In 2010, there were an average of 93 votes per entry, and the top ten got 101 votes per entry. (Least voted entry got 50 votes.)
In 2019, there were an average of 43 votes per entry, and the top ten got 51 votes per entry. (Least voted entry got 9 votes.)
I think this matters to the extent that an individual author is really in it for the feedback. I may just be an attention hound, but I would (in all honesty) prefer getting more votes and more feedback. (Of course, those stats don’t measure feedback in general.)
I don’t mean to say there’s a “problem”, and I don’t have any changes to propose, but I think there’s a downside as well as an upside to having a larger field.
As another viewpoint on the numbers issue I do feel concerned that I’m likely to miss out on some great games that I can’t play. All a result of the competition entry numbers growing so much. I used to be able to play most of IFComp. Even with my progressive neurological illness. Now the illness has advanced more that wouldn’t be possible for most years of the competition, but with 104 entries this year it’s certainly impossible.
Part of what keeps me playing IFComp - and I’ve been judging since the very start, back in 1995, yes I can remember the split comp era! - is finding great games. Variety is another huge factor keeping me going. But ultimately I want to play to find some great games. And as the number of entries grows so much there’s less chance of me seeing all - or even many - of the greatest games entered. At least during the competition period itself. I can catch up later.
This might not seem that important, but I think it can be an important motivation factor for judges. We are not paid, we are not rewarded for our time and effort, beyond getting a good gaming experience. Yes we only have to play 5 games each year, but are those 5 going to be the ones that make you want to play more? I’ve been doing a lot of promotion of IFComp this year on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and web forums, trying to drum up new voters. Always saying “You just need to rate 5 games for your votes to count.” But I’m having doubts how many will reach even that. And ultimately the competition rests in a way on the judges, albeit perhaps not as much on the competitors.
Just some alternative thoughts. I also feel that there can be a bit of an author/judge split in views on this issue. Where most authors are probably “Yay, more entries!” Whereas some judges like me look at the field of 104 and go “Wibble …”
Well, it’s true to form. The genre was basically invented when a bunch of programmers decided, hey, you know what, our work and educational lives don’t involve enough situations where we need to find proper syntax, untangle complex systems, and sort disparate information, we need to make more.
In a different way, yes. I may miss games throughout the year because of less promotion / the reduced coverage of IFComp. But I’m personally more worried about missing some gems in IFComp. Which is probably daft and all, but as I say it’s a motivation issue for me to keep going in a very intense few weeks of judging.
I could see an argument for trying to make the SpringThing more relevant, but otherwise I can’t see good things coming of intentionally splintering up the one big unifying event of the community. The sheer bewildering amount of variety is one of the things I love about IFComp games, and it’s the only time IF communities that generally keep to themselves come together and see what other authors are up to. (And this is not even getting into how much interest there’d be in multiple smaller comps with the promise of significantly less prize money and significantly fewer players for each of them…)
SpringThing originally charged money just to enter, and then later it stopped being a competition at all. If it never really took off that seems like largely its own doing.
I’m surprised that when everyone was so against the CYOA vs parser split (and is every single year) you’ve all just turned around and started entertaining the idea of breaking the comp apart in other ways.
I’m not convinced there’s an actual problem to begin with. Yes there are a lot of games, but this thing is designed with the idea that most people aren’t going to be playing all of them, and that many voters will be new or casual players. That’s worked up until now, how about at least waiting to see if more games somehow lead to problems with the judging before hitting the panic button and trying to change it all. Really all I’m seeing here is people freaking out because their hobby is a little bit popular now.
And I’m pretty confused as to what that tag was even about but thx @mother u 2 bb.
Disclaimer: I’m not remotely planning to play every game. But if it turns out I missed a good one even with recommendations from friends etc then I’ll just check it out after the comp. I’m sure the authors appreciate feedback at other times of the year too.
It’s probably not doing authors any favors either to get votes from people forcing themselves to play things they already know they’ll hate…nor can the vast majority of voters ever be expected to do this. If there was pressure to push out casual players and people with limited time who are already doing the authors a favor by playing/voting at all, pretty sure that a significant number would be happy to sit this phase out altogether and let other, more masochistic judges sift out the chaff for them. And then you’d really start seeing issues to be concerned about with the author/player ratio.
And this concludes this all-over-the-place thread’s most recent text wall of long winded Opinions that no one else really cares about and most people won’t bother to read.
Well, good night, I have already voted a dozen games and write a comentary about each one.
As this is my first time in judging this contest, I dont know if I should public my comentaries.
As far as I can see public comments enhance that some games had been more played than other ones.
On the other hand if anyone can read those, experience can be more sattisfactory.
Dear Jade, welcome! I would certainly make them public – many of us judges love to compare notes, so to say, and check out other people’s view when we’ve played a game ourselves.
SpringThing was set up as an alternative and counterbalance to IFComp… after IFComp hit a shocking and record-setting high of 51 entries.
In the alternative universe where Spring Thing did take off, and ran at ~50 entries per year, I can’t see anybody arguing to merge it back into IFComp on the grounds that one big event would be better. One big event would clearly be worse, I’d think. You’d need to pick one set of rules, for a start. And what the heck would people play when it wasn’t October-November?
(I always worry about one big anything. What if it goes wrong?)
(Yes, I think about this a lot in IFTF planning.)
To answer a relevant question from the other thread:
Maybe we could divide the Colossal Fund between the two events?
If the event planners decide to do that, then yes, that’s easy to do.
This would be, let’s be clear, a big change in the way Spring Thing plays out. Part of the point of Spring Thing is to work differently from IFComp, and that includes not having large voting-based prizes. Should that change? Are there alternatives? Big discussion there.
I think part of the charm of The Spring Thing is that it feels like a low stakes event. In fact, if competition isn’t your thing, you can even opt out of the main competition and participate in the back garden. It’s described as a festival and I like that.
Well, I think this can be very helpful, because some people do look for games that haven’t been reviewed and try to review them, so every game is looked at. But it’s understandable if you don’t wish to make public comments.
Still, it’s always good to see someone new. Proceed at your own pace, though we’d like to do what we can to help you not get stuck.
I’ve also found that sometimes it’s an afterthought in a review of mine (or others) that spurs a lot of discussion. So you don’t know what’s really going to get people talking positively. I think as long as you’re not trying for volume for its own sake, that is more than good enough.
In the very initial phase of the comp, the negative reactions to the blurb really stung, simply because it felt “unfair” given I’d spent 3 years working on the game, and it was being judged based on something I had absolutely no training in writing properly (not just the blurb, but the content warning for the blurb).
However, I consider the reaction fair, and I think I actually learned a pretty important fact about it: blurbs are important. I think it’s legit to judge a game based on how it presents itself, esp. since so many in the community are willing to offer advice on how to present a game.
Cover art and blurbs are deceptively important. I really liked that 2 people reviewed just those two things by themselves last year and found it very helpful. It’s a shame it sounds like this might have been negatively received, as I think it’s an important part of the whole presentation and can help as we don’t always have a lot of practice doing these things and it can make or break the first impression of a game and whether people will pick it up to read. I can’t imagine how heartbreaking it would be to spend 3 years designing a game and have it be negatively received before people had even started reading it.
Maybe this is obvious, but I’m new to all of this so it wasn’t obvious to me… But most people that submit to the comp have beta testers, right? Or at least those that hope to place well. Maybe part of the beta testing could be getting opinions on the blurb that they are planning to use. Just simple questions like “Does this accurately describe the game?” or “Is this misleading?”
Ask your playtesters to review your blurb, including its content warning. Ask what excites them about the blurb, ask whether it accurately describes the game they tested, and ask whether there are any interesting features about the game that you have omitted.
You can also ask people who haven’t played your game to review your blurb. You can’t post your game publicly before the competition starts, but you can post your blurb publicly, allowing you to get feedback from folks who aren’t already familiar with your game. This way, you can find out whether the blurb is exciting (or whether it even makes sense) to people who haven’t played your game yet.
