
Thank you... But I believe it was David who mentioned it first in Intif.org
Po. Prune wrote:the concept of a competition is gone... huge number of beta testers...
David Whyld wrote:we’re meant to be deciding which is the best game, not the best game after half a dozen different updates based on feedback and reviews...
David Whyld wrote:It’s unrealistic to expect people to play each new version of the game and then update their vote accordingly.
David Whyld wrote:if I was to enter a game in the Ectocomp that I wrote in the 3 hour deadline, then I updated it to add a further 20 hours of game play, would you say I had abused the rule?
Campbell wrote:It's interesting to note that the No percentage has been steadily growing over the past few days.
Po. Prune wrote:[a] review maybe competely off by the time the third or fourth update is released...
Po. Prune wrote:you could theoretically end up with a bunch of reviews ranging from stay the Hell away from this game to Great game, a must play.
Po. Prune wrote:I read somewhere in the Intfiction.org that someone had the point of view that the IFComp is about getting better games...
Before I begin, though, I'd like to issue a stern warning to Po. Prune: Don't compare me or this competition rule to support of the Holocaust. Our friendly, little competition can in no way be compared to the systematic slaughter of millions of people. Show some respect.
Duncan_B wrote:My opinion is based off of how the update rules were actually used, not on their theoretical abuses. Which game was so drastically different that the rule really made an impact on its scoring?
Duncan_B wrote:There is no expectation that judges will play updated versions. This is your own invention. If you're going to gripe about the rule, please gripe about things it actually does.
Duncan_B wrote:I don't think an update rule abides by the spirit of Speed-IF (in which a certain lack of polish isn't only expected, but even demanded by the form), but IFComp is not for Speed-IF.
Duncan_B wrote: At any rate, no author abused the rule in any manner, and none of the changes made in updates were as extreme as you suggest in this example.
Duncan_B wrote:It's also interesting to note that the wording of the negative choice ("No, let us play the games as originally released") conflates contempt for updates in general with the convenience of playing the games as originally released (which, again, is not forbidden by the new rule). So it's possible any number of these votes could be by people who have no particular opinion about the updates themselves, but only played or wanted to play the original versions.
Duncan_B wrote:Also, if you could point me to a review that is "completely off," because of a game's updates, I'd appreciate it.
There is no expectation that judges will play updated versions. This is your own invention. If you're going to gripe about the rule, please gripe about things it actually does.
That's your opinion. Have you consulted other judges as to whether they feel expected to play updated versions? No? Maybe if you're going to gripe about things, you should gripe about things you actually know for a fact, not guesswork.
Judges, of course, are under no obligation to re-play updated games, and are free to limit themselves to the originally-submitted games. The full competition .zip file will not be updated, so the original submissions will always be available.
I'd say a few games did abuse the rule. The Elfen Maiden: A Comedy of Error Messages not only underwent a name change, but added significant amounts of extra gameplay during the judging period.
Po. Prune wrote:I'm sorry if you took this the wrong way, Duncan... You should know by the smiley at the end of the comment that it was meant to be taken with a grain of humor. And the joke has nothing whatsoever to do with the holocaust! This about the German woman is actually taken from a book of jokes printed in Britain right after WW. II
And please don't tell me about respect. My father fought in the resistance here in Denmark, so Iwas brought up with a hell of a lot of respect for those who fought and those who died.
I'm sorry you couldn't take the joke in the way it was meant.
David Whyld wrote:How could anyone possibly tell? Several games were updated as many as half a dozen times, but as it's impossible to know what people were going to vote for in the first place, there's no way of knowing if the rule affected things at all.
David Whyld wrote:That's your opinion. Have you consulted other judges as to whether they feel expected to play updated versions? No? ...gripe about things you actually know for a fact
David Whyld wrote:The Elfen Maiden: A Comedy of Error Messages...sounds like a pretty good shot at rule abusing if you ask me.
David Whyld wrote:It's also possible the people who voted against the rule meant just that (don't assume they're wrong just because you disagree with them).
David Whyld wrote:I'm curious. Why is an update rule fine for one type of comp but not for another?
Duncan_B wrote:the spirit of Speed-IF (in which a certain lack of polish isn't only expected, but even demanded by the form), but IFComp is not for Speed-IF
Duncan_B wrote:Regarding the competition results, was anybody surprised to find that Cursed placed above a game revealed to be by Andrew Plotkin? That's a nice feather in Nick's cap. Bravo!
Hannes wrote:I still gripe about all those bad reviews my 2009 game has publicly available, while absolutely nobody reviewed the revised, post-competition version.
Duncan_B wrote:My primary concern (and the reason I don't necessarily think we should just "agree to disagree" on this issue) is in ensuring ADRIFT stays actively engaged, visible, and relevant with the rest of the IF Community. To this end, I don't think that vows to never involve oneself in IFComp again are productive. I don't think they send the right message to the rest of the IF Community.
The alternative model I would propose is one of sportsmanship. Even if you don't agree with the rules, you don't spend your time yelling about how wrong the ref is. You should say "Good game" and shake hands and encourage others' participation.
David Whyld wrote:I wonder how many people would have given the game a better score if they'd known who wrote it.
My vote on its own won't make a bit of difference
Excuse me, but are you seriously asking why such a rule, while ok for the IF Comp, would not make sense for a Speed IF competition? I'd think the difference is very obvious: In Speed IF, the whole point is to write a game in a limited amount of time. In the IF Comp, there is no such rule (and there has never been). In principle, you can spend an infinite amount of time preparing your entry. You can start working on one now and enter it in ten years.
Plan everything on paper then write the coding in a word doc and then open the developer and paste it in.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest