How about a separate entry category called “Out of the Box” for creative authors and innovation. I would really like to see how AI might fit in and possibly the new NPC conversation capability proposed for I7. ???
2 Likes
Separate but equal. Sounds “good”. What could be wrong? ⊙﹏⊙
Not separate but equal, a special place to promote “new and creative”.
In an educational setting it would be called gifted and talented (GT).
1 Like
Some impartial observations on ParserComp (impartial, as I don’t do competitions myself)…
ParserComp seems to have carved its own space in the competitions calendar, it has attracted a strong group of creators of interesting work, and has begun to build an audience of reviewers. By any measure, I think it has been quite successful.
Currently, ParserComp is another target to work towards, but not a exact duplication of any other competition. It is not just a second IFcomp.
At this point, ParserComp seems quite distinct, and aimed at a slightly different subset of creators than IFComp, which could be considered a strength and a quality that needs to be maintained.
ParserComp seems to be attractive to creators of puzzle-heavy IF and retro text adventures whose games might not get the chance to shine in other competitions. It seems important to continue to provide that outlet.
One of the challenge of increasing the diversity of games, to include the work in other niche sub-genres, is continuing to provide a level playing field where work is viewed in the appropriate context, is value equally, and is judged on the qualities it possesses rather than those it intentionally lacks by design.
Any competition, by its very nature, is divisive due to the act of being judged. A successful competition is always a balancing act, with some participants interested in rankings and prizes, and others who enter for feedback on their game and the ability to reach an audience. Creating additional categories, or award spaces, can help address some of the issues over comparative rankings, but it can also dilute the access to the total competition audience.
18 Likes
Very well said. Thank you.
1 Like
I agree. If ParserComp tries to be all things to all men, it’ll just be another IFComp. I haven’t played any of this year’s games yet, so maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree.
Look at this blast from the past though – ParserComp discussion – it quickly turned into a “what is a parser game” debate!
3 Likes
I think it did not try to be something else than a parser comp. This is basic Darwinism: You must know your niche, or you are dead. That means:
1) Don’t try to admit things that are not parser. Very important.
2) Not left behind parser games. Most important indeed. If you don’t fill the niche other will do it for you and this will be your competitor.
The first one I believe that is very clear for everyone: The dangerous point is in the second one, as far as I see it.
I really agree with a lot that was said above. I love twine and Choicescript and ink games, but I also love parser games, and Parser Comp comes up a lot because there are many people who want specifically more parser games.
I wonder if instead of putting the onus on the organizers if it can just be thrown to the judges? Like a warning or message in the submission page that “Most parsercomp judges are interested in games with text input/output and a world model. Examples of such games can be found here (link to CASA or IFDB or both). Other types of games can be entered but may not receive as much attention or favorable feedback.” Then people can enter whatever they want but won’t be shocked if it doesn’t place well.
7 Likes
PARSERCOMP: PROMOTING PARSER GAMES
Another idea for ParserComp2023 would be allow parser games previously published during the last year (from ParserComp to ParserComp).
Not allowing that is in fact making people don’t enrolling their parser games in other “main” competitions like IFComp, making parser games also less visible, and working for a smaller ghetto in the ghetto.
Perhaps some additional points for Parser Comp exclusive ones?
2 Likes
I think that’s true, but that’s not the only set of authors to whom it seems to be attractive. Like, of the 20 games that were entered, here’s my rough count by subgenre:
Retro/old school: 4 (Oct. 31st, Euripides Enigma, Uncle Mortimer’s Secret, Alchemist’s Gold)
Mainline/new school: 7 (Impossible Stairs, Of Their Shadows, The Muse, Things that Happened in Houghtonbridge, Anita’s Goodbye, Improv: Origins, Midnight at Al’s)
Limited parser/choice hybrid: 5 (Radio Tower, Context Nightsky, Desrosier’s Discovery, The Lantern, python game)
“Abuse of parser”: 4 (Gent Stickman, Cost of Living, You Won’t Get Her Back, Kondiac)
One of the cool things about the Comp to my mind is that it’s bringing together very traditional examples of the form as well as attempts to push the boundaries of what a parser game can do, both of which seem like they’re worthy entries in something called ParserComp.
As you say, there’s a balance to be struck between dilution and focus, but at least this year all the headaches seemed to come from defining “parser game” too narrowly, so I think that’s why folks are tending to propose loosening things up.
Yeah, this is what I think I was trying to grope my way towards, unsurprisingly stated much more clearly by Brian.
Running with the ribbon idea I was noodling at above, I wonder if there’d be a way to signal to authors that particular kinds of games are welcome by creating “best retro”, “best abuse”, etc. awards – so like overall placement would be determined by a single 1-10 ranking, but then a judge could also click a box to vote for one of those specific awards if a game seems to really exemplify the spirit of the category? I dunno, that makes it a bit more fiddly, but might give folks who know they’re making something that isn’t going to be as broadly popular something to aim for?
I worry this would make ParserComp feel less special, since judges might feel like they need to wade through reheated leftovers to get to the good stuff (and if an author has made significant upgrades to their game since an IFComp release, that work might get wasted as judges prefer playing fresh games).
More broadly, I feel like parser games do get a lot of attention in IFComp – they almost always win and dominate the top 10/20 – and there are way more games of all kinds, including parser games, being written these days than in previous years (there were only 28 entries in the 2012 IFComp!) If it felt like parser games were on more of a downward trend, my thoughts on what would make sense would probably change, though!
8 Likes
I like that idea a lot! We already allow games that have been entered in IntroComp and then completed. Maybe any games that have not been entered into one of the other comps prior to ParserComp. Great Idea!
3 Likes
I agree. I don’t want to sound non-inclusive, but. There are other jams and competitions for hybrids and fringe games. Maybe the organizers could just point kindly to Spring Thing for people who want to present a hybrid or highly experimental work.
But in the end, I think parser comp should be only about text adventures with parser.
PD: I’m the admin of ECTOCOMP, and there you can send EVEN bitsies that are minimalistic graphic JRPGs… so… I’m pro inclusivity of formats, but I feel the spirit of parser comp, and the success of it, depends of be only for parser games.
5 Likes
For that we have Xyyzy Awards.
1 Like
Gosh, I come back off holiday to find people are still talking about ParserComp! I knew it would be the event of the year.
My tuppence worth, as one of the organisers:
@mathbrush is clearly right in that the judges know a parser game when they see one, whatever definition we worry over: of the top ten in the last competition, 8 were pretty traditional and recognisable parser games (the outliers being Gent Stickman and You Won’t Get Her Back) and all of the top 5 were that. So we could just allow anything through the doors and let the public decide. But then we do risk diluting our USP and moving in the direction of becoming a more general text game competition, of which we have plenty already. I’d be inclined to reinforce our definition of what we consider to be an ‘orthodox’ parser game and have one field of entries for those, and then have another field for everything else (‘out of the box’ or whatever we decide to call it). That way, we please the parser purists like @warrigal (insofar as it is possible to please Garry), while still allowing fringe games into the competition. Anything that still doesn’t fit into either of those broad categories gets chucked out (note that this did actually happen in the last competition, but before submissions ended - we disqualified a couple of spamming arcade platform games because, well, they were spamming arcaded platform games).
An overall best game score does, on reflection, feel like the fairest way of deciding the winner. But I’m still keen to keep categories that could be voted on separately, as a way of gathering meaningful feedback for authors, since the bald ‘best game’ metric doesn’t say a lot on its own. I like the idea of pinching (I mean, respectfully borrowing) the ribbon idea from Spring Thing and allowing judges to create custom awards. I’ve no idea what that would require technically, but happily I don’t have to worry about that side of things - @fos1 and his team of boffins can put that together while I do some dusting, and chat to Sandra in the front office.
I’m not keen on allowing previously released games into the competition, and I’m not sure participants would be either. I think I would find it slightly annoying if I entered my brand, spanking new game into a competition and found myself competing against something that had been knocking around for six months already. Competition submission dates are (I find) good, solid deadlines for authors to work towards, and there’s definitely something special about lifting the curtain on a set of brand new, never before played games that would be lost if we did away with that rule (which was also, incidentally, enforced this year: one game was disqualified before the deadline as it had been previously released).
One thing I definitely plan to do is condense and clarify the rules next year. The current set were inherited and (with no disrespect to @Adam_S who put them together last year) rather long-winded without proportionally increasing clarity. My fault for being too tentative to take a proper hatchet to them this year. I’ll prune them harshly in time for next year’s jamboree!
11 Likes
As official scribe, I am taking copious notes, pages and pages…
Great feedback both here and on the discord.
3 Likes
29 posts were split to a new topic: Jams, Competitions, Parsers, and Defnitions [moved from Planning for ParserComp 2023]
ABOUT CATEGORIES
As I said in agree with what other people already said, I would like to see a general “Best Game / More Enjoyable Game” one.
But I would love not only to maintain the more detailed ones, as they are useful to see what other people thinks about different aspects of your game, but to add even more, perhaps related with characteristics of the input allowed (after all is a parser comp), and perhaps not mixing some of them as “Use of multimedia (graphics and sound) [5% weighting]”, that lead to see them as “oh, yes, all that other stuff”, but separate them in Graphics, Music (and perhaps “Original Music” like in the Oscars and “Previously Existing Music”?).
Perhaps the “Best Game” being a mandatory category for voters, and the other ones being optional for them to avoid voters leak due to a “too much to select” wall?
You can have a Best game category, and consider only that for the final ranking, instead of the average that usually uses Itchio. Like that you can have other categories.
For example. In ECTOCOMP there are 2 kinds of games, La petite mort, and Le grand Guignol. So itchio rank all games mixed in a unique ranked list. Officially I ditch that list, and then proceed to make a compilation by hand in the two separate lists.
It works for me.
I have the convenience of itchio, and I make my own rules about the results.
But, that only works if you have a voting category that is “Best game”.
5 Likes
That is exactly where we went with ParserComp.
My thoughts are coming together on this. More after a few more responses.
Thank you
1 Like
In the competition there was ONLY ONE game that could be clearly disqualified attending to the ParserComp rules.
I left for you as an exercise to determine which one and due to what rule break. A little clue: Is not any of the ones marked with a “Scarlet Letter”.
I would have defended it to stay in the comp anyway if the moment arrived for it to be disqualified, not because of me being so valiant or something so, but because I firmly believe that voters should be the ones that should decide that.
ABOUT THE SPECIAL CATEGORY
I prefer to be burnt with the witches (even knowing that I’m not) than be set apart from the other children in the schoolyard that I want to play with.
Why are some people so afraid of the remote possibility of a “strange game” winning ParserComp? I don’t think it will happen, but if it happens… well done!
I think the same for old school 8 bits fantasy set games. And for Shakespearean verbose games without puzzles. Let the games speak to the voters, and let the voters speak to the comp!
Set games in a different category makes me feel a bit like a teacher telling Mr. Gump’s mother that her boy is different.
WHAT IS A PARSER GAME
I can understand the need for the comp to give some definition of what a parser game is, but I believe that the main use of this would be to help people from outside the community to understand what is that comp about.
Was ParserComp really created to determine what is and what is not a Parser Game? to tell an author that what he said is a parser game is not because someone else decide that? or even to determine what a Parser Game is universally, out of the scope of the comp?
I want to think that it was not.
GENT STICKMAN
Some people believes that Gent Stickman is not a Parser Game. That’s nice, they are wrong, but it is nice that people have the right to be wrong. I will demonstrate it is, but I will do it after presenting the “Gent Stickman Ante Vitam (postmortem sucks)” that I am working on, as I will use for that demonstration some of the concepts I talk about there.
FINALLY
I could perfectly understand a NO AZ GAMES clausule because of tiresome. I would do it myself. But boys! Let the games live outside the indian reservation!
And be good! and happy!
3 Likes