GDC 2012

[SiN]

guys can we come to the agreement that:

1) gamers are total douchebags

2) phil fish can apparently also be a total douchebag, if only because he's a thin-skinned braggart at heart

3) none of this makes fez a worse game or one worthy of less acclaim

Agreed.

Yes it is possible for both sides of an issue (the internet vs. Phil Fish over the years, apparently) to be assholes. It doesn't matter who casts the first stone, one side can take things more gracefully and hurling him / herself against the jagged rocks of the internet.

And yeah, agreed.

The one point I want to reiterate before laying this issue to rest is that we really got the short end of the stick here.

Two years ago we got an click-bait article called "Spore Developer Calls Wii a Piece of Shit", when we really could have had an insightful article on Chris Hecker's thoughts on how "Computation Power is Not Orthogonal to Gameplay"

A few days ago we got a click-bait article called "Japanese dev mocked 'your games suck'", but what I'm *really* interested in is "Phil Fish and Jon Blow discuss frustrations with modern Japanese games."

These click-bait articles are great for publishers, but we get nothing insightful out of them, and they encourage developers to stay "on message" as opposed to talking freely. That totally sucks.

[Forbin]

After reading Phil's twitter though, I think he's got to stop. You're fighting a losing battle if you expect people to pay attention to your incoming messages, all they see is your responses filled with hate.

[Forbin]

Also this is interesting:

http://www.gamespot.com/events/gdc-2012/video.html?sid=6365133

I like the last few lines. Part of what's great about GDC is that you should be able to rise above the nonsense of the rabble and talk constructively with people who aren't just interested in buzz, and often really know what they're talking about. While it looks like Phil is responsible for spinning it in that direction, I think it'd be better if people didn't get caught up in that.

If you focus on the negativity and the idea that things are just cultural differences, then you may filter out the meaningful criticisms from people who have an alternative perspective.

[Lechimp]

What do you guys think of this IGF article?

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/07/the-competition-the-story-behind-the-igfs-critics/

I think there's a problem if an unfinished game is winning awards multiple years.

[Twig]

I think it's only an issue if large portions of the game haven't been thrown out and completely rebuilt - which is what I have been told is the case with Fez.

Also keep in mind that Fez previously won best visuals. This year it won grand prize. It didn't win grand prize twice, and it wasn't even in the running for best visuals this year (probably because it previously won).

The biggest problem is that IGF allows for unfinished games in the first place. That is the entire reason some games are allowed to enter multiple years in a row. If IGF only allowed finished games, this never would have happened.

But... if it only allowed finished games, the winners would be getting money for... what? Their next game? Part of the appeal of winning IGF is to get the funding to make your game even better, right?

I dunno. It's not a simple black and white issue.

I've also heard they're changing the rules so previous winners can't enter next year. It's an evolving process, and I think they're aware it's not perfect, so I'm not completely pessimistic about any of it.

..

oh i've had this sitting here typed for a while before reading the article, and it seems like i'm just repeating what they said

WELP

[TheLastBaron]

What about games like Desktop dungeons which won Excellence in Design last year while in alpha? The game was by no means close to be finished, but it's design, what it was being judged on, was basically done.

[vogon]

What about games like Desktop dungeons which won Excellence in Design last year while in alpha? The game was by no means close to be finished, but it's design, what it was being judged on, was basically done.

the idea goes that even if its design is basically done, a great game design will still be great next year after it's released.

to some extent, it seems like an awards show which gives you an appreciable amount of funding is mildly doomed to be busted in some ways. either you get people sending in the same game multiple times, or you screw over anyone who sends in their game and gets to the finals when they do work after the award that would've won it the prize, or you can't reward people with funding until their game is finished.

it might work better if the monetary award (which could be given to deserving, unreleased games) was completely decoupled from the industry awards show (which could only be given to games with wide public release.)

[Twig]

What about games like Desktop dungeons which won Excellence in Design last year while in alpha? The game was by no means close to be finished, but it's design, what it was being judged on, was basically done.

What if, even though it might have won that award, the developers decided to completely trash that design and start from scratch and the new design is even better?

Or, more accurately to the situation, what if they completely revamped the visuals, made them utterly beautiful, the best you've ever seen, and wanted to re-enter under that premise?

[Forbin]

I think restricting unfinished games to a single category would probably fix that issue. If a game is submitted as a publicly available "complete" enough game to compete in the full field, then it shouldn't be allowed resubmission any time in the future.

This should cut down the miles high pile of crap that clogs up judge time, and allow them to cover the games that do chose to spend their final submission better and give them to more judges.

[Jake]

Cutting or fully sidelining incomplete games from the IGF would remove most of the IGF. Film is an easier medium to deal with because it's linear has very regimented and defined technology required to view it, and has generally been understood forever. You can't just drop off a box of unspooled film to a festival, but you CAN submit a cut you know is rough, using footage and music you don't think would serve the film perfectly in a national theatrical release, but will more than do the job for a festival screening. To some those festival cuts are probably considered "unfinished," but the state that they're in is fully watchable and discernable, and allows those films to be screened by press and distributors. IGF games are sometimes far sloppier than whatever the gaming definition of a "rough cut" is, but with a game the definition of "unfinished" is probably just more nebulous than with a film. It's a slippery slope, I guess.

[toblix]

[...]sloppier[...]slippery[...]slop[...]

slop

[Jake]

slop

glad someone was paying attention

[Forbin]

Cutting or fully sidelining incomplete games from the IGF would remove most of the IGF. Film is an easier medium to deal with because it's linear has very regimented and defined technology required to view it, and has generally been understood forever. You can't just drop off a box of unspooled film to a festival, but you CAN submit a cut you know is rough, using footage and music you don't think would serve the film perfectly in a national theatrical release, but will more than do the job for a festival screening. To some those festival cuts are probably considered "unfinished," but the state that they're in is fully watchable and discernable, and allows those films to be screened by press and distributors. IGF games are sometimes far sloppier than whatever the gaming definition of a "rough cut" is, but with a game the definition of "unfinished" is probably just more nebulous than with a film. It's a slippery slope, I guess.

Yeah I agree, but if the developers themselves chose their one year to submit it wouldn't be a hard thing to regulate. People could still submit early, but not continuously. And those looking for very early support could still be featured in a smaller category that's open for works in progress.