I'm trying not to be a butt about this, but giving us a 5/10 for ingenuity is a little insulting. :mad: Especially since most of our features weren't even explored - such as the Dating Sim aspects and the Town Customization. I didn't think that was a standard RPG, at least. ;9
My game also has bulding town/castle aspects, no fights, no history quests and a sim date system, of course the time ate us all and we could not show what it was alike, i feel good going 4th because it's the first time i do this crazy thing of making a game in a week.
I didn't know we could lose points on polish for bugs. o.o Even the passability bugs are more based on gameplay though, right? But, fair enough. I can sorta maybe see the point on this one.
Also, all of the characters had to be the son/daughter of a mayor, since the main theme of the game was being the mayor and all that. :p Basically, the goal of the game is to customize your town and all that fancy stuff, but I guess the RPG aspects leaked out a bit more. I think Cornelius says something about it in his explanation of how to play the game, but I forget.
I'm trying not to be a butt about this, but giving us a 5/10 for ingenuity is a little insulting. :mad: Especially since most of our features weren't even explored - such as the Dating Sim aspects and the Town Customization. I didn't think that was a standard RPG, at least. ;9
In past "Game in a week", I don't recalled it being said that you had to make an RPG. Some people didn't make their game an RPG. So why does freedom suddenly translate into "You either created a brand new genre, or your game sucks".
What does ingenuity even mean in this context? Telling a story without with little to no combat? Oh yeah, I've never seen that done before. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Rain) I've never seen that done in RPG maker. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Moon) How ingenious and ground breaking. :mad:
So unless you can tell me how the two winning games "haven't been done before" then I'm calling BS on this entire thing.
< GIAW XII Exhydra's Scores with Brief Notes >Well, there should be added more Story so far, but after four days I quitted allready, because I didn't had any Internet and got depressed of missing the upload date. I'm in really bad conditions these days and to make all graphics and bug testing exhausted me. After the date there should be an attack and the real story should happen. But I was way to down, sorry for that. :'(Spoiler for:
In past "Game in a week", I don't recalled it being said that you had to make an RPG. Some people didn't make their game an RPG. So why does freedom suddenly translate into "You either created a brand new genre, or your game sucks".
What does ingenuity even mean in this context? Telling a story without with little to no combat? Oh yeah, I've never seen that done before. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Rain) I've never seen that done in RPG maker. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Moon) How ingenious and ground breaking. :mad:
So unless you can tell me how the two winning games "haven't been done before" then I'm calling BS on this entire thing.
I am just a volunteer judge. And, in fact, this is my first time judging a gaming contest. Or any contest. Ever. Not to worry though, I will not be doing so in the future.
My rant wasn't aimed at you, and I apologize if it seemed that it was. It was just me letting off some steam over the score. I just want you know that it's not really anything personal, but that I just don't agree the score. I don't think you're a bad person and everyone has differing opinions and will score/interpret things differently.
So unless you can tell me how the two winning games "haven't been done before" then I'm calling BS on this entire thing.
the Beta Tester
[6.0] Polish
[6.5] Playability
[6.5] Entertainment
[7.0] Ingenuity
EDIT: plus, I want your body, Exhydra
Ah, well, just to be clear, as judges we did not discuss or debate criteria, nor did we share any scores amongst ourselves. At least, no discussion that I was privy to. So, what I posted above is simply my interpretation, and might not be shared by any other judge.
I totally get the first three. I had no time to test for balance or bugs and I didn't have an artist. Totally get it. Completely fair scores. But what would have been a 10 for Ingenuity? To me a 7.0 is a C-...I didn't even use RPG maker battles at all. I don't mean to hound on your scores, I know judging can be rough, but...C-?
I guess I was mostly shocked with the ingenuity thing. I didn't think the story was 100% original, because I was going for something simple this time, and certainly not as story-based as Major Arcana. But, I didn't think it was that bad. And I was kind of proud of the way it was executed. ;9 But it's really not a big deal. I can see your points, and I know everyone is going to have a different opinion.
Ingenuity is the one that seems to be tripping people up, so I'll give my take. Ingenuity is an overall measure of how fresh the game felt, and how clever it is. It doesn't matter if the core concepts are tried and true if they are applied in a fresh and interesting way. See, all games, all stories have basically been done. We can't grade this based on "I've never seen it before" or "I've seen it before." Clever use of eventing systems will net you ingenuity points. Clever applications of gameplay as a storytelling method will net you ingenuity points. Clever storylines will net you ingenuity points. Clever use of artwork and music will net you ingenuity points. This category represents breaking away from the RPG Maker RTP standard and doing something that takes effort, thought, and...well, ingenuity. It is NOT plain and simply originality but originality does factor in.
But may I ask, why I got such a bad playability?I don't know why I allways get ignored everywhere, may I'm really a push over. :'(
I thought I fixed all bugs and stuff. :/
Also, I haven't played the game so I can't comment on this specifically and I might be misinterpreting your comment about some features being unexplored, but it's OK for a judge not to give points for planned features that aren't yet implemented or are only signalled toward. They have to judge what you made in a week, not what you could have made if you had a month.
But may I ask, why I got such a bad playability?
I thought I fixed all bugs and stuff. :/
But may I ask, why I got such a bad playability?I don't know why I allways get ignored everywhere, may I'm really a push over. :'(
I thought I fixed all bugs and stuff. :/
That was the only question I wanted to be answered. :/ (\s/)
But may I ask, why I got such a bad playability?I don't know why I allways get ignored everywhere, may I'm really a push over. :'(
I thought I fixed all bugs and stuff. :/
That was the only question I wanted to be answered. :/ (\s/)
I can't speak for the other judges, but it was confused me more than it was buggy.
I'm sorry, if I offended the judges with it, didn't meant to. I only kinda tried to implement my real life situation in the game, sorry. :'( (\s/)
Maybe solidify the criteria a bit?:Spoiler for:
Notice that there is no "fun" category. Fun is completely 100% subjective. So is difficulty and originality. These above criteria are things that are much more objective and could be decided by a few judges rather than a bunch, which inevitably causes judging to take a long time. Also, none of the criteria overlap, so failing at once aspect doesn't deplete points from multiple areas. For example, having a buggy game in this competition takes away points from two or more categories.
I actually really like those. A lot. It's much more objective, a bit less opinion-based, and a bit more fair. Also, it creates a category that I think is a bit overdue - "where the hell do I go next"?
The one thing it needs is at least something to do with story/writing/dialogue (or an alternative for when a game has none of these). ;o Otherwise, the writers will be at a disadvantage!
(Note that "story" is originally supposed to be a part of ingenuity - not just originality!)
Ah, my apologies, your question got buried.Damn, there you right, I overseen these parallel process and forgot to deactivate the random battle again in the Trainings Hall. I made it for balancing testing, but forgot to turn it back, my bad. :/
There were still bugs present. The woman in the top right of the cafe caused an infinite, inescapable Parallel Process conversation. The one-step average per random battle in the Training Area was ... not game ending, but certainly interrupted the flow of the game. I had to disable the random battle in the area to go in and speak to the NPCs in a timely fashion. Also, on the boardwalk where Nagisa or Asuka is waiting, one of the character graphic files was not selected properly, causing the game to crash. There were also a host of minor, non-game breaking issues, as well.
And from these points you will get to the total rating. I think a 100% Rating would be more clear then a 0/10 Point system. It also will give more room for the judges to give a rating. So if some people are close together from a rating one or two percents could make the difference then. And I think the chances would be for all the same, because one will get more in that point and others will get more in other points. ;) (\s/)
I just seriously can't agree with a judging criteria that assumes that a game needs to have some aspects. I've played amazing games without sounds, without graphics, without stories, without gameplay, not all at once but you see what I'm getting at here?
These categories appear to be really rigid to me...and they focus almost entirely on gameplay oriented games. We need a judgement criteria that is flexible enough to accommodate ANY sort of game.
Entertainment value needs to be part of the judgement criteria. Whether it's a game for fun, or a serious game, or whatever...if you're hooked, then the game is GOOD and that needs to be part of the score, regardless of if it's a buggy mess. Perhaps we should rename this as 'Immersion' to make it appear more solid, and allow for more broad application of the intended meaning of the category.
Playability could use a little tweaking though, possibly.
That's covered in playability. If you don't know what you're supposed to do, then the game isn't playable. I think we do need an opinion category for judges to voice their feelings, as when we didn't, people did it anyway.
I don't think we need to make a flip-flop category for games with or without story, that is just overcomplicating the system. As it stands, a well written story could make the game more polished, more entertaining, and more ingenious. Additionally, good dialogue, I feel, falls under polish, and good direction from dialogue falls under playability.
I seriously don't think we should make a 'story' category, or adopt a strict standard of judgement, because that just further pigeonholes people into making story based RPGs that are gameplay focused. If we say "I want to see these things in a game" and write the system based on that, we penalize anything else.
That's not fair.
The one thing it needs is at least something to do with story/writing/dialogue (or an alternative for when a game has none of these). ;o Otherwise, the writers will be at a disadvantage!
(Note that "story" is originally supposed to be a part of ingenuity - not just originality!)
And from these points you will get to the total rating. I think a 100% Rating would be more clear then a 0/10 Point system. It also will give more room for the judges to give a rating. So if some people are close together from a rating one or two percents could make the difference then. And I think the chances would be for all the same, because one will get more in that point and others will get more in other points. ;) (\s/)
Some judges already give scores with up to two digits after the decimal, and I rounded them to the nearest tenth (effectively being out of 100).
As for your proposed scoring categories, I already decided it was wrong when I read "story". I feel as though you just unpacked the already existing categories and threw in some elements which are way too subjective. Desired difficulty is different for every person, and isn't even a measure of how good a game is in the first place. There's no reason difficulty should be its own category when an extreme difficulty could result in a lower playabality score, perhaps, and a game with no difficulty could lose points in entertainment, for example.
Story can never be a category on its own for judging purposes. Some games don't have stories. On purpose. And they're perfectly fine games. In fact, one of the five games I consider to be perfect has exactly no story, and all of the others convey story through gameplay and little through dialogue. It's silly to score a game on how "good" its story is, when there's so much more to story in games than just the plot (and also it's all incredibly subjective).
The way you've described graphics and sound make it seem as though an Atmosphere category could cover those elements and more. However, again, treatment to atmosphere is subjective, so we bundle graphics and sound in to a more concise and objective category, Polish.
Bug Density is a factor of Polish and Playability. There are more things that can break a game than bugs, though, so we have to take them in to consideration as well, which is why it's not its own category.
All this is fine for reviewing games, but not judging them in a contest. It seems a bit basic, arbitrary and dangerously subjective. We try to bundle distinct categories that can include whatever aspects the game does or does not have. This is why we have broader terms than one might expect - to be all-encompassing but also concise. It's tricky, but you just need to forget what you think is important in a game and think about the experience itself.
There's no reason difficulty should be its own category when an extreme difficulty could result in a lower playabality score, perhaps, and a game with no difficulty could lose points in entertainment, for example.
If you get to a boss that requires put them in a head lock and use a healing item on their neck to KILL THEM, (METAL GEAR SOLID 4 WTF) that's bad balance. There's no reason a player would think to do that. Ever. There isn't a human on this planet that didn't look up how to beat that boss.it was a puzzle in the same way Psycho Mantis in 1 was. ALSO THEY FUCKING TELL YOU WHAT TO DO IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT THE FIRST TIME VIA CODEC. lrn2mgs
If you get to a boss that requires put them in a head lock and use a healing item on their neck to KILL THEM, (METAL GEAR SOLID 4 WTF) that's bad balance. There's no reason a player would think to do that. Ever. There isn't a human on this planet that didn't look up how to beat that boss.it was a puzzle in the same way Psycho Mantis in 1 was. ALSO THEY FUCKING TELL YOU WHAT TO DO IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT THE FIRST TIME VIA CODEC. lrn2mgs
the thing with the current categories is that it does leave room for some interpretation but it works for any game. with having a "GAMEPLAY" category some judges would judge a game with no combat or something as having a low gameplay score. If we used the same judges every time that's fine as long as we all understood what gameplay meant. when anyone can sign up to judge we need to have categories that work no matter what you're playing.
I just seriously can't agree with a judging criteria that assumes that a game needs to have some aspects. I've played amazing games without sounds, without graphics, without stories, without gameplay, not all at once but you see what I'm getting at here?
But that's the beauty of it. It doesn't say "Is the music super awesome and have guitars" it says "Does it feel right". Sometimes, silence is exactly what builds up to something perfectly. Sometimes having no graphics at all to play as a blind man is more engaging than having graphics. Games without stories, such as Super Smash Bros, work great. Maybe you play as a deaf guy and can't hear the sounds at all. There's a few ways I could think that would be interesting. There are a ton of times when I wish the designers just shut off the music for a certain scene. That is part of polish. Knowing when to use something and when not to.
Gameplay is at the core of games. You also have to remember that as long as the player has control, there is gameplay. Choosing a story path is gameplay. As we've seen with a lot of story based games like Heavy Rain and Mass Effect, that can be done amazingly. Heavy Rain even does some amazing work with quick time events and Balance can easily be applied to that game's core mechanics. Even if the game has nothing but dialogue choices, the category is about making informed decisions. Do the dialogue options give you the information necessary to make the right choices or more broadly, the choices you want? If your game is 100% out of the player's control, you've created a movie.
What about this?:
Balance - Was the difficulty curve fair to a player just starting the game? Did it present challenges that made no sense in the context given? If you died, were you laughing and smiling or frustrated? This is not "omg this game is too hard", it's "Is this game providing me with the knowledge necessary to beat the challenges it presents?" Some games are hard. Some people don't like hard games. This doesn't make the game worse.
Polish - Was the map design strong? Was the music fitting? Where there sound effects in the right places? This is not "Omg they used all default rpg maker stuff burn him" it's "Does it work? Does it set a mood properly? Does it feel right? Does this piece of music make sense for this situation? Do the sound effects make the scene more believable?"
Bugginess - Were there textures you could walk through? Did you get any error messages? Did the game stall at any points?
Mechanics - Are the mechanics being used in interesting ways? Are they repeated over and over again? This is not "Have I seen this mechanic before". For example, if the mechanic is smacking things, do you always smack the same things? Or do you start smacking new things that make it interesting?
Conveyance - Do you have a decent idea of where to go at all times? Is it clear what everything does? Was there ever a point where you said "wtf do I do?" or "why is that happening...?" When you fail/succeed, do you understand why and have a decent idea of what you could have done better?
Build Up - Is there a feeling that the game escalates? Is the ending satisfying? Were the way encounters (of any kind) introduced powerful in their tone? This is not, "omg explosions this game is epic" this is, if the game has a dark mood, did the build up to the Shadow Fiend at the end of the game feel right. If the game is a dating sim and you are trying to go out with the super hunk from your school, did the build up to the date feel right. Overall, this is, "did the game make you feel engaged or excited at some point during the game?" If a boss just comes out of no where, that's not build up. If a boss is introduced before hand, teases you a bit and finally kills your best friend at the top of the mountain and you have to solo two of them, now we have build up.
I just don't like the fact that if I have amazing gameplay but my story is boring and makes no sense, I could get a 5 for entertainment.
Notice that there is no "fun" category. Fun is completely 100% subjective. So is difficulty and originality. These above criteria are things that are much more objective and could be decided by a few judges rather than a bunch, which inevitably causes judging to take a long time. Also, none of the criteria overlap, so failing at once aspect doesn't deplete points from multiple areas. For example, having a buggy game in this competition takes away points from two or more categories.
I think it's a bad idea to write judgement criteria that assumes certain aspects will be part of the game, then go and say "but it doesn't have to have them to get a high score." You aren't solving the clarity issue at all.
Balance is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE.
Bugs hinder polish, they make the game LOOK less polished, less professional. I really don't see the reason to separate it out. Mapping Errors are bugs. Should these affect two categories or one?
I disagree with all 3 of these proposed categories. Again, you're pinpointing against what -you- think a game needs to have, and you can't solve the clarity issue by making it more complex.
In fact, your categories barely even take game content into account. What the game is, is just as important as how well it was executed. Judgement criteria should be flexible enough to take EVERYTHING into equal account.
I agree with what Pac said.
Although fun may be subjective, a good game developer would be able to make a game fun for players of all types.... So in reality, fun/entertainment is a HUGE part of a good score... in my opinion at least...
Additionally, YOU'RE IN A JUDGED CONTEST. Of course you're making the game to impress the judges. That's the whole point of a judged competition to begin with! Competitions aren't about giving everybody 10's because they tried, it's about COMPETING, for fun or otherwise.
If your gameplay is amazing, you're going to get a high entertainment score from judges that were entertained by your gameplay. Some judges may value the story more than others and you won't get as high a score with them, THIS IS FINE. This is why we use a panel of judges and average their scores.
If all you are going to read and interpret is the title of the category, then yes, balance is entirely subjective. But if you read the thingzs I've been saying, it's more than "is this too hard?"It's is this hard enough for the context we've been given and the previous encounters? If the first boss is silly hard, that's fine, as long as there is a logical way to beat it. What would not be okay is if the next boss is stupid easy for no reason. You have to use common sense with this. If there is a good reason to break a "rule" here, then it's fine. If there isn't, then it's not fine.
Yes, they do. But there's no reason you should lose points in two categories simply because there are bugs. Map errors are not bugs, they are map errors. They go in polish, not bugginess. Bugginess is purely: Did I get an error message or did the game completely stop working.
Why do you disagree? Also, what content in a game am I not including with the balance, the mechanics, the polish (which includes art, music and SFX), build up...? That's pretty much everything in a game in a nut shell. What do you mean by "what the game is?" Genre?
In the Olympics, Gymnasts don't lose because the judge isn't a fan of a certain move. They judge based on how well executed it was. There are ways to judge execution, rather than personal enjoyment.
This assumes there are always an equal amount of judges who are in the game's target audience and an equal amount who are not. This is almost impossible. If there's even a slight imbalance in the number of people who hate your game's genre, you are automatically at a disadvantage.
All games need to be polished, playable, clever ( some more than others ), and they need to capture your attention.
I would challenge you to find a genre or game that could not be evaluated based on these principles.
But that's the beauty of it. It doesn't say "Is the music super awesome and have guitars" it says "Does it feel right". Sometimes, silence is exactly what builds up to something perfectly. Sometimes having no graphics at all to play as a blind man is more engaging than having graphics. Games without stories, such as Super Smash Bros, work great. Maybe you play as a deaf guy and can't hear the sounds at all. There's a few ways I could think that would be interesting. There are a ton of times when I wish the designers just shut off the music for a certain scene. That is part of polish. Knowing when to use something and when not to.That was what I tried to say, is the graphic fitting, means in example of MLP, there are only less colors, kinda like 4-16 colors at once on screen. That would be about a high score. But if a horror game has bright and colorful presentation it would be a low score. I meant the points kinda like how much they fitting.
The problem I have with the current rating system is that some aspects of a game are in multiple categories while some are only in one. Story is in two categories. Bugs affect almost 3.I think the same, it's kinda unfair. You are doing one mistake and you get a low score in allmost every point. :/
Because someone who didn't made a story get's a 0 there, but maybe he get's a 9.2 or higher for the inventiveness.No. That's exactly why things like "story" can't be a category.
I just think that kind of system is unnecessarily overcomplicated. We have 4 succinct, all-encompassing categories that should be easy to understand.
I do think the scoring system system is in need of a change. Personally, here's the categories I'd have:Spoiler for:
I think the use of subcategories will outline a basic list of what each judge should look for. Not only that, but it might actually help out the maker, too. They just spent a majority of their week making a game and pouring their heart into it, and many of them wish to continue making or improving their games. For example (using Polish again), it might really help them to see: Visuals - 5.5/10. Audio - 7.9/10. Whatever else - 9,000+/10.That's exactly what I wanted to say. It would help to improve. The way it is now, it's only depressing to see, you totally failed on everything. You're a waste, give up on making games. That is what I get out of that scoring, sorry to say that. But I needed to shout it out and let it out, really sorry. But it's my point. :'( (\s/)
I wrongfully assumed all judges were required to review and explain their scores. Every judge giving comments and explaining why they scored the way they did should be an enforced rule. If you do that, then people will stop complaining about the categories for scores because they'll already know why they're earning the points they are.
Judges should also be forced to go back and re-evaluate scores to avoid arbitrary inflation and judges shouldn't be doing any judging until all games are turned in. The problem sounds like judges need some rules.
I SHALL NOT BE SILENCED (because I already typed this out and don't want to have wasted my time ok)I just think that kind of system is unnecessarily overcomplicated. We have 4 succinct, all-encompassing categories that should be easy to understand.
Errr... Polish, maybe. But it says "visuals and audio" and out of nowhere, it seems like it includes other stuff that has to do with polish (whereas I took it literally as nothing but visuals and audio).
Gameplay is typically a good guideline, but its very, very broad.
Ingenuity is the most confusing one. I think it should be split up or watered down or just explained better.
Entertainment is a tough call, though. The other guidelines are going to have influence over it, such as a game with many bugs being scored lowly on this because it annoyed the judge and ruined their fun. Also, this is probably the worst genre for constructive criticism. When the judges say "you're game ain't fun," that's probably the most likely thing to keep me from actually finishing the game. Especially because most games aren't as fun in their beta phases.
I think the use of subcategories will outline a basic list of what each judge should look for. Not only that, but it might actually help out the maker, too. They just spent a majority of their week making a game and pouring their heart into it, and many of them wish to continue making or improving their games. For example (using Polish again), it might really help them to see: Visuals - 5.5/10. Audio - 7.9/10. Whatever else - 9,000+/10.
If everything is broken down, it'll be much easier to see what can be improved, while also not putting too much pressure on the judges to have to write comments for everything (though comments are always helpful).Spoiler for More Example whee:
(without sending the host a book on each game ronald :mad: ).
What about this?:This sounds pretty straightforward to me.
Balance - Was the difficulty curve fair to a player just starting the game? Did it present challenges that made no sense in the context given? If you died, were you laughing and smiling or frustrated? This is not "omg this game is too hard", it's "Is this game providing me with the knowledge necessary to beat the challenges it presents?" Some games are hard. Some people don't like hard games. This doesn't make the game worse.
Polish - Was the map design strong? Was the music fitting? Where there sound effects in the right places? This is not "Omg they used all default rpg maker stuff burn him" it's "Does it work? Does it set a mood properly? Does it feel right? Does this piece of music make sense for this situation? Do the sound effects make the scene more believable?"
Bugginess - Were there textures you could walk through? Did you get any error messages? Did the game stall at any points?
Mechanics - Are the mechanics being used in interesting ways? Are they repeated over and over again? This is not "Have I seen this mechanic before". For example, if the mechanic is smacking things, do you always smack the same things? Or do you start smacking new things that make it interesting?
Conveyance - Do you have a decent idea of where to go at all times? Is it clear what everything does? Was there ever a point where you said "wtf do I do?" or "why is that happening...?" When you fail/succeed, do you understand why and have a decent idea of what you could have done better?
Build Up - Is there a feeling that the game escalates? Is the ending satisfying? Were the way encounters (of any kind) introduced powerful in their tone? This is not, "omg explosions this game is epic" this is, if the game has a dark mood, did the build up to the Shadow Fiend at the end of the game feel right. If the game is a dating sim and you are trying to go out with the super hunk from your school, did the build up to the date feel right. Overall, this is, "did the game make you feel engaged or excited at some point during the game?" If a boss just comes out of no where, that's not build up. If a boss is introduced before hand, teases you a bit and finally kills your best friend at the top of the mountain and you have to solo two of them, now we have build up.
I like this way of judging, you would clearly see, what needs to be better and what is okay. You also see what can have a bit less time next time. ;)Spoiler for More Example whee:
I like this way of judging, you would clearly see, what needs to be better and what is okay. You also see what can have a bit less time next time. ;)Spoiler for More Example whee:
I think an extra point for bugs would be great, because you can say you remove ... points of the project for ... amount of minor bugs/major bugs.
Minor Bug -0.1 per minor bug (infinite items, decision who has no effect, sound bug, map errors [strange looking mapping])
Major Bug -1 per major bug (infinite Event loop, map errors [passable walls], game shut downs)
I know that is again about personal liking and disliking, but that is how judging work after all. ;)
That's why there is not only one judge, that's why there are many. (\s/)