“A few”?
Look, if you want to dig into the differences between the interactivity of CYOA games and parser games, start from the interactivity. Don’t start by saying “It’s not a game!” with no details – that’s just posturing.
I haven’t followed this. From my amateurish point of view CYOA “games” are pretty low on the evolution ladder, but after all it’s the judges that ranked them. If they judged CYOA “games” to be competitive, this doesn’t have to be approved, but to be accepted. 'Nuff said.
Sounds to me like they* even judged them worthy of dropping the scare quotes.
*I am so bad at getting my act together and submitting votes…
I’m inclined to agree with the sentiment here, except inasmuch as the ChoiceScript community was perfectly welcome to vote on the competition. So it’s really more like “hosted by a member of the We Love Apples Association.”
As the author of a parser-based entry, I have to say that I got what I wanted from IntroComp – all the feedback wanted, in reviews. And I really enjoyed the top three entries. And I enjoyed other entries enough that I thought they should have been in the top three.
I had a feeling this sort of discussion about the convergence of the IF and ChoiceScript communities might occur. I wondered which side I would take. And then I remembered I didn’t have to take one at all.
Concerning the decision of not releasing the scores for the games: I agree that it could be discouraging if your game placed last, or in the last third, but then again, I submitted my games mainly to see how well they would fare in competition with other games.
The reviews were a fantastic source of information and I’d like to thank all reviewers, but I would still have liked to see a score, if only to compare my two entries.
One possibility, if not optimal, could be telling the authors about the scores of their games (and only theirs) privately.
Googles CYOA
Oh. (I’m such a newb.) [emote]:|[/emote]
Resumes reading thread