1003 replies to this topic

[Harrk]

Now as far as restricting new guys to voting? Me personally, as a new guy, think this is unfair. I have been working with Game Maker for a few years now. Only now have I started getting involved in the community. To top it off? All the sprites AND code for my entry were done from SCRATCH (no borrowed or stolen sprites or code here) within the time limit for the contest. So for what it's worth, my thoughts on restricting new guys?

Nice wall of text you have there... and I read it all.
Anyway the (basic) idea would be to exclude only the new guys who have not submitted anything. You enter the jam and then you're allowed to vote afterwards regardless of being a new guy.

The main issue here is with 'new' accounts that start voting with say under 5 posts tied to their account (or maybe a little more?)

[chance]

Anyway the (basic) idea would be to exclude only the new guys who have not submitted anything.

The (basic) idea is a (bad) idea. You guys are blowing this way out of proportion. The Jams aren't being hijacked by sock puppets.

Every problem can't be solved with more rules. This is why we have moderators. They can identify problems that may occur, and take action case by case.

[RedOctober]

I hope that a review (to even the bad games) will make the programmer alter things the next time around. If the game is generally good, then pat on the back.

If the creator requests feedback, then by means do it. However feedback should be more than your basic opinion.

And how do you know which games are poor and/or unenjoyable before you download it and play it for around 5 minutes?

Game description, screenshots and others reviews of the game. I would've played more and voted later in the jam, but time doesn't allow it (rather exams don't :<).

Time constraints and willpower prevent people from offering formal assessments...

Perfectly correct, hence why I suggested that people could consider typing reviews for the games which they see as good or as potentially good.

You have to ask: what is more fair? That not everyone gets a valuable comment, or that not everyone gets a comment.

Very good question. I like it. Fact is its a question that everyone should ask themselves, rather what do they want to do? Everyone's got an opinion, and I respect the reasoning if someone wants to type their opinions to every game. There's nothing wrong with that. However some people (like me) would rather constructive feedback, which touches why something doesn't work.

I respect the measured responces to my views from the above people (Hazz, Rusty and Master), but now for someone who has an axe to my neck.

First of all (@RedOctober), you can't POSSIBLY eliminate a game from your reviews BEFORE downloading and test play.

I can and I will. If you have a problem with it, then complain to the host. However I'd warn you now that it has already been discussed.

If this is what you do, then you're... blah blah blah... you are missing out on a BUNCH of really good games... blah blah blah... buying the game.

If you had read my previous posts you would know that I said if it means I miss out on some good games, then so be it.

Might I kindly suggest, that for next time, just for a change of pace (and if you don't have time to play all the entries), that you pick 8 games that you want to play (from brief reviews and screenshots) and 8 other games randomly.

Why are you suggesting something that I already do?

[Nocturne]

Please realise that the more restrictions you place on something, the more off-putting it is to people and the more likely you are to hurt the very people that you are trying to encourage or protect.

Now, in this case, with an public voting topic where everyone that wants to vote has to post, it's VERY open and easy to see who may be cheating. Look at this time around, for goodness sake! Why are we having this discussion? Because YOU GUYS detected what appeared to be suspicious votes... and what happened? It was dealt with and those that were fraudulent votes were removed. End of story...

The only rule I would add is that those persons that the moderators deem to be cheating or using fraudulent means to get votes will be banned from all further Jams and their game removed from the current one.

[Geoffrey83]

Nice wall of text you have there... and I read it all.
Anyway the (basic) idea would be to exclude only the new guys who have not submitted anything. You enter the jam and then you're allowed to vote afterwards regardless of being a new guy.

The main issue here is with 'new' accounts that start voting with say under 5 posts tied to their account (or maybe a little more?)

Thanks for reading, I generally have a lot to say!

Anyway I get it... but this won't stop the problem. Regulations are just another obstacle to get around. I think the only way to truly stop it is to make people's games disqualified (there needs to be a penalty of some sort) if they:

1) are found to be making multiple accounts and voting
2) are found to be encouraging their friends to vote for THEIR games (However I don't believe there is anything wrong with encouraging your friends to participate)

As expertly stated before... although I forget from who... this is not the Presidential election here and therefore should NOT be a popularity contest (like the Presidential election ). This is a community based on creativity and sharpening each others skillset. That being said, we should all remain honorable and take pride in playing fairly.

@RedOctober - I don't like you and I'm sure you don't care. LOL! Anyway, you are taking my statements completely out of context and therefore making a fool out of yourself. If you already do what I suggested then good for you, but from your previous posts you said you only played 10 that YOU decided to play. Which would imply that they are the ones you WANTED to play. That's all. Also, what I SHOULD have said was: You can't possibly place an ACCURATE vote and decide which games are poor/unenjoyable by screenshots and descriptions. And in no way can you say that you CAN and will. If you DO say that, you're just being arrogant.

Edited by Geoffrey83, 07 November 2011 - 10:44 PM.

[Nocturne]

As organiser of the Jam I should say that I have no problem with RedOctobers attitude towards playing, reviewing and voting on games... Each of us is a free individual that can pick and choose how and when they do things and if he is quite happy to only play those that are visually appealing then that is fine. I personally like games that are innovative but don't really care about eye candy, but others do and their input and participation is just as valid as anyone elses...

[Harrk]

Anyway the (basic) idea would be to exclude only the new guys who have not submitted anything.

The (basic) idea is a (bad) idea. You guys are blowing this way out of proportion. The Jams aren't being hijacked by sock puppets.

Every problem can't be solved with more rules. This is why we have moderators. They can identify problems that may occur, and take action case by case.

I say (basic) because that's how it was before people started further expanding on it lol. There's got to be at least several different methods that have been discussed that are way harsher.

Edit:

1) are found to be making multiple accounts and voting
2) are found to be encouraging their friends to vote for THEIR games (However I don't believe there is anything wrong with encouraging your friends to participate)

Only thing is, is that it's more work for the moderator(s).

Edited by Hazz, 07 November 2011 - 10:43 PM.

[chance]

Now, in this case, with an public voting topic where everyone that wants to vote has to post, it's VERY open and easy to see who may be cheating. Look at this time around, for goodness sake! Why are we having this discussion? Because YOU GUYS detected what appeared to be suspicious votes... and what happened? It was dealt with and those that were fraudulent votes were removed. End of story...

Exactly. Rational thinking beats "rules" every time.

[Nocturne]

Also, what I SHOULD have said was: You can't possibly place an ACCURATE vote by eliminating games from your list by screenshots and descriptions. And in no way can you say that you CAN and will. If you say that your just being arrogant.

What is an accurate vote? A vote (by necessity) is a SUBJECTIVE thing and therefore can only be innacurate if the person voting actually votes for something that they really don't want to vote for! If he is voting for something that he liked then it is as accurate as possible as it reflects his opinion. I think you are being arrogant by imposing your own SUBJECTIVE point of view on another simply because you don't agree...

[Geoffrey83]

Also, what I SHOULD have said was: You can't possibly place an ACCURATE vote by eliminating games from your list by screenshots and descriptions. And in no way can you say that you CAN and will. If you say that your just being arrogant.

What is an accurate vote? A vote (by necessity) is a SUBJECTIVE thing and therefore can only be innacurate if the person voting actually votes for something that they really don't want to vote for! If he is voting for something that he liked then it is as accurate as possible as it reflects his opinion. I think you are being arrogant by imposing your own SUBJECTIVE point of view on another simply because you don't agree...

You know what? In that, you are right. I do have to say though... that is the first time in my life that someone has called me arrogant. LOL! Look, I just started off this converstation with some analytical thinking about RedOctober's process. He's the one that replied all snooty! Which just ticked me off is all. So it was a heated post and I apologize. Maybe next time I will just try games based on screenshots. God knows it would sure have saved me a lot of time. But that would have sure excluded Red October's game from even getting reviewed. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

[Nocturne]

LOL! Actually, I don't read either of your posts as being arrogant (I was just making a point) and, tbh, I would prefer that everybody played all the games... BUT you have to be realistic and realise that people are going to make judgement calls and maybe only play some of them, and for different reasons. Some (like RedOctober) because the screenshots are attractive, others because they have been helped on the forums by the OP, or some because they like the game idea etc etc etc....

The important thing is that as many people as possible participate and as many people as possible play and vote!

[Rusty]

Can we take a flashback a bit? Every snowball starts with a single snowdrop which we organise into a ball and roll down a hill. Let's take a look at our own snowdrop.

GMC Jam #1:
23 Games Entered

GMC Jam #2:
27 Games Entered

GMC Jam #3:
56 Games Entered

GMC Jam #4:
59 Games Entered

As the snowball gets bigger, it attracts more snow, making the original structure unstable. How do we stop the snowball from shattering into a chaotic mess? Well in the real world you can't, after a certain point it's just gone.

But as the GMC Jam gets bigger, it gains more publicity and less stability and thus, what may have been acceptable for the last Jam, will not suffice when dealing with a bigger event and let's face it, the Jam is getting bigger and attracting more people. Your refusal to rethink the rules of the Jam has lead to a minor incident here, lets not wait for all out chaos before we decide to rethink the rules. This is not the same Jam that was started back in January, this is now a serious event that has the potential to be a main attraction to the GMC, equal to the Ludum Dare.

Let's not mess this us up with our naive minds.

[Nocturne]

But as the GMC Jam gets bigger, it gains more publicity and less stability and thus, what may have been acceptable for the last Jam, will not suffice when dealing with a bigger event and let's face it, the Jam is getting bigger and attracting more people. Your refusal to rethink the rules of the Jam has lead to a minor incident here, lets not wait for all out chaos before we decide to rethink the rules. This is not the same Jam that was started back in January, this is now a serious event that has the potential to be a main attraction to the GMC, equal to the Ludum Dare.

Let's not mess this us up with our naive minds.

In this you are absolutely correct... And I openly admit that I was naive to think that everyone would "play by the rules". However after much thinking about it, unless someone can come up with a set of rules that cover all the bases WITHOUT alienating anyone I will be sticking with the minimalist "cheat and your banned" rule I stated in my previous post. You have to realise that the best defense against this type of behaviour is not a set of rules (which can ALWAYS be got around anyway... if that wasn't the case then why do we have lawyers?) but is actually the participants of the Jam themselves who are quick to point out any irregularity!!!

[chance]

Let's not mess this us up with our naive minds.

Or with our alarmist panic.

j/k I agree with you that the moderators may need to modify things at some point. I just don't think "rule by community decree" is the way to do this. Because most of the suggestions I've read so far are poorly thought out.

[Rusty]

j/k I agree with you that the moderators may need to modify things at some point. I just don't think "rule by community decree" is the way to do this. Because most of the suggestions I've read so far are poorly thought out.

I agree, and that's why we need to take some time to discuss the Jam Rules after the voting as ended. Until then it's best not to go into it as it will distract us from what the Jam is all about, the games.

[IceMetalPunk]

j/k I agree with you that the moderators may need to modify things at some point. I just don't think "rule by community decree" is the way to do this. Because most of the suggestions I've read so far are poorly thought out.

I agree, and that's why we need to take some time to discuss the Jam Rules after the voting as ended. Until then it's best not to go into it as it will distract us from what the Jam is all about, the games.

And yet, the past few pages here exist...

In a most likely fruitless attempt at bringing things back on track, I'd like to thank Yal for putting Sophia's Spirits as her #1 vote .

-IMP

[True Valhalla]

...this is now a serious event that has the potential to be a main attraction to the GMC, equal to the Ludum Dare.

It has a very long way to go until it is as engaging as Ludum Dare. The distinct lack of interesting development logs is something I've noticed. Part of what makes Ludum Dare so fun is seeing everyone's developments on the homepage, but here, next to no one actually updates their game post.

Some posts where literally just a pic from the first hour of development, and then not altered until the end of the comp. This annoys me a lot.

If people can manage to write interesting development logs during Ludum Dare (a 48 hour comp, so even more time limited), then surely people could put in some effort here.

However, in the current format I don't think the GMC jam comes close to LD in terms of engagement - but I still enjoy it because this is a development community that I contribute to all year, rather than just once every 3 months, so there's a more interesting relationship with other developers here.

But there's really so much more that could be done!

[makerofthegames]

The only rule I would add is that those persons that the moderators deem to be cheating or using fraudulent means to get votes will be banned from all further Jams and their game removed from the current one.

Disagree with that one. There has been a problem with all this talk about cheating, or at least the ones I have read*.
What happens when someone plays a game "so good" and yet it's getting "no" votes? Well, they cheat for it. I'm willing to guess it happened in the Cagematch, as I don't know if all that cheating that killed it the first time came from one or both of the two contestants in the cagematch..I dunno, it just seems less likely. So two cents.



(*I just made my entire post moot, didn't I?)
EDIT: Unfortunately I'm going to have to rescind my offer to film a video for the winner of the Jam, er, I'd rather not get into why, it just isn't happening. Sorry to all the nobody who cared.

Edited by makerofthegames, 08 November 2011 - 06:17 AM.

[chance]

If people can manage to write interesting development logs during Ludum Dare (a 48 hour comp, so even more time limited), then surely people could put in some effort here.

I think the difference is most Jam members actually make their game from scratch, including the basic idea, in the 72-hour time limit.

On Ludum Dare, I often feel that many (really, a lot!) of games are mostly complete beforehand. It's hard to believe authors can spend large amounts of time blogging during that 48-hr window... and then release a very polished looking game.

Not saying all LD participants do this. But I believe a very large number do.

[Yal]

It has a very long way to go until it is as engaging as Ludum Dare. The distinct lack of interesting development logs is something I've noticed. Part of what makes Ludum Dare so fun is seeing everyone's developments on the homepage, but here, next to no one actually updates their game post.

I think the combination of the short time limit and the fact that most members who were good at writing interesting text (Shadow Link and Zevti to name a few) has more or less left the forums plays in here.

In a most likely fruitless attempt at bringing things back on track, I'd like to thank Yal for putting Sophia's Spirits as her #1 vote...

You know what the best way of repaying me is?




Anyway... I think one reason many good games get little attention is that there's no good list with screenshots or other visuals of those games; they have to rely a lot on their names to catch attention. In a list with 50+ entries, that means most people will just skim trough the top or the bottom for names that catches their attention.

Perhaps for the next JAM, the linked list could either have an animated GIF with all the game screenshots in (plus some appended text with the game name)? This could have to impose a rule for the jam that the screen size would have to be max, say, 480x272 or 640x480, but obviously making either of those values smaller would be OK.

Another idea... if the links in the linked lists were colored, and everyone could state a hexadecimal color code (e.g. A000C0) they want their link to be colored? Whoever makes the list could just make a template code

[url="   "][color="#   "]   [color][/url]

and paste in URLs, game name, and color in that... so it should only be 12.5% more hassle than it is now when Post and Topic links taken into account. And it would be easier for people to make their game "stand out", for instance a zombie game would have a blood-red color, an dungeon crawler treasure collection game a golden yellow, and a lawyer game gray.