That was the original idea when @MiloM and I were discussing it via DM, but it’s evolved enough in discussion at this point, I’m unsure if the idea is really mine anymore, lol. I don’t know if there’s a firm answer to your question yet. What do you think?
With that said, I am happy the base idea resonated with the community, and would be happy to host/organize/assist/promote/participate/(or bug out, if asked) whichever incarnation of this seed survives to germination.
Yes! Why not have an experimental inaugural comp in January/February, which is kind of a dead time for comps? It would probably be gloriously messy, but would help you figure out all the things not to do in the future!
It’s almost as if that was the exact time of year we were discussing…
Some thoughts:
@MiloM and I were concerned about the ethics of participating in a Comp we were also organizing, and we thought we might do something similar to SpringThing with its Back Garden. Declared non-competitive entrants would simply not partake in ranking/prizes, etc. That would avoid a conflict of interests for the organizers as well as create a safe space for sharing ideas or experimental adaptations.
As mentioned in the other thread, I don’t see too many of those seeds being literal continuations of the same game, not the most successful entries, that is. That a short story doesn’t always translate to a novel should be a common epiphany. While both contain the same seed, and might recycle some code (if they’re lucky) and major concepts, many will simply reframe the idea for a larger piece. This makes system incompatibilities part of the challenge, not an insurmountable problem. Consider round two as much of a reimaging and adaptation as it is also a continuation.
@MiloM and I discussed that the best time for trying to launch a new perennial Comp would be the obviously fairly dead period between IFComp/Ectocomp and SpringThing/AutumnalJumble. Seems like an obvious opportune spot in our calendars, probably after the holiday festivities had by many, maybe launching mid to late January?
This is a wise proposition and I think better captures the intent of the idea. While the seed can be a a short game segment, anything that captures the premise or spirit of the idea would be appropriate.
As for no restrictions on who can work what idea or how many can work together on the same idea, or how many ideas someone can work on simultaneously, I agree with a laissez-faire approach. However, I have only one suggestion. Restrict round two competitive entries to one (possibly three at most). An unlimited number of additional non-competitive Back Garden round two entries may be submitted. Consider it a Panks clause in the interest of fairness.
Not sure how much I like the idea of a single judge; I certainly wouldn’t want the pressure of arbitrarily deciding the relative merit of each competitive entry. I’d prefer traditional voting, but, as mentioned before, it appears this has escaped my creative control, so I’ll go with the flow.
The only other caveat I’d add to @lpsmith 's rundown is having the original inspiring seed listed next to each round two entry when opened for community playing/reviewing/voting. Being able to easily reference the inspiration when looking at the final product would be nice.
Edit-to-add: Oh! And assuming I have a say, I’d prefer to take @aaronius 's or IFComp’s approach, and host the whole thing on it’s own permanent home where previous entries, updates, rule evolutions, etc, live forever. As much as I like itch.io, and as well suited as it is for one-off and spontaneous jams/comps, the lack of control over things like voting (as ParserComp encountered) among other smaller things make it a less preferred option for something hoping to be an ongoing perennial comp.
Maybe have a Judge Choice type of ribbon? Everyone can still vote too.
That’s better. I am not Ryan Veeder or Emily Short; at best my picks would be gentle suggestions, like the staff picks set up in the vestibule of your town’s public library (unless you live in my hometown).
Sounds like a fun idea and I had a lot of excitement with something similar with the first Adventure gamejam (the Adventuron Cavejam).
In that jam, there was only one seed - a template of a very primitive game involving a troll, an apple, and a cave with some treasure in it - and it also started from provided source code (the jam was Adventuron specific - which this comp certainly would not be).
There was so much interest in the cavejam because the first creative step was taken on behalf of the authors. Analysis paralysis begone.
Which is to say that this compo sounds like a lot of fun. I was planning another fixed seed jam in the future, but this competition is obviously a lot more flexible and should have wide reach.
You have to be clear though that anyone contributing a seed, is allowing non commercial use of the seed by the public in general.
First, I just want to say that while I’m willing to help, my suggestions are only suggestions; I don’t want to dictate anything. If the ideas are helpful, great! I outlined something specific mostly so it could be more directly compared against other ideas.
Here’s my thinking behind some of the choices I made:
If the organizers are uncomfortable being Judges, another option is to recruit a handful of Celebrity Judges to write reviews and/or award favorites.
So… Daniel, Milo, Pinkunz: you want to be The Committee? Would you like me on it, too?
If you need help, I am down!
Understood!
Fair enough, I just worry that without some friendly competition, some won’t enter. We’re all wired differently and that sense of competition can be an important driver for some, even if it’s as tame as two “best in show” ribbons and no public rankings otherwise.
Agreed on both, love the idea, definite golden banana vibes.
I entirely agree, I was being imprecise with my language. This would apply to competitive 2nd Round entries, not seeds. As for the max limit, the concern is with a single author flooding a single ranked comp with a whole slew of games (And tRo11z4LiF3 gets 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 13th, and 15th place…). It isn’t super likely, but not implausible, as it was a rule put in place a little preemptively by IFComp many years ago when a specific author reached out enquiring if there was a max limit of games he could enter into the competition.
Personally indifferent about celebrity judges; it’d probably be more dependent on their willingness to do it. I’d imagine they might have a concern about forming a precedent and thus an ongoing expectation that they might come back each year to do the same. Then again, maybe they might be into that. I dunno.
I would be down for joining any committee that formed to move this forward, as I obviously like the idea.
I’m down to help organize! I have another batch of thoughts and ideas for how it could be structured, but I’m travelling to visit family this week so that batch might have to wait a day or two.
I like this idea! There was a similar competition for tabletop RPGs, called Threeforged. It worked well.
I don’t think we got an answer to this. Any takers? I, for one, am lousy at coming up with an original idea for a game, so I’d be lousy at phase 1. Whereas, there are others that are full of ideas, but don’t know how to implement it or turn it into a game. I see this as an opportunity for the two to meet.
Yes, that’s what I had in mind when asking the question. This could bridge the gap between starters and finishers.
I think this might be the most crucial question about the comp so far. I think we’re at the point where decisions have to start being made. @pinkunz, @Draconis, @lpsmith, @manonamora, and I have all declared interest in being on a committee. Is that too many people? From running committees before, that feels like too many people.
After chewing on that, I think I agree. I feel like participation in both sections should be encouraged, but definitely not mandatory.
And this is where we step off into uncharted territory. I reached out to organizers of other comps and asked if they had any nuggets of wisdom or words of caution they might be willing to share in this topic, but a decent fraction will be surely preoccupied elsewhere.
As for hashing out details and creating this from scratch, a group of five shouldn’t be too bad. If there are any devisive decisions to be made, a group of five should capture both sides of the issue as well as come with a tie-breaking vote. I imagine it’s when you start acting on that framework that the kitchen starts getting crowded. What do you kind folks think?
ETA: To be more clear, I feel the committee should hash out all the details of how SeedComp should run, and then maybe two (?) people should actually run the thing when it comes time to officially announce?
My vision is fairly similar to Lucian’s. Something like… (differences marked in bold)
I personally like the democratized rating system, though it wouldn’t have to be as formal as IFComp’s—for me, it motivates me to play and vote on the games, rather than just waiting to see what someone else thinks. But also I think special awards, like the ribbons in Spring Thing, are a great idea.
Should there be a limit on the amount of seed an author can sign up for?
Honestly, if someone wants to combine every single seed into one enormous game, I think we should let them do that. On the whole I wouldn’t expect any given entry to successfully incorporate more than two. But I think it would be interesting to see what results from combining seeds. What do you get when you cross “a heist gone wrong” with “first contact with an alien species”? I’m not sure, but I want to play it!
Right so seed =/= entries.
What about a limit of entries though? I think the IF Comp has one for 3 entries?