Quote: Original post by BeastX
For future contests, I'd recommend the following:
-Extend the contest to a full year, or 6 months, and have them back to back.
-Announce new elements the day the previous contest ends.
-Announce and commit to submission dates up front.
-Announce and commit to judging dates up front.
-Announce base prizes up front.
-Set a higher bar for minimum game requirements to balance entries.
I think the once a year, and not the full year is better than continuous competition with one running into the next. Announce the 4e7 say a fortnight before hand (I'm not actually sure when it was announced this time) and the release the elements. The 6 month running time works well - work on the competition half the year, then relax, and work on other things the rest of the time. A full year competition, or even 2 six month competitions wouldn't be popular. Just think of the Olympics restarting the day after the closing ceremony!
Announce the element release, submission and judging dates up front, all at once, but allow in The Rules for the judges to modify the dates, as long as they give a 2 weeks notice (and can only move the deadlines back).
Yes the prizes were disappointing this year, and corporate support would be nice up front - makes more people interested in participating.
As for minimum game requirements: I think that low end computer specs is important - prevents the shinny-est game from beating the most fun. But its fine to leave it judging open for even poor, or incomplete games. They might not win, but they get feedback, and aren't discouraged from submitting their project.
Quote: Original post by GMuser
The elements do matter and the elements this time around were just lame. It is clear by the lack of enthusiasm this time around, that the elements matter.
I personally felt that the OPs slack interpretation of "pony" was against the spirit of the competition. If it is allowed in future competitions, anyone can completely ignore any elements by naming things by the elements..
What do you mean by lame? Please expand on that?
I think that Crystal and Explosion was slightly below par. They were easy too implement, and quite difficult to make unique. I liked accountants and ponies - it made a good dipole. How do ponies and accountants relate? I think that 4e5's Emotion was very good - it made developers think about how to incorporate it into a game. 4e1-3 were Earth, Fire, Wind, and Water, which lead to a very graphics intensive games. 4e4's Pirates, Robots, Ninjas and something else :p was different, but made games about 4 sides. 4e5's E's were interesting. They made the developer think about how to incorporate these elements into the game. And 4e6 - well, 2 were good, and made you think. The other 2 were bad, and allowed you to just take the 'obvious' solution. Huzzah to those who took an alternative view, rather than collection crystals and blowing up stuff.
As for the OP's ponies - they weren't traditional galloping ponies, but they he did find a way to make them a part of the SPACE game. How can you have ponies in space? I think that using the space ship design was a interesting idea, and I did laugh when I saw his screen shots. Besides, only 3 of the 4 elements need to be addressed, a point many posters forgot when they critiqued his concept.
Also, I think that the lack of enthusiasm may be partial to the lack of prizes. Not to be materialistic, but when there are prizes out there, sponsored by multiple corporations, the competition seems more genuine, and people want to be part of it. Instead of it being a small time competition by a hobbyist group. The prizes of 4e5 were great, and so was the competition.
The logo. I appreciated that superpig spent time creating the original, but it was below par, and that simply gave the entire competition a unpolished feel. Same with the lack of prizes. Sorry superpig, but it did. I appreciate everything you have done for this contest, but next time, get someone else to do the graphics :)
Something I learn't from this contest was get something that is very basic BUT works from the start, then build on to that. I started late (around February) and instead of getting something off the ground, I tried to make the entire program in one shot (well not quite that bad, but close). If I instead concentrated on getting sprites on screen and interacting, rather than making the game 'engine' I may of been able to submit something at the end!
For me, 4 elements should be about developers being given ideas to work with, which force them to think about how to make their game unique. How to try new things in game design, rather than following the same standard procedures, and making a cookie cutter game, using the elements as sprites. The elements should challenge the developer into thinking about new ways of game design. Not making a pretty game. But making a new, exciting, interesting, and above all, fun game.
Quote: Original post by BeastX
No, the elements really don't matter. People just don't think beyond the Halos, GTAs, and Quakes. They could have just as easily been any of the following:
-platforms, penguins, physics, potatoes
-evolution, egos, Egypt, and estrogen
-food, fate, feeling, fraggles
-rocks, paper, scissors, tuna
-kittens, boogers, lips, religion
I disagree. I strongly feel that the elements matter IF they make the designer think about new ideas.
Out of those sets of elements, I think these elements would make an interesting contest:
- evolution, egos, estrogen
- fate, feeling, religion
- Emotion
IF the elements are just objects or locations, the the sprites and models can just be replaced, and the elements won't matter. Like this set:
- penguins, potatoes
- Egypt, food, fraggles
- Earth, Fire, Wind, Water
- kittens, boogers, lips
- rocks, paper, scissors, tuna
- Europe, Ponies Accountants Crystals
- Robots, Pirates, Ninjas, Zombies
These elements simply don't challenge the designer:
- physics, platforms, Emblem, Economics Explosions
Whats my point with the above? Before I said that Ponies and Accountants were good together??? They are. TOGETHER. They contrast. An office worker and a pony? The first set are HARD elements. And they are the best in making innovative gameplay. They are concepts. Group 2 are objects, so the designer knows what is needed. Its a constraint, not an idea.
The contest is called FOUR ELEMENTS. Not 3+ elements. I hope that next year, the contest will force you to use all 4, and thus not be able to skip the hard ones. Or perhaps, have a "hard" element (like from the first set), that is compulsory. And of the other 3, you need 2+. Don't use the 3rd set.
Okay so I've rambled off a bit there...
Take what you will from what I've written.
And what did you learn from 4e6? What suggestions do you have for 4e7? Superpig, I do hope that you run it again. You've done a marvelous job!