500 in recompense. The
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>fact that the rules explicitly allow the entry of games of any length is
>>obviously irrelevant, and I'm sure in a matter of moments someone will have
>>thrown together a little skit to ridicule me for mentioning it again. Perhaps
>>there should be a footnote to the rules mentioning that entering a long game
>>will earn one the contempt of the vaunted author of _Stiffy Makane: The
>>Undiscovered Country_.
>
>Dude. You're being an asshole.
No, but you are distorting what he wrote.
>Can't you see the flaw in what you've just said? You're proposing that
>someone who's written this giant 40-hour game thinks he 'deserves' to
>win the comp in 'recompense'.
See the careted words above? "for the chance" does not mean that
he thinks his game should win, only that it have a chance. That would
be just like any other entrant.
>The letter of the law is, indeed, that you can enter a game of any
>length. However, the *purpose of the comp* is to encourage games of a
>certain length. If you enter a supergiant game, you are *subverting
>the comp* just because you think you "deserve" to make some money.
Because he wants the chance.
>The rules to lots of things allow one to be an asshole. Don't go
>shouting "but the rules allow it!" to insist that something isn't rude.
Insisting that the rules mean something that they do not state is
a way of being rude.
[snip]
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
> But! In light of the above, I cannot fathom why you would WANT to
>enter a long game in the comp! To do so would virtually guarantee
>that no one plays the whole thing, at least during the judging period.
Of course. And so what?
Suppose someone enters a 40-hour game. He writes it in such a
way that the first two hours worth are fun and the player accomplishes
something of note. The game then continues similarly for 38 more
hours.
What exactly is wrong with the player having something to look
forward to?
Imagine this fictitious mini-review: "The game is well put
together. It is believeable and entertaining. The puzzles are quite
reasonable and fit the story line beautifully. I got to the end of
the first part in about 1 1/2 hours, and I figure that I got about
halfway through the second part. I am looking forward to finishing
all twelve parts after the Comp."
What is wrong with the game? Saying nothing is an acceptable
answer (to me, anyway<G>).
Without being TOO gacetious, IF comes in two varieties: too long
and too short. The garbage is too long, and that can happen in two
minutes or less. The good stuff is all too short.
>It would also irritate those who do subscribe to the "it's rude and
>selfish" camp. If the game is really quite good, it will presumably
>be played and appreciated, but few people are going to play it during
>the comp judging time, so you may as well release it after the comp
>and avoid all the ire on both sides.
Of course. Apparently, also avoid pretty much all attention,
too.
> As for the money: we were just having a discussion about this on
>ifMUD last night. My opinion is that if you are entering the comp
>primarily as a means of winning money, you are not working in your own
>best interests. Is $500 really adequate compensation for "months or
>years" of work? Moreover, if you have really spent months or years on
>it, how did you know there was a $500 prize at all? Did you write the
>game and then coincidentally decide after completion to enter it, just
>because of the money? If so, the money is simply a "freebie" anyway,
>since you wrote the game without any expectation of recompense.
Maybe, the recompense is some people sitting down with the game
for a couple of hours. Telling me that you have a game for me to play
and putting it in front of me for a couple hours are two very
different things.
> Finally, perhaps most importantly, if you DO write a long game and
>enter it in the Comp, your chances of winning that $500 are SEVERELY
>DIMINISHED because you have entered a long game in the comp, thereby
>annoying many judges and depriving ALL of them of the ability to play
>your game to its conclusion.
So some judges get snitty. If the game is good, they have
enjoyed a couple hours and have more to look forward to. This is a
serious problem! Imagine someone enjoying IF. The nerve of some
authors!
>whine about game length
You had fun and have more fun to look forward to. These are
serious game bugs. You paid too much for this game and should
get your money back.
>g
Your mood is dark. If you do not lighten up, you are liable to
get eaten by a grue.
Quintin Stone
> Simple. Because the rating is based on the first two hours.
And some people are going to consider the fact that they didn't finish it
within that two hours a mark against it. Everyone here has their own
method of rating games. The only thing that the competition demands of
them is that they don't play any one game for more than 2 hours before
rating it. That's it.
I don't think it's quite so simple as you'd like to believe.
Papillon
> If I were playing a game for two hours, and I found that it
>played well, it would be a bonus if it were not over. I could rate it
>highly based that I had a lot of fun and that there was still more to
>look forward to. What exactly, I would not know without going past
>the two hour point, but I could still look forward to it.
Sure, and that's your choice, since there aren't many "set in stone" rules
for how to judge (and it would be silly if there were).
But can you see how from other people's perspective, it's hard to fairly
compare the game against other games without having seen it all?
"There were a few bugs here and there... I'm not sure if it's just that the
section I played was the part that the author wrote first. It might be less
buggy later. On the other hand, this might be the section that got the most
testing, since it's the first bit and everyone will see it easily, so the
rest of the game might be a lot more buggy. How can I rate this on amount of
errors?"
"The overall storyline was sort of vague. There were a lot of elements, but
I have no idea how they're all going to tie together at this point. They
might turn out to be related to each other in a really exciting way, or they
might just be a bunch of loose subplots. How can I give this a fair rating
for storyline?"
"I like this game... but I hold out my top scores for really impressive work
that I think will stand the test of time. I haven't seen all of this game,
so I don't know if it ranks up in the "really impressive" category or not."
For this reason I would think that being too large to be completed within
the timeframe of judging would make many people lower their maximum score
for the game to 7/8 instead of 9/10 because it feels unfair to them to call
it the best of the bunch if they haven't seen all of it.
Unless the rest of the competition is so dire that it's just obvious that
this game has to be the best of them. :)
(I don't care WHAT people enter. I don't care if someone enters a
non-interactive novel. Why not? :) )
Gunther Schmidl
> Speaking of the kind folks of rec.arts.int-fiction, there's a "game"
> in the IF Archive whose only purpose is to kill a certain "Tnson
> Aurner". The "game" is aptly named "DEATH DEATH DEATH DEATH".
The source of which is
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&th=2b40cf6ac0a2d96&rnum=1
and not personal animosity.
-- g.
Harry
the world a better place by saying:
>
Oh shut up.
Harry
the world a better place by saying:
>
You do know that discussing an entry is grounds for disqualification?
davidw
"Harry" <gad...@SPAMBLOCKhaha.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:oj35kvcsdeaj3bt40...@4ax.com...
> >
> Oh shut up.
>
> Harry
>
> -------------------------------------
> "Nostalgia isn't what it used to be."
>
> http://www.haha.demon.nl
> (To send e-mail, remove SPAMBLOCK from address)
If you don't have a valid point to make you could always settle for not
saying anything.
davidw
Exactly what details about my game do you know that you didn't five minutes
ago?
Quintin Stone
> If the organisers of the Comp felt it was "stupid", "rude" and "selfish"
> to enter a game that couldn't be completed in two hours, wouldn't they
> have made that a rule set in stone and banned any games that didn't
> follow it?
Such a rule, as we all well know, could never be enforced. "Play time" is
impossible to quantify. You can never know how long it's going to take
before inspiration strikes a player and they deduce the solution to a
puzzle. You can never know how long a player is going to take examining
every tiny detail of every scenery item in every room before even
attempting to address the game's obstacles. You can never know how many
times a player is going to restart in an attempt to see what results a
different action may produce.
You don't seriously believe what you wrote, do you?
Jacek Pudlo
> I personally don't see why it's rude or selfish to enter a 40-hour game in
> the competition. It's not.
Yet another one of Mr. Thornton's mental diarrhoeas.
Apart from 40-hour games he also dislikes gang rapes, ritual stonings and
anyone who's at odds with McDonald's or Barney.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=ak4dvg%243d%242%4
0news.fsf.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3DIslam%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ua
uthors%3DAdam%2520Thornton%26lr%3D%26hl%3Dsv
L. Ross Raszewski
>lrasz...@loyola.edu (L. Ross Raszewski) wrote:
>
> See the careted words above? "for the chance" does not mean that
>he thinks his game should win, only that it have a chance. That would
>be just like any other entrant.
I think that the novel I spent lots of time on should have a chance to
win too. Should I enter it?
>
> Because he wants the chance.
>
If he wanted the chance, he should have written the sort of game this
is a competition for.
>>The rules to lots of things allow one to be an asshole. Don't go
>>shouting "but the rules allow it!" to insist that something isn't rude.
>
> Insisting that the rules mean something that they do not state is
>a way of being rude.
Let us not forget that the original form of the rules *did* state that
the game had to be winnable in under two hours. The *only* reason the
rule was changed was because 'winnable' could not be satisfactorily
defined (That is, in its original phrasing, the rule could be taken to
forbid games which simply lack a well-defined 'win' state).
The *purpose* of the rule is to ensure that this is a competition for
*shorter* games.
Harry
the world a better place by saying:
>
>Exactly what details about my game do you know that you didn't five minutes
>ago?
>
*sigh*
Buddy, any competition has rules. The two hour rule is to have a level
playing field. The 'don't discuss a title before or during voting' is
to prevent the tainting of the votes. Just keep it up and people will
be so sick of your 'great two week lasting game' even before they
played it and they will not be able to judge it fairly.
Harry
L. Ross Raszewski
>
> Of course. Apparently, also avoid pretty much all attention,
>too.
Wrong.
Google for 'Jigsaw', 'Time: All Things Come to an End', and of the
Muldoon games, anything by Zarf or Emily Short, and I guarantee you'll
see more posts than you would for, say, the game that placed second in
the 2001 competition.
If you enter a game into the comp, you are more or less guaranteed
about 10 posts about it. That's it. If you enter a game that pisses
people off by being not-really-within-the-scope-of-the-competion, you
might get a few more. But they won't be very friendly.
> Maybe, the recompense is some people sitting down with the game
>for a couple of hours. Telling me that you have a game for me to play
>and putting it in front of me for a couple hours are two very
>different things.
>
If you really think that the comp is the only way to release a game and
get it noticed, then, um. Well. you're just wrong, so there's not much
I can say to that.
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>If the organisers of the Comp felt it was "stupid", "rude" and "selfish" to
>enter a game that couldn't be completed in two hours, wouldn't they have
>made that a rule set in stone and banned any games that didn't follow it?
>
>
Used to be that way. The problem is that 'completed' isn't defined
carefully enough. If I write a game with no ending, but which has
about two hours worth of stuff to do in it, then it would be
disqualified by this rule.
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>Fair point. But then I wrote this game because I *wanted* to write it. Maybe
>it won't get judged as fairly as if I had written a smaller game but then
>I'm sure I can live with that. I don't expect to win anyway (though I'm
>secretly hopeful of a reasonably high placing...)
>
>
Don't say 'fairly'; you're trying to imply your point. It's perfectly
fair for someone to mark your game down because they think that its
scope is outside the parameters of the competition.
'Because I *wanted* to write it' is a fine reason to write a game. In
fact, it's maybe the *best possible* reason to write a game. But it's
not, in and of itself, a reason to enter it into the competition.
Harry
Raszewski) made the world a better place by saying:
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:53:26 GMT, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote:
>>
>> Of course. Apparently, also avoid pretty much all attention,
>>too.
>
>Wrong.
>
>Google for 'Jigsaw', 'Time: All Things Come to an End', and of the
>Muldoon games, anything by Zarf or Emily Short, and I guarantee you'll
>see more posts than you would for, say, the game that placed second in
>the 2001 competition.
I am not even close to their league and still I have no reason to
complain about a lack of attention for my first Inform effort. The
responses were just rather gradual, over a somewhat longer period,
rather than in one short burst.
I get the sense this is true for most, if not all games announced
outside the comp. People pick them up and play them but don't make a
big noise about them. Every now and then they post a review or
question, and the games *do* get played. And, I might add, they get
played in people's own time, without the pressure of having to form an
opinion for the comp between dozens of other 'must play before voting
ends' games.
<snip>
>
>If you really think that the comp is the only way to release a game and
>get it noticed, then, um. Well. you're just wrong, so there's not much
>I can say to that.
Yup.
davidw
>
> > If the organisers of the Comp felt it was "stupid", "rude" and "selfish"
> > to enter a game that couldn't be completed in two hours, wouldn't they
> > have made that a rule set in stone and banned any games that didn't
> > follow it?
>
> Such a rule, as we all well know, could never be enforced. "Play time" is
> impossible to quantify. You can never know how long it's going to take
> before inspiration strikes a player and they deduce the solution to a
> puzzle. You can never know how long a player is going to take examining
> every tiny detail of every scenery item in every room before even
> attempting to address the game's obstacles. You can never know how many
> times a player is going to restart in an attempt to see what results a
> different action may produce.
>
> You don't seriously believe what you wrote, do you?
>
I don't believe it for a second but I felt it needed saying.
davidw
Surely not you, though? I mean, I can count on *you* for a fair rating,
can't I?
Adam Thornton
davidw <m...@dwhyld.plus.com> wrote:
>I also seem to recall there were quite a few games entered last year that
>would never have been finished in less than two hours unless you sat there
>with the walkthrough and entered your input straight from there. Are all
>those authors "stupid", "rude" and "selfish"? Or did they just write a game
>that they wanted to enter into a comp?
I will state that it is my belief that all authors who enter a game in
the IFComp, who know that it is thoroughly unreasonable to expect it to
be played to completion in two hours, are being rude and selfish. They
may not be stupid; I don't remember offhand whether any really
egregiously long games have placed high in the Comp, but I wouldn't be
surprised.
Adam
Adam Thornton
Anson Turner <platyp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Perhaps
>there should be a footnote to the rules mentioning that entering a long game
>will earn one the contempt of the vaunted author of _Stiffy Makane: The
>Undiscovered Country_.
I'm all in favor of this.
Adam
Adam Thornton
L. Ross Raszewski <lrasz...@loyola.edu> wrote:
>As far as I can recall, Dr. Nelson has entered two games in the
>competition, and neither of them were in flagrant violation of the two
>hour rule.
Well, maybe "The Tempest," if my experience was typical, because I got
about ten minutes in and then started floundering, and it wouldn't have
mattered whether I played for another 110 minutes or seventeen years. I
never would have gotten any farther, even with the play right there
beside me.
Adam
Adam Thornton
OKB (not okblacke) <Bren...@aol.com> wrote:
>It would also irritate those who do subscribe to the "it's rude and
>selfish" camp.
As the founder of this camp, I wish to point out that my irritation
knows no bounds. To clarify this, let me state that I will also--and
perhaps this too should be put in the rules as an addendum, as Anson
Turner so helpfully suggested--be irritated by games that:
Are "I'm Trying To Learn This Here Language" programming exercises.
Are set in the author's house, or his dorm room, or his family members'
houses, without *damn clever* extenuating circumstances (cf. _Shade_,
which I didn't actually like all that much).
Are basically short stories where you have to hit Enter every so often
to move the story along.
Come from Santoonie Corp.
Have room descriptions chock-full of unimplemented objects.
Attempt to be surrealistic but lack the Dada greatness of Rybread.
Attempt to be gritty and realistic via the literary device of "lots of
swearing."
Require me to ASK DOCTOR ABOUT HER BREASTS.
Abuse apostrophes, unless it's part of the plot (cf. "Carma").
Abuse subject-verb agreement.
Have many incorrect spellings.
Are in languages I don't speak.
Are in languages that *no one* speaks, because the author just made them
up.
Are tremendously clever abuses of the Z-Machine to make it play cribbage
or mahjongg or somesuch, but contain little or no actual IF content.
Implement body parts, but only when they're severed.
Do not involve sex with Space Moose.
Hope this helps!
Adam
Harry
made the world a better place by saying:
>In article <Xns93DC61...@130.133.1.4>,
From the wire:
"... in other news: the annual IF competition was canceled this year
due to a lack of eligible games. Last minute additions to the rules,
as suggested by a Mr. Adam Thornton left the competition hanging with
just one game, which was also finally disqualified for the use of
> ASK BRESTS ABOUT HER DOCTOR
which wasn't against the letter of the law but did violate the spirit.
It is believed next year's comp will go on as planned, but is expected
to be swamped by games containing guided mazes, the only irritation
left not forbidden by current comp rules..."
crazydwarf
> time. Everyone knows this. Those who say in their about text 'I know
> this game sux I just wrote it to learn inform but I thought I should
> enter it because hey who doesn't like to win' have never escaped
> scathing criticism.
Uh-Oh... Oh don't worry my game isn't realy bad... plus I am only
14-18 I should be able to get away with it...
Quintin Stone
>
> As the founder of this camp, I wish to point out that my irritation
> knows no bounds. To clarify this, let me state that I will also--and
> perhaps this too should be put in the rules as an addendum, as Anson
> Turner so helpfully suggested--be irritated by games that:
>
> ...
> Do not involve sex with Space Moose.
Ugh, and I was doing so well right until the end....
Adam Thornton
>> Do not involve sex with Space Moose.
>Ugh, and I was doing so well right until the end....
It really amazes me for how many people this is a sticking point. I
mean, *really*. Name *one* great literary work that *doesn't* involve
sex with Space Moose.
Adam
Seebs
>It really amazes me for how many people this is a sticking point. I
>mean, *really*. Name *one* great literary work that *doesn't* involve
>sex with Space Moose.
Duh! _Lady Chatterly's Lover_.
-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Gene Wirchenko
>ge...@mail.ocis.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote:
>
>> If I were playing a game for two hours, and I found that it
>>played well, it would be a bonus if it were not over. I could rate it
>>highly based that I had a lot of fun and that there was still more to
>>look forward to. What exactly, I would not know without going past
>>the two hour point, but I could still look forward to it.
>
>Sure, and that's your choice, since there aren't many "set in stone" rules
>for how to judge (and it would be silly if there were).
>
>But can you see how from other people's perspective, it's hard to fairly
>compare the game against other games without having seen it all?
So you compare it against what you did see. After all, some
games have multiple endings that you might not see in your play. You
might not even be aware that they exist. Can you still rate the game
based on your experience? Of course.
>"There were a few bugs here and there... I'm not sure if it's just that the
>section I played was the part that the author wrote first. It might be less
>buggy later. On the other hand, this might be the section that got the most
>testing, since it's the first bit and everyone will see it easily, so the
>rest of the game might be a lot more buggy. How can I rate this on amount of
>errors?"
How many did you see?
>"The overall storyline was sort of vague. There were a lot of elements, but
>I have no idea how they're all going to tie together at this point. They
>might turn out to be related to each other in a really exciting way, or they
>might just be a bunch of loose subplots. How can I give this a fair rating
>for storyline?"
You have no idea how they're all going to tie together. That is
a rating.
>"I like this game... but I hold out my top scores for really impressive work
>that I think will stand the test of time. I haven't seen all of this game,
>so I don't know if it ranks up in the "really impressive" category or not."
You have seen two hours worth. Rate on that.
>For this reason I would think that being too large to be completed within
>the timeframe of judging would make many people lower their maximum score
>for the game to 7/8 instead of 9/10 because it feels unfair to them to call
>it the best of the bunch if they haven't seen all of it.
How do you know that you have seen all of a game, even after
multiple playings? Nonetheless, you can rate games.
>Unless the rest of the competition is so dire that it's just obvious that
>this game has to be the best of them. :)
>
>(I don't care WHAT people enter. I don't care if someone enters a
>non-interactive novel. Why not? :) )
Rate it on the basis of what you saw. That is the rule after
all.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> Simple. Because the rating is based on the first two hours.
>
>And some people are going to consider the fact that they didn't finish it
>within that two hours a mark against it. Everyone here has their own
>method of rating games. The only thing that the competition demands of
>them is that they don't play any one game for more than 2 hours before
>rating it. That's it.
>
>I don't think it's quite so simple as you'd like to believe.
I do. Play for two hours. What is your opinion of the game at
that point? There is your rating.
Gene Wirchenko
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:53:23 GMT, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote:
>>lrasz...@loyola.edu (L. Ross Raszewski) wrote:
>>
>> See the careted words above? "for the chance" does not mean that
>>he thinks his game should win, only that it have a chance. That would
>>be just like any other entrant.
>
>I think that the novel I spent lots of time on should have a chance to
>win too. Should I enter it?
If it is in accord with the rules as written, yes. If not, no.
>> Because he wants the chance.
>If he wanted the chance, he should have written the sort of game this
>is a competition for.
The rules determine that.
>>>The rules to lots of things allow one to be an asshole. Don't go
>>>shouting "but the rules allow it!" to insist that something isn't rude.
>>
>> Insisting that the rules mean something that they do not state is
>>a way of being rude.
>
>Let us not forget that the original form of the rules *did* state that
>the game had to be winnable in under two hours. The *only* reason the
>rule was changed was because 'winnable' could not be satisfactorily
>defined (That is, in its original phrasing, the rule could be taken to
>forbid games which simply lack a well-defined 'win' state).
The rules have changed. If the original rules were perfect, why
have they been changed? Is it possible that the emphasis has changed?
>The *purpose* of the rule is to ensure that this is a competition for
>*shorter* games.
Then propose a rule that states that clearly. Right now, a long
game can be entered.
Gene Wirchenko
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:53:26 GMT, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote:
>>
>> Of course. Apparently, also avoid pretty much all attention,
>>too.
>
>Wrong.
"pretty much" does not mean "always". The point was made by
another in this thread, so I am not the only one who thinks so.
>Google for 'Jigsaw', 'Time: All Things Come to an End', and of the
>Muldoon games, anything by Zarf or Emily Short, and I guarantee you'll
>see more posts than you would for, say, the game that placed second in
>the 2001 competition.
You take some high-end authors and act if as if they are the
usual case. They are not. A new author would not have the reputation
they enjoy.
>If you enter a game into the comp, you are more or less guaranteed
>about 10 posts about it. That's it. If you enter a game that pisses
>people off by being not-really-within-the-scope-of-the-competion, you
>might get a few more. But they won't be very friendly.
Could be.
>> Maybe, the recompense is some people sitting down with the game
>>for a couple of hours. Telling me that you have a game for me to play
>>and putting it in front of me for a couple hours are two very
>>different things.
>If you really think that the comp is the only way to release a game and
>get it noticed, then, um. Well. you're just wrong, so there's not much
>I can say to that.
No, but it is an effective way, or at the least, it is preceived
to be so. If it were not, then we would not have this thread about
the "problem", would we?
Seebs
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote:
> So you compare it against what you did see. After all, some
>games have multiple endings that you might not see in your play. You
>might not even be aware that they exist. Can you still rate the game
>based on your experience? Of course.
I would guess that a fair number of people "finished" Janitor at least once,
but never spotted at least some of the endings.
Bernhard B
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:53:26 GMT, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote:
>
>> Of course. Apparently, also avoid pretty much all attention,
>>too.
>
>
> Wrong.
>
> Google for 'Jigsaw', 'Time: All Things Come to an End', and of the
> Muldoon games, anything by Zarf or Emily Short, and I guarantee you'll
> see more posts than you would for, say, the game that placed second in
> the 2001 competition.
Maybe the comp isn't the place to generate zillions of posts
on a particular game but a place to get off the ground as author.
I don't know how each of the IF celebrities (no sarcasm here) got
their reputation but I guess some comp winning was part of the rise.
Bernhard
Papillon
>>But can you see how from other people's perspective, it's hard to fairly
>>compare the game against other games without having seen it all?
>
> So you compare it against what you did see. After all, some
>games have multiple endings that you might not see in your play. You
>might not even be aware that they exist. Can you still rate the game
>based on your experience? Of course.
You seem to be missing the point of trying to see from another person's
perspective here. :)
Of COURSE it's possible to give a score to a game you haven't finished.
(It's also possible to give a score to a game you haven't played - "I hate
the author, the title is misspelled, the game is in a language that won't
run on my machine, I give it a 1." Someone will doubtless argue with you
over your right to assign that score if you do so, but no one's going to
STOP you from voting that way. And you're certainly summing up your
experience with the game - it sucked totally.)
But some other people may feel that they cannot give it a complete
evaluation if they have not seen all - or at least, a sizable percentage -
of it.
And some people will, after finishing the game once, immediately turn to the
walkthrough (if provided) and attempt to play through to any listed
alternate endings, for the same reason - to get as complete a picture as
possible before assigning a rating.
I am not trying to make you feel that this is the one true way of judging a
game, so why are you trying to say that your way is? :) All I'm pointing out
is that people see things differently - which would appear to be obvious, so
I'm not sure why you're arguing with me, except that you like arguing. :)
---
Hanako Games
http://www.hanakogames.com/
Rexx Magnus
> I'm afraid that people feel - or at least fear - that "enormous
> masterpieces" *do* in fact need the comp. They have seen too many large
> games being released outside the Comp only to, if not exactly sink
> without a trace, at least generate rather little interest. Compare this
> to the Comp, which seems to generate as much discussion in a few weeks
> on the IF newsgroups as all other topics do the rest of the year.
Perhaps the best thing to do in the case of large games is create a
smaller edition/teaser that could be entered into the comp (and which you
feel could be evaluated fairly within the two hours) as a prelude or
taster of the larger, separately released title.
--
UO & AC Herbal - http://www.rexx.co.uk/herbal
To email me, visit the site.
Harry
world a better place by saying:
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:27:38 GMT, Magnus Olsson scrawled:
That would be like sending a trailer to the Cannes film festival.
Papillon
>On 20 Aug 2003 08:32:00 GMT, Rexx Magnus <tras...@uk2.net> made the
>world a better place by saying:
>
>>Perhaps the best thing to do in the case of large games is create a
>>smaller edition/teaser that could be entered into the comp (and which you
>>feel could be evaluated fairly within the two hours) as a prelude or
>>taster of the larger, separately released title.
>
>That would be like sending a trailer to the Cannes film festival.
Actually, it's been done. "And the Waves Choke the Wind" was supposed to be
a prologue to a bigger game, though I don't know if it ever came out. Placed
16th... as opposed to Uunkulia X (which ISTR people complained was far too
big) placing 27th. Heck, UX placed only just above my "I know this is going
to tweak some noses" AIF CYOA. :)
Based on that year's results, a prologue is a lot likelier to be
well-received than a huge game.
And, of course, there's always breaking your huge game up into chapters if
applicable... should I comment on Earth and Sky? People certainly didn't
mind that. :)
Harry
<papillo...@bigfoot.com> made the world a better place by saying:
Nothing wrong with serial IF. Love the concept. But that's not the
same as entering half a game. As you might recall, the first EaS was
marked down often for being 'too much like an intro'. The second game
could really stand on its own and felt more 'complete'.
David Thornley
davidw <m...@dwhyld.plus.com> wrote:
>
>I wrote my game specifically for the IFComp and I'm going to enter it. Got a
>problem with that? Tough shit. Deal with it.
>
>I don't expect people to spend longer on my game than on the others in the
>Comp. If they want to play it beyond the two hour requirement that's fine.
>If they want to play it for 10 seconds that's fine, too.
>
Except that if they continue to play past two hours they are required
to judge it based on the first two hours and not change that score.
You must realize that this is the wrong time to expect people to find
more time to play your game, so lots of people are going to play it
for two hours, rate it worse than they would if they played it longer
(unless it gets worse as it goes on....), and complain about the game's
size in their on-line reviews.
If you're OK with that, and aren't going to complain publicly, then
I don't see that you're actually being rude.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
David Thornley
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote:
>Quintin Stone <st...@rps.net> wrote:
>
>>like I hadn't even scratched the surface of the game. How can I feel
>>confident in giving a high rating if I don't know what the rest of the
>>game holds?
>
> Simple. Because the rating is based on the first two hours.
>
Right. I start playing a big game and after two hours....
Well, I kind of liked these plot elements separately, but they
really don't hang together, so I'll rate the game down for that.
And that NPC really doesn't have any visible motivation to do that.
Not to mention that the author didn't tie up *any* of that.
There was *no* climax, or feeling of completion. Overall, it
was a bad game.
(I wound up in exactly this situation with "Fine Tuned", except
that it was partly the bugs that stopped me. I was still expecting
to have fun with the game when I looked at the time, realized I'd
spent two hours on it, asked myself how much I'd enjoyed it so far,
and gave it a bad score. If I'd been able to continue, I would have
given it a significantly higher score.)
Try this: read some short stories, then the first chapter or two
of a novel, then some more short stories. Rate them on the
basis of what they read.
Quintin Stone
> You take some high-end authors and act if as if they are the usual
> case. They are not. A new author would not have the reputation they
> enjoy.
Perhaps a new author should not attempt to produce a masterful sweeping
epic on the first attempt. In fact, isn't this one of the standard pieces
of advice for beginners?
Quintin Stone
> I do. Play for two hours. What is your opinion of the game at
> that point? There is your rating.
Okay, I think I get it now. You're a simple guy, so it's simple for you.
Some people prefer to take in a game as a whole when they rate it, so to a
person like that, a game that was finished will be more appreciated than
one that was not. Despite your continued assertion to the contrary, there
is nothing in the rules that says a judge can't do this. In fact, it's
already quite clear that there are a number of people in this newsgroup
who feel this way and aren't shy about saying it.
Glenn P.,
> The letter of the law is, indeed, that you can enter a game of any
> length. However, the *purpose of the comp* is to encourage games of
> a certain length. If you enter a supergiant game, you are *subverting
> the comp*...
I risk dire peril by jumping into this thread in mid-stream totally
uninformed, but this paragraph kind of boggled my brain, and I really
*MUST* ask. If this "comp" thingy's only supposed, by some sort of
unwritten rule, to be for, uh, "medium-sized" games only, then what
contest(s) is/are available for the LARGE games?
Because it APPEARS, from what you are saying, that genuinely large,
lengthy, and complex games are effectively disenfranchised under
this system.
In other words, so much for mid-sized games -- now, where do the
LARGE games go to compete? Do you REALLY mean to say that someone
can spend months (or years!) developing a monster of a game, and
have NOWHERE to compete it against like games? Aren't large, complex
games entitled to recognition, too? Where WOULDN'T it be "rude" to
submit a Large Game?
Or have I missed something obvious because I haven't seen any of
the earlier messages in this thread?
-- _____ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "Glenn P.," <C128...@FVI.Net> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
{~._.~} --------------------------------------------------------------
_( Y )_ "I am a sheep, telling shepherds what only a sheep can tell
(:_~*~_:) them. And now I start my bleating."
(_)-(_) --C. S. LEWIS: "Fern-Seed And Elephants".
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Adam Thornton
Seebs <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>In article <bhupb2$e8h$1...@news.fsf.net>, Adam Thornton <ad...@fsf.net> wrote:
>>Name *one* great literary work that *doesn't* involve
>>sex with Space Moose.
>Duh! _Lady Chatterly's Lover_.
You will note that nowhere did I state that this was a *difficult* task.
Adam
Adam Thornton
Anson Turner <platyp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Nevertheless, I am nothing if not the soul of courtesy, so I propose the
>following solution, which will ensure that all games fall within the
>not-actually-mandatory-or-anything limit, and which I release to the IF
>community without recompense:
>
>---begin code---
>
>[ WinGameSub;
> deadflag = 2;
> "You won! Yay!";
>];
>
>Verb 'win'
> * -> WinGame
> * 'game' -> WinGame;
>
>---end code---
Uh oh. I feel a C.E. Forman moment coming on.
Namely, you will note, in the source code of *the very game you
reviled*, namely, _Stiffy Makane: The Undiscovered Country_, the
following subroutine (it's in smtuc-routines.inf, for those keeping
score at home):
[WinSub;
Achieved(TASK_TERRI);
Achieved(TASK_HOLODECK);
Achieved(TASK_SPACEMOOSE);
Achieved(TASK_KAAK);
Achieved(TASK_BORG);
deadflag = 2;
"You won! Yay!";
];
Now I feel a SCO moment coming on and wish to state that Chewbacca would
not insert code for the ia64 architecture, because Chewbacca owns a
Pentium. Does that make sense, ladies and gentlemen? No it does not.
And if it does not make sense, you must convict.
So, in response to your "HAND. Specifically FINGER," I can only reply,
"Two thumbs up....WAY up!"
Adam
Magnus Olsson
Anson Turner <platyp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <bhub07$mb1$1...@news.fsf.net>, ad...@fsf.net (Adam Thornton) wrote:
>> Are set in the author's house, or his dorm room, or his family members'
>> houses, without *damn clever* extenuating circumstances (cf. _Shade_,
>> which I didn't actually like all that much).
>
"Curses" is set in Graham Nelson's house, or one of his family
members's?
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se)
PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol
Adam Thornton
Anson Turner <platyp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>there are those here who seem to feel that the appropriate course
>of action is not to advise possible entrants--preferably well in advance--that
>very large works are frowned upon, but rather to harbor secret prejudices,
>vote their games down, and publically excoriate them for daring to invest
>hundreds, possibly thousands of hours of work in something and then release it
>for free.
Your pathetically transparent application to join the IF Cabal has been
rejected, on the grounds that there is no IF Cabal.
Have you checked on your dog, your hamster, or your Cheerios recently?
Adam
Seebs
Papillon <papillo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Based on that year's results, a prologue is a lot likelier to be
>well-received than a huge game.
That's a pretty small sample space. FWIW, Janitor was clearly "too big",
and people mentioned that, but I think it did tolerably well. So far as I
can tell, it suffered more from people who didn't play long enough to figure
it out at all - say, under half an hour.
Seebs
Yes, but it was a trick question; obviously, _Chatterly_ is *allegorical*
about sex with Space Moose.
Seebs
Anson Turner <platyp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Nevertheless, I am nothing if not the soul of courtesy, so I propose the
>following solution, which will ensure that all games fall within the
>not-actually-mandatory-or-anything limit, and which I release to the IF
>community without recompense:
We did this in Janitor. In fact, I'm pretty sure all of my games (except
"Dead") have supported both "win" and "lose". Of course, some pedants will
claim that the mere sequence of text "*** You have won ***" is not the same
as *completing* a game. With Janitor, I felt I could afford to risk
alienating people who expect to see that text only when they have actually
completed the game.
Adam Thornton
Seebs <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>Yes, but it was a trick question; obviously, _Chatterly_ is *allegorical*
>about sex with Space Moose.
Are you one of the people that's been feeding the allegories?
Adam
Adrien Beau
>
> In article <i0h6kvko59g9dl9rj...@4ax.com>,
> Papillon <papillo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>Based on that year's results, a prologue is a lot likelier to be
>>well-received than a huge game.
>
> That's a pretty small sample space. FWIW, Janitor was clearly
> "too big", and people mentioned that, but I think it did
> tolerably well.
I didn't finish Janitor in the two hours limit, and since I was
not completely enthusiastic about the game and an apparently big
chunk of the game was still left to play, I stopped there. I felt
that I had "gotten" the game enough to rate it, but I removed one
point from the mark because of its length. If I recall correctly,
I gave it a 6 instead of a 7.
--
spam....@free.fr
You have my name and my hostname: you can mail me.
(Put a period between my first and last names).
Adrien Beau
>
> If this "comp" thingy's only supposed, by some sort of
> unwritten rule, to be for, uh, "medium-sized" games only, then
> what contest(s) is/are available for the LARGE games?
The Spring Thing.
http://www.adamcadre.ac/springcomp.html
> Because it APPEARS, from what you are saying, that genuinely
> large, lengthy, and complex games are effectively
> disenfranchised under this system.
Absolutely.
Papillon
>That's a pretty small sample space.
Yeah, I know, but it was the best example I could come up with off the top
of my head. :) And actually, I couldn't remember how AAWCTW placed until I
looked it up... I was vaguely surprised. My dim recollections of Comp2000
were that people generally *liked* UX but were annoyed about the length, and
that people found AAWCTW awfully empty/lacking. Again these are just my dim
recollections years after the fact and do not necessarily bear a resemblance
to the actual reviews, I am not eidetic.
Given these remembrances, it seemed noteworthy that they placed where they
did. (Of course, Travels in the Land of Erden didn't do quite so badly, now
that I look that up. Shrug. Dunno. Doesn't bother me one way or the other,
really. :) )
LucFrench
I wish I had said "There will be one game that cannot possibly be played past
the quarter-way mark in the two hour limit *with the walkthrough*, nevermind
without."
Thanks
Luc "Want some marmalade?" French
Adrien Beau
>
>> The letter of the law is, indeed, that you can enter a game of
>> any length. However, the *purpose of the comp* is to encourage
>> games of a certain length.
>
> your righteous indignation?
From the history of the comp and the discussion and debates from
the past perhaps? I don't know for sure, I could check Google if
I had the time.
> Attention is another major factor. If you have created a "giant"
> game, are ready to release it, and it's Comp season, forget it.
> You can just sit on it for the next six months until people have
> finished judging, reviewing, and discussing the Comp, so that
> maybe someone, somewhere will notice it. Maybe not.
If you have created a giant game, you have likely spent several
years working on it. Considering that, waiting four more months
is perhaps not unwise or too hard to do. Besides, if you wait a
few more months, you can enter your game into the Spring Thing.
Actually, these additionnal months might be the perfect time for
a last round of bug fixing and polishing?
> Of course, there are those here who seem to feel that the
> appropriate course of action is not to advise possible
> entrants--preferably well in advance--that very large works are
> frowned upon, but rather to harbor secret prejudices,
> vote their games down, and publically excoriate them for daring
> to invest hundreds, possibly thousands of hours of work in
> something and then release it for free.
Are you sure such people exist outside your imagination? I don't
recall reading anything along these lines in this giant thread.
> Which brings up a very interesting point. If a game runs
> slightly over two hours, but a judge dutifully stops playing at
> that point, how can they even be sure how much longer it is?
> However will they know how many points to dock the fiend?
In my case, with Janitor, I stopped *approximately* after two
hours (like with any other game, but I had clearly finished the
other games and was merely exploring their limits when the two
hours limit came by). I had a feeling that I was not even close
to the end of the game, and that was confirmed when I read all
the hints: I had done a good part of the game, but not the final
part. I removed one point, because I felt it was appropriate.
L. Ross Raszewski
>lrasz...@loyola.edu (L. Ross Raszewski) wrote:
>>
>>I think that the novel I spent lots of time on should have a chance to
>>win too. Should I enter it?
>
> If it is in accord with the rules as written, yes. If not, no.
As far as I can tell, nothing in the rules would prevent any novel
from being entered, so long as it hasn't been distributed beforehand.
We've had the wars before about "what does IF mean?"
>>If he wanted the chance, he should have written the sort of game this
>>is a competition for.
>
> The rules determine that.
Do you really think that "it's not illegal" means "It's perfectly
okay"?
Must go forclose on the mortgage and put all those orphans out on the
streets. Don't call me a bad person; what I'm doing is perfectly
legal.
> The rules have changed. If the original rules were perfect, why
>have they been changed? Is it possible that the emphasis has changed?
No. The rules changed because it occured to someone that a game might
be two hours long but not have a well-defined 'win' state.
>
>>The *purpose* of the rule is to ensure that this is a competition for
>>*shorter* games.
>
> Then propose a rule that states that clearly. Right now, a long
>game can be entered.
>
Yes. A long game can be entered. A board game can be entered. A card
game can be entered. A short story presented as a TADS gamefile can be
entered. An FPS can be entered. My novel can be entered.
Don't confued "it is legal" with "it is right" or even "it is
acceptable". It would be *wrong* to enter any of these things into
the competition, and to knowingly enter something that is outside the
scope of the competition, just for the chance of personal gain, is
wasting the time and resources of the judges and organizers. That's at
best rude, at worst, pathological.
David Thornley
Anson Turner <platyp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <bhub07$mb1$1...@news.fsf.net>, ad...@fsf.net (Adam Thornton) wrote:
>
>
>Like "Curses."
>
Nitpick: that's a "I'm Trying To Invent This Here Language" programming
exercise.
Quintin Stone
> Which brings up a very interesting point. If a game runs slightly over
> two hours, but a judge dutifully stops playing at that point, how can
> they even be sure how much longer it is? However will they know how many
> points to dock the fiend?
If your score is 25 out of 500, that's a good indication that there's a
lot more game to play.
L. Ross Raszewski
>I risk dire peril by jumping into this thread in mid-stream totally
>uninformed, but this paragraph kind of boggled my brain, and I really
>*MUST* ask. If this "comp" thingy's only supposed, by some sort of
>unwritten rule, to be for, uh, "medium-sized" games only, then what
>contest(s) is/are available for the LARGE games?
>
>Because it APPEARS, from what you are saying, that genuinely large,
>lengthy, and complex games are effectively disenfranchised under
>this system.
(A) Large games don't need to compete.
- Large games are liable to gather more attention anyway. One of the
many goals of the comp may be stated thus: 'Since, on their own,
medium-sized games don't get the same attention as huge games, we
have this comp to increase attention to them.' That is, the comp
promotes medium-sized games because huge games can take care of
themselves. Asking why large games don't get the same treatment is
like asking why rich people can't have food stamps too (political
leanings aside)
(B) No games "need" to compete.
- The comp is not the archive. The comp is not the group. Over the
past several years, we've lost sight of that. A lot of people are
increasingly of the opinion that if you write a game of any sort, you
stick it in the comp because that's what one does. Why must
everything be competitions? If I write a book, I try to sell it to a
publisher. Yes, it's a competition of sorts, but I don't care about
that, really. I'm not going around looking for a book contest to
enter it into. If I write a commercial game, I don't go looking for a
contest to enter it into. We shouldn't be speaking of the competition
as if it's somehow right and natural that every game should be
released into some sort of competition.
(C) There exists the XYZZY Awards
- Some people have gotten so far away from reality that they think
the Comp is some sort of Oscars for IF. This is wrong. This is wrong
for many reasons, including the fact that we've already got one of
those, the XYZZY awards. All comers are taken.
(D) Adam Cadre's Spring Thing
- This is the actual non-flippant answer to your question.
Papillon
>On Mercredi 20 Août 2003 17:04, Anson Turner wrote:
>
>> Which brings up a very interesting point. If a game runs slightly over
>> two hours, but a judge dutifully stops playing at that point, how can
>> they even be sure how much longer it is? However will they know how many
>> points to dock the fiend?
>
>If your score is 25 out of 500, that's a good indication that there's a
>lot more game to play.
Of course, some authors play with that expectation. :)
Obvious example being... Space Quest 3 I think, where it shot you up to one
point shy of maximum to make you think you'd won, and then plunged you back
down when you realised it wasn't over yet.
(Yes, I *do* have no life and I *do* sit here all day looking for people
online to have meaningless disagreements with. Just saving you the trouble
of pointing this out. ;) )
davidw
"David Thornley" <thor...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f436a61$0$173$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
I don't expect any different treatment for my game than for any other game
entered in the IFComp.
davidw
"Quintin Stone" <st...@rps.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03082...@yes.rps.net...
Depends on the game. You might have a game where the maximum score is 500
but it's possible to finish it, and reach a perfectly decent ending, with a
score of 25. I've written games before where the maximum score was something
like 300 but if you avoided most of the side quests and just did the main
one, you could finish with a score less than a fifth of the maximum.
davidw
Every new author has to start somewhere. And why not with a massive game
that will grab people's attentions and get them lots of publicity?