David Whyld wrote:I mean I'll only be voting for games that haven't been updated. Any game that has won't get a vote from me at all.
billy7720 wrote:A sad statement to say the least. Not everyone is perfect the first time around.
David Whyld wrote:billy7720 wrote:A sad statement to say the least. Not everyone is perfect the first time around.
Isn't that the point of having the game tested in the first place? I'm not saying that games shouldn't be updated at all, particularly not if bugs are found, but I don't like the idea of games being updated during the voting period of a competition. For me, that goes against the whole spirit of a competition.
I wonder if this new rule will give rise to buggier games being entered into the IFComp with people figuring they can use the initial feedback from the comp as a kind of betatesting and skip the usual testing phase altogether?
David Whyld wrote:For me, that goes against the whole spirit of a competition.
David Whyld wrote:I wonder if this new rule will give rise to buggier games being entered into the IFComp with people figuring they can use the initial feedback from the comp as a kind of betatesting and skip the usual testing phase altogether?
Duncan_B wrote:David Whyld wrote:For me, that goes against the whole spirit of a competition.
Lame.
David Whyld wrote:Care to clarify?
Duncan_B wrote:David Whyld wrote:Care to clarify?
I've already done so. I'm just tired of hearing you go on about this. "This goes against the spirit of a competition" is about all you've had to say. Updating is standard in professional competitions-- which apparently makes it a "joke" to you. It's ridiculous.
Would you enter a game with no beta-testing just because the comp allows updates? Of course you wouldn't. Why do you expect other people would?
Updating is standard in professional competitions
I have already mentioned three mainstream, globally recognized game competitions that allow mid-comp for updates earlier in this thread.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests