Skip to Content

Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

49 replies [Last post]
Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008

Use this thread to give comments and/or critiques regarding the entries to the May 2006 GDS Challenge ("Secret Agent Man", found here).

-Bryk

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Where'd all the hand-drawn graphics go? Have people started hiring out professional artists or something?

Jpwoo
Jpwoo's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/26/2009
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Interesting crop of games. No obvious front runner based on my first read through.

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

doho123 wrote:
Where'd all the hand-drawn graphics go? Have people started hiring out professional artists or something?

What do you mean? I hand-drew everyone of those pictures based upon the requests of the Challenge submitors. ;-p

-Bryk

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

After reading all the entries, I'm a bit disappointed because I expected a lot of emphasis on the Spying and Cool Spy Toys aspects, but several entries fail to or barely mention the gadgets and a couple doesn't seem to be a game about spies at all. :-(

Maybe I have too narrow a vision of what spies are, I dunno. I was expecting a couple of heavily themed games with old-school spies, with dark glasses, raincoats, cammeras hidden into a pen and guns disguised as cigarrette boxes, etc.

Seo

TheReluctantGeneral
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

seo wrote:

Maybe I have too narrow a vision of what spies are, I dunno. I was expecting a couple of heavily themed games with old-school spies, with dark glasses, raincoats, cammeras hidden into a pen and guns disguised as cigarrette boxes, etc.

Seo

From what I remember, the brief mentioned 'high tech'. None of the accessories you mention here sound very high tech (though of course they would be if the game was set in the '60s). I would interpret high tech spying to be better represented by cryptograhpy, hacking, satellite surveillance etc. However, unless it's directly connected to the mechanics in some way, the distinction is simply 'chrome'.

I've had a quick read through this months entries and it seemed to me that in many cases the gadgetry existed as a deck of cards, and most (but not all) entries did not give alot of detail as to exactly what was on the cards, perhaps giving a couple of examples. An earlier poster in this thread was bemoaning the fact that he had to cut out a lot of the chrome and backstory to get his entry in under 800 words. I'm guessing that most people preferred to explain mechanics over theme.

Quote:
Edit - actually the post I was referring to was on the 'Questions and comments thread- not this one.

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

You're right. I was looking at the entries from a very narrow interpretation of the challenge limitations. I've re-read the entries with your interpretation in mind and everything seems to fit the rules much better now. :-)
That was exactly why I posted my comment. I felt it was strange that only some of the entrants had focused on what I beleived was the main requirement. Now I see how all did that, only some went more towards the secrecy and espionage way and some towards the high tech agents way.

I agree with you that the 800-word limit was probably the reason of so little detail about the coold gadgets. When I said I was disappointed I didn't mean to criticize the entrants. On the contrary, I enjoy reading the detailed descriptions of weaponry and characters that are so common on the forum, and I was looking for some cool ones in the entries. Evidently, the 800-word limit didn't allow fo much detail after you describe the core mechanics, and that went against my expectations. I hope some of this game ideas to be further developed in the future, so I can read a more detailed description.

Seo

Jpwoo
Jpwoo's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/26/2009
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Well my votes are in.

Remember vote early and often!

One thing that jumped out at me this time was that none of the games made me think, "Wow. I would really like to play that game!" This includes my own :)

Invisible_Jon
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

TheReluctantGeneral wrote:
An earlier poster in this thread was bemoaning the fact that he had to cut out a lot of the chrome and backstory to get his entry in under 800 words. I'm guessing that most people preferred to explain mechanics over theme.

Edit - actually the post I was referring to was on the 'Questions and comments thread- not this one.

Being the person who made that posting, I should comment a little...

My game has quite a bit of nifty gadgetry in it. In fact, getting gadgetry gives you a significant edge to win the game. I realize that my description does not show off as much of it as it could. In retrospect, I realize that I should have provided more examples of the gadgetry.

On a related note, I found the theme inspirational and really enjoyed seeing what everyone came up with. Once voting is done, I look forward to sharing the full version of the game I made with y'all.

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Invisible_Jon wrote:
My game has quite a bit of nifty gadgetry in it. In fact, getting gadgetry gives you a significant edge to win the game. I realize that my description does not show off as much of it as it could. In retrospect, I realize that I should have provided more examples of the gadgetry.

That's exactly what I thought about more than one of the entries. Gadget cards or something similar are mentioned in the components section, but little or no description of what the gadgets would be or how they'll be used came latter. My games tend to be pretty abstract, so, by contrast, I enjoy reading more heavily themed ideas, and we have had many in previous GDS.

Given the enthusiastic response the suggested theme had when this month's challenge was anounced, I was looking for a lot of interesting descriptive reading. It's not strange to found that some of the entries have descriptions of characters, cards, etc. that are better than the game in general. This time it was, IMHO, lots of interesting game ideas and mechanics, but not as much "literature" as I was expecting. But I'm talking more about what I was looking for and what I found than passing any judgment on the game ideas itself (if any, I would say that this month the competition is quite close).

Seo

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Aye - no single game has yet jumped out at me either.

And yes, though aching to include descriptions, backstory, examples etc. into an entry, it is more important to get a clear, concise overview of how the game works, and what makes it 'special'. It is heard to really get much more into 800 words.

What impresses me is whether or not people can get a 'Finished' feeling to a game - Does it feel like it will play smoothly? Does it have any glaring errors? Can I really understand how to play from just reading the rules?

For me, if I can understand how to play the game straight off, after one reading, without having to go back and forth, re-reading sections, then I will have more time and energy to put into thinking 'Hey, that makes sense, I can visualise and grasp how the game will pay out, and I can see some cool choices, decisions and confllicts the players will have to/be able to make.'

Though, in saying that, this is my first entry, and the first time I have really gone through and analysed each game ;)

Invisible_Jon
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

seo wrote:
I enjoy reading more heavily themed ideas, and we have had many in previous GDS.

[...]This time it was, IMHO, lots of interesting game ideas and mechanics, but not as much "literature" as I was expecting. But I'm talking more about what I was looking for and what I found than passing any judgment on the game ideas itself (if any, I would say that this month the competition is quite close).

I understand what you mean. In my case, I cut virtually all of the theme text in favor of retaining enough of the mechanics to play the game. I was tempted to provide more pictures of game components, but I felt that I'd be cheating the 800-word limit a bit.

(It's important to note that (although I found it hard to work with), I'm in favor of the 800-word limit. I'm also in favor of the 1-week turnaround time. They're challenging and useful restrictions that really force you to get to the heart of your game's concept.)

In future competitions, I think I'll treat it as more of a "sales pitch" where I'm trying to sell the game idea instead of tell people how to play the game.

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Nestalawe wrote:
For me, if I can understand how to play the game straight off, after one reading, without having to go back and forth, re-reading sections, then I will have more time and energy to put into thinking 'Hey, that makes sense, I can visualise and grasp how the game will pay out, and I can see some cool choices, decisions and confllicts the players will have to/be able to make.'

That's exactly why this is a great exercise: if you manage to write a streamlined description of your game that makes people feel they could play it and have fun, you'll have a good score. So it's not just about creating good games, but also (and probably essencially) about learnig to write concise and clear descriptions of your games that comunicate what makes them good.

I think this is an excellent trainig for anyone planning to submit a game to a publisher. Here we have a bunch of judges that know how much we care for our ideas, and are willing to provide some feedback. Actually, there used to be a lot more feedback, with several people posting a paragraph about each entry (Kreitler and Hamumu come to my mind), and that was great. It takes a lot of time, though, and that's probably why the feedback has come down mostly to just the voting, but even that is a good refference. You can look at the scores and think: "Well, I finished 5th, but those 4 games that beat mine were really good" or you can think "My game was better than those other four, where did my entry failed to show that?". You can even think: "Wow, 5th! My game was the worst one, but my entry was so well written that I beat half the competition. If only I could draw like Josh, I would beat them all! ;-P"

Seo

TheReluctantGeneral
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

seo wrote:

That's exactly why this is a great exercise: if you manage to write a streamlined description of your game that makes people feel they could play it and have fun, you'll have a good score. So it's not just about creating good games, but also (and probably essencially) about learnig to write concise and clear descriptions of your games that comunicate what makes them good.

That seems a good summary of the GDS. I guess if you want a compo that's much more about the game itself than the quality of the description, you probably need a less frequent competition with longer entries, which probably precludes determining the winner by public vote.

However, there could be a second competition using panel of BGDF judges (elected or randomly selected from a pool of volunteers), which will accept submissions of more finished games and then decide between themselves what the ranking is. This would be in addition to the current GDS, since like seo says it is a very useful learning exercise and good clean fun.

A number of posters have stated they cannot cope with producing a workable GDS entry in one week in 800 words, and may prefer to enter this type of showdown. The main problem with a judged competition where the judges are not anonymous is the inevitable ruffled feathers at the end though...

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Invisible_Jon wrote:
(It's important to note that (although I found it hard to work with), I'm in favor of the 800-word limit. I'm also in favor of the 1-week turnaround time. They're challenging and useful restrictions that really force you to get to the heart of your game's concept.)

I agree, its just about right, and does force you to think of a certain size game as well, depeding on how you approach the below -

Invisible_Jon wrote:
In future competitions, I think I'll treat it as more of a "sales pitch" where I'm trying to sell the game idea instead of tell people how to play the game.

I think there are two ways of approaching these -

a) Either to go for a sales pitch, as you say, where you wil have room to explore the theme, backstory and game strategy more, but will have to gloss over the precise gameplay. It may not hold up to scrutiny though, as people may be dissuaded by general descriptions of mechanics of gameplay.

or -

b) Try to fit the entire gameplay/ruleset (or backbone for) in the 800 words. Here you lose out on getting across the Flavour of the game, but people will be able to see exactly how the game plays, where it may be strong or weak etc.

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

TheReluctantGeneral wrote:

A number of posters have stated they cannot cope with producing a workable GDS entry in one week in 800 words, and may prefer to enter this type of showdown. The main problem with a judged competition where the judges are not anonymous is the inevitable ruffled feathers at the end though...

And the factthat if there are people dedicated to be judges, then they are most likely going to want to enter as well ;)

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Nestalawe wrote:
And the factthat if there are people dedicated to be judges, then they are most likely going to want to enter as well ;)

We might start with some volunteer judges, and the next round the judges could be the the first three placed in the previous contest and so on. That would allow everyone to take part sometime. And the most successful would be judging more often, which makes sense to me for two reasons: I like to be evaluated by someone whose games are good, and those who enjoy the nice side of being well placed also have to carry the burden of the extra work of judging.

The only risk with this is that it might evolve into a biased rotating jury, where the same sort of games are valued high all the time. I mean: I know nothing about CCG, so I might not be any good at appreciating the virtues or flaws of a CCG, I might tend to rate higher other kinds of games I like. So if I were a jury, the next round jury would be more likely to be formed by people who submitted, say, abstract games. Then, for the following round, the same sort of bias could happen, etc. I know my example is quite extreme, but I hope it illustrates what I mean. If I tend to like the games XX creates, and XX likes mine, we might, by judging honestly and as objectively as we can, still produce a huge bias.

But we could find other ways of rotating the judging burden so that everyone can take part in the contest. That said, this sort of competition would have to be much less frequent than the GDS.

Seo

Invisible_Jon
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

seo wrote:
But we could find other ways of rotating the judging burden so that everyone can take part in the contest. That said, this sort of competition would have to be much less frequent than the GDS.

Here's a nifty and completely impractical idea: Everyone starts with three "credits". It costs one credit to enter a competition. Judging earns you three credits. (Optional rule: Winning costs you one credit.)

The idea amuses me, but I wouldn't want to have to track each person's "credit account".

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Invisible_Jon wrote:
seo wrote:
But we could find other ways of rotating the judging burden so that everyone can take part in the contest. That said, this sort of competition would have to be much less frequent than the GDS.

Here's a nifty and completely impractical idea: Everyone starts with three "credits". It costs one credit to enter a competition. Judging earns you three credits. (Optional rule: Winning costs you one credit.)

The idea amuses me, but I wouldn't want to have to track each person's "credit account".

Hey we could have a GDS themed on creating the mechanics of how we would judge longer GDS's ;)

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Nestalawe wrote:
Hey we could have a GDS themed on creating the mechanics of how we would judge longer GDS's ;)

Wheels within wheels within wheels...

Seo pointed out that feedback has dropped almost entirely away, leaving us with only voting results as a means of critique. Personally, this makes me a lot less interested in the GDS. If I win or lose, I have no idea why. Were my mechanics good or bad? Was I unable to communicate my design intentions clearly?

Were I forced to choose between having a system for determining a winner vs a system for providing "micro-critiques", I would much rather have the latter.

Acknowleging that selection of a single winner boosts entries, I'd recommend the following system:

We have 11 "normal" GDS contests each year. We do not vote for winners, but each entrant is required to provide a "micro-critique" of other entries (like Mike and I usually do).

In December, we run the "GDS Grand Prix", where people who submitted designs in the previous 11 rounds can select one of those designs to write up in all its glory and re-submit as a full game. Perhaps they must even be submitted in a "print'n'play" format. GDSers then review (even play?) these over the month of December and crown finalists and a single winner (using the current 10-point system?).

Yeah, I realize this is a big undertaking and probably not reasonable. It could be loads of fun, though -- and most importantly, it would put the bulk of the contest focus on useful critique.

edit
Or maybe we shift the time schedule to hold the Grand Prix mid-year, allowing people to use it as a "jumping off" point for Hippodice submissions.

K.

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Kreitler wrote:
Or maybe we shift the time schedule to hold the Grand Prix mid-year, allowing people to use it as a "jumping off" point for Hippodice submissions.

Not in july, please. That's when I travel to USA, and won't be able to take part. :-(
But I like the rest of the idea a lot.

Seo

TheReluctantGeneral
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Kreitler wrote:

Seo pointed out that feedback has dropped almost entirely away, leaving us with only voting results as a means of critique.

Well, hopefully this month we can rectify that somewhat by getting verbal about our reasons for voting or not voting for specific entries.

It's also a shame that the workshop has been so quiet recently as well. A game by DarkDream was posted there recently, and got no feedback from anyone except myself, and my feedback was pretty pathetic.

The problem is that crits take a long time to do well. There has to be a payback for the time that critters put in. The best solution I have seen to this problem is at http://www.critters.org. It's a crit group for amateur and professional speculative fiction writers, and I participated in it for quite some time, and the scheme worked really well. Basically, there was a queue of manuscripts extending over a couple months, churning out 15 or so submissions per week, and one had to crit 4 to earn a credit, which allowed you to stick your own work in the queue.

Then when your turn comes up you get 5-15 detailed crits of your work via email. A good feature was that critters doing 10 crits in one block or the most crits in any one week block get a pass to jump their work to the front of the queue. Critters.org has alot more active members than bgdf does, so the numbers would have to be scaled down a bit, but it could work here. It goes without saying that the whole system was automated, it could not be done manually.

Their website has a good write up of how the system works and the various rules if people are interested. Perhaps something along these lines could be instituted in the new BGDF site?

Quote:
We have 11 "normal" GDS contests each year. We do not vote for winners, but each entrant is required to provide a "micro-critique" of other entries (like Mike and I usually do).

The problem with that is that submitters to GDS' at the endof the year will not have enough time to complete the finished version for the GP.

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

TheReluctantGeneral wrote:
Basically, there was a queue of manuscripts extending over a couple months, churning out 15 or so submissions per week, and one had to crit 4 to earn a credit, which allowed you to stick your own work in the queue.

A system like this would definitely promote participation. As you point out, this is vital to a critique-based system.

The "Grand Prix" system might require you to have written at 5 or 6 micro-critiques to qualify for the final round. Note that you can critique without having entered in a monthly GDS.

TheReluctantGeneral wrote:
The problem with that is that submitters to GDS' at the endof the year will not have enough time to complete the finished version for the GP.

True, but since most of us enter multiple GDS' during the year, this isn't such a problem -- especially since most of us are *also* too busy to prototype anything too far in advance. I imagine most of us would entry 6-8 times, pick the best game from the lot, and spend the month of the Grand Prix prototyping and testing.

However, your point is well taken. Maybe we should have 10 "qualifying rounds", a month off, and the final Grand Prix round.

Er...which is not to say that I think this will actually happen. I'm just thinking out loud.

K.

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Micro-critiques

I finally finished reading the May entries. I agree with those who expressed some disappointment with the designs. I think we failed to live up to promise of Bryk's challenge.

About 1/2 the entries felt overly complex to me, or just overly fiddly. The other 1/2 didn't seem to offer much tension in the game play (usually because it there was a single "best" move to perform and little reason not to perform it).

Also, a lot of these games used loads of components. I suspect this was a result of having to allow control of multiple agents.

All that being said, there were still several fantastic "design nuggets" out there. Every game had something interesting to offer.

Here are the micro-critiques. As you read them, bear in mind that I had time to read each entry only once. This may seem harsh, but the GDS is not just about coming up with good designs -- it's also about communicating them. In some cases, I just couldn't fathom certain mechanics on one read through. Potential publishers are unlikely to give a confusing summary doc a second read, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to grasp 75% or more of the game the first time through. For the record, I don't think my writeup did this...

Without further ado, here are the individual remarks:

Stakeout!
The mechanics of this game feel potentially deep, but I'll admit I couldn't fathom the gameplay at all on my first read-through. The game is unabashadly abstract, but somehow retains an interesting espionage feel all the same (moreso than some of the more "concrete" designs). The use of multiple shaped tokens on separate "tracking boards" gave the design a very fiddly feel. That may be unavoidable, but I couldn't understand the design well enough to know if it could be "refactored" in a more elegant way.

STAM
I really liked the fact that the "spy gadgets" were items the players used (as opposed to their agents). The mechanics of "stealing secrets" and trapping agents reinforces the theme well. The decoder/codebook/microfilm mechanic feels overly complex. It feels like the board is so small that moles and spies could reach safe territory relatively easily. There doesn't seem to be much variety in the game play (e.g., there are no "gadgets" with special powers -- it's pretty much moving pawns, swapping their state, and looking at tiles).

Raid on Omnitech
This was my favorite entry. The rules were simple to grasp and the interactions clear. It was slightly disappointing that the gadgets didn't provide any special abilities. They "initiative bidding" system seemed clear, and I liked the twist of executing another players' order in exchange for keeping the high initiative -- though I didn't see an explanation of how players *got* initiative cards every round. I had some other questions, like "how can I plan an effective strategy if I don't know my opponents' Missions" and "how do you track the items Agents carry"? But the fact that I could ask questions at this level made me feel the core mechanics of the game were solid.

IPL: Thunder Point
I liked the ideas behind VP system in this game. I couldn't underestand the immediate implications, but it felt like a strong way to balance the game. Most of the mechanics felt simple and direct, but there was a lot of token shuffling to denote "who's in charge" and some text confused me (I never *did* figure out what "Agents must have at least 3 cards" meant). Neither the Mechanics nor the gadgets provided much flavor for the theme. I *did* appreciate the sense of geography in the game -- something that's important to the genre, IMHO, and lacking in many of the entries.

Alpha Complex Blues
I liked the isolated descriptions of the mechanics, though they were a bit hard to understand without a larger context in which to place them. After reading this entry, I felt like I understood pieces of the game, but not the collective whole. The game *had* geography, but one very limited in scope. The "Paranoia" theme was interesting, but a bit of a stretch from a "super spy" perspective. The design was abundant with special powers, which was a plus, and I liked the thought that collective more powers made you simultaneously more vulnerable. I only wish I had a better understanding of the overall game.

Sci-fi Pulp Adventure
This game had the most "flavor", largely because of the many example cards. I greatly appreciated the co-op design. Unfortunately, I felt like there wasn't much actual meaningful decision making. True, the group has to decide to rest or search, and if they search, they must decide how vigorously to do so. This seems to boil down to balancing the timer against individual hit points, which in some ways becomes a single equation. Player death raises the stakes, which is good, but introduces player elimination, which I generally think hurts a design. Like most co-op games, it suffers from the fact that the tension must come from the game system itself (usually). It's very difficult to describe a system that provides lots of meaningful choices *and* this multiple systems for providing tension in 800 words.

Cryptic City
This game had the best examples of "special powers" (Agent and Advantage abilities). In this sense, it felt the most interesting. The mechanics were simple and clean, and the bidding element was handled well. There were some confusing points: what was the special bonus for using Advanced Orders, and were turns resolved in player order first, or by Agent and then in player order (which would significantly change the effects of paying for multiple advantages/actions). This game had a very "static" feel -- there is no sense of moving the Agents through a world.

Gaslight Agents
I give this game props for its setting and the very interesting idea that certain cards stay on the board between *games*. Wow. The mechanics are generally simple and clean -- though once again they boil mostly down to token placement, which has a certain reserved feel. This isn't necessarily bad -- especially for an espionage game -- but I think most of the games short-changed the action aspect of the "super-spy" genre. Gadgets were not prominent, though I found it interesting that they *were* used as missions ("Space Cannon" and "Steam Bomb"). The Double Agent is a neat idea but seems like a potentially large penalty for an essentially random game element (unless there is some way I can identify a double agent).

Mission Improbable
I like the co-op aspect of this game. Of all entries, I felt it best reinforced the idea of an "agent team". It used gadgets well mechanically but, as with many other entries, not in a "flavorful" way. The Challenge mechanic, while thematically strong, lacks tension in that I should always choose the Challenge most "passable" by the active agent. There isn't much player choice there. I think this design would benefit from "role" cards that gave players VP for completing certain challenges. This would imply semi-co-op play, with the highest-vp player winning, but only if the group succeeded. This, combined with a "draw two challenges and pass one to the left" system and an "earn vp by guessing other Agents' secret roles" mechanic could be a powerful combination. There are mutliple other ways to address the lack of tension -- which only points out that the challenge mechanic is good bedrock on which to build.

After writing these critiques, I feel a bit better about our performance. Some games were more complete on second viewing than I had thought. Still, I agree with Seo that, overall, we dropped the ball. I'd almost like to see us redesign and re-submit our entries by the end of the month...

K.

OutsideLime
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

It's time to Rock the Vote, people! The deadline is upon us! Good luck all! Here's hoping (and I know we all agree) that Outside Lime retains his glittering GDS Crown for the coveted 2-month sweep!

~Josh

PS - In the inverted words of a great thinker: "Remember: Seo bad, Josh Good."

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Voting is going well ... 11 votes collected so far. I've sent a PM reply to everyone whose vote I received ... if you sent a vote in but didn't get a reply from me, please re-send.

The scores are very, very close. ;-)

-Bryk

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

OusideLime wrote:
PS - In the inverted words of a great thinker: "Remember: Seo bad, Josh Good."

Brykovian wrote:
The scores are very, very close. ;-)

Hence, I say let Josh vote twice! Better yet, let him vote 10 times. He is Good, he deserves the right to decide who wins this GDS! ;-P

And remeber that this is probably going to be the last GDS ever, given that the world might end today

Seo

Jpwoo
Jpwoo's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/26/2009
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Wow! Lots of voting. A critique in before the voting is over, hints at close voting! Maybe I reached my goal and got a vote this time!

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

The voting was amazingly spread out ... everyone received at least 5 votes, and the top 3 were all 1 point apart.

Nice work everyone -- next month's Challenge will be a bit of a different animal. ;-)

-Bryk

TheReluctantGeneral
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Jpwoo wrote:
Maybe I reached my goal and got a vote this time!

You can stop worrying now JP! I did like your game alot, I felt it was the one that best satisfied the brief.

OutsideLime
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the May 2006 GDS Challenge Entries

Ahhh Yeeeeessssss! The 2-part sweep! I really thought I was going to be brought down this month, there were a ton of good entries in there... I particularly liked STAM for the "actual gadgetry" approach, but spread my votes among 5 different entries since there were a good number of creative angles out there. Thanks for the exactly necessary number of votes, people! That one was a squeaker!

*********

Me (on the phone to my wife): Hey, I won again!

She: That's awesome, what did you win?

Me: I won the Game Design Showdown on BGDF! Back-to-back wins... not too shabby!

She: Okay, but what did you win?

Me: Um, nothing, really. Bragging rights, I guess. A mention on the front page...

She: Oh, that's really productive. Get back to work and stop wasting your time. You were mumbling "must... beat... Seo..." in your sleep last night.

Me: uhhhhhhh... that's a bit strange, I'll admit. Actually though, Seo turned out to be small potatoes this time around. Looks like JPWoo is the kid to watch out for, now. ....And Nestalawe, curse his scurvy bones.

She: I could have sworn I just told you to get back to work. Eyes on the prize, buster... designing games doesn't pay our bills.

Me: Well, some of them, it does. Anyway, next month I'll have my hands full, everyone will be gunning for me.

She: You can't see this over the phone, but I'm rolling my eyes at you.

Me: You can't see this over the phone, but I'm flipping you off.

She: (laughs) Congratulations love, I'm proud of you.

Me: Thanks! A few weeks until the next one... If I can take home the coveted Threepeat, that would be awesome!

*click

Me: .... hello? .....

*******

Ahh, the glorious life of the amateur game designer..... Fleeting glory and limited recognition is reward enough for me... Keep 'em coming, Bryk & Co.!

~Josh

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut