[IF COMP 2003] Predictions

10 views
Skip to first unread message

LucFrench

unread,
Aug 17, 2003, 8:37:48 AM8/17/03
to
Well, it's well past that time of year, but what the hell? I don't want to
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

unread,
Aug 17, 2003, 6:36:04 PM8/17/03
to
OH MY, you've just predicted much of the Santoonie game that I have
been beta testing.

the Peter Lansford

David Thornley

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 12:17:58 PM8/18/03
to
In article <0001HW.BB6569D7...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
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.
>
>The two hour rule applies to voters, not games, so this one is already false.
>
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

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 1:04:55 PM8/18/03
to
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?

"David Thornley" <thor...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f40fc36$0$176$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 1:24:02 PM8/18/03
to
Here, 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?

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

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 5:26:48 PM8/18/03
to
In article <%L70b.8357$z7.9...@wards.force9.net>,

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

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 6:27:11 PM8/18/03
to

"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

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 9:07:02 PM8/18/03
to
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:27:11 +0100, 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 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

unread,
Aug 18, 2003, 11:36:31 PM8/18/03
to
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.

Adam

Rexx Magnus

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 5:31:33 AM8/19/03
to
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.

--
UO & AC Herbal - http://www.rexx.co.uk/herbal

To email me, visit the site.

Joe Mason

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 7:12:37 AM8/19/03
to
In article <0001HW.BB672DB4...@news.bellatlantic.net>, Anson Turner wrote:
> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 8:06:04 AM8/19/03
to
We need better judges then, but then that was a given.

J.I. VQFF

F = L

Jessica Knoch

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 8:30:23 AM8/19/03
to
Anson Turner wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 9:01:55 AM8/19/03
to
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".

Quintin Stone

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 9:23:13 AM8/19/03
to
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?

/====================================================================\
|| 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 9:32:39 AM8/19/03
to
Anson Turner <platyp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 9:27:52 AM8/19/03
to
Quintin Stone wrote:
> 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 [...]

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 9:45:31 AM8/19/03
to
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.

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 9:55:24 AM8/19/03
to
Anson Turner

> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 10:12:27 AM8/19/03
to
On 19 Aug 2003 13:01:55 GMT, thor...@visi.com (David Thornley) wrote:

>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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 10:24:37 AM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:12:27 GMT, Boluc Papuccuoglu
<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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 10:27:38 AM8/19/03
to
In article <pb94kv85qrl3arqca...@4ax.com>,

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 12:24:00 PM8/19/03
to
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.

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 12:28:55 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:45:31 -0400, Quintin Stone <st...@rps.net> wrote:
>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)

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 12:37:27 PM8/19/03
to
Anson Turner wrote:

> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 2:17:57 PM8/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 2:21:27 PM8/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 2:24:13 PM8/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 2:25:52 PM8/19/03
to

"Quintin Stone" <st...@rps.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03081...@yes.rps.net...

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 2:27:04 PM8/19/03
to

"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.
>
> 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_.
>
> 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.
> 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?
>
> Yeah, my two hours are up.
>
> >XYZZY
>
> *poof*
>

At last, the voice of reason!


davidw

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 2:28:48 PM8/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 3:37:10 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:17:57 GMT, davidw scrawled:

> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 3:38:30 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:24:13 GMT, davidw scrawled:

> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 3:53:14 PM8/19/03
to
Rexx Magnus <tras...@uk2.net> wrote:

>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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 3:53:16 PM8/19/03
to
Quintin Stone <st...@rps.net> wrote:

>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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 3:53:23 PM8/19/03
to
lrasz...@loyola.edu (L. Ross Raszewski) wrote:

>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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 3:53:26 PM8/19/03
to
"OKB (not okblacke)" <Bren...@aol.com> wrote:

[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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 4:21:36 PM8/19/03
to
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.

Papillon

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 4:31:03 PM8/19/03
to
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?

"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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 4:47:54 PM8/19/03
to
Jacek Pudlo wrote:

> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 4:54:31 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:21:27 +0100, "davidw" <m...@dwhyld.plus.com> made

the world a better place by saying:

>

Oh shut up.

Harry

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 4:56:19 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:25:52 +0100, "davidw" <m...@dwhyld.plus.com> made

the world a better place by saying:

>

You do know that discussing an entry is grounds for disqualification?

davidw

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 5:26:33 PM8/19/03
to

"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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 5:28:27 PM8/19/03
to

"Harry" <gad...@SPAMBLOCKhaha.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:0n35kvch05osqcluo...@4ax.com...


Exactly what details about my game do you know that you didn't five minutes
ago?


Quintin Stone

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 5:30:28 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, davidw wrote:

> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 5:38:07 PM8/19/03
to
Quintin Stone

> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 5:47:45 PM8/19/03
to
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?

>
> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 5:52:19 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:28:27 +0100, "davidw" <m...@dwhyld.plus.com> made

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 5:53:48 PM8/19/03
to
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.

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 5:56:08 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:21:27 +0100, davidw <m...@dwhyld.plus.com> wrote:
>
>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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 5:59:01 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:25:52 +0100, davidw <m...@dwhyld.plus.com> wrote:
>
>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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 6:08:30 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:53:48 GMT, lrasz...@loyola.edu (L. Ross
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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 6:26:13 PM8/19/03
to

"Quintin Stone" <st...@rps.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03081...@yes.rps.net...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, davidw wrote:
>
> > 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 6:26:54 PM8/19/03
to

"Harry" <gad...@SPAMBLOCKhaha.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:kn65kv87knpgb1h3l...@4ax.com...

Surely not you, though? I mean, I can count on *you* for a fair rating,
can't I?


Adam Thornton

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 6:55:37 PM8/19/03
to
In article <IZt0b.8876$z7.10...@wards.force9.net>,

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 7:00:33 PM8/19/03
to
In article <0001HW.BB672DB4...@news.bellatlantic.net>,

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 7:02:12 PM8/19/03
to
In article <Aas0b.14836$kK4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 7:14:15 PM8/19/03
to
In article <Xns93DC61...@130.133.1.4>,

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 7:30:18 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:14:15 +0000 (UTC), ad...@fsf.net (Adam Thornton)

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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 8:05:53 PM8/19/03
to
> 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.


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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 11:22:34 PM8/19/03
to
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Adam Thornton wrote:

>
> 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

unread,
Aug 19, 2003, 11:18:58 PM8/19/03