Quote:
Narration/Description/Stage Dirsction: Because the format is a script/proposal for an introduction to a videogame, the immediate audience is the producer/game designer and any artists/musicians/animators/etc. who would be using the piece as a set of instructions for creating the game's intro.
How did you know this? You can tell what TechnoGoth was evaluating afterwards, but how did you know what he was looking for beforehand?
Quote:
Objective Create a 500 to 1500 word introduction for game that utilize the theme the coming storm. The introduction can take any form whether it is a narrative, scene script, a combination of the two, or something else entirely. Just remember the three tenants of a good introduction hook, inform, and brevity.
If it was true that the introduction should be formatted in the way such that a developer can easily get the ideas, then there was an error in the description of the objective. To be precise, the resulting entry cannot be a Narrative, but can contain Narrative components. If the format can be penalized, then TechnoGoth should have said that narrative by itself is unacceptable. Do you see my argument? If a piece is marked down due to the form it took, then there is a contradiction in the objective. So, technically, TechnoGoth violated a scoring rule when he scored on the formats.
Also read closely:
Quote:
Applicability - How appropriate the submission is to the game medium and how good a game it would make.
He said game medium, not the process of game production. There is no information that allows you to dictate that the audience of the entry should be a fellow designer. It can be, it didn't have to be. TechnoGoth wrote something vague, therefore you need to score vague too.
Interestingly:
Quote:If this is aimed for a designer as an audience, what exactly is 'style' and the 'use of language'? Why does style deserve a whole catagory on its own if it should read like a memo from a designer to another designer?
style - The overall quality of the writing including grammar, punctuation, spelling, and use of language.
Furthermore:
Quote:
Creativity – How effectively the subject matter and theme of the round where used as well the overall creativity and originality of the piece.
He said the originality of the piece, not the originality of the components. This means that the whole entry is one thing, and, if it can be a narrative, it means that the whole entry can be the narrative portion where the player is going to experience. I don't see anything wrong with my interpretation. Maybe TechnoGoth didn't word it right, but you (and TechnoGoth) can't take points off for if the introduction was not targeted for a designer.
Other indications that failed to indicate the exact audience:
Quote:
I think it is important to mention that the goal of this competition is writing and not design. So there should be little or no technical details to a submission. So describing a puzzle would not be a valid entry for round 4. If the player has to solve a puzzle then use stage directions to say that they have to solve the puzzle don’t go in to details on the puzzle mechanics or description of it unless it is from a writing point and not a design one. A dialog puzzle however would be acceptable to include.
Quote:If the form of the introduction itself can be a piece of narration, then it nullifies the claim that it has to be formatted. It was a misdirection of the contest. What is the point to say that it can be a narration if you will always score it down?
The first round task is to write the introduction to a game. The introduction is what happens when the player first starts the game. It might a monolog or narration, it could be a short game sequence, or something else. The first round is interested in the writing aspect of the games introduction, so there should be little or no technical or design infromation in the entry.
Revealing Information:
Quote:
Some people have asked about what I am looking for in terms of a submission for round 1 so I thought I would try and clarify. A game’s introduction is the part of the game that occurs from the time the player press new game until they are playing the actual game. Different games do this part in different ways in some it is a cut scene, some times it a short level, or a combination of the two. In all instances the introduction sets up the circumstances of the game and provides an initial goal. It should also entice the player with hints and for shadowing of what’s to come.
Here, TechnoGoth specifically said that the introduction is what the player will see, starting from the begining of the game to some arbitrary point. To rephrase what TechnoGoth wrote: "Different games do [the introduction] in different ways, in some it is a cutscene, sometimes it is a short level..."
This means that it is completely valid to have just a cutscene, written with the player as the audience. In this clarification that TechnoGoth wrote, he had show no remote indication that the audience was going to be a designer implementing the game. Furthermore, he didn't say that it was an introduction that describes the begining of a game, but that it IS the introduction of the game, as it is running.
The purpose of the introduction, in this clarification, is to "Set up the circumstances of the game and provide an initial goal", not to inform a fellow designer on how to implement it. Do you understand my argument on why TechnoGoth was scoring it wrongly?
Quote:
The purpose of the competition is writing as it applies to games so keep that and the previous paragraph in mind when creating your intros. And remember to ask yourself whether or not a player could from experiencing your intro directly into playing the game.
So it the 'intro' that we write supposed to be experienced by a player, or by a designer? Are we writing something that allows the player to experience, or something that describes what the player should experience?
Think about it, if you accuse my entry to be hard to implement, for what reason you made you believe that the game wasn't a text-based game, where I can copy and paste my entry directly as the intro? Didn't that make it 100% compatitble?
So, overall, it is not justified to rate down an entry because the intended audience was not a designer. The contest had provided no concrete basis for this requirement. It was ambiguous.
Re: S/S's Evaluation
Aside from what I consider to be a mistake in the description of the contest.
A) Technical Assessment\1
In your evaluation, you were marking down something that you didn't know. You can't rate an entry using the extra information you get beyond the entry:
Quote:What is wrong with not knowing the truth? If I am a player, it is 100% perfectly fine for me to mistakenly believe that the maiden had simply left. Also, it made no difference to the player on whether the monk was dead or not. It is up to the player to interpret it. The player would only see it as a mysterious ending. You can't retro-evaluate. You need to see it from the perspective of a player viewing it the first time. Some players will think the monk is dead, some don't; some think that the maiden simply left, some think that she was never there. The initial interpretation is up to the player. There is nothing wrong with being ambiguous here, as long as the player starts wondering, "What happened?"
For example I had no idea that the maiden was supposed to dissapear and be replaced by the bell at the end, I thought she just dropped the bell. It's totally unclear whether the Old Monk gets shot at the end, and whether the bell is echoing because he dropped it as he died or what. So, minus 1 1/2 points here for being confusing.
You have no reason to mark it down if you are in the shoes of the player.
B) Technical Assessment\Grammar:
'rubble' vs 'rumble'
I wasn't completely sure whether I should stress that the fire hasn't been out for a long time. At least, the smell was still around. When I used the word 'rumble', it was a slight hint that the structure wasn't completely burned because the rain put it out. So the remains of the structure was still moving a little bit in the wind, because it has not complete done with collapsing. So that wasn't a misuse, also considering that the monk can't hear rubble, but he can hear rumble.
'the twelve strings [were] singing'
Yes, that was a typo
'shatter vs shattered'
Why should it be 'shatter'?
Two riders stomped across the courtyard, cracked tiles shattered beneath their heavy feet.'fallen vs fallens'
'Fallen' is an adjective. It is not a noun to begin with. When it is used in a poem as a noun, it should be a toss up on whether to add the s or not. To stress that it was the group that had fallen, I added the s. What is your reason to not add an s?
C) Technical Assessment\Perception:
Quote:
1) What the player is seeing and hearing during the intro (i.e. can we gameify this?)
No, in places it was not clear what was being displayed on the screen. None of the characters' appearances are described. Also, at one point a scent is mentioned - how the heck do we gameify a scent? While some of these are already accounted for by the confusing language penalty above, minus an additional 1/2 point for lack of visual description.
The end of the writing gave you the reason why appearances are not described: The monk is blind. If I had described appearance that were not deducible from audio clues, the writing won't make any sense. So your complaint is unjustified. Your argument on 'how to gamify a scent' isn't really valid neither. A scent in a writing usually correspond to a mood, a color tone, or some other kinds of imagery. The most cliche implementation, is to have images of cherry flowers rushing out of the package as the maiden opened it. The song is obviously visualized as the maiden was playing it, so from the moment she opened the package, you can expect the scenery to suddenly change to the flowers. It is unreasonable to imagine that the actual footage will show the maiden simply singing in a courtyard. The scene change is implied, because the scene induced by the song does not match the scene of the surrounding. So if you are reading, the scene has to change in your mind as you imagine the pedals flying in the wind. So the piece itself actualy told you how scent would be implemented visually: 'A fragrance blossomed'
Since fragrance can't blossom, it was a visual attachment indicating how it will be implemented.
D) Technical Assessment\Vivid Emotion:
Quote:
2) Some vivid emotion, to draw the player into the gaming experience,
There was some emotion, but it was confused and not intense. Neutral score.
In general, I disagree with the way you judged this criterion. In my opinion, the introduction displayed an emotion beyond the basic emotions. It is not plain happiness, plain anger, plain fear, etc. It was a complex emotion. In my judgement it was arguably vividly complex. We are talking about complex character designs here. Those characters don't just get dominated by one emotion. To show just one emotion would be a flaw to convey the complexity of the character. The complexity of emotion is vivid because the piece was showing the player how much the character is hidding it, and expressing it at the same time. It showed a deep emotional conflict. But you are correct that it didn't directly draw the player into playing the game, but more on understanding the story.
[Edited by - Estok on October 1, 2005 12:17:23 AM]
