"Probably the most foul-mouthed visitor of this board has been told he isn't manly enough."
Lol, I'm like an angel here. You must have been reading the blog :)
Squize.
Printable View
"Probably the most foul-mouthed visitor of this board has been told he isn't manly enough."
Lol, I'm like an angel here. You must have been reading the blog :)
Squize.
Well, looks like there are some strong believers in the original comp., and people against change. Now before you think anything, read the following:
-I don't have anything against the comp. as it is. I love it!
-I'm not saying being against change is a bad thing!
-I don't mean to sound like Obama!
The comp. extensions were sort of an idea. Also, when partnering up, as TOdorous himself pointed out in the other thread, it takes more time for the 2 devs to know each other, and actually sort through some ideas, so a small extension would be needed to not have the teams crumble.
I understand your points completely, but...
Nowhere in any of my posts did I even suggest that it's all about winning, so I don't know why you seem to make that point. You guys all talk about "if you spend 2 weeks on something, then you won't want to open-source it", THEN DON'T JOIN THE COMP.! But as you said, it's about learning, and people would also want to learn how the big game projects are structured, and how certain things are organized and achieved. I don't see how only the small, little projects are good for learning. I would think that you'd want people to learn all aspects from a game.
And I know that it's having fun and learning, but do we need to restrict fun and learning from ground zero? What if someone wants to learn how to use Box2D? And it's hard to achieve something that you think is fun in such a short time (which I also admit is part of the whole idea), but if people can get these good ideas in such a short time, imagine what would happen if they'd have more time, and added more features, levels, graphics! Even just another couple days extensions can make a huge difference!
I know you will say again and again that the "core" concept was 2 days.
What I really don't understand, is why you two are so against at least trying out these things! You think that the whole world will end just because this comp. tried something new! You don't even know for sure if it will be better or not, you just speculate about what "would" happen! How the hell do you know, are you psychic?!
And what do you classify as an authors best work? I think that if any dev has any pride in his work, they always want their best work! The time limit just makes them do their best work in a short time, or make their best work be something that's doable in that time. I think that expecting someone's best work is exactly what we should be expecting! And best work doesn't necessarily mean the finish of the game! It means their best ideas, the ideas that they feel are genuine and original, and that gives them the feeling "I thought of this, I'm amazing!" (as game devs, I hope you know what I mean?), or their best trick of coding something. It's hard to define what different peoples best work is, since relative to each of them!
And evening the playing field...WELL!...if the comp. isn't about winning, but about having fun and learning, then why would you care if there are advantages like these! Experience is a huge advantage, a bigger advantage than any class will give you, and you say that the comp.'s for beginners and experienced! And no matter how long the comp. is, the playing field will remain uneven! But you say it's not about winning, so that doesn't matter right?
And in fact, time extensions can make people learn more. Actually, if someone posts a screen shot half way through, someone sees it and wants to do it, there's still a reasonable amount of time to learn it, and use it in their own game!
Please decide what you want! You can't be worried about people having small advantages, and at the same time say it's not about winning if you're so against this!
P.
Thanks Pazil, those are some good points. Let me work with them.
I totally agree with the last lines. It would be a better learning experience if one could go through every phase of development in a more normal sized project. You have to keep in mind however, that the world is bigger than Flashkit and it doesn't run for free. There are competitions and sponsors out there that offer money for quality games. If this competition is to thrive, it needs to add something to the field. It doesn't offer money, so it should offer something else in return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazil
Now the world be the loveliest place, if everyone could afford to not work on something that won't make money for two weeks straight, but unfortunatly it isn't. People would rather do that same work and enter a competition with a moneyprize of seek out sponsors. Two days is something which reasonbly could be spend on a hobby. That's not to mention that people have social obligations.
True, but the same to you. Also, I've got four years of social sience experience so... that might count for something :angel:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazil
That is actually a VERY good point. The reason I believe it's better to level the playing field, is that it can act as an encouragement for newcomers. It's a lot more fun competing alongside more experienced developers without having the idea that there are actually two competitions: newcomers and experienced. Basicly, it keeps the fun in there. You're right that for the actual competition it's unneccesaryQuote:
Originally Posted by Pazil
I still do agree though that yes, it probably is intimidating for newcomers to see experienced guys do amazing work.
If we actually do think it through...there may not be a perfect competition...and then again we can at least try it!
Also...just not sure if you were with this thread the whole comp., but as people usually say, this comp. could also be regarded as the test phase of a complete game...you know, make the game for this comp., if it turns out to be amazingly wonderful, then go ahead and get it sponsored etc. etc., though that might prove to be an obstacle in open-sourcing all the games...so yes, you're right...
And I forgot to mention in my previous post, that I totally agree when people have more time than others during the week, and therefore in a 2 week long comp., some will have worked for the full 14 days, others just 4...that might not be a good thing...
All in all, I'd still like there to be a partner comp. with at least a little bit extended time limit...:)
P.
EDIT: And I guess social science does count for something... :P
Good points you guys made.
What I porpose is this:
For the partner comps, have about 5-6 days. I belive that gives the dev's enough time to get to know each other, sort out what who can do, etc. You can discuss things such as who makes te graphics, who does the coding, etc.
On the second day, the acctuall topic is released. Which means there are about 4-5 days to work on the game. What do you guys think?
Doesn't sound bad! Maybe a whole week?
Also, when does voting end?
P.
^2 more days.
Ok!
Though it doesn't look like people are voting. I'll bump it when I post the link the my .fla file.
P.
K my suggestion.
Everyone who wants to participate in the partner thing sign up beforehand (don't just spontaneously start the competition). After the sign up period is over the names are picked randomly and people are paired together. They will then have 2 days or so to get to know each other. The theme will then be released and the competition will start.
However, if your partner becomes inactive or something, there should be a way to fix that... that is the only problem with working with people that you don't know IRL, you can't drive to their house and bug them about it.
What!? I wanted to team up with Pazil. A week full of not one, but two stubborn and disagreeing coders with bad artwork, that has to produce a quality game.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanasdf
No but seriously, I get Pazil.
lol....
Then you sigh up under "programmer" and "artist" categories, and a programmer is paired randomly with an artist :P
@TOdorus, what? No! I thought Pazil was up for grabs for me.
But yah, I see your point. People might not want to get stuck with someone with incompatible coding styles. Pairing people up as Graphics Artist and Coder could work, even if its random. But coders with coders may not work out.
Maybe there should be sign-up for people who want to do just art and just code. And then the ones which can't make up their mind, can sign up for both. So later groups are selected by factoring in some preferences.
Edit: lol, jonathanasdf beat me to it :p
I don't think that artist+coder should be the main option. I was thinking that 2 coders work together, and learn things from each other. I actually want to do some art, since right now I'm not good at it, and practice makes perfect! I am getting a bit better though...
And I don't know...I don't really like the idea of total random selection. Maybe less experienced with most? But that would be hard to classify...
P.
that would be really hard to do, because there will be people signing up who you don't know at all, and how can you judge their experience? Also people can have a lot of experience and still can't code crap, and other people might just pick things up really fast.
I like the random. This isn't a competition anyways, as someone said, its for fun, and having random pairings will definitely be fun. After all its not like you're getting any prizes (other than a cookie)(hopefully not a keylogging cookie)