(Inspired by last year’s poll.)
- Yes, I’m a judge and I’ve already rated at least 5 games.
- Yes, I’m a judge and I plan to rate 5 games by November 15th.
- Yes, I’m an author and I’m voting in the Miss Congeniality contest.
(Inspired by last year’s poll.)
Nope. I’ve been boycotting the comp for several years now since they introduced the new updates rule. I might play some of the games after the comp has ended, but I won’t be voting on them.
I won’t be voting either. That’s too much pressure, especially given that updates are allowed… though I wouldn’t have voted even when they weren’t. In order to vote fairly, I’d have to play all the games (that’s a self-imposed restriction, though), and I don’t have the time. I like to enjoy the games in my own time, at my own pace.
Plus, a post-comp release may come along in the meantime.
Honestly, I played the very, very first version of Marco’s Andromeda game in that year’s comp. It got subsequent updates, and that left a bitter taste in my mouth. Like I’d played a rushed version that didn’t reflect what the author wanted, and which the author very quickly disowned.
I don’t want to get into another rendition of “why I feel updates ruined the IFComp”, but that pretty much sums it up for me. As long as I know a game is likely to get updated sometime during the comp, I have zero interest in playing it. I don’t want to run into bugs, bang my head against unfair puzzles, become stuck… and then find that a week later the author has released an update which fixes all of those issues. Particularly not during the voting period for a comp. Any score I gave to a game would be moot considering that whatever issues I had with the game might well be fixed by the time the comp deadline rolls around.
I’d sooner just wait till the comp is over and the final version of the games have been released and then play them.
I’m impressed that someone has already rated five games!
Well, someone had already played 50 out of 55 a few days ago - mattbrush, I think. Enthusiasm is a great thing.
Yep. The rules do state that a judge may ignore updates once he’s chosen a version to play and rate, but that’s just a rules-y thing; it makes things neater, and if you actually care about judging, it makes sense. But if you care about the games, about playing them and having fun, then it’s pretty much bollocks. I want to play the games, not beta-test them during the comp; if I had wanted to be a beta-tester I’d have been. I am personally not aware of any other competition which allows you to re-enter entries after the judging period has begun.
If they allowed, say, a 10-day window for updates after the comp started, that’d make a lot more sense.
Pretty much, yeah.
I’m not just being petty, or doing this out of spite. The “Andromeda” incident really left a bad taste in my mouth. I’m all for post-comp updates; I welcome them. But a steady trickle of minor updates during the comp? If I just want to play the games, and surely that’s the whole point, the most sensible thing is to wait until all the updates can possibly have finished. That isn’t until after the 15th of November… well, then, so be it; I’ll start playing after the 15th of November.
I’ll try to rate a few, sure.
As for updates, well, I’m someone who would have abused the system had their been one back in the day, heh. But the best you can do is review whatever version of a game you happen to play at the time, y’know?
I could do that, sure, but it seems like a waste of time writing a review of a
game knowing the game is likely to be updated and changed so many times in the
next few weeks. Now I’m aware that games get updated all the time – and indeed
they should if bugs are encountered or the author decides to add a few quality
of life improvements – and I’m fine with that. I’ve done the same thing myself
and wouldn’t want to discourage it.
But not during the voting period of a competition. That just seems wrong to me on
so many levels. It’s like sitting an exam, being told your answers aren’t good
enough, and then being given back your exam paper so you can have another go
till you get it right.
Outside of the comp, I could play a game, write a review of it and know that the version
I’m playing will be largely unchanged for years to come. My review will be relevant
all that time. I won’t be commenting on features that have since been removed or
changed; I won’t be referencing puzzles that no longer exist; I won’t be saying
how cool it is that I can give items to Lucy and she can solve puzzles for me
only for the person reading the review in X years time to wonder who the heck Lucy
is because the author decided to get rid of her.
During the comp, any review I write of a game could be outdated by the time the comp
deadline rolls around. Heck, it could be outdated before I even finish the review
because a new version has come out during the time I was playing the game and
writing the review! Try as I might, I can’t see this sort of thing as having
any positives if it happens during the voting period of the comp.
So yeah, that’s me boycotting the comp. I’m sure I’ll play some of the games after
the comp is over and I might even get around to writing a few reviews, but I’m not
voting or reviewing anything while the rule remains in place.
I like to play all the games (or, at least as many as it is possible for me to play given technical/format considerations, etc) every year and cast a vote on each one every year, and intend to do so again. My only concern is that I’m getting a late start (I’m usually halfway done by now) and there seem to be more games than ever this year-- though as problems go, that’s not such a bad problem.
As Peter noted, there is no obligation to consider updates. I never do, I always play the version released on the day the competition started. I think this is only fair for all the authors who did have their act together at showtime.
Many people who don’t feel they have the technical skill to craft an entire game wonder how to meaningfully participate in this community-- here’s your chance.
Those who say they can’t play all the games in order to vote properly should reconsider-- ideas about the difficulty of such an endeavor may not correspond to reality. Admittedly I binged heavily, but I was able to fully explore 43 of 55 entries over the last four days. In terms of a time comittment, I now have over a month left to check out a mere 12 entries.
People may think I’m a cranky old guy who hates everything, but I have to say this year’s competition is one of the best ever.
Sure, there was a bunch of busted junk through which I quickly waded, and I’m giving out more “ones” than ever this time for plain old-fashioned gross incompetence. And of course there’s plenty of the usual neurotic nonsense that will predictably be fawned over by a certain crowd.
But on the other hand: wow, there’s some really good stuff this time around. I’ve already played four games that, according to the way I assess things, could each have been winners or second placers in past years if compared to then-contemporary entries.
Congratulations to the authors-- I’m going to have trouble deciding the upper end of my scorecard, which is quite unusual for me. I usually only give one ‘10’ and one ‘9’ to reflect my view of first and second place, respectively, but I may have to change that approach this time.
I think that’s just me, and I just prefer to play games at my own pace than the comp’s pace. But thanks for the heads up.
I also enjoy all the great things I’m hearing about the comp in general. I expect to have a grand old time once I do get around to the game. Yumm.
If they’re going to allow games hosted on third party sites, like last year’s AlethiCorp, it seems only fair to let other authors update their games too.
When making my initial perusal of the materials, I was perturbed to see two entries that didn’t include an actual entry. To me, this immediately said “I can’t be bothered to actually put together an entry for this competition,” which insults all the other participants. Turns out these were the two thrown out (withdrawn, whatever) for violating the rules.
Can anyone recommend some short ones? I’d like to judge at least five if I can, and I might be more likely to get to five if they are short.
Shortest games I played:
A Figure Met in a Shaded Wood by Michael Thomet
Crossroads by Cat Manning
Duel by piato
Grandma Bethlinda’s Variety Box by Arthur DiBianca
Laid Off from the Synesthesia Factory by Katherine Morayati
The Insect Massacre by Tom Delanoy
The King and the Crown by Wes Lesley
The Speaker by Norbez
Thank you! (+ extra to meet the 20 character minimum)
Here’s a nifty trick: put your padding between “<>” symbols. Your padding will still count and it won’t be visible. <It does work!>
Thanks! And when I quote your post, I can see it. It’s like invisible ink.