"Judges Score", a very short entry...

Published September 19, 2014
Advertisement

[color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica][background=rgb(250,251,252)]"Judges Score", a very short entry...[/background][/font][/color]



[indent=1][color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]Although most (if not all) of my entries will be entered from the standpoint of a participant, this one is written from the perspective of a judge.[/background]

[/font][/color]

[color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]A few days back, people have started to describe how they'd go about building their game from a technical standpoint. People have come up with varied methods to "get their game out there" for this competition, some including high-level programming and a bunch of available resources, others going deep below the trenches with nothing but their fingernails.[/background]

[/font][/color]


[color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica][background=rgb(250,251,252)]The Week of Awesome II...[/background][/font][/color]



[indent=1][color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]Since this is a competition about making a fun game, this should all be irrelevant, but there's still the question of how much you can reasonably squeeze within a given amount of time.[/background]

[/font][/color]
[color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]If you build your game in, say, GameMaker and you have pre-made assets ready along with a few basic scripts to help you along the way, then you're in a pretty good spot to ship something rather advanced. Conversely, if you intend to make something in C++ and do your own pixel art on the side as a one-man-army, chances are what you will deliver at the end will be of limited scope.[/background]

[/font][/color]

[color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]My intent is to leverage the below rule to help "even the scores":[/background]

[/font][/color]


[indent=4]Judges score: 5 pnts(this score is up to each individual judge, with no individual category to hold them down, overall it's up to each judge to define what criteria they will choose for this category!)

[indent=1][color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]Here is how I plan on judging the "Judges score" (and thus avoid being too subjective about this category).[/background]

[/font][/color]
[color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]Please note that this will only apply to my rating (not any other judge's):[/background]

[/font][/color]

[color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]In general, the lower the tech a person will employ, and the least stuff they'll bring along, the highest the score I'll award for this category.[/background]

[/font][/color]

[color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]For example, someone coming in with a C++ approach and no framework whatsoever or code already done will probably get a 5 (because I'm assuming no one will go straight to assembly, though I'd be happily surprised if they did).[/background]

[/font][/color]

[color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]Conversely, someone that comes up with a very high level engine (let's say, RPG maker for example) and a bunch of pre-made assets / code, I'll award them maybe 1 point.[/background]

[/font][/color]

[color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]I'm also considering awarding more points for a one-man team that does "more" (someone that does both code & art for example) as I suspect they'll have a harder time coming up with much within the time frame.[/background]

[/font][/color]


[color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica][background=rgb(250,251,252)]Closing Words...[/background][/font][/color]



[indent=1][color=rgb(40,40,40)][font=helvetica]

[background=rgb(250,251,252)]I realize that it's still a bit subjective, and may not be inherently related to fun factor, but I feel there's room to encourage those that "do it from scratch" wherever possible, and I don't feel like 5 points is an exaggeration. It should, hopefully, help balance out quantity and quality![/background]

[/font][/color]
2 likes 3 comments

Comments

riuthamus

May not totally agree but I certainly like what you are doing with it. At the end of the day that was why me and others suggested this point value, so that each judge could weight projects based off of feeling, rather than set criteria. If you value raw code vs assisted+engine than so be it! I like the concept of each judge having their own "high point" that they want to see.

Furthermore, I am glad you came out and said it before the competition. This gives people the chance to aim for it, or to avoid it all together.

September 20, 2014 08:35 AM
shadowisadog

Thank you for sharing your opinion and your criteria for your evaluation, but I do respectfully disagree with it smile.png .

In my opinion the choice of tool should be such that you are able to meet the objective with the best outcome. In this industry games are made on existing frameworks and toolsets all of the time. It is what enables us to make bigger and bolder games! Unreal Engine and Unity for example represent many thousands of man hours of work. Starting from "scratch" and reinventing the wheel especially with a short deadline is in my opinion a counter productive approach.

I suppose I disagree with the statement that people doing it from scratch should be encouraged, but that is simply my opinion smile.png.

Regardless best of luck to everyone no matter what technology they decide to use!

September 21, 2014 08:06 PM
Orymus3

I can respect your opinion, but I do believe we're hitting at the same objective, just not obviously.

This competition is about delivery a good game. There are many definitions as to what that may entail, but I think there's hardly any disputing the fact that someone doing Assembly + all art on his own, vs a crew of 4 people using high level resources will come up with a drastically different project.

To say the assembly game wouldn't be as fun would be untrue, there are ways to make something simple and fun, but it would simply not pack the same production value overall, despite the amount of effort injected in the process.

By awarding more points to lower-level work, I just want to "even out" the chances for someone that went through the hard road. My expectations is that the project will be of smaller scope, but that if the fun is right, it will put them back right up in a position where they can win this competition.

I realize how "unpleasant" it can feel for those who will have decided to pick a high-level technology/tools, but I think it makes for a fair competition in the end.

(As for encouraging people doing it from scratch, I guess it comes with a territory: if no one knew how to make it from scratch anymore, engines would stop to evolve, and our opportunities would be limited in the future. It's general good practice to know more about the process, though, granted that part alone isn't reason enough to award more points in a game development competition)

September 22, 2014 01:35 PM
You must log in to join the conversation.
Don't have a GameDev.net account? Sign up!
Profile
Author
Advertisement
Advertisement