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.
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.
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.
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.
I tested my game with a few people after the contest. I had a few that loved it and a few that hated it. One person said "I'm just not into this sort of game. I don't like action games." Should my score be worse because one of the judges doesn't like this type of game? I hate RTSs, but should Starcraft II be taken off the shelves?
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.
That's not very clear though. Playability covers a LOT of aspects in the game currently. It covers "Gameplay and General Mechanics". What about them? I'm just suggesting focusing the criteria down so the game makers know what they will be judged on and the judges know what they are judging.
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.
I think that's a stretch to say that a good story falls under two categories. It also makes it so having a bad story hurts you BIG time. Having one bad thing in your game shouldn't punish you harder than having something else bad in your game.
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!)
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.
Discord
Light Style