Would someone care to explain to me what the purpose of competition updates is, because I still don’t see the point. And I still don’t know how to judge such games. I refuse to replay any of the games which have been updated!
And I’m not trolling here or anything, but expressing my serious opinion. And I have a damn right to do so! Moderators like “bcressey” or whatever his name is, should make sure to remember that before they have the cockiness to block my topics again! [emote]:evil:[/emote]
I strongly agree with what Finn Rosenløv said about it here.
It is cheating by the authors and it has to stop! If updates of any of the games continue then I’m going to send a formal complaint to Stephen Granade…
This is not a Beta-test Comp! This will have consequences to all those authors who updated their games. And I don’t care what nature the update is.
I hate it when I find myself agreeing with the forum’s resident mud-slinger.
Next year I predict we’ll have someone abuse this new ‘rule’ by submitting an unfinished game, updating it to something radically different a day later, then continually updating it until it’s so far removed from the original game as to be a totally separate game.
I almost hate to get involved in what seems to have become a very emotional topic. I think there are valid arguments to be made on both sides, and I don’t really have a strong feeling one way or the other.
I would point out, however, that I think David’s concern may not be all that realistic. If anybody is skilled enough to write an entirely new polished piece in one day, he probably doesn’t need to engage in the subterfuge of calling it an “update” of the previous day’s less well-polished (and totally different) piece.
You can’t cheat by simply following the rules of a competition. Since updates are explicitly allowed, updating your games can’t be cheating. It may or may not be a wise rule, but following it just isn’t cheating.
As for how to judge an updated game, I think that was made clear in the previous thread on the subject:
No judge is forced to replay any game or even to play the latest available version of any game.
Also, I doubt that an author would gain much by releasing a whole string of widely different games masquerading as one entry. At least, I think it is quite unlikely that such a game would end up top three of thirty entries.
Now that would be a fun experiment. Write two or three good games that share the same name and opening scene, replace one with the other during the competition and see if anyone notices. (Couldn’t be done this year since nobody knew about the new rule in advance.)
Oooh, I propose UpdateComp. Everyone submits a game, then halfway through they have to submit an update that starts out the same but goes somewhere totally different. You could include some sort of Speed-IF style key that has to be included in the update to prevent people from cheating by preparing their updates in advance.
[On the main topic: No one is making anyone replay games that have been updated. Chill.]
Another one: run a “RevisionComp” where the entire idea is to “cheat” using the various methods described as “cheating” on this board, and see if there’s any difference between the kind of people who can make winning games by cheating, and the kind of people who can just make winning games [emote];)[/emote]
Awesome! But updates should have to be according to the suggestions from reviewers (who would share the shame or glory of updated entries). It could run as a kind of marathon until nobody could be bothered to submit yet another update.
When I read this, I pictured a “Whos Line Is It Anyway” style contest; write a short game (in, say, a week), then you have one week to make it into a Western, then another week to make it into a comedy sketch, then horror, etc. - where the ‘genre’ is chosen from a hat (full of suggestions, as noted by Felix).
Four-five weeks of heavy coding and game-writing… Now that could be fun
Now I’m envisaging the competition as a Speed-IF interpretation of The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen. “But my dear Baroness, surely you must be mistaken in saying I could make no impression upon the lunar surface. For as everyone knows, the moon is made of green cheese.”
Or something like a gradual version of the blurb-based Speed IF. The author submits a short work, a critic says, “oh, I wish it were more like [such and such ridiculous thing],” the author adds another location or NPC or puzzle, rinse and repeat… We could even have the authors trade works with each other after each round of reviews, to bring in an IF Whispers element.
I remember sitting behind Derek Pearcy, looking over his shoulder while he was doing some graphic production on that thing for James … he was rhapsodizing about Gustave Doré and how they got away without needing an art budget [emote]:)[/emote]
Actually, I don’t think for a second someone will do that. What I think is more likely is someone writing several different versions of the same game then submitting them one after another in an effort to abuse the rule.