Talk:GunchoComp
From GunchoWiki
Contents |
[edit] Time frame
Entrants will face the challenges of designing for the multiplayer environment, learning to use the Guncho library, and possibly running into problems in parts of that library which have not been completely exercised. The comp deadline will need to be far enough in the future to account for these challenges. How does four months sound? --Vaporware 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Judging procedure
This is a tricky one. Some games may require a minimum number of players, and the player experience may depend heavily on who they're playing with. We may need to coordinate groups of judges to play together somehow. --Vaporware 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
If I were judging this, I think I would want to have a debriefing period after playing a game where I could chat with the other members of my party about the experiences they had, compare notes, see what we liked and didn't like, etc., before making a final numerical judgement. This could of course happen casually, but it might be interesting to encourage judges to have some kind of formal debriefing, from which the transcript might even be preserved for the information of the author. -- Emily
I think scheduled judging based on availability places too much of a burden on the organizer and will reduce the number of people willing to be judges. More importantly, scheduled play sessions couldn't fairly judge the range of possible play styles. Realms will fall somewhere between two extremes: those requiring organized groups of simultaneous players (which I'll call "party realms") and ones in which players come and go on a more fluid basis ("drop-in realms"). Some might be a little of both, where the forming of parties or alliances is a necessary in - game component as opposed to a prerequisite for starting. Throwing this out there:
- six - week open judging; no limit on time or number of plays, but judges must play half the entries (or min. of 5) to vote. Let the market decide, as it were.
- area of Outer Realm where authors post game requirements / suggestions ("IF Capture the Flag requires two five - player teams and takes about 30 minutes" or "Create a character in Cave Crawl and go to the pub to find fellow adventurers" or "The Z Files is a drop-in realm -- find out if the truth is in here.")
- area of Outer Realm for players to post messages, discuss realms, and form groups to play certain "party realms." ("Looking for 6 players to play Mystery Dinner Party on Friday from 6 to 8EST.")
- allow authors to discuss / explain / offer help in Outer realm (while strictly prohibiting editing or playing their entry realms). Since this is an inaugural comp, allowing authors to mitigate the effects of inevitable bugs or misunderstandings seems fair; if a realm really sucks, no amount of excuse - making or campaigning will save it anyway.
Does any of this sound reasonable? -- Skinny Mike
[edit] Judging categories
- Best Use of Multiplayer: The game that most successfully illustrates something that can't be done in an offline, single-player game.
- Best Replay Value: The game with the most potential for repeat play, something that will encourage players to stick around for more.
Does it make sense for these to be separate categories, or should they just be guidelines for judges to consider as they vote for the best overall game? --Vaporware 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say they should be separate categories - well, because like Emily, I'm really intrigued by the idea of multiplayer IF telling a story, and while I like replayability I wouldn't want entrants to be required to put their time into it if that's not what they're going for. --radix
I also would make these two separate categories -- they involve different design goals, and I wouldn't want to see a game penalized for going one way or the other. -- Emily
[edit] Prizes
Prize donations are gladly accepted. I can't offer much of material value myself, but I can certainly offer prominent placement on the web site and in The Outer Realm. --Vaporware 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
