IF Comp: Raising The Time Limit

Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Based on the number of entries in next years Comp (whatever that would be)
Would it make more sense to raise the time limit to 3 hours rather than 2?

Also the judging could take place later say maybe mid- November to Dec 1 in
order to give the players more time to play possibly longer games and make
their decisions.

Games like Slouching, Meteor Stone
Sherbet and others which might take more than 2 hours to really get into
could be evaluated in a more thorough manner.

2 hours just doesnt seem like enough time.

Thougnts rants spams and flames welcomed.

Al
29
answers
Last reply
More about comp raising time limit
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "Al" <radical1@qadas.com> wrote in message
    news:BDCC8E23.964%radical1@qadas.com...
    > Based on the number of entries in next years Comp (whatever that would be)
    > Would it make more sense to raise the time limit to 3 hours rather than
    2?
    > 2 hours just doesnt seem like enough time.

    Well, we were supposed to write shorter games (even though some of us
    didn't), which is the purpose of the competition. Increasing the time limit
    would be counterproductive to the competition's present goal.

    Now, the Spring Thing (http://www.springthing.net) -- this appears to be a
    competition for medium-sized and longer games, where two hours becomes an
    evening or two of gameplay instead.

    ---- Mike.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    In article <%jHpd.102377$tU4.57120@okepread06>,
    Merk <sid_ney_merk@hot_mail.com (remove underscores)> wrote:
    >"Al" <radical1@qadas.com> wrote in message
    >news:BDCC8E23.964%radical1@qadas.com...
    >> Based on the number of entries in next years Comp (whatever that would be)
    >> Would it make more sense to raise the time limit to 3 hours rather than
    >2?
    >> 2 hours just doesnt seem like enough time.
    >
    >Well, we were supposed to write shorter games (even though some of us
    >didn't), which is the purpose of the competition. Increasing the time limit
    >would be counterproductive to the competition's present goal.

    I don't think there's any point in promoting shorter games anymore
    (though there was when the Comp was started in '95), so the two-hour
    limit shouldn't be taken as a goal per se.

    In fact, I'd like to see more medium-to-large games.

    But - and this is a big but - there's only so much time. Increasing
    the two-hour limit to three hours would mean that the judges would
    need 50% more time to judge the game. I think the general feeling is
    that the Comp takes too much time and energy as it is. The IF world is
    awfully quiet during the judging period. Would we really want to make
    that quiet (read: nail-biting suspense for the authors, boredom for
    everyone else) last 50% longer?

    --
    Magnus Olsson (mol@df.lth.se)
    PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    Here, Magnus Olsson <mol@df.lth.se> wrote:

    > But - and this is a big but - there's only so much time. Increasing
    > the two-hour limit to three hours would mean that the judges would
    > need 50% more time to judge the game. I think the general feeling is
    > that the Comp takes too much time and energy as it is. The IF world is
    > awfully quiet during the judging period.

    It's awfully quiet *outside* the judging period, too. I'd rather see
    more games outside the IFComp than broaden the IFComp to include more
    games.

    > Would we really want to make that quiet (read: nail-biting suspense
    > for the authors, boredom for everyone else) last 50% longer?

    1997 was the year we tried a three-month judging period. That was way
    too long.

    --Z

    "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
    *
    I'm still thinking about what to put in this space.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    I think the hush hush rule is bullshit anyway. I want to know why
    it's installed. I hear because discussion could persuade judges.
    That's ludicrous and will debate that anyday.

    Hollywood releases it's film and its discussed before, during, and
    after to a great degree. Then the awards are given, best actor, etc a
    while later.

    I respect some rules but that one is completely bogus and ruins the
    event. Let's face it, the excitement has kinda boiled down now.
    That's two whole weeks of excitement that could've been months if we
    could open our minds.

    But anyway, I found more excitement elsewhere during the bullshit hush
    period, playing bingo on yahoo and going to topless barber shops.

    A.P. Hill
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    aphill@altavista.com (A.P. Hill) wrote in
    news:61188078.0411261904.3cc29b4b@posting.google.com:

    > But anyway, I found more excitement elsewhere during the bullshit hush
    > period, playing bingo on yahoo and going to topless barber shops.

    I don't get it. What's the point of making you remove your shirt to get a
    haircut when they'll just put that giant bib over you anyway?

    Dave Doty
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> wrote in message
    news:30p20jF3387b2U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > I don't think there's any point in promoting shorter games anymore
    > (though there was when the Comp was started in '95), so the two-hour
    > limit shouldn't be taken as a goal per se.
    >
    > In fact, I'd like to see more medium-to-large games.

    Me too.

    I don't think the judging period should be lengthened, though. If
    the total play time of entered games were to increase notably,
    we would just have fewer people able to vote on and review all
    the entries. Would that be so bad? It would mean that after
    the competition, after you've judged, you could get a good idea
    of which games to play of the ones you didn't have time for.

    > But - and this is a big but - there's only so much time. Increasing
    > the two-hour limit to three hours would mean that the judges would
    > need 50% more time to judge the game.

    This is only a big deal if lots of entrants decide to aim for games
    50% larger. I doubt they would. As it is, the competition sees
    a lot of entries that seem to've been only barely completed.

    Also, I doubt the elimination of the two-hour guideline would
    relieve the pressure on entrants to include a walkthrough. You
    can get through a game almost as quickly as you want if you have
    a walkthrough.

    Kevin Venzke
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> wrote in message
    news:30p20jF3387b2U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > In article <%jHpd.102377$tU4.57120@okepread06>,
    > Merk <sid_ney_merk@hot_mail.com (remove underscores)> wrote:
    >>"Al" <radical1@qadas.com> wrote in message
    >>news:BDCC8E23.964%radical1@qadas.com...
    >>> Based on the number of entries in next years Comp (whatever that would
    >>> be)
    >>> Would it make more sense to raise the time limit to 3 hours rather than
    >>2?
    >>> 2 hours just doesnt seem like enough time.
    >>
    >>Well, we were supposed to write shorter games (even though some of us
    >>didn't), which is the purpose of the competition. Increasing the time
    >>limit
    >>would be counterproductive to the competition's present goal.
    >
    > I don't think there's any point in promoting shorter games anymore
    > (though there was when the Comp was started in '95), so the two-hour
    > limit shouldn't be taken as a goal per se.

    Short fiction is an art form. Short IF is an art form too. I have no problem
    with a timed judging period for short IF.

    > In fact, I'd like to see more medium-to-large games.

    That is what the rest of the year, and indeed the XYZZY Awards, are for.
    ("Anchorhead", for example, was not a comp game. It was still, as I
    remember, a *good* game.) And if some newbie wins a top spot in the IFComp,
    then I'm sure s/he can move on to create a larger game the following June
    that the rest of us will want to try out.

    If we want to see more medium-to-large games gain more prominence, then what
    we need to do is to provide more on-the-spot reviews for games that get
    [ANNOUNCE]d in here.

    > But - and this is a big but - there's only so much time. Increasing
    > the two-hour limit to three hours would mean that the judges would
    > need 50% more time to judge the game. I think the general feeling is
    > that the Comp takes too much time and energy as it is. The IF world is
    > awfully quiet during the judging period. Would we really want to make
    > that quiet (read: nail-biting suspense for the authors, boredom for
    > everyone else) last 50% longer?

    Well, no.

    --
    zimriel sbc dot
    at global net
    ..
    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/
    *new improved shorter .sig*
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "A.P. Hill" <aphill@altavista.com> wrote in message
    news:61188078.0411261904.3cc29b4b@posting.google.com...
    > I think the hush hush rule is bullshit anyway. I want to know why
    > it's installed. I hear because discussion could persuade judges.
    > That's ludicrous and will debate that anyday.

    > I respect some rules but that one is completely bogus and ruins the
    > event. Let's face it, the excitement has kinda boiled down now.
    > That's two whole weeks of excitement that could've been months if we
    > could open our minds.

    I think I agree, that the hush rule probably reduces the total amount
    of discussion.

    But without the rule, judges might decide to try to accomplish
    something specific with their vote. For instance, EAS3 haters would
    learn that a lot of people like it, and so decide to give EAS3 a 1
    instead of a 6 in order to keep it from winning. And then, who
    knows, EAS3 might win the discord banana.

    This could be fixed somewhat with a different voting rule.

    Kevin Venzke
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "A.P. Hill" <aphill@altavista.com> wrote in message
    news:61188078.0411261904.3cc29b4b@posting.google.com...
    > I think the hush hush rule is bullshit anyway. I want to know why
    > it's installed. I hear because discussion could persuade judges.
    > That's ludicrous and will debate that anyday.

    > I respect some rules but that one is completely bogus and ruins the
    > event. Let's face it, the excitement has kinda boiled down now.
    > That's two whole weeks of excitement that could've been months if we
    > could open our minds.

    I think I agree, that the hush rule probably reduces the total amount
    of discussion.

    But without the rule, judges might decide to try to accomplish
    something specific with their vote. For instance, EAS3 haters would
    learn that a lot of people like it, and so decide to give EAS3 a 1
    instead of a 6 in order to keep it from winning. And then, who
    knows, EAS3 might win the discord banana.

    This could be fixed somewhat with a different voting rule.

    Kevin Venzke
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "Kevin Venzke" <stepjakk@yahooo.frr> wrote in news:pJTpd.982703$Gx4.749809
    @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

    > For instance, EAS3 haters would
    > learn that a lot of people like it, and so decide to give EAS3 a 1
    > instead of a 6 in order to keep it from winning. And then, who
    > knows, EAS3 might win the discord banana.

    If you hate a game that much, why not just play it safe and give it a 1
    even without feedback, just in case a bunch of other people like it?

    Dave Doty
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    Here, Kevin Venzke <stepjakk@yahooo.frr> wrote:
    >
    > I think I agree, that the hush rule probably reduces the total amount
    > of discussion.
    >
    > But without the rule, judges might decide to try to accomplish
    > something specific with their vote. For instance, EAS3 haters would
    > learn that a lot of people like it, and so decide to give EAS3 a 1
    > instead of a 6 in order to keep it from winning.

    The hush rule isn't really aimed at that kind of score-gaming. It's
    simpler: it's very easy to influence people. It's very easy to be
    influenced. In the first IFComp, the audience had (to some extent)
    reached a consensus before judging was over. In a situation like that,
    who can say whether they would have given a different score if they
    hadn't read all the arguments back and forth about a game's merits?

    (Plus you have all the "US election" problems -- someone who is three
    weeks late playing the games could discover that the outcome is
    practically decided, and then why bother voting?)

    You could wind up with one person who is particularly vocal, or
    particularly convincing (or just particularly well-respected) having a
    disproportionate influence on the results. That's not unrealistic --
    it happens in real life -- but it's impossible to separate that factor
    from what people decide separately, once you let it mix in. So the
    IFComp goes for separation.

    If you want to see what the audience thinks *after* discussion, you
    look at the XYZZY Awards.

    --Z

    "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
    *
    I'm still thinking about what to put in this space.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    Your going to sit here and tell me that you don't think discussion is
    going on ALOT between everyone in the community OFF of this newsgroup.
    C'mon, that's the problem, you got a bunch of people
    email/icq/letters/faxes/palm/flying folded airplanes... and the rest
    of the 'public' is left with the hush rule.

    I feel for the common man left in the cold.

    A.P. Hill
    Community Leader
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    In article <UxTpd.34281$bP2.15331@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
    Zimri <zimriel@SBCspammlesforglobal.net> wrote:
    >"Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> wrote in message
    >news:30p20jF3387b2U1@uni-berlin.de...
    >> In article <%jHpd.102377$tU4.57120@okepread06>,
    >> Merk <sid_ney_merk@hot_mail.com (remove underscores)> wrote:
    >>>Well, we were supposed to write shorter games (even though some of us
    >>>didn't), which is the purpose of the competition. Increasing the time
    >>>limit
    >>>would be counterproductive to the competition's present goal.
    >>
    >> I don't think there's any point in promoting shorter games anymore
    >> (though there was when the Comp was started in '95), so the two-hour
    >> limit shouldn't be taken as a goal per se.
    >
    >Short fiction is an art form. Short IF is an art form too. I have no problem
    >with a timed judging period for short IF.

    Merk wrote that the purpose of the Comp was to make us write short
    games. I, like you, don't have a problem with a Comp for short games, but
    I see the short games as a consequence of the Comp rules (the judges
    must be able to play all the games in reasonable time) rather than as
    a reason for them (to promote shorter games because everybody is writing
    too long games).

    --
    Magnus Olsson (mol@df.lth.se)
    PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> wrote in message
    news:30qr1oF32q4rpU1@uni-berlin.de...

    > Merk wrote that the purpose of the Comp was to make us write short
    > games. I, like you, don't have a problem with a Comp for short games, but
    > I see the short games as a consequence of the Comp rules (the judges
    > must be able to play all the games in reasonable time) rather than as
    > a reason for them (to promote shorter games because everybody is writing
    > too long games).

    Well, this is taken from the first line of text at
    http://www.ifcomp.org/ ---

    "Welcome to IFComp 2004, the competition for short text adventures."

    Lengthening the voting period or the two hour limit might turn it into a
    different competition. Maybe that's not a big deal now, but it does seem to
    work. I like the idea of a competition for longer games too, and that angle
    seems to be covered by the Spring Thing.

    That's all I meant. :)

    ---- Mike.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    In article <dSWpd.102445$tU4.13002@okepread06>,
    Merk <sid_ney_merk@hot_mail.com (remove underscores)> wrote:
    >"Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> wrote in message
    >news:30qr1oF32q4rpU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >
    >> Merk wrote that the purpose of the Comp was to make us write short
    >> games. I, like you, don't have a problem with a Comp for short games, but
    >> I see the short games as a consequence of the Comp rules (the judges
    >> must be able to play all the games in reasonable time) rather than as
    >> a reason for them (to promote shorter games because everybody is writing
    >> too long games).
    >
    >Well, this is taken from the first line of text at
    >http://www.ifcomp.org/ ---
    >
    >"Welcome to IFComp 2004, the competition for short text adventures."
    >
    >Lengthening the voting period or the two hour limit might turn it into a
    >different competition. Maybe that's not a big deal now, but it does seem to
    >work. I like the idea of a competition for longer games too, and that angle
    >seems to be covered by the Spring Thing.
    >
    >That's all I meant. :)

    OK; in that case I think we agree. Lengthening the voting period would
    turn the Comp into a different competition. I think it would be a
    worse competition simply because we would have to wait so long for the
    results.

    --
    Magnus Olsson (mol@df.lth.se)
    PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    Here, A.P. Hill <aphill@altavista.com> wrote:
    > Your going to sit here and tell me that you don't think discussion is
    > going on ALOT between everyone in the community OFF of this
    > newsgroup.

    No, it is not.

    To be more exact: there is a fair amount of discussion *between people
    who have finished judging and turned in their scores*. This is not
    against the rules.

    --Z

    "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
    *
    I'm still thinking about what to put in this space.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "David Doty" <davedoty@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns95ADF2AA5504Bdsdoty@38.119.71.33...
    > "Kevin Venzke" <stepjakk@yahooo.frr> wrote in news:pJTpd.982703$Gx4.749809
    > @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
    >
    > > For instance, EAS3 haters would
    > > learn that a lot of people like it, and so decide to give EAS3 a 1
    > > instead of a 6 in order to keep it from winning. And then, who
    > > knows, EAS3 might win the discord banana.
    >
    > If you hate a game that much, why not just play it safe and give it a 1
    > even without feedback, just in case a bunch of other people like it?

    It could be that, with the hush rule, people rate more honestly than
    otherwise, because they feel able to trust the other voters'
    judgment. If people knew what others were thinking, they might
    feel the need to compensate for the others' "flawed" opinions.

    Kevin Venzke
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> wrote:
    > In fact, I'd like to see more medium-to-large games.

    I tend to agree - my favorite games have all been longer ones. I think
    longer games have a natural advantage when it comes to immersiveness because
    of the sheer amount of time you spend in the setting.

    > But - and this is a big but - there's only so much time.
    > Increasing the two-hour limit to three hours would
    > mean that the judges would need 50% more time to
    > judge the game. I think the general feeling is that the
    > Comp takes too much time and energy as it is.

    Definitely. I think a lot of judges get burned out as it is, so extending
    the judging period might only dilute the quality of the judging. I think
    one of the things that makes the Comp work is the short-game rule, so I'm
    not sure the Comp format is the best model for an institutional incentive
    for longer games.

    It's been said before, but it's worth pointing out again: since there's no
    money to be made in IF, the biggest incentive for people to write these
    games is the expectation that people will play them. If you want more
    longer games (or more of any type of game) to be written, let the authors of
    those games know you're playing them - write reviews, post in the
    newsgroups, write if-ratings comments, recommend the games to your friends,
    etc.

    Maybe we could find a second-order incentive - that is, create an incentive
    for more reviews and discussion of non-Comp games. Baf's Guide, SPAG,
    IF-Review, the Review Conspiracy, etc are a good start, but we'd need a lot
    more of the same to approach the level of discussion the Comp generates.
    Here's one idea: how about a couple of Xyzzy awards for reviewers? Best
    Review, Most Prolific Reviewer, that sort of thing.

    --Mike
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    >
    > Maybe we could find a second-order incentive - that is, create an incentive
    > for more reviews and discussion of non-Comp games. Baf's Guide, SPAG,
    > IF-Review, the Review Conspiracy, etc are a good start, but we'd need a lot
    > more of the same to approach the level of discussion the Comp generates.
    > Here's one idea: how about a couple of Xyzzy awards for reviewers? Best
    > Review, Most Prolific Reviewer, that sort of thing.
    >
    > --Mike
    >
    >

    I love the idea for an XYZZY award for reviews and reviewers! That
    makes so much sense it is amazing! Plus, people who don't write games
    would get a lot more recognition. Reviews would soar in quality and
    volume. You've got my vote my for that.

    -Zach
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "Mike Roberts" <mjr_@hotmail.com> wrote in news:%N5qd.25797$zx1.15601
    @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

    > Here's one idea: how about a couple of Xyzzy awards for reviewers? Best
    > Review, Most Prolific Reviewer, that sort of thing.

    I think that's a nice idea, but I think a more direct way to help would be
    to try to raise the Xyzzy's profile. Right now, IF comp the THE event.
    The Xyzzy's don't get a fraction of the attention, and it probably seem
    like a VERY lesser consolation prize for people crafting games that don't
    fit in the IF Comp.

    If the energy and discussion around *some* set of awards that admitted
    longer games, whether the Xyzzys, the Spring Thing or whatever, were raised
    to the point that it actually seemed like something worth shooting for, it
    might be more of an incentive.

    Of course, none of those comments invalidate the idea that awards for
    reviewers would be a nice thing.

    Dave Doty
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    David Doty wrote:

    > Right now, IF comp the THE event. The Xyzzy's don't get a fraction
    > of the attention, and it probably seem like a VERY lesser
    > consolation prize for people crafting games that don't
    > fit in the IF Comp.

    I beg to differ. Xyzzy Awards are a meaningful prize and quite an
    honor, at least to me.


    --
    J. Robinson Wheeler Games - http://raddial.com/if/
    JRW Digital Media Movie - http://thekroneexperiment.com
    jrw@jrwdigitalmedia.com Comic - http://adamcadre.ac/comics.html
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "Mike Roberts" <mjr_@hotmail.com> escreveu na mensagem
    news:%N5qd.25797$zx1.15601@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    > "Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> wrote:

    [snip]

    >
    > Maybe we could find a second-order incentive - that is, create an
    incentive
    > for more reviews and discussion of non-Comp games. Baf's Guide, SPAG,
    > IF-Review, the Review Conspiracy, etc are a good start, but we'd need a
    lot
    > more of the same to approach the level of discussion the Comp generates.
    > Here's one idea: how about a couple of Xyzzy awards for reviewers? Best
    > Review, Most Prolific Reviewer, that sort of thing.
    >
    > --Mike

    Well there goes one of the ideas of IfReviews.org :(

    RootShell
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    In article <41a9dda1$0$23022$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>,
    RootShell <rootshell@netcabo.pt> wrote:
    >"Mike Roberts" <mjr_@hotmail.com> escreveu na mensagem
    >news:%N5qd.25797$zx1.15601@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    >> "Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> wrote:
    >
    >[snip]
    >
    >>
    >> Maybe we could find a second-order incentive - that is, create an
    >incentive
    >> for more reviews and discussion of non-Comp games. Baf's Guide, SPAG,
    >> IF-Review, the Review Conspiracy, etc are a good start, but we'd need a
    >lot
    >> more of the same to approach the level of discussion the Comp generates.
    >> Here's one idea: how about a couple of Xyzzy awards for reviewers? Best
    >> Review, Most Prolific Reviewer, that sort of thing.
    >>
    >> --Mike
    >
    >Well there goes one of the ideas of IfReviews.org :(

    Why? Does one kind of incentive rule out another? Why can't we have both
    IFReviews.org and XYZZYs for reviewers? Am I missing soemthing?

    --
    Magnus Olsson (mol@df.lth.se)
    PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    Andrew Plotkin wrote:
    > Here, Magnus Olsson <mol@df.lth.se> wrote:
    >
    > > But - and this is a big but - there's only so much time. Increasing
    > > the two-hour limit to three hours would mean that the judges would
    > > need 50% more time to judge the game. I think the general feeling is
    > > that the Comp takes too much time and energy as it is. The IF world
    > > is awfully quiet during the judging period.
    >
    > It's awfully quiet *outside* the judging period, too. I'd rather see
    > more games outside the IFComp than broaden the IFComp to include more
    > games.

    Because the Competition is so time-intensive, I'm now much less likely
    to play Comp games than non-Comp games. I enjoyed Misdirection,
    Narcolepsy and Cabal, but haven't yet played any of the three top games
    in Comp04. Possibly authors will realise this effect and the pendulum
    will swing back to a more even release of games throughout the year.

    The SpringComp seems to satisfy Al's desire for a longer-game
    competition already.

    CK
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    David Doty wrote:

    > I think that's a nice idea, but I think a more direct way to help would be
    > to try to raise the Xyzzy's profile. Right now, IF comp the THE event.

    Not for me.

    > The Xyzzy's don't get a fraction of the attention, and it probably seem
    > like a VERY lesser consolation prize for people crafting games that don't
    > fit in the IF Comp.

    Not for me.

    Stephen.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:39:15 -0700, Al <radical1@qadas.com> wrote:

    >Based on the number of entries in next years Comp (whatever that would be)
    >Would it make more sense to raise the time limit to 3 hours rather than 2?

    Actually, I'd prefer that it be made into a strong guideline rather than a
    requirement. There are some people who strictly abide by the 2 hour rule,
    some who make guesses about the time spent, and some who just simply ignore
    it.

    Some puzzles in adventure games are easy for one person, but much harder
    for others. When a completely different puzzle is found, the former could
    have difficulties, while the latter may instantly solve the problem. This
    causes games to be often judged only by the first half of play.

    As an example, let's look at Zero: some people got through most of the
    game, but the Hunger Demon made many others give up because there wasn't
    any form of food visible before they could make any form of progress within
    their two hours of play. (I could only place two items, rescue lambert,
    and couldn't find what to do with the ring, hand, or other stuff
    available.)

    >2 hours just doesnt seem like enough time.

    If you are experienced with text adventures and keep track of everything,
    then perhaps it's possible to finish the game in two hours (unless you have
    to guess verbs - A Day in the Life of a Superhero would be one such game,
    especially since verbs aren't acknowledged unless in a specific situation.)
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> escreveu na mensagem
    news:30u6roF327pb8U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > In article <41a9dda1$0$23022$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>,
    > RootShell <rootshell@netcabo.pt> wrote:
    > >"Mike Roberts" <mjr_@hotmail.com> escreveu na mensagem
    > >news:%N5qd.25797$zx1.15601@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    > >> "Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> wrote:
    > >
    > >[snip]
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Maybe we could find a second-order incentive - that is, create an
    > >incentive
    > >> for more reviews and discussion of non-Comp games. Baf's Guide, SPAG,
    > >> IF-Review, the Review Conspiracy, etc are a good start, but we'd need a
    > >lot
    > >> more of the same to approach the level of discussion the Comp
    generates.
    > >> Here's one idea: how about a couple of Xyzzy awards for reviewers?
    Best
    > >> Review, Most Prolific Reviewer, that sort of thing.
    > >>
    > >> --Mike
    > >
    > >Well there goes one of the ideas of IfReviews.org :(
    >
    > Why? Does one kind of incentive rule out another? Why can't we have both
    > IFReviews.org and XYZZYs for reviewers? Am I missing soemthing?
    >
    > --
    > Magnus Olsson (mol@df.lth.se)
    > PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol

    Well Magnus, i had the ideia of IFreviews.org having a yearly "Reviewer of
    the Year X" award based on the votes (during the course of the year) given
    by all the reviewers (registered at ifreviews.org) to a particular reviewer
    at IFReviews.org, contributing to the inforced idea that what we expect to
    have at ifreviews.org is quality rather than quantity. Let me expand a
    little on this... What we want are indeep reviews of the games, not only to
    expand what's being done here at the raif, but also to provide a extended
    reading for IF newcomers, so the reviews are expected to be long (while
    there's also a filter for long/short reviews, being up for the reviewer to
    classify it's own review).

    The winner of this yearly award would be automatically announced on the 1st
    January (by a script) of the following year.

    Of course the first award, "The IFReviews.org Reviewer of the year", would
    only take place for the first time in 2005.

    The ideia of only announcing the winner of the first day of the following
    year is to, as you might expect, include all the reviews of every
    competition that occured during that particular year (in this case 2004, for
    instance IfComp, SpringThing, SpeedIF and others like the newly recovered
    LoTech Comp).

    I have tryed to think about every possible way to make this new idea of a if
    reviews website to be both pleasant and atractive, in a atempt to unite all
    the if reviewers (currently reviewing here at this newsgroup and other
    scatered website) under one single dynamic 'roof'.

    As you can imagine this yet a big dream (despite the fact that part of it is
    already coded, and under severe testing/abuse :p) and (i will never quit
    saying this) the contribution of the if comunity is the only necessary thing
    to make it come true.

    Web domain, web space, web trafic and coding is of no problem since it has
    already been taken care of for two years. now i only need to get it up and
    running by the end of this year, so that on the 2nd January the site starts
    receiving reviewers online free registrations and reviews (counting already
    for the 2005 reviewer award).

    Hope this wasnt confusing (well im not portuguese and i do tend to write
    confusin english sentences).

    Regards,
    RootShell
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    In article <41aa6a77$0$23063$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>,
    RootShell <rootshell@netcabo.pt> wrote:
    >"Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> escreveu na mensagem
    >news:30u6roF327pb8U1@uni-berlin.de...
    >> In article <41a9dda1$0$23022$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>,
    >> RootShell <rootshell@netcabo.pt> wrote:
    >> >"Mike Roberts" <mjr_@hotmail.com> escreveu na mensagem
    >> >news:%N5qd.25797$zx1.15601@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    >> >> Maybe we could find a second-order incentive - that is, create an
    >> >incentive
    >> >> for more reviews and discussion of non-Comp games. Baf's Guide, SPAG,
    >> >> IF-Review, the Review Conspiracy, etc are a good start, but we'd need a
    >> >lot
    >> >> more of the same to approach the level of discussion the Comp
    >generates.
    >> >> Here's one idea: how about a couple of Xyzzy awards for reviewers?
    >Best
    >> >> Review, Most Prolific Reviewer, that sort of thing.

    >> >Well there goes one of the ideas of IfReviews.org :(
    >>
    >> Why? Does one kind of incentive rule out another? Why can't we have both
    >> IFReviews.org and XYZZYs for reviewers? Am I missing soemthing?

    >Well Magnus, i had the ideia of IFreviews.org having a yearly "Reviewer of
    >the Year X" award based on the votes (during the course of the year) given
    >by all the reviewers (registered at ifreviews.org) to a particular reviewer
    >at IFReviews.org, contributing to the inforced idea that what we expect to
    >have at ifreviews.org is quality rather than quantity.

    That sounds like a good idea, and exactly the kind of "second-order
    incentive" that Mike suggests.

    I still don't see a conflict between this and a "best reviewer XYZZY" -
    your award would presumably be for best reviewer on your site, while
    the XYZZY would be for best reviewer overall.

    --
    Magnus Olsson (mol@df.lth.se)
    PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

    "Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> escreveu na mensagem
    news:310aauF2vvnaoU1@uni-berlin.de...

    [snip]

    > That sounds like a good idea, and exactly the kind of "second-order
    > incentive" that Mike suggests.
    >
    > I still don't see a conflict between this and a "best reviewer XYZZY" -
    > your award would presumably be for best reviewer on your site, while
    > the XYZZY would be for best reviewer overall.
    >
    > --
    > Magnus Olsson (mol@df.lth.se)
    > PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol

    In fact i can only address this issue from my site point of view, leaving
    the community free to keep/increase the current usual events.

    RootShell
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games