Gp2x Community Game Contest!


I think instead of 'finished', the entry should be solid. Basically a bug free (atleast not hindering gameplay) entry with decently sizable playable content. If someone feels like selling their game it would be silly to put the full version in the contest, then it becomes donationware. I like the idea of not using ports. Would this include voboo's emu, since he built it up?

Great idea.

(I NEED LACUNA Woogal...It would be interesting on the new stick)

speaking of, would it not be a port if its your old code from gp32 making the transfer? There are some homebrew gems on gp32.
 
*Sigh* I really must learn how to program better soon.

For those of you who don't know, my "big contribution" to this community (albiet for the GP32) was the GP32 CGC (Crap Games Competition) entry, "The Winking Man Game". I think I put it on the GP32 file archive somewhere, if you have a GP32, check it out. Then you'll know how bad a programmer I am (although I did manage that in C which is quite an accomplishment for me, as I don't know any).
 
greenmikey posted on Jul 9 2006 at 09:31 AM said:
I think instead of 'finished', the entry should be solid. Basically a bug free (atleast not hindering gameplay) entry with decently sizable playable content. If someone feels like selling their game it would be silly to put the full version in the contest, then it becomes donationware. I like the idea of not using ports. Would this include voboo's emu, since he built it up?

Great idea.
The title of the thread is a game contest. It could be an open contest for applications of different types as well... that would certainly have some value. I would personally be less interested in entering or contributing since I'm not interested in emulators or apps myself, but I'm certainly in the minority in that and maybe other people would pitch in more if emulators were included.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmmm, yes, I agree, it isn't easy to decide if a game is finished, but let's just say, that the game looks and feels finished or mostly finished, IE. it works, is fun, and is graphically pleasing to say the least... Well, you know what I mean, no rolling demos, no demos of games or apps, only finished / nearly-finished games and apps. :)

As for who decides if a game is finished or even ready for the contest, that is up to the judges to decide... I'm sure that they will do their job well and filter all unwanted stuff out B)
 
X-Code posted on Jul 9 2006 at 04:37 PM said:
Hmmm, yes, I agree, it isn't easy to decide if a game is finished, but let's just say, that the game looks and feels finished or mostly finished, IE. it works, is fun, and is graphically pleasing to say the least... Well, you know what I mean, no rolling demos, no demos of games or apps, only finished / nearly-finished games and apps. :)

As for who decides if a game is finished or even ready for the contest, that is up to the judges to decide... I'm sure that they will do their job well and filter all unwanted stuff out B)
I disagree.
Let everyone submit, if what they submit is rubbish then it won't get a prize, but no harm will be done.
Some people just aren't as good programmers/artists/musicians as others here, if they submit it and you don't think the game has enough features or the drawings look very poor, or has no music etc... What does ejecting them from the contest do other than destroying their enthusiasm to try?
I do think that we should have some rules about having no rolling demos though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I said graphically pleasing, I meant finished :) , not all games require good graphics, some are great... Not all games require sound, but it's nice sometimes :lol: ... I didn't suggest ejecting anyone from the contest... I'm just trying to suggest that seriously crippled stuff shouldn't be allowed in.

Pong didn't have great graphics or great sound but it was a hit in the old days :).
 
X-Code posted on Jul 9 2006 at 05:16 PM said:
I'm just trying to suggest that seriously crippled stuff shouldn't be allowed in.
Why? As others have said, if it is rubbish, it won't win anything but if it is good, it will. Also, you can't really define crippled in that sense - it is too subjective. There is no point adding unnecessary complication to the rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is complicating the rules?, I simply said that the game must work, and be mostly if not totally finished :) ... Don't forget that some people will have to try it, would you enjoy trying a truckload of crap?, would it not be easier for the judges to have a pre-filtered list of candidates by simply adding this rule and only have to test a couple of good games / apps that ARE worthwhile? ...

Anyway, I'm only thinking out loud, I don't care too much about the rules and I do intend to participate in this contest at some undefined point in time B) .


Regards,

X-Code.

- Crippled is messed up, buggy, useless or near useless software... If it's entertaining or useful, it's good, if not, not.
 
X-Code posted on Jul 9 2006 at 07:44 PM said:
What is complicating the rules?, I simply said that the game must work, and be mostly if not totally finished :) ... Don't forget that some people will have to try it, would you enjoy trying a truckload of crap?, would it not be easier for the judges to have a pre-filtered list of candidates by simply adding this rule and only have to test a couple of good games / apps that ARE worthwhile? ...

Anyway, I'm only thinking out loud, I don't care too much about the rules and I do intend to participate in this contest at some undefined point in time B) .


Regards,

X-Code.

- Crippled is messed up, buggy, useless or near useless software... If it's entertaining or useful, it's good, if not, not.
But surely, in order to check if a program is crippled, someone would have to try it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I meant is that some people wouldn't submit that which deep down they know is not suitable for the contest :) ... Others evidently not, there is always a margin of doubt :lol:
 
Wow! A lot of interesting and important questions are being discussed here. Well, mainly three that I can see.

The rule of "finished" games, the subject of judging, and the types of apps.
I'll try to adress these as best I can right now.

First of all, the set of rules I smashed together in that first post was, as is stated, impromptu, meaning they are thrown together off the top of my head with no real planning. I figured it was best to just get on with it and let the community be part of defining the final set of rules.

So! On to the issues!

I agree that it might be better to simply have a rule about PLAYABLE games, or to just let everyone submit as they please. As some of you said, I think this will regulate itself because if a game is more fun to play in its unfinished state than a finished game, then that unfinished game probably shouldn't be excluded on the grounds that it is not finished.
I'm defining finished right now by having a 1.0 release, in a sense. That it has "Gone Gold" as they say in the industry. Of course, in the homebrew "market" the definition of finished and unfinished is very difficult. Nethack has a 0.51 release, but I'd say it's a much more entertaining and playable game than some that are considered "finished".
So the best thing would probably be to let people submit their game in ANY form, alpha, beta or Gold. In most cases, alphas will be so riddled with bugs and shit that they're not even playable at any practical level, so they'll naturally end up in a sort of "discard" pile pretty quickly.

Now, who judges these games?
I admit I must not have been thinking straight when I suggested that games would be available for free download AND be eligible for release contracts while at the same time having to be complete games at their point of entry.
So I propose a system where a hand-picked jury of outstanding community members (say ten, fifteen people) are chosen to judge entries. They will be the only ones to have access to the entered games, and will be given a set of instructions on how to rate games. Think something like the Monthly roundups at www.gametunnel.com but with each reviewer submitting five scores or so based on graphics, sound, playability, etc. The exact categories are details that can be worked out later.
The judges can submit games themselves, but they will of course NOT be allowed to review their own game, and all "reviews" will be monitored by other members of the administration who will look for signs of bias in the judgings, and taking judges to task if they seem to be judging other games badly to promote their own games or a game they have a bias toward for any kind of reason. A short written text will have to be submitted with a description of what makes the game good or bad, which would make identifying bias easier.

Does that sound like a logical way about things?

regarding the types of apps... PERSONALLY, I'd like to say no emus and no apps that aren't games, but I might be of a different opinion than others on this. The good thing is that this is community based, so if the majority of the community wants emus and can argue well for them, there's a good chance emus will be included. But as of right now, I'd have to say no to emus.
My basis for this being that an emulator doesn't take into account game design, graphics, sound or playability in the same way other games do. If you make a good emulator, it has an unfair advantage in that it can play hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of games that the entrant didn't have to make him/herself, and quite a few of these might be absolute classics. It goes in the same vein as ports, really. I'm not saying it's not a lot of work doing emulators, it's just that it's different from other games, and they requires something external to actually be of any use.
Also, the goal of this competition is to give the GP2X a good library of games. Standalone games that can attract people to the GP2X. There are emus for it already. Good ones. There are emus on all the other handhelds as well. What the GP2X needs, in my opinion, is a good, solid roster of good, solid games that play well and that don't exist everywhere else. Something to attract people to purchase it.
Does that make any sense? I'm not sure. If not, tell me, and I'll try to make my point clearer.

Another thing:
This administration (currently me and psymastr) will also be responsible for making the final decisions. Yes, this means that the community won't have FULL control of EVERYTHING. No, this does not mean that nothing you say will be taken into account. It's important that the community is heard and considered when making decisions, but it's also important that a few people can sit down, have a chat, and do a vote in a quiet manner.
In my head, I'm seeing decision being made by way of unanimous votes in favour, meaning that all administrators will have to agree that the decision being made is the best one for the contest and the community. It could be difficult, but if twelve randomly chosen people (in a court jury) can come to a unanimous decision, then I'm sure four or five of us can as well. Of course, sometimes, one has to make compromises, but that's just the way things are.

Phew. That was a long post. Did I miss anything important? I hope not. If I did, I'll be around to clarify in any case. Anyone interested in being a part of the administration should contact me by PM, by the way. Psymastr, I'll contact you very shortly.
 
I read all and think that you use your brain quite well, when I say finished, I mean fully playable to it's end, the rest is only extra stuff :) ...

I like these rules mostly.
 
Magnulus posted on Jul 9 2006 at 01:29 PM said:
So I propose a system where a hand-picked jury of outstanding community members (say ten, fifteen people) are chosen to judge entries.
Just my opinion: If somebody is going to to publish the game commercially, they can have my money when I buy their game. When I contribute to a prize fund, it will be for entries that everybody can enjoy freely. I don't object to commercial games -- just the opposite, I hope to buy a bunch of them someday. But commercial games are a business venture not needing charity to motivate them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I fully see your point, Dzz, but how does that relate to the text you quoted? In any case, it's a good point well made. What does everyone else feel about this?

Also: I've edited the first post of the thread with a second, updated list of rules that will keep getting updated every now and then as the discussion goes on. I'll give word when I do edit it, of course, so that you get a fair chance to see the edit.
 
Magnulus posted on Jul 9 2006 at 02:12 PM said:
I fully see your point, Dzz, but how does that relate to the text you quoted? In any case, it's a good point well made. What does everyone else feel about this?
Woops, sorry, I was going to start by saying that it seemed fine to have a pool of judges like that rather than an open voting thing -- but I forgot. :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, what if we simply remove any mention of possible commercial release in the rules and leave it completely up to the developers to decide whether they want to release it for free or not?

The concerns on this issue are many, and however we decide to do it, we will have to accept that it will mean that some people will either not donate or not enter. No matter what we end up actually doing.

The possibilities are:
1. Keeping it like it is, which means some people won't donate, but could end up in better prizes overall from corporate sponsors.
2. Leaving it completely free to choose for the entrants, which will still lead to some people not donating because they COULD decide to charge for it.
3. Making this a FREEWARE competition, excluding commercial projects. This would make it more enticing to donate, but less enticing to enter for those who want to try to sell their games.

Originally this contest was meant as an alternative to the GPH contest, meaning that I wanted to give the entrants the possibility to release their games commercially OR as freeware, but also giving them the absolute freedom as to how they wanted to do it. If we decide to exclude commercial titles, I'm afraid that there will be a portion of my originally intended potential entrants who will feel left out and with neither this NOR the "official" contest to turn to.

Of course, a sister-contest could be arranged where there is no donated prize, but which is rather a fully commercial contest which would be solely sponsored by retailers and publishers, but I'm not sure how easy that would be to get off the ground.

What are people's opinions regarding this?
 
Bear in mind that the GPH contest doesn't allow commercial entries to be sold however that creator wants, so if you want to match their rules in that area, then there would be nothing wrong with demanding everything be made available for free. However, I don't think that there would be anything wrong with an updated version being sold at a later time.
 
Well, the intention was not to emulate their rules, that would be opposite of the whole point. We simply wanted to make an alternative to it, with rules that were more geared toward the good of the community. So I guess you could say that ANY way we decide to do it is right according to the original intent.

The rules COULD state that all games in their submitted state must be released as fully playable freeware after the contest, but that the developers are free to build on the game after this release to create a more polished game with more features that they released for sale. This on the condition that the version they submitted for the contest remains as freeware.

This would mean that people who intend to make their game commercial can submit something like a demo or a beta version which works as a full standalone game, but lacks some features you intend to put in the final version, like two-player support through BOB, etc. It will be judged as a full game, just like everything else, so if you send in a one-level demo with half-hour gameplay, it wouldn't stand very strongly. This could encourage commercial game developers to make enjoyable "demos" that give people a full game while at the same time making them want more. (If ever SimpleRTS goes commercial, there would always be a free version, but it could lack support for higher-res tv-out mode and that sort of thing. That's what I'm thinking with this point. Note that I'm saying IF it goes commercial. I have no real say in that.)
 
If you have a commercial project, make a fully playable freeware version, you can add the "PRO", "EXTREME", extras and tag after :)... I make "The Imploding Mutant" as freeware for the compo, a complete game, but if you go for the commercial release you get "The Imploding Mutant - PRO", which adds more gameplay, more levels, more battles, more bottles, and a big headache :), yet it's complete too... That should be legal enough.
 
Back
Top