Percy placed 9th (out of 13) in the dutch gamemaker community contest (GMW27).
I am displeased, I guess. I would have thought it'd end up higher. But it's not just the number. I am more displeased about why it ended up at 9th place.
These were the judges comments (in translation):
- Because of the high speed, the game is barely playable; you fly over platforms a lot.
- At some jumps you need to jump both horizontally and vertically accurately to the pixel, or you won't make it.
- I was not able to pass the point in level 3 [Sky High] where you get blown back.
- The gameplay is [simplistic], really annoying, but I guess that's the intention. I find it disappointing that the third level [Sky High] is undoable; at least I haven't been able to figure out how.
- The checkpoints aren't really coordinated properly; they are strangely spread, instead of right before the difficult parts.
- The graphics were [simplistic] as well. There wasn't much to see. And I couldn't make a robot out of the little square (out of Percy?).
- The music was fine. Nice and 'strange', not too distracting
No offence to the judges, they have the right to have their own opinions, but it basically says that they didn't like the game's difficulty, doesn't? It's not just me?
"I was not able to finish Sky High."
"At least I haven't been able to."
And they even notice that "that's the intention."
By the way, the GMW version of Sky High is not at all impossible. This vid proves that you can finish it. Within a minute. Without dying. Admittedly, I kill myself twice, but that doesn't really count.
So what exactly is wrong with Percy? Ok, the graphics are simplistic, and the game is horrendously difficult.
I completely agree that the game looks bleak and dull, and that Percy (the character) looks uniform and standard. But that's the whole idea. "I couldn't make a robot out of the Percy." Seriously? Isn't everything about robots dull and uniform? Isn't uniformity the very essence of robots?
I can understand that people don't like this game, because it's too difficult. Because it screws you over. But why would that make this game any less good? Is it a bad game just because it pushes players to the edge, instead of making them feel all good, without actually achieving anything.
The whole purpose of this game is to make people feel proud for trying hard, trying again and then actually achieving something. And then let them realise what idiots they are for putting up with it, and that it's too late to take back the time they spent playing it.
In fact, I want players to hate this game. To despise Percy. But then long for it just the same.
I really agree with the GMW jury. The game was simply too hard. The jury has more to do than playing your game. The game which has won was a very simple, but great game. You can just launch it and play. I'm reading this as a story in which you are complaining that you didn't win.
ReplyDeleteI am not complaining that I didn't win.
ReplyDeleteI *am* complaining that I did not win solely because my game was too hard.
If one made a huge story-based RPG, and all the epic stuff is at the back of the game, wouldn't it be ridiculous if the judges said it was a bad game, just because they didn't want to spend their time on finishing it?
The winning game is an arcade game. Not to say that it's not a good arcade game, but the fact remains that it gets repetitive at some point. The judges never got to that point, because they didn't want to spend their time on it.
As I said, I don't mind that they found it too hard. I want them to find it too hard.
But that doesn't mean it should be considered any less good than the games that won. As far as I'm concerned, the judges should remain unbiased, or at least pretend to be.
It just drives me nuts that arcady games like Angry Birds and whatnot are so worshipped.
Just because games that are easy and understandable, i.e. casual, are so popular, doesn't mean that they're good. Nor does it mean that a difficult or 'niche' game must be a bad game.
[PART I]
ReplyDeleteHm. I do understand you complains, and I think I should justify my commentary(and maybe try to justify my colleague's commentary).
I think you already guessed I was one of the judges, so that won't be a revelation anymore.
Anyway, to the point now..
*crap, does this support BB code? Or HTML?*
You probably understand that I will only speak for myself. And, if it's a consolation, I placed you higher(wel, 'lower', statisticaly), then 9th.
""The gameplay is [simplistic], really annoying, but I guess that's the intention."
And they even notice that "that's the intention."
Yes, I noticed! So what's the problem? This part is NOT a complaint, it is a finding. Well, maybe it is a complaint, but the second parts justifies why.
This piece means I understand your intention(!). Again: It is NOT a complaint
When reading my commentary again, I can't find any part saying that the game was to hard(or, better, that it was wrong, that the game was to hard), only that I was not able to complete the third level.
Maybe I just suck at this type games, maybe I'm just a casual gamer, but I simply wasn't able to pass level 3.
I just couldn't get past the part where you were blown back by the wind, somewhere at the beginning. I didn't experience 'being blown back every time' as a challenge, but I experienced it as a frustration.
Just a side note: be careful not to frustrate your player(to much), when trying to challenge him. There is a big difference between them, but it is very easy to flip over.
The first two levels were challenging, not frustrating, but the fact that I wasn't able to pass level 3, was just frustrating. It's a pity that I wasn't able to pass such a vital point in the level, but it's just reality. And please don't think I didn't try. I really did.
Of course I was sure it was possible to complete Sky High. I didn't expect you to add levels that were undoable. But *I* wasn't able to. And that is were this problem came from.
"Seriously? Isn't everything about robots dull and uniform? Isn't uniformity the very essence of robots?"
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous(or how you write it). The player was just a square. Not a robot. That robot's are uniform doesn't mean a square could represent a robot. It could also represent a brick. Or a house. Maybe even a wardrobe?
It is simple. Square != robot.
"But why would that make this game any less good? Is it a bad game just because it pushes players to the edge, instead of making them feel all good, without actually achieving anything."
Who said your game was bad? There is no guideline or whatever, that says that every game that ended 5th or lower, is 'bad'. I think the main reason you ended up 9th, is because my colleague and I failed at a vital point. You could blame us for that, which is partially correct, but you shouldn't have placed such a passage on a vital gameplay point. You should have made a stairway up, and place a coin behind the wall(so it won't be necessary).
"The whole purpose of this game is to make people feel proud for trying hard, trying again and then actually achieving something."
I once read a dutch book called 'Dromen, durven, doen', in english 'Dream, dare, do'(I usually don't read those books, but this one was free xD).
It said that a failure weighted 2.5 times more than a success. And if I just keep failing.. Is it strange that I just stopped after my tenth try to complete level 10? I didn't think I would be able to complete it the 11th time.
"In fact, I want players to hate this game. To despise Percy. But then long for it just the same."
Well, you probably did great job doing that, but the other games entering the GMW had the intention to amuse people, to make them love the game. That's just hard to compare. You should understand.
"If one made a huge story-based RPG, and all the epic stuff is at the back of the game, wouldn't it be ridiculous if the judges said it was a bad game, just because they didn't want to spend their time on finishing it?"
ReplyDeleteYou can't say anything about this. You didn't know how much or how few time we played your game. Don't start complaining about things you don't know anything about.
"The winning game is an arcade game. Not to say that it's not a good arcade game, but the fact remains that it gets repetitive at some point. The judges never got to that point, because they didn't want to spend their time on it."
Quoted from my commentary on the winning game:
"Het wordt helaas wel eentonig na een tijdje. "
In english:
"The games gets monotonous after a while."
Just quit with the fuss about Play Time. We did play it long enough. You can't expect me to rate your 5th level when I couldn't pass the 3th level.
Well. I hope you don't hate me now, and I wish you a lot of success with your next game ;)
Thanks for replying.
ReplyDeleteI don't hate you at all, nor any of the other judges.
I wasn't saying you didn't try hard enough, I was only replying to W's suggestion that you didn't want to spend your time on it.
Just that a square doesn't look like a robot, doesn't mean it can't be it. Although there is nothing in the game explicitly robotic, the whole feel of the game is (supposed to be) monotone, empty and gray.
The point you describe is not a vital point per se. Conversely, if I were to remove all vital points that are extremely difficult, I'd end up with just the tutorial.
The reason the checkpoints are placed behind the extremely hard parts, is that it is supposed to be a reward; you have managed to overcome a rapid succession of obstacles, and are rewarded by a save haven. If they were in front of hard parts, you would have to redo the hard part everytime you mess up at some stupid part before a checkpoint.
In all honesty, Sky High was in fact the last level of the GMW version. The barriers were only there to show why the empty space was there. In the final version, you can skip any level you want, except when you have already skipped one. Obviously, having the other three levels in the game would have made it better, but I hadn't the time.
Most importantly, though, what bothers me is this:
You didn't tell me anything that was wrong about the game. Or, you didn't point out anything I didn't already know (my graphics suck) or don't want to alter (the game screws you over).
Which gives me the impression that, because there is nothing wrong with it, it must be a great game. As a consequence, most remarks seemed to be nitpickings, and placing it 9th seemed unfair.
I wasn't trying to get a higher rank, or defending my game as such. I was trying to point out that you haven't said it was a bad game, so you have the opportunity to recollect your thoughts and tell me that it is, and *why*.
If you (the judge/the players) cannot find anything actually wrong with the game, then there is no way I can improve it.
If I can't improve it, then the game is as good as it gets.
Which tells me, bluntly put, that you simply do not like the game.
That's fine; you are entitled to your opinion.
But that would signify that I, as the maker, have failed.
And failure is of course something I cannot cope with.
---
Hopefully, I will be able to make an announcement about my CGC project, Atlantia.
Just to ease your minds, it's going to be rather easy. Having now made a horrible hard game, I will make a delightfully slowpaced one.
More on that soon.
Have you posted this towards the judges too? I mean, it's a bit weird to post critique towards the judges, in a place where they probably won't find it.
ReplyDeleteAlso I disagree with your title. Your title should have been "Percy placed 9th. Additionally, they found it too difficult". Your title implies a causal relation where there need not be one.
Also you have to understand people cannot judge a game they cannot play. I haven't judged for #27 but if I can't play a game I can't judge it. So if a game is too hard, and I can't get past a certain point, everything after that point will not be seen, and hence can not be judged. If the part before the hard section is very good, then that won't matter very much and the quality will be noticed nonetheless. Maybe the part before the hard section just didn't impress the judges as much as some of the other games. That can very well be :)
Also, judges don't have time to play a game for hours straight. If your game is intended to be played for 20 hours before finally getting through, then maybe it is not suitable for the competition. Just imagine what judging would be like if everyone submitted such a game. Also, we don't know what the intention is of the creator. But if you say you wanted people to not like your game, then you should not complain about the judges not liking your game. On the contrary, the judges not liking your game is in this case actually exactly what you seem to want. ;)
[quote]Just because games that are easy and understandable, i.e. casual, are so popular, doesn't mean that they're good. Nor does it mean that a difficult or 'niche' game must be a bad game. [/quote]
True, but in the world of game design, being easily understandable is an important positive aspect of games. You can hate the popularity of Angry Birds and the like, but if you think of it, generally speaking good games are those games that have simple rules. Simplicity IS good in game design. That does not mean the game cannot be deep however, but it has to mean the game is understandable. To name a good example, consider Go (the board game). Simple rules, very deep gameplay (all the way up to world championships). By the way, another possible reason for popularity of casual games is that a huge number of people play games casually, while only a few people are actually hardcore gamers. Think about all people you know, from all age groups. I think there's a lot of people, mainly older people, who would be interested in games, but don't have the dedication to learn more complicated ones. Simple games that they instantely understand are the only ones they will even be interested in.
As a final note, of course it can very well be that you were very unlucky to have your game be judged by people who were not your target audience, and hence, the judges may not have understood your message / intention with the game. And that could very well have adversely affected your score. My advise: don't worry about it, take it however seriously you want. Take the useful tips at heart and forget the things you know the judges are wrong with.
Thanks for the reply.
ReplyDeleteYou make a fair point, of course, and I accept that. I was just pretty pissed about it at the time. Mostly because it didn't seem like it was my fault. I can deal with making mistakes, but being penalised for things out of my control is something that I can't stand.
In all honesty, I understand why the judges disliked it. I just thought and still do think that the placement and their criticism do not stroke.