I think the two things that put me off were:

1. No known major prizes (even though I doubt I'll ever get one, maybe every one else's hard drives become corrupted...)

2. The elements. I'm not going to even try to come up with a reason why they weren't good, but they weren't. I think the crux of the matter is that competitors will want elements that allow them to make a game that they actually want to make. It is a large time investment, and you want your game to be something you want to make. I'm not saying that they should be vague enough so that any game at all could be made, but there should be some flexibility as to the genres you can make. It could just be my lack of imagination, but I certainly struggled to come up with anything that wasn't a comedy.

The other issue for me (and probably not many others), is that I struggle to persist with one thing for too long, which is part of the reason that I have actually finished very little. If the available time was shorter, its possible I might actually aim lower and actually finish it. Especially if I could get a free graphics card out of it...


I just had a thought then: what if different prizes were awarded for different areas. Like, most technologically advanced (or complex), most original, most fun, most well polished, most playable (i.e. for all age groups and interests, the game with the largest target audience), etc.

Just a thought. Means more judging, more prizes, and more specialised entries. Some people might try to make it really pretty (3d, particles, physics, cool 3d effects, etc.) to win the technology category but have a pretty crappy game.

Anyway, I aim to enter next time, but we'll see.

Quote: Original post by think_different
Thinking back, 4e4 was the best contest we've had. Anyone else think so too?

Although I didn't participate in in, yes, I think it was. Not only was there 46 entries (compared to the 18 this year, and 24 last year), but there was a ton of community buzz, a whole boatload of prizes, and the results were announced in no less than 10 days after the close of the contest!

I also liked how there was one single page with screen shots of all the entries to download. Plus having the downloads in the forum limits an entry's exposure if it doesn't get a reply posted to it due to the forum's default date filter.

Quote: Original post by think_different
Thinking back, 4e4 was the best contest we've had. Anyone else think so too?

4E4 was the first one I really paid attention to (I was just a lurker before then). But I did like the whole buzz around that particular year.

As well as the points cyansoft made, I think the much easier elements helped draw in more people. If I remember, you only have to have two out of the very cliché pirate/ninja/zombie/robot group, which is a cinch to come up with scores of ideas in a variety of different styles.

It might have a been a bit too easy on the design side, but I guess it depend what the objective of the Four Elements contest is. If it's about building community spirit, then maybe an easier set of elements would be worth considering?

Quote: Original post by think_different
Thinking back, 4e4 was the best contest we've had. Anyone else think so too?

I agree, even though I've not yet finished anything enough to enter it, and my 4e5 "entry" got farther along than my 4e4 entry.

Quote: Original post by Numsgil
Also, it might be worthwhile to specifically limit entrants to, say, 2D graphics. Or strongly encourage it. 6 months isn't long enough to do a real 3D game

I strongly disagree. My entry was 3D and the primary reason why I chose to work in 3D is because I find it more difficult to create and find quality 2D artwork (finding/creating textures is easy, finding/creating animated sprites is hard). Now, if the contestants were given pre-made art assets up front and were told to make a game using only those art assets, it would be a different story. But I think that requirement would be better suited for a separate contest unrelated to the Four Elements contest.