I appreciate what RekNepZ
have to say. A voting period somewhat proportional to the number of entries might be nice to consider.
For a participant of the Jam, I think it's good fun as it is. A theme, a handicap... nothing comes to mind for a third place element so I'll leave it for now.
There's a debate about the voting method each Jam; I have my opinion on that but I'll stay out of it this time.
But Ult, the guy currently running
the Jam wants
to hear your opinion. $:^ b
What we need are more things happening outside the game-making part of the Jam.
Interesting. I'll toss in here that, like dadio
and smash ball
sorta mentioned, the prizes don't seem to be what they used to be. When I joined Jam #3, the prizes were insane! -- a mandolin ode, a custom banner (for anyone who requests, no matter the rank), official YYG gear (years before the store opened, ha), multiple "Let's Play" videos, tech work (such as an iOS port, a year of web hosting, a month of programming and art), etc.! I've been considering offering a surprise prize of my own in the next Jam; we'll just have to see what my time and resource capabilities are in a couple months. $;^ ]
Each discussion topic could have a list of games from the last Jam(s) that had a sizable post-Jam update. Most games are made for the Jam, but there are always a few enthusiastic devs that keep going. I've seen great games fade from the GMC because it's so hard to get attention after the votes are counted and everybody goes back to whatever they were doing.
I really like this! $:^ D Sure, a lot of games don't
get worked on after a Jam. "I made my entry, that was fun, time to move on," kind of stuff. But others find inspiration in the Jam and springboard off that to keep developing their little gems they first crafted in those 72 hours.
Logistics: How much should constitute "sizable"? How long after the Jam should constitute "post-Jam"?
Topics linked in the game post could be put into a big TXT file when the ZIP is made so reviewers can post in the topic too.
Yes, that's also great. I felt I was going a bit overkill on my organization just so that I could go to each of the topics of games I had played so I could give my reviews (especially for those long, long after the Jam had ended).
I don't remember if there was a Best Reviewer prize this time, but we could have a vote and a top 3 for that, sorta like the Review Jam. Anything for the reviewers really. It takes time (especially doing it for every game) and it's a huge part of the Jam too. But it's likely not the best idea because people might just vote for whoever voted for their game.
and kind of HayManMarc
said something like this, too. 1. There's even a best devlog award, 2. this award could certainly encourage
better reviews (which many gamedevs really appreciate), and 3. um yeah what ever happened to that GMC Review Jam? $:^ \ ...therefore, I think it's an interesting idea, anyway.
The big problem I see is just the fact that it comes after the voting period. (Alice also mentioned as much.) Otherwise, the potential issue of any entrant voting for a review solely
based on the reviewer voting on the entrant surely would be counteracted by all the other people voting on whomever, and most likely a couple solid reviewers getting the main votes.
However, writing all that brings to mind more problems. What constitutes the best reviewer? The one who made sure to say some small thing about every entry? The one who wrote the most in-depth exegesis, nevermind that this was only done for one entry (and then a couple other entries just got quickie feedback)? Like the Jam games themselves, there are multiple reasons why a person would vote for this one or that one. I'm not sure how many people are really up for "reviewing reviews" as it were -- after all, apparently the GMC Review Jam (dedicated solely to this) withered away, eh? $:^ [ Furthermore, I could see this somehow .. slanting reviews, or influencing someone to rush reviews (for artificial quantity) or give fewer of them (for artificial quality).
As I essay this issue, I actually persuade myself away
from officially rewarding reviewers. (However, if any community members offers to reward any reviewer(s), then hey, more power to ya. $:^ b heheheh ... This hearkens back to the community-oriented prizes issue.)
I think you're one-and-a-half cents short of HayManMarc. Clearly.
Just my two cents, let me know what you think. :)
$E^ b Regards,
theUndiscovered ~ Brandon W. Horton ~ ParodyKnaveBob ~ $:^ J