Gp2x Community Game Contest!

[Dzz]

I have trying to keep up with this thread because it interests me, but I still took quite some time finding the link to the "contest website mentioned

I'd like three questions expanded on:
1) After seeing the "Demo Contest" still shows no entries, at what stage will this contest be cancelled if there are less than X entries? (and what will happen to the money?) I would hope they'd be enough entries, and if not the money would roll over for a future date to get extras.
2) Can an entrant submit more than one entry?
3) Does it have to be a "game"?

I think I know the answers to these, but would like clarification.

Cheers

As the organizer of the demo contest, note that I am not surprised at all that there are no entries at this point. I fully expect that there will be no entries until the final day. Would you enter two weeks early or spend the last two weeks making your entry better?

As for this game contest, I will be astonished if there are fewer than 20 entries.

 

[Magnulus]

I'd like three questions expanded on:
1) After seeing the "Demo Contest" still shows no entries, at what stage will this contest be cancelled if there are less than X entries? (and what will happen to the money?) I would hope they'd be enough entries, and if not the money would roll over for a future date to get extras.
2) Can an entrant submit more than one entry?
3) Does it have to be a "game"?

How about this:

1. Well, Dzz already answered that one for me. If NO entries show up, then we'll cancel the whole thing and try, with the community, to find something else to spend it on. Maybe we'll keep it in the pot for another contest next year.
2. Yes, but the entrant is only eligible for one prize. You can't get first AND second prize. You can get both places, but then the third place will get second prize. Is that fair or does is sound unfair? I'm not sure, myself.
3. Talk about vague. ^_^ Care to clarify? This is a GAME competition, so no apps or emulators, if that's what you mean.

 

[Wite_Noiz]

3. Talk about vague. ^_^ Care to clarify? This is a GAME competition, so no apps or emulators, if that's what you mean.

Nope, that's fine. Was going to be cheaky and submit the eMag Reader when it's ready (since the RTS won't be)

 

[Magnulus]

I think you (well, we, I guess) should submit Platoons regardless.

Here's another thing I forgot to mention about the judging, which WAS mentioned earlier.

Judges CAN submit games, but they will of course not be allowed to judge their own entries. The other judges and the "regulator" will also pay close attention to the other reviews to make sure no one is trying to get away with judging everyone else down.

 

[Dzz]

I think you (well, we, I guess) should submit Platoons regardless.

Here's another thing I forgot to mention about the judging, which WAS mentioned earlier.

Judges CAN submit games, but they will of course not be allowed to judge their own entries. The other judges and the "regulator" will also pay close attention to the other reviews to make sure no one is trying to get away with judging everyone else down.

That would work, but I think it would be better to just find a replacement judge. Here's why:

Suppose I am in general a harsh judge, giving an average rating of about 4/10 to the entries in the contest. Hey, I have high standards! Now suppose you are a forgiving judge and you give an average rating of 7/10. If we both enter the contest, I get an advantage because (on average) you rated my game higher than I rated yours. In other words, if I don't have to rate my own game, my own stingy nature hurts everybody's score but me. This is completely innocent of any nefarious intent.

If judges are given an average score that they have to maintain, that would probably handle the problem well enough.

 

[OMars]

I think you should ask gp2x distributors to add to the prize. B)

 

[X-Code]

Judges should not be able to participate as they would not be impartial over other entries... You may not be able to vote your entry, but you could vote other entries unfairly.

 

[Magnulus]

Hmmm... Yeah. Since the games are rated to find a winner, I suppose you'd have to rate them as competitors, and not just single entities, meaning that a game I'd normally give an 8/10 could get a 5/10 because quite simply, there were other games that were better, and the quota for the higher scores was already filled...

Hold up, hold up. I've got an idea. Ever seen the Eurovision song contest? The way they give points there is by having a scale from zero to twelve. The participating countries all have one representative who gives the OTHER countries (not themselves) a score. The best one gets 12, the worst one 0. They are only allowed to give any given number to a single country, so there can't be two 12s or three 5s.

In the end, the scores are tallied and the one with the most points wins. It's pretty simple, but I think it's also pretty effective. You will only have a limited capacity to vote the others down, and you remove the negative effects of being a benign or harsh score-giver, since we all have the same scores.

If we did this, we'd give things a bit of a twist, and - in addition to the scores - the reviewers would give each game a short review. If we get a truckload of games in here, there could of course be the trouble of too many games to give points to. Is it reasonable to ask the reviewers to apply this method to 30+ games (if that should happen)? Is there a way we can reduce the amount of finalists?

Maybe the judges all first vote for the ten or so finalists? They could each choose ten games they wanted to see in the finals, and then the games with the most votes would go on to the finals which will be judged as I mentioned...

Sounds complicated, I know, but could it work? We'd need more reviewers than just five if this were to happen, though...

EDIT:
Omars: I'm pretty sure I mentioned we were thinking of doing that earlier in the thread. We won't do it until after the rules have been set, though.

 

[Dzz]

Hmmm... Yeah. Since the games are rated to find a winner, I suppose you'd have to rate them as competitors, and not just single entities, meaning that a game I'd normally give an 8/10 could get a 5/10 because quite simply, there were other games that were better, and the quota for the higher scores was already filled...

Hold up, hold up. I've got an idea. Ever seen the Eurovision song contest? The way they give points there is by having a scale from zero to twelve. The participating countries all have one representative who gives the OTHER countries (not themselves) a score. The best one gets 12, the worst one 0. They are only allowed to give any given number to a single country, so there can't be two 12s or three 5s.

In the end, the scores are tallied and the one with the most points wins. It's pretty simple, but I think it's also pretty effective. You will only have a limited capacity to vote the others down, and you remove the negative effects of being a benign or harsh score-giver, since we all have the same scores.

If we did this, we'd give things a bit of a twist, and - in addition to the scores - the reviewers would give each game a short review. If we get a truckload of games in here, there could of course be the trouble of too many games to give points to. Is it reasonable to ask the reviewers to apply this method to 30+ games (if that should happen)? Is there a way we can reduce the amount of finalists?

Maybe the judges all first vote for the ten or so finalists? They could each choose ten games they wanted to see in the finals, and then the games with the most votes would go on to the finals which will be judged as I mentioned...

Sounds complicated, I know, but could it work? We'd need more reviewers than just five if this were to happen, though...

EDIT:
Omars: I'm pretty sure I mentioned we were thinking of doing that earlier in the thread. We won't do it until after the rules have been set, though.

I think your suggestion is fine; no judge should have difficulty making an ordering of the entries.

 

[X-Code]

Got me thinking about Eurovision and Lordi :lol: , sounds good enough .

 

[PSyMastR]

That ordering thing per category? I see that working. Or you mean on the whole?

 

[Magnulus]

I had kind of forgotten about the categories, but I suppose that could work, as long as it's not too much work for the judges.

So we're going for the initial finalist vote and then the eurovision vote? If we do this, with maybe fifteen or twenty games in the finals, it should be fairly easy to judge for every category as well, and then take the sums of all the categories for each entry and make that the final score.

So:

1: Each judge gives a vote to fifteen games they want to see in the finals.
2: Finalists are rated by the Eurovision standard in each category.
3: The sums of all categories are put together in a final sum for each game.
4: The winner emerges.

 

[Dzz]

1: Each judge gives a vote to fifteen games they want to see in the finals.
2: Finalists are rated by the Eurovision standard in each category.
3: The sums of all categories are put together in a final sum for each game.
4: The winner emerges.

Thinking about this further, I'm not sure it quite works (though you might disagree). THe Eurovision thing works because all countries are also entrants, but not all judges will be entrants in this contest.

Suppose Judge A is an entrant and Judge B is not.

Round 1. Can Judge A pick his own game to make the finals? If not, how can that be compensated for in the tabulation for who makes the final round.

Round 2. Judge A is now rating 14 games but Judge B is rating 15 games. How (mathematically) are their ratings combined in a way that doesn't penalize or reward Judge A's game?

 

[Magnulus]

Good point...
What if only judges with no game in the competition get to vote for finalists? Would that make it fair?

 

[Dzz]

Good point...
What if only judges with no game in the competition get to vote for finalists? Would that make it fair?

Sure, that solves the first issue. What about the second one?

 

[Wite_Noiz]

Round 2. Judge A is now rating 14 games but Judge B is rating 15 games. How (mathematically) are their ratings combined in a way that doesn't penalize or reward Judge A's game?

Assuming no judge has more than one game in the final, all judges will only give points to 14 of the 15 finalists. No judge will be able to give points to their own entry.

This gives a disadvantage to a judge-entered game in the sense that they know they cannot get points from every judge (themselves), but it will have to be a disadvantage they are happy with in order to submit work and judge.
Did I make that clear? I think that would work...

 

[Dzz]

[
Assuming no judge has more than one game in the final, all judges will only give points to 14 of the 15 finalists.

That's only correct if all judges have entries in the contest. I suppose it could be a requirement that all judges must enter the contest, but that seems a bit odd.

 

[X-Code]

Sure it's not too hard to find a set of judges that don't participate, this is only complicating a matter that in essence is quite simple

 

[Wite_Noiz]

That's only correct if all judges have entries in the contest. I suppose it could be a requirement that all judges must enter the contest, but that seems a bit odd.

Sorry, maybe it wasn't clear.

If at least one judge gets an entry in to the final, all judges will lose one set of points to allocate (i.e. they can only give 14 instead of 15).
This means that the judge themself isn't penalised for doing well, all scores are brought down a little instead.

If I've thought that through correctly, it will only be a disadvantage to the judge's entry (which I said would be an agreeable point for being both a judge and an entrant).

 

[Dzz]

That's only correct if all judges have entries in the contest. I suppose it could be a requirement that all judges must enter the contest, but that seems a bit odd.

Sorry, maybe it wasn't clear.

If at least one judge gets an entry in to the final, all judges will lose one set of points to allocate (i.e. they can only give 14 instead of 15).
This means that the judge themself isn't penalised for doing well, all scores are brought down a little instead.

If I've thought that through correctly, it will only be a disadvantage to the judge's entry (which I said would be an agreeable point for being both a judge and an entrant).

I understand. So the entries are rated 14-0 (with 0 being the last-place "not rated" entry) instead of 15-1.

That seems okay to me. You have correctly pointed out the drawback for an entrant who wants to be a judge so they can choose to if they want.

Next issue: Ok, so we have a pile of ratings. How are they combined to produce a winner? Just add up the scores and highest total wins?