Phase 1: Write a set of reviews for five games that do not and possibly cannot exist in our universe. Send the list to my email by December 13th, midnight EST.
Phase 2: You will receive a randomized list of five imaginary games created by other participants in the jam. You are to pick one (or more) and make
a fan fiction
a critical response game
an artifact of some genre category never before seen by humans
or if you are feeling bold and it is even practical, duplicate the game as described.
Very interesting but also quite a bit more complicated than the usual comp.
I assume the ‘cannot actually exist in our universe’ part is not meant to be taken literally, as you do mention the possibility for a bold contestant to actually try to duplicate the game as described.
Anyway am SO tempted to make an attempt even though my IF-making skills aren’t yet adequate AND I am worried I won’t have the time…
I have two suggestions BTW:
1)For phase 2, allow parodies. Or is that already included in ‘critical response’?
2)Provide a couple of example reviews for phase 1, so we know that exactly is meant? Hopefully that won’t step on the toes of someone who comes up with similar ideas on their own…
There’s the walkthroughs, but that’s somewhat different conceptually.
“possibly cannot” means that bit is optional. But yes, if someone went that route, I do mean literally impossible: imaging games written with technology that doesn’t exist, personal physiology that doesn’t exist, personal space travel, etc. Perhaps a physical version of Dance Dance Revolution in an arcade that requires tentacles to play.
It also can mean just writing the game as described is technically possible but wildly impractical.
Parodies are a form of critical response. That’s a good one to add specifically, though.
Example reviews are linked to in the main post at bluerenga. (See the Tlon ones for ambitious otherworldly examples, or the comp99 ones for a more sedate approach.)
This sounds really interesting and quite a challenge. I’m a bit confused by the example reviews, though. The examples are real games, right? So, the content of the reviews describe real games. But aren’t our reviews supposed to be for games that are near-to or impossible to make? And is it the game itself that needs to be imaginary, not the story the game describes? For example, I could say that the game is able to read the player’s mind (something supernatural), but the story itself is simply a dinner party with conversation (which isn’t an imaginary situation).
Also, are there grounds for disqualifying a review?
Alas, as much as I’d like Board Hero to exist, none of the games in the examples are real, nor has anyone ever subsequently made them real.
Yes, you could imagine a universe where the mind-computer interface devices work very well and imagine what a game would be like that would use such a thing. That sounds like an excellent idea. And yes, you can have “the story itself be real”.
You have to have written it yourself. (I hope that goes without saying, but I can add it explicitly to the rules if you want.)
This sounds like a lot of fun. It might be enough to get me to make something.
This is probably a dumb question. Phase 2 says, “Send a link to your creation to my email”, but Phase 3 says works “will be shared to the authors (not yet to the public)”.
How do you link to something that isn’t public?