The Great Judging Debate 2014 Edition

I get sarcasm and beeing rude reallly well. :/
I really hate it to get everywhere messed around, for what I say and offer.
For real, I only suggest, like every other here, what I think is best and clear pointing system. :'(
Sometimes I really feel displaced everywhere I go on. Am I really a that bad and annoying person? :'(
It's okay to have only 4 categories, but every categorie should only respect one thing and not maybe 3. :/ (\s/)

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.

o.o

Judging just got a lot more intense.

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:

Polish:
Visuals - ?/10
Audio - ?/10
Writing - ?/10

Gameplay:
Playability - ?/10
Mechanics - ?/10
Balance - ?/10

Ingenuity
Freshness - ?/10
Entertainment - ?/10
Direction - ?/10


(I just filled in randomly somewhat suiting stuff. The contents would require further debate, considering if anyone likes this.)

I 100% agree with both of these posts.

The judging system is fine and I feel this entire conversation is pointless.

I think the debate and thoughts aren't pointless. But the drama surely is.



Let us all balance our chakras and be at peace with the universe.

disregard me i suck cocks

oh boy here we go

tension just multiplied by 100 in here

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWC4NFPrOBs" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWC4NFPrOBs</a>

Am confused.

Okay, here's what happened from my perspective:

Strike posted that, I took it at face value. I didn't even talk to him hardly once during the GIAW, and I trust Aco and Strike weren't going to cheat, either way. (As it later turns out, it wasn't our game that he wanted to win).

Next, I asked for a more detailed list with everyone's scores, not specific judge scores.

Then finally, I saw the whole ingenuity thing and tried to debate that in a civil manner. I was kinda bummed out, but I didn't think it was aggressive or the driving force behind this whole thing. I just wanted to inquire. o.o I'm not even upset at Exhydra at all.

Don't know if me eyes help or not. o.o

to be specific I think beta tester should have won because it was the most complete and engaging game out of the entire group. anyone who assumed i was judging with my cock was incorrect.

Gracie you sound like you're being kind of harsh..

let's just put this to bed shall we. no more score drama. I'm not the only judge, the average has spoken, Z is the winner. if we're going to revamp the judging guidelines we should do so in rmrk advanced.

Octavia, never give up making games. You improved tenfold over the last game in a week you entered even if it wasn't finished. Hell it sounds like you only got to work on it for like 4 days at most.

Alright, that'll do. No more of this. If somebody with the power to do so would like to split the debate from the topic you're most welcome to.

Judges should not challenge the final results without presenting appropriate grounds. Contestants should not, out of the spirit of the contest, argue the scores. The scores exist to provide constructive criticism, and highlight strength and weaknesses in the game's design.
That being said, the way games are being judged is currently being reconsidered, though it's unlikely the categories will be changed. It's possible we'll mandate a more review-style judging scheme (without sending the host a book on each game ronald ).

screw you strike i wanted to quell it

I personally don't think there's even anything wrong about questioning or debating, if its done in a more civil manner.

But this? Yeah, this got a little bad.

I feel like I was in labor for this entire thread and just now gave birth.

I feel like I finally pooped after 4 days of not pooping. I guess that's the same thing you said, though.

Only 9 months instead, yeah.

"pooping is like child birth" -Halo of the Sun 2014

Quote of the year.


o.O

(without sending the host a book on each game ronald ).

Legends of Gilia: GIAW Judge Wars

Vol 1 of 20

Seriously though, I think some judge discussion could be a good thing, but it would only serve to lengthen the judging process, which may not be worth it to some.

But judging is intense and time consuming. Perhaps not as bad as creating, but still. It may be wise to implement a judging timeline, which may have been done in the past, and just say that all scores will be submitted in two weeks (or some other number) and scores not submitted by that point will not be counted.

I dunno.

I'm just a guy.

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.

This sounds pretty straightforward to me.

Otherwise GIAW should have categories just because there are TEAM ENTRIES.

A team with a writer, a mapper/eventer and a graphist will outrange single projects
One single person looking for resources, adapting them, searching for time to get maps, scripts, events, and modify graphics, testing bugs it's titanic.

And if this wasn't enough, teams are made of people skilled in what they should do: Graphist are skilled in doing sprites, backgrounds, etc, writers barely need to check grammar or spelling, scripters and mappers just do that.

That's why i think these guidelines are good balanced, they help single makers to reach high levels of competition that otherwise hardly (or not at all) will be reached against teams.

I like it for the reasons that Yuyubabe said. It lets me know why my project sucked/was amazing. I think a cool part of competition with anything is you can learn from it and improve. If you don't see judges scores (at least the averaged ones) and don't see any comments...it leaves you asking why you got what you got. With the current judging system I think it's a bit hard to see why you got certain scores. When it's divided up more, it's easier to see where you can improve and judging can be a lot fairer as you aren't split. For example, if someone has great visuals but terrible audio, they'll get a bad polish score. Bad story good gameplay? Bad entertainment score.

At a second glance I remember I said that map errors would go in polish, but I think it makes more sense where I put it in the thing you just quoted (bugs). Basically, Bugs are any time you say "Yeeeeeah don't think that was suppose to happen".

Hey guys what'd I mi-