IF Comp97 : Judging crappy games
HarryH
First of all, I'd like to say that I'm the author of CASK, and my game
received a dismal rating. Fair enough. I attribute this to three factors:
1. Poor prose. This is a puzzle IF, not story.
2. Some bugs. I have most problem with container/supporter class in Inform.
3. Not fleshed-out. The game is missing some common vocabulary.
I suspect the game can gain better rating if problem 1 and 3 is fixed. I
can't do much about number 2 (unless some genius here would like to look over
my code and suggest solution), so I'll just work around it in the future.
In short, I have a crappy competition game. This is what happens when
beta-testing procedure fails. I gave away copies of the program a full three
months before the deadline. No feedback beyond "How do I GET OFF THE CHAIR?"
(You don't have trouble getting off the chair, now, do you? :) ). Did I ask
for feedback? Sure. Did I get it? Not until I've submitted it (from fellow
IFer, I may add), but by then it's too late.
My game has a dismal rating and the game as-is deserves it. However, quite a
number judges are ranting about the large quantities of poor game in this
year's competition. Furthermore, they don't want to judge bad games anymore.
To which I say:
EXCUSE ME? YOU ONLY WANT TO JUDGE GOOD GAMES FROM NOW ON?
What silly nonsense! You're a judge, not a player. As a judge, you're
obligated to play as many games as you can (randomly, at that). If you don't
want to play bad games, then don't judge! Nobody's forcing you to be one.
Judging is strictly on voluntary basis.
If all you want to play are good games, then just wait until all the result
of the game has been tallied before you play. This means that you can't
judge. If you want to judge, you have to play as many games as possible,
otherwise some good games may fall prey to early bad rating. Whoever says
that you can have your cake and eat it, too? Judging bad entries is part of
judging experience.
If an entry crashes your machine, then just skip the game. If the entry is
poorly written, then you need to give it a low score so players (not judges)
can avoid it. And if you're feeling generous, give the author some feedback
so he/she can improve it. However, judges *need* to play as much of the
entries as possible. There's no reason why judges should not judge bad games,
except that the judge is not there to judge, but play?
I didn't submit a bad game (an illusion that gets shattered rather quickly),
or at least, I didn't mean to. I fully expect at least a 6 (out of 10), and
at least get honorable mention. I thought my game was good. How am I supposed
to know that it isn't? From magic 8 ball, I presume? Yes I'm being sarcastic.
So please, rant all you want about half the games being crappy, but please
don't even suggest that judges should not judge them. That's being
egotistical, rude, snotty, and lazy. And if you disagree with that, don't
just tell me that you disagree, tell me WHY you disagree. I can tell you
right now that the reasons are NOT wasting time, provide unfair burden (it's
just for two hours), or that you somehow have a right to pick and choose
according to other people's opinion.
You knew that the rules does not exclude poorly written games, so why are you
complaining? My point, and I do have one, is that judges need to judge all
entries without outside influence.
-------------------------------------------------------
Of course I'll work on weekends without pay!
- successful applicant
Brad O`Donnell
HarryH wrote:
> In short, I have a crappy competition game. This is what happens when
> beta-testing procedure fails. I gave away copies of the program a full three
> months before the deadline. No feedback beyond "How do I GET OFF THE CHAIR?"
> (You don't have trouble getting off the chair, now, do you? :) ). Did I ask
> for feedback? Sure. Did I get it? Not until I've submitted it (from fellow
> IFer, I may add), but by then it's too late.
The beta-testing phase can't "fail", can it?
I'm very interested in the story of your beta-testing
experience; it might prove terribly helpful.
i.e:
Where did you ask for testers? Was it on the newsgroup,
or through the competition setup?
How many testers did you get?
> EXCUSE ME? YOU ONLY WANT TO JUDGE GOOD GAMES FROM NOW ON?
Yes. I only want to judge good games from now on. Whether I'm going
to be able to is up to the authors.
>
> What silly nonsense! You're a judge, not a player. As a judge, you're
> obligated to play as many games as you can (randomly, at that). If you don't
> want to play bad games, then don't judge!
In the first competition, there were only a few games that were
technically or fundamentally flawed, and none that were pieces of
crap.
In the second competition, there were more games that were
technically or fundamentally flawed, and a couple of
piece-o-crap games. And there were only 7 fewer entries than in
the third competition.
Therefore, the historical role of the author is that he/she
expects that out of the games, at most 10-15% will be p-o-c,
at most 20% will be technically buggy or othwerwise flawed,
and that the remainder will be playable. Expecting that the only factor in
voting will be personal taste for the most part was a habit I
had accustomed myself to, from previous competitions.
> There's no reason why judges should not judge bad games,
> except that the judge is not there to judge, but play?
Ahem. We are judging the games on the basis of *how they play*,
not on the ideas or motivations or other restrictions behind them.
>
> I didn't submit a bad game (an illusion that gets shattered rather quickly),
> or at least, I didn't mean to. I fully expected at least a 6 (out of 10), and
> at least get honorable mention.
Also, the score a person gets is not based on any particular criteria,
except that higher scores indicate entries that you think should win.
> I thought my game was good.
> How am I supposed
> to know that it isn't? From magic 8 ball, I presume? Yes I'm being sarcastic.
Well, you could start by asking your beta-testers what
they *don't* like about the game. If they don't answer, (even
if they tell you the game was good!) find yourself new testers.
Also, I like to believe that all authors, deep in their
heart-of-hearts, know whether or not the game is good; especially
when they know the game is actually bad.
> So please, rant all you want about half the games being crappy, but please
> don't even suggest that judges should not judge them. That's being
> egotistical, rude, snotty, and lazy. And if you disagree with that, don't
> just tell me that you disagree, tell me WHY you disagree.
I think I pretty much summed it up, above.
> I can tell you
> right now that the reasons are NOT wasting time, provide unfair burden (it's
> just for two hours), or that you somehow have a right to pick and choose
> according to other people's opinion.
The reasons are: bad entries are are a waste of time and provide an
unfair burden to the judge, and that judges have the right to pick
and choose games not only by external opinion, but by game title,
by genre, or by game file size, for that matter.
This competition is not a trial. The judges don't have to be fair.
A good rule of thumb, though, is that most judges assign final
scores based on a comparison of ALL the games.
I'm not picking on CASK in particular, here, mind you, it's just
some stuff that should be said, and I'll more than likely repeat
before the next competition begins.
--
Brad O'Donnell
"A story is a string of moments, held together by memory."
Charles Gerlach
Brad O`Donnell wrote a couple of things I have a problem with:
> The reasons are: bad entries are are a waste of time and provide an
> unfair burden to the judge, and that judges have the right to pick
> and choose games not only by external opinion, but by game title,
> by genre, or by game file size, for that matter.
I disagree with every point in this paragraph.
1. Judges are *NOT* required to spend a full two hours with every
game. Two hours is meant to be a restraint on the size of the games
and the time committment. When you hit two hours, judge based on
what you've seen.
When I judged, I spent (on average) 45 minutes with each game,
and about 10-15 on the really bad ones. 10 minutes is not an
excessive burden on me, and by following the walk-through closely I
can see the entire plot-line so that I know where the author was
trying to go.
2. In order to keep the number of votes for different entries from
getting skewed, you should judge all games that you are able to play
in the randomized order given. If everyone sets the criterion that
they won't try to vote on games that seem crappy, or that are too
large (based on filesize), then the whole purpose of the randomized
list flies out the window.
You also wrote in your message:
> Also, I like to believe that all authors, deep in their
> heart-of-hearts, know whether or not the game is good; especially
> when they know the game is actually bad.
Out of the seven or eight complete reviews posted last year, about
three completely panned my game. They loathed it in no uncertain
terms. Another three or so placed it in the middle of the pack, and
two really liked it. Someone gave it a perfect 10.
You would probably be (perhaps you were?) one of the people that
loathed it. Does that mean that last year's contest would have
been better off without "Alien Abduction?" ? Should I have "sensed"
that some people would loathe it, and therefore not entered?
I sincerely hope that you reconsider both what constitutes good
judging and whether you should bother to judge next year.
--
**********************************************************************
Charles Gerlach does not speak for Northwestern, and can be mailed at:
cagerlac a t merle d o t acns d o t nwu d o t edu
He hopes that placing his e-mail in this format did not seriously
inconvenience anyone attempting to contact him (except for spam-bots).
HarryH
In article <34B3D8...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca>,
s7...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca says...
Ahem, you're missing the point. So I'll make it simple for you.
The point is that *somebody* must have judged it beforehand. Therefore, there
will always be the first judge that judge a bad game.
Judging may not be a fair process, but judges are supposed to be impartial.
Otherwise, why all the secrecy before judging?
I have some ideas on how to increase the quality of games for the next
competition batch, but I'll post it separately.
> The beta-testing phase can't "fail", can it?
> I'm very interested in the story of your beta-testing
> experience; it might prove terribly helpful.
I sent three copies. I ask them to get the result back to me ASAP. One week
later, I ask them: "How's the game?". "Oh, I haven't gotten around to it yet.
Been too busy, you know."
Same time the next week. And the week after that. And the week after that.
By the time I realize that I need a new group of beta tester, it's too late.
I certainly hope that this is an isolated incident.
Kenneth Fair
In article <34B3D8...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca>, Brad O`Donnell
<s7...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca> wrote:
[snip]
> In the first competition, there were only a few games that were
> technically or fundamentally flawed, and none that were pieces of
> crap.
>
> In the second competition, there were more games that were
> technically or fundamentally flawed, and a couple of
> piece-o-crap games. And there were only 7 fewer entries than in
> the third competition.
This is to be somewhat expected. Entries in the first competition were
mainly done by experienced auth
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Any smoothly functioning technology will be
indistinguishable from a rigged demo." Isaac Asimov
Brad O`Donnell
Charles Gerlach wrote:
>
> Brad O`Donnell wrote a couple of things I have a problem with:
>
> > The reasons are: bad entries are are a waste of time and provide an
> > unfair burden to the judge, and that judges have the right to pick
> > and choose games not only by external opinion, but by game title,
> > by genre, or by game file size, for that matter.
>
> I disagree with every point in this paragraph.
But the grammar's flawless, so that makes it a good paragraph,
right? :) Just kidding. I welcome the discussion.
>
> 1. Judges are *NOT* required to spend a full two hours with every
> game.
We are in agreement on this point.
> When I judged, I spent (on average) 45 minutes with each game,
> and about 10-15 on the really bad ones.
Me, too. (Except that I felt compelled to play the games I
didn't like a few times, to see if there's something I missed that
might otherwise draw me in.)
> 2. In order to keep the number of votes for different entries from
> getting skewed, you should judge all games that you are able to play
> in the randomized order given. If everyone sets the criterion that
> they won't try to vote on games that seem crappy, or that are too
> large (based on filesize), then the whole purpose of the randomized
> list flies out the window.
True, but I also intended to judge only if I could play all the
games and give them all a 'fair' chance. My inability to do this
(coupled with minor technical difficulties) made it so I couldn't
vote with a clear conscience, so I *didn't* vote. Simple as that.
>
> You also wrote in your message:
>
> > Also, I like to believe that all authors, deep in their
> > heart-of-hearts, know whether or not the game is good; especially
> > when they know the game is actually bad.
>
> Out of the seven or eight complete reviews posted last year, about
> three completely panned my game. They loathed it in no uncertain
> terms. Another three or so placed it in the middle of the pack, and
> two really liked it. Someone gave it a perfect 10.
This is to be expected. Only the most vocal of the judges put up
their opinions. This is going to make the reviews a combination of
views from people who have impossibly high standards of IF, who have
a love of any text game, and who have worked very hard writing their
reviews.
>
> You would probably be (perhaps you were?) one of the people that
> loathed it. Does that mean that last year's contest would have
> been better off without "Alien Abduction?" ? Should I have "sensed"
> that some people would loathe it, and therefore not entered?
>
Ahem. And I quote:
>> 7 : Alien Abduction
>> I don't know about the bugs people are talking about...
>> perhaps that's 'cause
>> I didn't finish this game. But I liked it.
>> I don't know how to play Master
>> Mind, and I doubt I ever will, but that
>> didn't interrupt the game at all. In
>> fact, it helped the game, because MasterMind
>> is so "alien" to me that it helped
>> the overall feel of being tested in some
>> arbitrary way. Probably not the
>> intention, but...
>> By the time I got to it, the game had skewed
>> my mind to the point where the
>> Duck puzzle made perfect sense.
>> Still haven't beaten it though. Nice
>> atmosphere, especially the bit
>> (which still doesn't make much sense) about
>> the head (body?) in the tube (chamber?).
The 7 is a normalized score, of sorts.
On an absolute scale the game received an 8.
And you came in 9th overall, an excellent showing.
Why no entry this year?
>
> I sincerely hope that you reconsider both what constitutes good
> judging and whether you should bother to judge next year.
I believe that I acted reponsibly this year, by not voting.
Hopefully, I'll be an entrant next year, so no one will have to
worry.
Charles Gerlach
Brad O`Donnell wrote:
>
> Charles Gerlach wrote:
> >
Brad clearly thinks he's going to throw me off by agreeing with all
of my points. I must admit it was a pretty effective tactic.
It sounds like Brad and I would agree on the following sentence,
but I'm not sure:
****************************************************************
Good judging requires giving all the games on your list (or as
many as you can get to) a fair chance, but does not require two
hours to be spent on each and every game.
****************************************************************
Brad disqualified himself from the judging because he could not give
all of the games a fair chance. This makes his initial comment all
the more confusing:
"...judges have the right to pick
and choose games not only by external opinion, but by game title,
by genre, or by game file size, for that matter."
I think that turning the word "judges" into "players", would make this
sentence completely true and acceptable. "Judges" have a responsibility
to render as impartial of a decision as possible, regardless of
whether they like the genre, had a bad day at the office, etc.
"Players" can do whatever the hell they want-- their actions will
affect no one.
Then I (quite incorrectly) insinuated that perhaps he hated my entry
last year. He re-posted his review which gave me a relatively
high score. My apologies to Brad for the insinuation.
However, this exchange missed the point of his original comment:
"Also, I like to believe that all authors, deep in their
heart-of-hearts, know whether or not the game is good; especially
when they know the game is actually bad."
And I do not believe this is true at all. Based on HarryH's comments,
CASK had a specific purpose-- most people weren't thrilled with that
purpose, nor with implementational flaws. I don't believe Harry
could have known beforehand that his game would be received as it
was.
I honestly didn't expect anyone to loathe my game last year. I
thought there would be people that didn't care for it (there were),
and I was pretty sure that some bugs that I hadn't found would
surface (more showed up than I expected). But the hostile reviews
that I got jumped not only on my implementation flaws, but also on
my story, which I still think is solid and the best part of the game.
With this feedback, I can look more objectively at it and see that
I do, in fact, have some inherent design flaws (some of which I'm
fixing for a second release, some are not fixable without rewriting
the plot). I would *never* have seen these design flaws on my own.
If, through the use of a time machine, you went back and showed me
the reviews that panned me before I entered, I would not have
submitted it. I would also never have learned what was wrong with it.
I would probably have simply scrapped it and forgotten about it.
So, exactly who has to hate it before I shouldn't enter?
Kenneth Fair
Brad O`Donnell
Charles Gerlach wrote:
>
> Brad clearly thinks he's going to throw me off by agreeing with all
> of my points. I must admit it was a pretty effective tactic.
Maybe I'll have better luck next time :)
>
> It sounds like Brad and I would agree on the following sentence,
> but I'm not sure:
>
> ****************************************************************
> Good judging requires giving all the games on your list (or as
> many as you can get to) a fair chance, but does not require two
> hours to be spent on each and every game.
> ****************************************************************
Sure. The definition stated above is Judging As It Should Be.
>
> Brad disqualified himself from the judging because he could not give
> all of the games a fair chance. This makes his initial comment all
> the more confusing:
>
> "...judges have the right to pick
> and choose games not only by external opinion, but by game title,
> by genre, or by game file size, for that matter."
Now, here's an interesting distinction:
The above statement is Judging As It Really Is.
> "Judges" have a responsibility
> to render as impartial of a decision as possible, regardless of
> whether they like the genre, had a bad day at the office, etc.
If I turn your attention to the Rules (I hate citing authority, but
Oh, well...) you will find under Judging:
> All you have to do is play every game that you are
> able to, bound on your honor to play as
> many as possible and give each of them an equal chance.
> Rate each game on an integer
> scale of 1 to 10 (not 0 to 10), higher meaning better.
I feel really bad about wasting bandwidth with this quote, but
bear with me.
What really needs definition here is "equal chance". Just what
is an equal chance? Well, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it
doesn't mean anything about impartiality or consistency. The
idea, as I perceive it, is that you shouldn't say: "I'm not
going to start that game because it's fantasy, or I'm not going
to start that game because the author panned my game last year,
or some such nonsense like that." As I read it, the "equal
chance" rule is meant to make sure that people do actually type
in some moves before deciding whether a game is worth their time
or not.
After those initial moves, however, partiality is what Judging's
all about: Did I like this game? Do I think this is a good game,
based on my highly distinct and personal standards?
And, in order
to make sure things work out nicely in the ratings list, I don't
have to assign the game a number immediately. I jot down a list
of stuff I liked and didn't like, and then move on, to another
game.
> However, this exchange missed the point of his original comment:
>
> "Also, I like to believe that all authors, deep in their
> heart-of-hearts, know whether or not the game is good; especially
> when they know the game is actually bad."
>
> And I do not believe this is true at all. Based on HarryH's comments,
> CASK had a specific purpose-- most people weren't thrilled with that
> purpose, nor with implementational flaws. I don't believe Harry
> could have known beforehand that his game would be received as it
> was.
After re-reading the text file that comes with CASK, I'd have to
say that there were reasons why he might not have known. Okay,
that's cool. CASK is not the major offender here. It's the sheer
number of games where people didn't have a clear idea what they
were doing. Waitaminit...shoot. Okay, now I realize one small
thing. There weren't actually that many entries which were inept,
in the sense that they were woefully inept. I'm confusing some
of these with the games in which I got stuck early, which isn't
fair of me.
--I've got to get to class. I'll get to your other points in
a few hours.
M. Wesley Osam
In article <mcMs.53$QE6.7...@news1.atlantic.net>,
har...@iu.net.idiotic.com.skip.idiotic.com (HarryH) wrote:
> First of all, I'd like to say that I'm the author of CASK, and my game
> received a dismal rating. Fair enough. I attribute this to three factors:
>
> 1. Poor prose. This is a puzzle IF, not story.
That's not really an excuse. Even if you're just doing a puzzle, clear
writing is an essential part of giving the player the information they need
to make the right decisions.
> 2. Some bugs. I have most problem with container/supporter class in Inform.
A few minor bugs are understandable in a beginning game written under a
time limit. At least "Cask" could be finished, which is more than could be
said for some games.
> 3. Not fleshed-out. The game is missing some common vocabulary.
This wouldn't have been difficult to fix with a few beta-testers, who
you could easily have found by asking on rgif or raif. If all else failed,
you could put a (non-contest) game in ftp.gmd.de/incoming/if-archive with a
"read me" explaining that it's a public beta. People wouldn't complain
about an un-fleshed out game if they knew it was incomplete before going
in.
> I suspect the game can gain better rating if problem 1 and 3 is fixed. I
> can't do much about number 2 (unless some genius here would like to look over
> my code and suggest solution), so I'll just work around it in the future.
Or you could ask for advice, re-read the manual, and try to learn more
about the system. That's what I've always done when I've had problems.
> My game has a dismal rating and the game as-is deserves it. However, quite a
> number judges are ranting about the large quantities of poor game in this
> year's competition. Furthermore, they don't want to judge bad games anymore.
> To which I say:
>
> EXCUSE ME? YOU ONLY WANT TO JUDGE GOOD GAMES FROM NOW ON?
>
> What silly nonsense! You're a judge, not a player.
Judges *are* players. What's more, the intention is that some of them
are players who haven't seen a lot of IF. That's why there has occasionally
been talk of "trying to get the word out" about the contest. If games like
"Cask", "Coming Home" and "Aunt Nancy's House" make up a large portion of
their introduction to the medium, do you think they're going to come back?
> Judging is strictly on voluntary basis.
So is entering. If you enter a bad game, it will be criticized.
> If you want to judge, you have to play as many games as
> possible, otherwise some good games may fall prey to early bad
> rating.
I'm not sure what this means.
If the entry is
> poorly written, then you need to give it a low score so players (not judges)
> can avoid it.
Again, the judges and the players are the same people and are looking at
the games from the same perspective.
And if you're feeling generous, give the author some feedback
> so he/she can improve it. However, judges *need* to play as much of the
> entries as possible.
The point is not that people want to avoid judging games they don't
like. The point is that there were many games in this year's competition
that simply should not have been released in their present state. They
certainly should not have been released as part of a competition. Both
players and judges -- and remember, they're the same thing in this contest
--have a right to expect that some care has been taken with the entries. If
it hasn't, they're going to be brutal. And, yes, unless you can be bad as
entertainingly as Rybread Celsius, you *are* wasting people's time, and
insulting them as well.
There's no reason why judges should not judge bad games,
> except that the judge is not there to judge, but play?
Again, it's the same thing.
> I didn't submit a bad game (an illusion that gets shattered rather quickly),
> or at least, I didn't mean to. I fully expect at least a 6 (out of 10), and
> at least get honorable mention.
I find this difficult to believe.
I thought my game was good. How am I supposed
> to know that it isn't?
You can't really be expected to know whether your game is good or bad.
You *can* be expected to know whether your game is in any state to be
released at all. You can tell this by asking your beta testers, who you
should have gotten by asking on this newsgroup. You can also tell by taking
a look at the standards set by the games in the last two contests. Though
they were all by amateurs -- there is no longer such a thing as a
professional text adventure author -- practically all of them met certain
standards of craftsmanship. It should be obvious that a game with noticable
bugs, a limited vocabulary, and poor grammar is not ready to be released.
> You knew that the rules does not exclude poorly written games, so why are you
> complaining?
I don't think anyone is complaining about ordinary bad games, such as
failed experiments (like last year's "In the End") or first attempts from
new authors who tried their best but didn't make it (like last year's
"Stargazer"). But too many of the games this year didn't look like their
authors had given them any thought at all, or taken any pride in their
work.
My point, and I do have one, is that judges need to judge all
> entries without outside influence.
They did. No one posted any reviews until the judging period was over.
--
"Why do you look so skeptical?" M. Wesley Osam
"Because I've seen too much." wo...@iastate.edu
"Then why do you keep looking?
"Too much is never enough." -- Bill Griffith, "Zippy the Pinhead"
Brad O`Donnell
Charles Gerlach wrote:
--this is a continuation of my previous segment, but I'll
leave a couple of points off because I don't wanna repeat
anything that was quoted in the first part.
>
> I honestly didn't expect anyone to loathe my game last year. I
> thought there would be people that didn't care for it (there were),
> and I was pretty sure that some bugs that I hadn't found would
> surface (more showed up than I expected). But the hostile reviews
> that I got jumped not only on my implementation flaws, but also on
> my story, which I still think is solid and the best part of the game.
>
This is due to the nature of posting reviews. Obviously the
most polarized among us are going to post the reviews.
Hostile reviews are one
thing, but right now only those authors who have received the
highest praise and those who have received the most flack,
seem at all interested in discussing the feedback they have
received, not to mention asking for more. If the author of
CASK got my e-mail, then he knows that I have done some checking
in the code to fix some bugs.
The capsule reviews are meant to be critical, in the sense of
weighing pros and cons.
The capsule reviews are not all I want to say about any given
game. I included the indicator of how much I had played a game
so that the author would know how far I thought I had got,
and whether or not they should be interested in what I had to
say.
Another
thing is that most of us didn't write complete critiques.
Paul O'Brian wrote thoughtful, excellent reviews, with
catagories and everything. Most of us commented on the things
that struck us the most and hardest about a game, hoping that
if there were any interest in what we thought, that the authors
would chime in on our reviews, asking us to clarify, or
whatever. Unfortunately, response has been somewhat meek,
mostly other reviewers commenting on the reviews.
Even though a reviewer didn't put much work into his review,
doesn't mean that he didn't think about the game a lot.
> So, exactly who has to hate [my entry] before I shouldn't enter?
I made a mistake in my Overview of the Competition, which I
tried to short-circuit in the overview itself.
As I see it, the Comp had 4 kinds of games:
- Games I didn't play, or didn't play enough.(11)
- Games I really liked and recommend.
(There are 16 of these, I think).
- Games I played, but for some reason in the middle,
stopped playing, due to discomfort. (4, I guess).
Now, that 11 is a huge number; it's why I didn't vote.
In order for you to enter in the comp. without reservation,
your game has to meet only *your* personal standards for IF.
The idea that I'm really trying to promote, is that even
though the game might meet your standards, the judges don't
have to follow them. Several entries contain useful information
about what their standards are.
When some authors are panned,
they point to that information and say "Why didn't you read this?
That way you would have known that this is a
puzzle/story/description/NPC-coding/crappy game, and if you were
paying any attention, you would have reviewed and scored it in
that light."
When this started happening, I felt I needed to jump in, mainly
because I was hungry to insert my opinion, and partly because I
think that I saw some of my own opinions being used to promote
the idea that the competition was bad, in general.
After many long hours of typing at this keyboard, I think I've
come to an answer which should clear up what I believe is a
misunderstanding about what the job of a judge is.
The answer is:
"Giving an entry a fair chance does not mean adopting the
standards of the author.*"
All entries live and die by this principle, and that's
why the scores and reviews are so low, I think.
--
Brad O'Donnell
"A story is a string of moments, held together by memory."
* I have a cute little phrase that can be added on to this, but
it's inappropriate for such a formal setting.
Lucian Paul Smith
Brad O`Donnell (s7...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca) wrote:
: Another
: thing is that most of us didn't write complete critiques.
: Paul O'Brian wrote thoughtful, excellent reviews, with
: catagories and everything. Most of us commented on the things
: that struck us the most and hardest about a game, hoping that
: if there were any interest in what we thought, that the authors
: would chime in on our reviews, asking us to clarify, or
: whatever. Unfortunately, response has been somewhat meek,
: mostly other reviewers commenting on the reviews.
: Even though a reviewer didn't put much work into his review,
: doesn't mean that he didn't think about the game a lot.
Really? You want author response? Speaking as an author, I've felt
rather loathe to respond both to reviews of my own game, feeling that it
would come across as (alternatively) whiney or self-congratulatory, as
well as to reviews of others' games, feeling that it would either come
across as condescending to those authors who placed below me, or whiney
to those who placed above me.
I could phrase things carefully to try to avoid these problems, of course,
but in general, I've elected to let my game (such as it is) speak for
itself, and instead respond to bugs and specific criticism by
incorporating fixes into a post-competition release, and respond to
general criticism by taking it to heart for my next game. (Likewise for
compliments, at that. When I wrote the game, I had no idea that my
language puzzle would go over so well. I've been going back to it, trying
to figure out exactly what the heck I did right, so I can imitate it
later!)
-Lucian
Charles Gerlach
Brad O`Donnell wrote:
[huge snip]
> "Giving an entry a fair chance does not mean adopting the
> standards of the author."
And I agree with this statement whole-heartedly.
My big issue here is that authors should *never* think "I've
made this game as good as I can make it, but I bet no one will
like it. I shouldn't enter."
Which sounded like what you were proposing.
--
Charles Gerlach doesn't speak for Northwestern. Surprise, surprise.
Kenneth Fair
In article <34B660...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca>, Brad O`Donnell
<s7...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca> wrote:
[snip]
> I made a mistake in my Overview of the Competition, which I
> tried to short-circuit in the overview itself.
>
> As I see it, the Comp had 4 kinds of games:
>
> - Games I didn't play, or didn't play enough.(11)
> - Games I really liked and recommend.
> (There are 16 of these, I think).
> - Games I played, but for some reason in the middle,
> stopped playing, due to discomfort. (4, I guess).
>
> Now, that 11 is a huge number; it's why I didn't vote.
Are you kidding me? I only had an opportunity to vote on the Inform games
(21, IIRC). That means I didn't play ten of the games, and I voted anyway.
Wasn't that the point of the Comp97 randomizer?
Brad O`Donnell
Kenneth Fair wrote:
> > Now, that 11 is a huge number; it's why I didn't vote.
>
> Are you kidding me? I only had an opportunity to vote on the Inform games
> (21, IIRC). That means I didn't play ten of the games, and I voted anyway.
> Wasn't that the point of the Comp97 randomizer?
Ah, but I was scrupulous enough that, since I wasn't _really_
following the randomizer, I wouldn't vote unless I gave _all_
the games a (fair chance)++. That is, I was going to try to
adopt the standards of the author, somewhat.
And boy, am I glad I didn't vote: In week following the
competition, I have played no fewer than 7 games, all of
which I ended up thinking were excellent entries.
(Notably, one game which looked hard to slog through, from my
bias, at the start: Madame L'Estrange. Good game, folks, too
bad Madame didn't speak more French. (Or did she? My
interpreter crashed when I EXAMINE DOGged) )
Now that I know I have no discipline, I'm going to go through
next year's entries with the Comp98 rather strictly, unless I
enter, in which case fairness in voting isn't a problem.
Brad O`Donnell
Charles Gerlach wrote:
> > "Giving an entry a fair chance does not mean adopting the
> > standards of the author."
>
> And I agree with this statement whole-heartedly.
Whoo-hoo! I'm happy that the hours I've spent at this keyboard
have come to the creation of a statement which I believe signifies
that the burden to the judge is much less than some authors and
players believe. (I.e: I *met* the competition's standard's for
judging, but I didn't meet my own. That's my choice, I guess.)
Why have I been defending everybody lately?
You see, shortly after the first reviews were in, I saw
something I didn't like: The reviewers were standing on one side
of the newsgroup, saying that the authors shouldn't have entered
the games they didn't like. The authors whose games had been
torn a new rear by the reviews were standing on the other side
of the newsgroup, pointing their fingers at the reviewers, saying
that the authors had been negligent in their judging duties.
I tried to clear up some of this stuff in the reviews I posted
and with some posting here and there to address certain concerns,
but that just made me sound like I was on both sides of the fence
at once: how could I offer a prize only for first-time entrants
and still want to play only good games?, etc.
Now, finally, (although I could be wrong, and in that case I
give up; you people are impossible) I like to think that this
discussion has helped prove not only are authors and judges
and players not on opposite sides of the fence, but there
actually *is no fence*.
> Authors should *never* think "I've
> made this game as good as I can make it, but I bet no one will
> like it. I shouldn't enter."
This would be another excellent point in the Competition FAQ,
if such a thing existed.
I would like to thank everyone who took part in this discussion,
even if they only read it and thought about it.
Andrew Plotkin
> of the newsgroup, saying that the authors shouldn't have entered
> the games they didn't like.
"The reviewers" were doing no such thing.
Some of the reviewers were, if I recall correctly.
The biggest problem on Usenet is mindless flame. There's very little of
that here, thank god and the little purple people.
The *second*-biggest problem on Usenet, which is the biggest problem on
this newsgroup, is assuming that "the newsgroup" has an opinion on
anything. As if we'd voted and agreed to accept the results as the
Official Newsgroup Position.
Rant rant rant.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Den of Iniquity
On 9 Jan 1998, Lucian Paul Smith wrote:
>When I wrote the game, I had no idea that my language puzzle would go
>over so well. I've been going back to it, trying to figure out exactly
>what the heck I did right, so I can imitate it later!)
And you'll not be the only one, I'll wager. :)
M. Wesley Osam
In article <34B40E...@nospam.address>, Charles Gerlach
<cha...@nospam.address> wrote:
> Does that mean that last year's contest would have
> been better off without "Alien Abduction?" ? Should I have "sensed"
> that some people would loathe it, and therefore not entered?
I'm not sure the discussion is really about matters of taste. No matter
what anyone thinks of "Alien Abduction" -- and personally, I thought it was
good -- they have to admit that it was at least competent. You could play
all the way through, there wasn't an excessive amount of noticable bugs,
and the writing was clear and free of major grammatical errors and
misspellings. You could say the same for practically all of last year's
games, even the ones that nobody liked.
What people are disgusted with this year are the games that didn't meet
those minimal criteria. I don't think it's possible for an author to tell
how their game will be recieved, or whether it's really good. But I think
it is possible for them to tell when it's too early to release it as a
finished game.
HarryH
In article <34B660...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca>,
s7...@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca says...
> If the author of
> CASK got my e-mail, then he knows that I have done some checking
> in the code to fix some bugs.
I have received your e-mail. Unfortunately, I can't send you mine. It bounced
everytime. But here's my response:
>On the matter of testing , I took a look at your code for CASK, and
>I fixed the key bug, added some behavior for the chair (using up and down
>to climb on and off of it), and added a
>different message for being unable to enter the drum, plus a couple of
>other do-hickeys. Are you interested in these fixes? I could mail you
>the code, if you'd like. Perhaps this was presumptuous of me, but I'm
>just trying to help out, because I do realize that although people have
>been quick to point out CASK's defficiencies, they don't seem to be
>telling you anything you can do to fix them.
Are you kidding me? I'd LOVE to have your fixes! I did mention it on the
Usenet News that I'd like other people to look over my code and send me
comments. You're not being presumptuous at all for helping me.
ThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyou
Harry
Graham Nelson
In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>, Andrew Plotkin
<URL:mailto:erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
> The *second*-biggest problem on Usenet, which is the biggest problem on
> this newsgroup, is assuming that "the newsgroup" has an opinion on
> anything. As if we'd voted and agreed to accept the results as the
> Official Newsgroup Position.
Which, of course, we _never_ do...
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
John Francis
In article <ant121233e61M+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>,
Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>, Andrew Plotkin
><URL:mailto:erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> The *second*-biggest problem on Usenet, which is the biggest problem on
>> this newsgroup, is assuming that "the newsgroup" has an opinion on
>> anything. As if we'd voted and agreed to accept the results as the
>> Official Newsgroup Position.
>
>Which, of course, we _never_ do...
Of course not. We'd never disparage a game for being puzzle-only,
with no plot; for having bizarre, senseless "geography"; or for
being set in a generic pseudo-medieval environment (with or without
magic).
Nor, come to that, for being hard to move around in (because the
exits are unlisted), hard to interact with (guess-the-verb puzzles,
descriptions describing objects that are not really there), or hard
to understand because of poor grammar, spelling, etc.
Enough of this. Did the "Material for competiton entrants" include
a list of the sort of things that, historically, judges tend not to
like? Come to that, was there even a simple "Guide to creating a
piece of IF (for first-time authors or entrants)"
If not, why not? Anyone else care to put one together?
If no-one else steps forward, though, I'd be prepared to do this.
But I'm still trying to get the author email list together first.
I'd really like to hear (one way or another), from certain authors
(who, it is rumoured, never respond to email)
Thanks, BTW, to the nearly 50 who have responded.
--
John Francis jfra...@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc.
(650)933-8295 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991
(650)933-4692 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389
Unsolicited electronic mail will be subject to a $100 handling fee.
Julian Arnold
> In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>, Andrew Plotkin
> <URL:mailto:erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > The *second*-biggest problem on Usenet, which is the biggest problem on
> > this newsgroup, is assuming that "the newsgroup" has an opinion on
> > anything. As if we'd voted and agreed to accept the results as the
> > Official Newsgroup Position.
>
> Which, of course, we _never_ do...
I'm not so sure. Why don't we hold a vote on that?
(Actually, I got people voting on whether they loved or hated _Plundered
Hearts_ a while back. Official Newsgroup Position: we love _Plundered
Hearts_.)
Jools
--
"For small erections may be finished by their first architects; grand
ones, true ones, ever leave the copestone to posterity. God keep me from
ever completing anything." -- Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <69eam2$cn...@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
John Francis <jfra...@dungeon.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>Enough of this. Did the "Material for competiton entrants" include
>a list of the sort of things that, historically, judges tend not to
>like? Come to that, was there even a simple "Guide to creating a
>piece of IF (for first-time authors or entrants)"
A "don't do this" list would seem somewhat stifling. If we'd had
a "don't write games set in suburban houses" guideline, for example,
we might not have gotten "Bear's Night Out", which came in
fifth and was one of my personal top three.
There are at least two good guidelines, Nelson's "Craft of
Adventure" and Whizzard's (I forget what it's called). Both
on GMD. They both talk about cliches and how to avoid or
redeem them.
If you wanted to know what previous years' judges thought, SPAG or
XYZZYNews or the newsgroup archives could tell you the facts,
not someone's biased recollection of the truth.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John Francis
In article <69edo2$jcl$1...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
Yes. _I_ know about Graham's "Craft of Adventure". And Roger
Giner-Sorolla's excellent "Crimes Against Mimesis". My question
was:
Is there a simple introductory packet, supplied to all
competition entrants, that tells them about these things?
If you know enough to automatically look on the if-archive,
and to search through the XYZZYNews archives, then you
probably don't need to.
At least one of the entrants this year claims he didn't know about
some of this stuff. Was he simple being lazy, or do we do a bad job
of providing introductory information? Tossing someone without due
warning into a pit to be savaged by C.E. Forman isn't very kind.
And the saddest part is that if you ever get to the later part of one
of his reviews you will find it full of useful constuctive criticism.
Unfortunately the first part is abrasive enough to put most people on
the defensive, which makes it less likely that they will pay enough
attention to the part that matters.
Lelah Conrad
>(Actually, I got people voting on whether they loved or hated _Plundered
>Hearts_ a while back. Official Newsgroup Position: we love _Plundered
>Hearts_.)
>
>Jools
I don't know whether you are joking or not (hard to tell with this
bunch) but we just played Plundered Hearts over the holidays and
thought it was GREAT. We swashbuckled our way around that world with
bravado and wondered -- WHY isn't more IF like this? I think it is
the most overlooked and underrated Infocom game I've yet discovered
(am slowly working my way through the whole list -- BTW we also played
Trinity, which, while intriguing in spots, we think highly overrated
e.g. on SPAG list).
MORE SWASHBUCKLERS! (please? )
Lelah
Stephen van Egmond
Time for a plug.
John Francis <jfra...@dungeon.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>In article <69edo2$jcl$1...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
>Yes. _I_ know about Graham's "Craft of Adventure". And Roger
>Giner-Sorolla's excellent "Crimes Against Mimesis". My question
>was:
>
> Is there a simple introductory packet, supplied to all
> competition entrants, that tells them about these things?
> If you know enough to automatically look on the if-archive,
> and to search through the XYZZYNews archives, then you
> probably don't need to.
I have been working on something which is moving in this direction.
It is based on an idea put forth by GN early last year which coincided
with something I had been thinking of for quite a while:
We have all this great stuff, written in XYZZYnews, posted (then
forgotten) to Usenet, web pages, theses from all over the place that
relate to IF but which has never been sifted through.
So one night, I downloaded the rec.arts.int-fiction archive from
ftp.gmd.de, ran it through an HTMLizer, and posted it up. The archive is
sitting here:
http://www.truespectra.com/~svanegmo/raif/
That directory is the root of 120 megs of stuff. It's just an archive.
Puts dejanews to shame; they only go back to 1995. I've got 1992. Kudos
and a virtual beer for the genius who thought to start archiving it.
Parallel to it, I've set up something pompously called the Interactive
Fiction Research Library:
http://www.truespectra.com/~svanegmo/library/
... wherein I try to make note of interesting things that I find in the
archive. I have been trying to work through it systematically, but it's
hard reading 4 years of Usenet. Most of the material is from an 8-hour
all-night binge of reading, along with some gems found by Lucian Smith,
Ross Raszewski (whose name I've just butchered), and some guest editing by
Gareth Rees. I have recently been adding new stuff that I picked up.
For instance, newly added today is:
CEF's reviews (not yet, but it will appear)
A copy of a post by Whizzard from 1995 titled "Genre Study 2:
Fantasy" as a result of the recent flamage on that topic.
Crimes against mimesis (thanks for pointing that out), formatted
into a reasonable shape from the four original posts, but with links into
the archive so that you can see the responses it earned.
>At least one of the entrants this year claims he didn't know about
>some of this stuff. Was he simple being lazy, or do we do a bad job
>of providing introductory information?
As far as I know, none was given explicitly. Perhaps next year this could
be offered to those who haven't seen it yet. It's hardly complete, but
it's a start.
/Steve
Werner Punz
lco...@lane.k12.or.us (Lelah Conrad) wrote:
>
>I don't know whether you are joking or not (hard to tell with this
>bunch) but we just played Plundered Hearts over the holidays and
>thought it was GREAT. We swashbuckled our way around that world with
>bravado and wondered -- WHY isn't more IF like this? I think it is
>the most overlooked and underrated Infocom game I've yet discovered
>(am slowly working my way through the whole list -- BTW we also played
>Trinity, which, while intriguing in spots, we think highly overrated
>e.g. on SPAG list).
I second that Plundered hearts is my second favorite Infocom game (the
first is AMFV)
Werner
-----
we...@inflab.uni-linz.ac.at
http://witiko.ifs.uni-linz.ac.at/~werpu
check out ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive for something which has
been forgotten years ago.
Patrick Kellum
In article <34badc07...@news.efn.org>, Lelah Conrad was talking about:
>I don't know whether you are joking or not (hard to tell with this
>bunch) but we just played Plundered Hearts over the holidays and
>thought it was GREAT. We swashbuckled our way around that world with
I agree, Plundered Hearts is one of the only Infocom games that I truly
enjoyed (Mini Zork is another, I actually prefer the mini version).
Patrick
---
A Title For This Page -- http://www.syix.com/patrick/
Bow Wow Wow Fan Page -- http://www.syix.com/patrick/bowwowwow/
The Small Wonder Page -- http://smallwonder.simplenet.com/
My Arcade Page -- http://ygw.bohemianweb.com/arcade/
"I have photographs of you naked with a squirrel." - Dave Berry
Julian Arnold
In article <69fs0f$4se$1...@neko.syix.com>, Patrick Kellum
<URL:mailto:pat...@syix.com> wrote:
> In article <34badc07...@news.efn.org>, Lelah Conrad was talking about:
> >I don't know whether you are joking or not (hard to tell with this
> >bunch) but we just played Plundered Hearts over the holidays and
> >thought it was GREAT. We swashbuckled our way around that world with
>
> I agree, Plundered Hearts is one of the only Infocom games that I truly
> enjoyed (Mini Zork is another, I actually prefer the mini version).
See, Plotkin, see. That's three people so far. It's an Official
Newsgroup Position. :)
Paul David Doherty
In article <EMpL...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
Stephen van Egmond <svan...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote about
the rec.arts.int-fiction archive:
>
>That directory is the root of 120 megs of stuff. It's just an archive.
>Puts dejanews to shame; they only go back to 1995. I've got 1992. Kudos
>and a virtual beer for the genius who thought to start archiving it.
Seconded. Hooray to Volker Blasius.
-- Dave
Paul Franklin
I must agree Plundered Hearts was a great game. My ex-fiancee and I had
a blast almost solving it. Right now I am on Leather Goddesses, but my
next stop is Plundered Hearts. This time I intend to finish it.
Paul F.
Patrick Kellum wrote:
>
> In article <34badc07...@news.efn.org>, Lelah Conrad was talking about:
> >I don't know whether you are joking or not (hard to tell with this
> >bunch) but we just played Plundered Hearts over the holidays and
> >thought it was GREAT. We swashbuckled our way around that world with
>
> I agree, Plundered Hearts is one of the only Infocom games that I truly
> enjoyed (Mini Zork is another, I actually prefer the mini version).
>
M. Wesley Osam
In article <6962us$gom$1...@joe.rice.edu>, lps...@rice.edu (Lucian Paul
Smith) wrote:
>When I wrote the game, I had no idea that my
> language puzzle would go over so well. I've been going back to it, trying
> to figure out exactly what the heck I did right, so I can imitate it
> later!
Personally, I think the main thing that was so good about the language
puzzle was that it was unique. I'm not sure how well one could imitate it!
There was one other factor, however: It was part of the natural
progression of the story. I think puzzles in IF should be as invisible as
possible. They should ideally represent the natural obstacles the
protagonist must overcome to reach his or her goal, not clever situations
arbitrarily slotted in to impede the player's progress.
The language puzzle was particularly effective because it didn't just
fit the story -- it *was* the story. Learning to communicate and cooperate
with another culture was the entire point of that scene. That it was also,
in IF terminology, a puzzle was almost a secondary consideration.
Paul Francis Gilbert
Julian Arnold <jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk> writes:
>See, Plotkin, see. That's three people so far. It's an Official
>Newsgroup Position. :)
>Jools
>--
>"For small erections may be finished by their first architects; grand
>ones, true ones, ever leave the copestone to posterity. God keep me from
>ever completing anything." -- Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
Make that four.
I enjoyed Plundered Hearts as well. In my case I think it was because it's
one of the few Infocom games where the protaginist is actually definitely
a female. In most of the others you either play some vague unknown sexless
character with a background history of nothing, and for the others you're
mainly a male.
Playing a game from the female's viewpoint was different enough to make the
game stand out. Plus it had a pretty good storyline too.
--
Paul Gilbert | p...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au (The DreamMaster)
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 4, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia | creatures from Alpha Centauri.