With the number of XYZZY nominations every year, no one could meaningfully rate each game against the others unless it was their full-time job, and as the rules point out no one is expected to. In the finalist round it’s of course a different question.
Apparently no one remembered to inform the Choice of Games community that this was an awards for Interactive Fiction ™.
Unfortunately, it is not. It has always been a source of profound perplexity (and, in the beginning, when I was still an angry young man, a little anger) to me that some people voted in the second round without having played all the games in the category they voted for. How could you possibly decide that A is better than B if you have only played A? But alas, the XYZZY judging rules have never made playing all the games in a category mandatory.
I understand that such a rule would be unenforcable, but I don’t think that is a big problem.
And of course, when I say “play” I do not mean “play to completion”.
I find that to be in rather poor taste. Especially after you argued on Twitter this week that puzzles are only added for nostalgia’s sake, it’s extremely hypocritical to mention that Zombie Exodus is up for “Best Puzzle” without some qualifying statement about how it doesn’t even have puzzles.
I can accept that the first time out you didn’t realize what would happen. But the followup makes it look as though you knew perfectly well and that you are not the least bit ashamed for dumping on a venerable community institution.
Then it needs its own set of competitions. You can’t throw parser games with non-parser ones in the same pot. But the XYZZY Awards aren’t a competition. Therefore a category for CYOA still makes sense.
I think the take home message of the last ifcomp was that you can put parser and non-parser interactive fiction together, given that two gamebooks were successfully judged against 36 parser games.
As zarf noted upthread, I think we can throw The Play and Taco Fiction in the same comp, or the XYZZYs, and judge them on a level playing field. However, for the XYZZYs, I would prefer it if we included just the games that somehow engaged with the IF community – entered into a comp, or at least had an IFDB or IFWiki entry. The issue isn’t so much that Zombie Exodus is a CYOA; it’s that many or even most of us had never heard of it. That could have been true of a parser game as well.
Surely the issue is that, presumably, most of the people who voted for Zombie Exodus hadn’t heard of any of the other games?
FWIW, Choice of Games did not blog about IFComp in 2011; the rules of IFComp make it explicit that campaigning for votes is forbidden, and I was afraid that we’d stack the deck in favor of The Play, which would have been a clear violation of the rules of IFComp.
As a result, I hypothesize that most people in the ChoiceScript community were entirely unaware of IFComp and “The Play”. I mentioned “The Play” in passing in my earlier XYZZY blog post choiceofgames.com/2012/01/vo … zy-awards/ but the emphasis was quite clearly on the ChoiceScript games.
I’m trying to work out what our options are.
Short-term, there are three outcomes:
a) Zombie Exodus sweeps the awards, rendering them effectively meaningless. The IF community feels that one of its most important institutions has been violated, and the goodwill that dfabulich has worked patiently to establish goes up in smoke.
b) Zombie Exodus wins few or no awards. The IF community is still thoroughly pissed off, but to a lesser degree. This is probably the best outcome for everybody concerned.
c) the organisers take some kind of high-handed action to prevent a), probably on the premise that this constitutes a community invasion. Everybody gets deeply pissed off and looks bad. Obviously I’d prefer that we avoided this option.
Long-term, the stakes are a bit more complicated. We need to thread the needle of being open to cross-pollination and fostering relations with related communities, without leaving ourselves vulnerable to this kind of thing. I don’t have any answers right at this moment.
One perhaps less obnoxious version of c) would be to do a run-off instead of first-past-the-post for the final round of voting. If, as I think you said, the ChoiceScript voters were a minority but had more concentrated votes, then one plausible voting outcome would be that in lots of the categories, Zombie Exodus gets 40%, Parser Game 1 gets 30%, Parser game 2 gets 20%, Parser game 1 gets 10%. But if all the parser voters prefer Parser Game 1 to Zombie Exodus, then Parser Game 1 would win the runoff. And if they don’t all prefer Parser Game 1, then at least we know that Zombie Exodus won by converting some people from outside the Parser If community.)
UPDATE: Of course a considerable disadvantage of this approach is that it amounts to changing the rules mid-stream.
(By the way, Dan, I have a question which as you can probably guess is a little hostile in intent: What innovations do you think that Zombie Exodus makes?)
Zombie Exodus does have inventory puzzles.
When I wrote that blog post, before I’d seen even this thread, I believed it was totally acceptable to campaign for votes in XYZZY. I was campaigning with honest intentions – I certainly didn’t intend to “dump” on XYZZY – and I withheld from directly calling for votes for Zombie Exodus.
At the first sign of this thread, I asked whether campaigning were acceptable; we’re having that conversation now.
I’m sorry to have caused turmoil, and I’m certainly willing to discuss options.
I don’t think we are shooting the right target. Ok, this involves a lot of subjectivity, but I think no one would have argued if The Play got some of those nominees. It is a delicious game, parser or non parser. It should run for story, characters, writing. The majority’s problem is that ZExodus is NOT that good (I think - that is the subjective part). It will probably win everywhere and no one in here seems to think it is right. Expecially since it is running for awards OBJECTIVELY out of its league.
The public poll nature of XYZZY is what makes this awkward.
Anyway:
)this is not fair, imo. He DIDN’T motion people into voting for ZE in every and each category. He can’t be blamed for people being stupid.
I think.
My understanding is that games are only supposed to be eligible for the awards in the year they’re completed (cf. the guidelines regarding the eligibility of Introcomp games), and Zombie Exodus only consists of two chapters so far. So we might have grounds for a disqualification, making it clear that ZE would be welcome to the awards when it’s complete.
I agree with maga, though, that this is probably best avoided. It’s only going to look like sour grapes at this point. Maybe we can consult with the ChoiceScript community and come to some sort of compromise? I’m guessing from the tone of this thread that the ChoiceScript voters neither intended nor expected to swamp the voting the way they did (or at least as effectively as they did).
I think “overenthusiastic” might be a more accurate term. It seems to me that what’s offensive to the parser-IF regulars is that ZE is not just nominated for a particular strength, but seems to be a contender for every category it’s even vaguely plausible for, leaving out only Individual Puzzle, Technological Development, and Supplemental Materials. It’s possible that it’s really that far-and-away amazing (I have no idea, since I’m about a year behind on playing anything) – better setting than Six and better NPCs than The Play, and more innovative than maybe make some change and Kerkerkruip – but it just seems unlikely.
I have to agree with bcressey here:
After all, I don’t think any of us had a problem with Bowsmand’s ADRIFT suggestions post. He was even a lot more direct about which specific games he recommended, and a few of his suggestions did make the list. Just not all the same game, in every category.
[quote=“Jamespking”
)this is not fair, imo. He DIDN’T motion people into voting for ZE in every and each category. He can’t be blamed for people being stupid.
[/quote]
Maybe “hostile” was the wrong word? I should put all my cards on the table at once instead of holding some back; my problem is basically yours, with tove’s amendment that “overenthusiastic” is better than “stupid.” I played through the first chapter (or is it just the intro?) of ZE, and I’ll take Dan’s word for it about the puzzles, but I didn’t see any sign that it was innovative.
On a more subjective level I don’t think it should have gotten a nomination for Best Writing. It’s not that it’s poorly written, it’s that its writing doesn’t stand out in any way for me. A half hour after playing it the only specific turn of phrase I could remember was the description of the PC’s sister as “smart and capable,” and I only remembered that because it seemed like such a bland description for a Best Writing nominee. It doesn’t stick in my mind like Taco Fiction’s two things about the gun, or Cold Iron’s piskies, or the beet from Beet the Devil, or the Uncanny Valley Girls from Zebulon, or the cyanotic light from Andromeda Awakening (which I think would’ve been a deserving Best Setting nominee).
Which gives me some pause about the ChoiceScript community’s votes. It just seems as though a lot of people must have voted up their favorite ChoiceScript game in any category in which it was remotely plausible, without knowing what else was out there. (Or perhaps without being very fond of parser IF.) And I think that tarnishes the vote a little. I’ll admit that the Best Writing thing is subjective (at least, I don’t want to get into the philosophical questions it raises), but if there isn’t some explanation of how ZE is innovative, then Something Has Gone Wrong.
And I don’t think Dan did anything wrong – I agree with everyone else that the results are unfortunate. I think rapprochement between the ChoiceScript and parser communities is a good thing, but I wish there was more cross-playing than there appears to be. (Which includes my not having played the latest ChoiceScript games; the community games look to have come a long way since the early days.)
As the writer of Zombie Exodus, I’d like to chime in from the ChoiceScript side of things.
We didn’t vote to stack the competition to our advantage but to support one another within our community. I am actually surprised that ZE received enough votes to get into those categories, but I see the argument that the parser IF community’s votes were diluted across more games.
I didn’t ask to be in XYZZY but as someone who wants to bring attention to his game and to other ChoiceScript games, I was excited and honored to be included. Thus, I tweeted, told FB fans, etcs. Since the game has some popularity due to subject and the mass appeal of CYOA games, I am sure fans of the game went to the XYZZY page, signed up, and pulled the lever in all categories for ZE. Had I known the community doesn’t even want us at the party, I wouldn’t have brought attention to the first-level nomination.
There is a definite separation between our two communities, and I wish there was a way to bridge them. I’d be happy to receive constructive feedback on my work; months ago, I posted on these forums for opinions on the game and received no feedback.
If the IF community doesn’t want ChoiceScript games in their awards, it is more useful to petition for us to be excluded or to have a CYOA category than to bash us for making bad games, or lacking innovation, or bash our readers for being stupid.
I’d rather we be a part of the community and figure out ways to be included and not interfere with rewarding those IF authors who have worked hard at their projects.
To be clear, Jim, I didn’t mean the comment about lacking innovation to be a criticism. As I see it, the “innovation” category is for games that do something fairly radically different from games that have come before, like the combat system in Kerkerkruip or the video etc. in maybe make some change. There are many excellent games that I wouldn’t think should be nominated in the innovation category; Taco Fiction was an excellent game but if it had been nominated in this category I’d be asking “But what’s the innovation?” too.
I also think you didn’t do anything wrong trying to draw attention to the voting; it’s just that I think the results were unfortunate. If several ChoiceScript games had gotten different nominations, I’d be excited about the exposure to new games and eager to check out what they were doing. It’s when one game gets nominated in every category that I think “Either this is the best thing since Pong, or something has gone wrong with the nomination process.” It’s not that I don’t want your games to be included, but that I don’t think it’s working well this time.
The thing about the writing was a criticism; sorry. I don’t know that I can give you any constructive feedback about how to make your writing more awesome, though. It’s not that you were making any mistakes that I could see, just that I didn’t see anything that made me think “This should be a finalist in Best Writing.”
Maybe you’re right it would be better to have separate CYOA and parser categories, at least for a while (and anything that didn’t fit nicely into either could get a nomination for innovation). That way people who were voting would get exposed to games they wouldn’t otherwise have seen, but there wouldn’t be any stepped-on toes or hurt feelings. And I am sorry that you’re getting a lot of criticism at what should be a time of triumph for you – after all, no matter what the other circumstances are it says something that you got the most votes out of the ChoiceScript games. That may not be fair to you when you’ve done nothing wrong.
Jim, this has nothing to do with CYOA, rest assured. If it were any other game, relatively less known, with a wide but select user base (rather like Flexible Survival), whose users swarmed out to vote for the game in every single cathegory despite actual worth, leaving the rest of the world to scratch their heads going “huh?”, the issue would remain.
The thing is, what those people are doing isn’t “supporting”. What those people are doing is “abusing the voting system”. There’s no other way to describe mechanically voting a single game in all cathegories. And that brings bad consequences to everyone - and the guys who did it sort of represent a certain community, and are only reflecting poorly on themselves.
By drumming up support, you yourself have done nothing, nothing wrong. It’s your fans that got way over-enthusiastic. It’s not about “not wanting you at the party”. It’s about you (you=the CYOA community you seem to be representing right now) not drinking all the punch, barging in on everyone’s conversation, and littering all around the floor.
I wish I could definitely say “we do want you, CYOA is just another form of IF” - but there are people on this community who disagree so vehemently that I’d agree it’s a question worth further discussion (actual discussion - pondering why CYOA might or might not be IF, what actually makes IF, and whether or not it deserves a place in this forum and its awards). So I won’t go there. But I will say that there’s been a certain distance between the ADRIFT community and the rest of the IF community in the past, and now the distance has, I feel, been bridged - we’re no bosom pals, but I think lines of communication have been opened.
Whether this happens to a CYOA community is, I feel, at this point, very much up to both communities - but it won’t help if your reaction to this incident is “If the IF community doesn’t want ChoiceScript games in their awards, it is more useful to petition for us to be excluded or to have a CYOA category than to bash us for making bad games, or lacking innovation, or bash our readers for being stupid.” It’s not about us, or the awards. It’s about swarming the polls.
Peter, I agree that “swarming the polls” is what it feels like given the tradition of voting in the XYZZYs. However, to anyone not familiar with the traditions of the XYZZYs, they might look like any just about other indie game awards on the internet. And what seems to be the done thing in the case of indie game awards on the internet is that you try to get everyone who loves you/your game to go vote for it. Zombie Exodus seems to have lots of adoring fans–just look at the number of posts in this thread–and I don’t think they were doing anything “wrong” either, just expressing enthusiasm for a favorite game.
Jim, the criticisms you’re seeing of your game here are not unconsidered lashings-out; I think they genuinely reflect different standards/expectations between the two communities. I don’t recall anyone having said that the CoG readers were stupid–that seems like an unnecessary attempt to ramp up an unwarranted sense of victimization.
I think it is informative that Zombie Exodus only received nominations on the categories which just selected a game, and not those which require you to enter something specific. Maybe in the future all categories could require nominators to enter a nomination rationale.