IF Comp 2011 Results

[P/o Prune]

Thank you... But I believe it was David who mentioned it first in Intif.org

[Duncan_B]

Wow, this is quite a barrage to have to respond to. I'll respond to this initial volley, but then I have to turn my efforts for the day toward finishing my thesis proposal. Any posts after this I won't be able to respond to until tomorrow. My apologies.

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.

I'd also like to apologize for having previously suggested anyone sounded like a sore loser. I should have said "poor sport." I believe rules #1 and #4 have me backed on this.

the concept of a competition is gone... huge number of beta testers...

Updating throughout the judging period is standard fare for mainstream game competitions like those at Indiecade, IGF, and Slamdance (all of which have featured IF, before anyone tries to make that an issue).

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...

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? Standard deviations were all very low this year. If the rule had made so much of a difference, we would expect to see high standard deviations.

Not to mention the game with the highest standard deviation this year (The Life (and Deaths) of Doctor M) did make any updates, and even it didn't have a very high standard deviation compared with previous years. So I don't think that's really an issue.

It’s unrealistic to expect people to play each new version of the game and then update their vote accordingly.

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.

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?

The new version of your game would clearly not be eligible for Ectocomp anymore. 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. 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. An update which did add 20 hours of gameplay would be sorely off the mark, as it would be adding 18 hours the judges would never see. It would be better suited to the Spring Thing (and sadly ineligible for its having been released in IFComp).

Had Ectocomp allowed updates, I suppose in this case (i.e., one where the new release breaks the original rules of the competition) I would say that people should play the old version of your game... much like they can under the update rule.

It's interesting to note that the No percentage has been steadily growing over the past few days.

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.

[a] review maybe competely off by the time the third or fourth update is released...

Not entirely true, as the intention of updating is to allow authors to respond to such commentary. Your review would completely be in the right about the version which you played. Nobody would argue it.

To put it another way, does writing a review for a game released under a pseudonym, only to have some assumptions overturned when the author reveals their identity, invalidate a review? For example, see Sam Kabo Ashwell's review of Cana According to Micah, which seems to operate on the assumption that the author (Christopher Huang) was actually a reverend. The authority of the review still stands.

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.

You could end up with a game that gets reviews ranging from 1 to 10, but that's also theoretically possible even without the rule change. It sounds to me like that complaint is about people having a range of opinions rather than about the update rule. Did you have a particular instance in mind which supports your claim here?

Also, if you could point me to a review that is "completely off," because of a game's updates, I'd appreciate it.

I read somewhere in the Intfiction.org that someone had the point of view that the IFComp is about getting better games...

Citation, please.

[P/o Prune]

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.

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.

As for the rest of your post. I don't think we'll ever agree on this issue, so let's just agree about disagreeing.
Nothing I or David say about finding the new rule unfair will change your mind, and although I do respect your points of view, I still find the new rule very unfair and in my point of view damaging to the whole concept of a competition.

[David Whyld]

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?

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. But I don't think that's the point anyway, at least not for me. The very fact that the rule allows updates is what I disagree with.

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.

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.

I'm curious. Why is an update rule fine for one type of comp but not for another? You say it's not in the spirit of the comp. I'd have said a rule which allows for updates of a gamp during the judging period, allowing people to change aspects of their games people dislike in the hope of a final improved score, isn't in the spirit of any comp.

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.

My example was exaggerated to make a point, but 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. Why? I'm guessing because people reacted negatively to certain aspects of it. Now there's no way of knowing whether that improved its final placing in the IFComp but the version of the game played by anyone coming late to the comp was a much different version than the one played at the start. That sounds like a pretty good shot at rule abusing if you ask me.

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.

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). Which is now 43% of the voters. Funny that. The longer the debate goes on, the more people seem opposed to the rule and the fewer in favour of it.

Also, if you could point me to a review that is "completely off," because of a game's updates, I'd appreciate it.

I'm sure if you scour the internet for reviews of A Comedy of Error Messages you'll find several commenting on its supposed sexism, which I gather was toned down considerably in later versions. So a review based on version 1 of the game would be "completely off" by version... whatever we're up to now.

[Hannes]

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.

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.

That was the very first thing I asked on rec.games.int-fiction after the rule was announced. The answer was clear:

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.

There was no extra gameplay in the updated versions, just flexible pronouns added. But, yes, I agree that the changes went overboard - I think the author seriously hurt his game's placement with these changes (because the changes made the game worse, not better; I'm not the only one who believes this).

What you say about the reviews, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with this competition, any competition or any particular rules. It's the same if a game got an overhaul after the competition in the years before. I still gripe about all those bad reviews my 2009 game has publicly available, while absolutely nobody reviewed the revised, post-competition version. The same thing could even happen with games not entered into any competition. They sometimes get updates, too, you know.

Also, another point: If you seriously believe that anyone can win the competition with a game which, in its initial version, had real problems and therefore needed a bigger update, you are as badly mistaken as anyone can be. A game which gets some tiny, trivial bugfix might, but nothing above that.

[David Whyld]

I never said I believed anyone could win the comp simply by updating their game. But improving their position by removing negative features? Yes, I can well imagine that having an affect.

[Duncan_B]

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!

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.

My grandpa also enlisted in WWII. My "respect" comment probably crossed a line that wasn't necessary. I'm sorry I wasn't thinking and got snappy. Tone is difficult to read sometimes... I just didn't interpret your smiley correctly. At any rate, it shouldn't even have to be said, but I'm glad neither of us are Nazis, my friend! Just pointing out Godwin's law.

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.

So long as people played the games in a random order, this doesn't actually matter as far as scoring is concerned.

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

Not my opinion. The update rule doesn't compel judges to play updated versions. Afterward, Sam Kabo Ashwell, Matt W, and others have publicly mentioned the fact and their sentiments toward it on intfiction.org, so there is no need to consult with other judges privately on the matter. vivdunstan and yourself have expressed intentions to review original versions only.

The Elfen Maiden: A Comedy of Error Messages...sounds like a pretty good shot at rule abusing if you ask me.

Hm, interesting. Admittedly, that's not one of the games I got around to playing. My personal opinion at a glance is that the things you mention sound like good changes. But I haven't played the game. I'll have to play both versions and see how my opinion differs on them, if that's what's important to you.

I think the main disagreements we are having here stem from my being less concerned with the competition aspect of IF writing and more concerned with its community building aspects. Whether or not the rule is kept next year isn't really of any difference to me as insofar as it affects the competitive aspect. (Perhaps my participation in this little argument has come across as more vehement than it's really intended?) I do have a preference for the update rule staying around because I like to see better quality games and don't think enough authors update their games after IFComp. Those that do don't seem to get played, so I think it's good if some authors have a chance at getting updated games played, but again, that's not the primary sticking point for me.

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.

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).

That's true, and a good point.

I'm curious. Why is an update rule fine for one type of comp but not for another?

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

It's widely held that Speed-IF and others are measured by different standards, I think because of the above. But that might be the subject of another thread?

This has all been pretty interesting. I wonder if anyone on this thread would be willing to write a piece for InsideADRIFT about their experience of this year's IFComp?

[David Whyld]

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!

I did find that quite amusing actually, though I wonder how many people would have given the game a better score if they'd known who wrote it.

[Duncan_B]

I still gripe about all those bad reviews my 2009 game has publicly available, while absolutely nobody reviewed the revised, post-competition version.

Me, too, Hannes. As a tester for the post-comp release of The Believable Adventures of an Invisible Man, I know it was improved from the changes. It did get runner-up in the Post-Comp-Comp, but it doesn't seem IFDB has been given a review of the game since. It's been the same for Yon Astounding Castle! of some sort (I've always been curious to hear feedback about one particularly icy puzzle which I removed from the post-comp version, but haven't heard mentioned in any reviews, Comp or post-Comp).

At any rate, maybe I can see about getting a review up for you, Hannes. Your revision definitely deserves it.

[David Whyld]

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.

For my part, I've no interest in entering a comp when I disagree with the rules so if this rule stays, I'll never enter the IFComp again. I intend to vote in the comp next year, however I'll only be voting for games that haven't been updated. My vote on its own won't make a bit of difference to the final placement of the comp games, but I know I'll feel better for doing it this way.

[Duncan_B]

I wonder how many people would have given the game a better score if they'd known who wrote it.

Presumably that's why Plotkin releases his competition work under pseudonyms now. His work still does respectably even without his name behind it, I think. Dual Transform, for example, placed well in the Jay is Games Comp.

Apparently, there was some big, interwoven... conspiracy is the wrong word, but four PR-IF authors all wove elements of their games together this year and hid their name under pseudonyms.

[Duncan_B]

My vote on its own won't make a bit of difference

Of course your vote makes a difference! That's the whole point of voting.

[Mystery]

This will be the extent of my input on the subject. I did create an account just so I could place my vote, even though it does not apply to me now, it could in the future. And your vote does count...so if you haven't done so, get an account and vote.

My thoughts are simply, the only updates that should be allowed once a competition starts is if there is a major technical issue that prevents a game from running. No existing content should be added, removed, or otherwise changed.

[P/o Prune]

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.

Ahh... You're right.. But you still have a deadline like you do in the Speed IF.
In the Ectocomp the clock starts whenever the author opens the deveolper and starts coding, so to use your own words:"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.

[Hannes]

Plan everything on paper then write the coding in a word doc and then open the developer and paste it in.

Yes, you could probably do that, but I think we would all agree that this sort of behaviour would go against the spirit of the time limitation and I hope it would be heavily penalised

David, just out of curiosity: When you say you will "only be voting for games that haven't been updated", do you mean you will vote based on the original version of each game or actually not vote for any game at all which got an update?