vivdunstan (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
vivdunstan) wrote2012-11-07 08:36 pm
vivdunstan) wrote2012-11-07 08:36 pm
Entry tags:
Scores and thoughts on the 2012 IF Comp
I've finished judging IF Comp now, and have played through and judged 27 out of 28 games. I've been judging games since the competition started in 1995, but in recent years have often only managed to play and judge the minimum 5 games for my votes to count, if even that. So this year's proportion judged is a big result for me. Partly it's because I kept nibbling away at the games over the judging weeks, but I also suspect it's because the games are generally shorter than in previous competitions, with fewer vastly long games that individually require a massive investment in time from the player judge. Personally I think this is a very good thing, because although as a player I like long in-depth games, I find them hard to manage in the IF Comp setting, which is better suited to shorter ones. I also tend to find that shorter games can often be better implemented than longer ones, and certainly more so than sprawling ones with vast numbers of rooms.
Overall the standard this year for me was high. I enjoyed more games than I disliked, even including some that I thought were poor, and there were a good number that I rated as very good or higher. I was surprised to see so few TADS games, and was intrigued by the large number of choose your own adventure style web games. I'm not familiar with the technology behind these games, and likewise the technology used to implement the graphically impressive Guilded Youth, but approached them all as a player looking for good interactivity, immersion, and implementation. I've not had a great experience of web style games in the past, but this year, with one notable exception, I was very impressed, and found them as rewarding as other forms of IF.
I was surprised to see so many science fiction games this year. That's not my favourite genre, and tended to be the games I played last, as I worked through judging the games in order of which titles and blurbs appealed to me most. Though having said that I really enjoyed some of the sci fi games I played. There were very few fantasy games, and a good number of horror ones, which I liked.
Looking down my list of scores, which I'll give shortly, there's a real mix between shorter games and slightly longer ones. I found some of the shortest games of all to be the most satisfying, probably because they were the most implemented. Level and quality of implementation is a really vital thing for me when assessing a game, and I'm likely to give low scores to games that haven't had enough work put into them. This also counts against retro style text adventures, of which there were a few this year. If I try to interact with objects and find that they have not been implemented well enough I will find this a very frustrating experience as a player. I've been playing IF since circa 1980 but expect different things now.
Generally I played the games to completion, within the recommended judging time, but there were some that I got too stuck on, and would have needed exhaustive help from the walkthrough. For these I'd score the games based on how far I got, though if they were too hard without the walkthrough (like Changes, which other judges picked up on too) they were liable to lose a point for that. I think it's important that IF games are playable, and not too difficult. It helps if there is a built-in hints system. Without it there needs to be sufficient clueing.
My scoring system used the 1-10 range quite extensively. 1 and 2 were for games that were extremely poor, 3 and 4 for games that were poor with some merit, 5 and 6 for games that were good, 7 and 8 for games that were very good, and 9 and 10 for games that were excellent. I used almost the full range of scores, but didn't give out a 10 this year.
I judged all but one game: Kicker required far too much knowledge of American Football, and I have none, and didn't feel I could judge it fairly, or enjoy playing it. So best not to.
Here's my list of scores, from highest to lowest. Note games scored at the same level are given in alphabetical order by title, not in preference (or reverse preference):
My favourite game was Guilded Youth, which in many ways is quite linear. But I felt involved throughout, thoroughly engrossed in the world, and I really liked the visual interface.
I didn't complete Andromeda Apocalypse. It's one of the longer games, and I only got so far in the time I allowed myself, and before I got rather stuck playing without hints. But I hugely enjoyed the world building in the parts I played, and despite it being sci fi - easily my least favourite genre - enjoyed playing through it immensely. And I really felt a huge sense of accomplishment each time I unlocked a new achievement.
Eurydice conjured up a wonderful atmosphere, and though it was relatively short it was superbly implemented and made a big impression on me.
The Test is Now READY was based around a relatively simple idea, but was very well implemented, and it made me think all the way through. I also liked the report at the end. A short but strong game, very well done.
Overall the standard this year for me was high. I enjoyed more games than I disliked, even including some that I thought were poor, and there were a good number that I rated as very good or higher. I was surprised to see so few TADS games, and was intrigued by the large number of choose your own adventure style web games. I'm not familiar with the technology behind these games, and likewise the technology used to implement the graphically impressive Guilded Youth, but approached them all as a player looking for good interactivity, immersion, and implementation. I've not had a great experience of web style games in the past, but this year, with one notable exception, I was very impressed, and found them as rewarding as other forms of IF.
I was surprised to see so many science fiction games this year. That's not my favourite genre, and tended to be the games I played last, as I worked through judging the games in order of which titles and blurbs appealed to me most. Though having said that I really enjoyed some of the sci fi games I played. There were very few fantasy games, and a good number of horror ones, which I liked.
Looking down my list of scores, which I'll give shortly, there's a real mix between shorter games and slightly longer ones. I found some of the shortest games of all to be the most satisfying, probably because they were the most implemented. Level and quality of implementation is a really vital thing for me when assessing a game, and I'm likely to give low scores to games that haven't had enough work put into them. This also counts against retro style text adventures, of which there were a few this year. If I try to interact with objects and find that they have not been implemented well enough I will find this a very frustrating experience as a player. I've been playing IF since circa 1980 but expect different things now.
Generally I played the games to completion, within the recommended judging time, but there were some that I got too stuck on, and would have needed exhaustive help from the walkthrough. For these I'd score the games based on how far I got, though if they were too hard without the walkthrough (like Changes, which other judges picked up on too) they were liable to lose a point for that. I think it's important that IF games are playable, and not too difficult. It helps if there is a built-in hints system. Without it there needs to be sufficient clueing.
My scoring system used the 1-10 range quite extensively. 1 and 2 were for games that were extremely poor, 3 and 4 for games that were poor with some merit, 5 and 6 for games that were good, 7 and 8 for games that were very good, and 9 and 10 for games that were excellent. I used almost the full range of scores, but didn't give out a 10 this year.
I judged all but one game: Kicker required far too much knowledge of American Football, and I have none, and didn't feel I could judge it fairly, or enjoy playing it. So best not to.
Here's my list of scores, from highest to lowest. Note games scored at the same level are given in alphabetical order by title, not in preference (or reverse preference):
- 9 - Guilded Youth
- 8 - Andromeda Apocalypse
- 8 - Eurydice
- 8 - The Test is Now READY
- 7 - Last Minute
- 7 - Sunday Afternoon
- 6 - Irvine Quik & the Search for the Fish of Traglea
- 6 - Lunar Base 1
- 6 - Murphy's Law
- 5 - Body Bargain
- 5 - Fish Bowl
- 5 - Living Will
- 5 - The Sealed Room
- 4 - A Killer Headache
- 4 - Changes
- 4 - Escape from Summerland
- 4 - howling dogs
- 4 - In a Manor of Speaking
- 3 - Shuffling Around
- 3 - Spiral
- 3 - The Island
- 3 - Transit
- 2 - Castle Adventure
- 2 - J'dal
- 2 - Signos
- 2 - Valkyrie
- 1 - The Lift
My favourite game was Guilded Youth, which in many ways is quite linear. But I felt involved throughout, thoroughly engrossed in the world, and I really liked the visual interface.
I didn't complete Andromeda Apocalypse. It's one of the longer games, and I only got so far in the time I allowed myself, and before I got rather stuck playing without hints. But I hugely enjoyed the world building in the parts I played, and despite it being sci fi - easily my least favourite genre - enjoyed playing through it immensely. And I really felt a huge sense of accomplishment each time I unlocked a new achievement.
Eurydice conjured up a wonderful atmosphere, and though it was relatively short it was superbly implemented and made a big impression on me.
The Test is Now READY was based around a relatively simple idea, but was very well implemented, and it made me think all the way through. I also liked the report at the end. A short but strong game, very well done.