Amiga Game Development Contest

[alpine9000]

It's probably also a bit harsh to have a special re-use case for game creators. Sure they are "re-use" but so is say Blitz. All that Blitz library code is "re-use". Even if someone writes a game in 100% asm, they will probably reuse code for a mod player, trackloader, decruncher, startup code etc. Does all of this need to be declared ?

I'd say just leave out the re-use declarations for game makers. They already have a big handicap in performance and capability.

[E-Penguin]

Blitz is a language with a set of libraries, as is c, E, even asm if you're using system libraries (exec, anyone?). Game generators provide a full game engine, which is quite different.

Some game comps ban Backbone et al, which I think is overly harsh because no doubt it takes skill to create the graphics and music and add the gameplay magic. On the flipside, someone coding their own collision detection, animation, copper list algorithms in Blitz is doing much more work than ticking the "collisions" box in a game generator GUI, and it would be unfair to gloss over that.

[alpine9000]

Originally Posted by E-Penguin

Blitz is a language with a set of libraries, as is c, E, even asm if you're using system libraries (exec, anyone?). Game generators provide a full game engine, which is quite different.

Some game comps ban Backbone et al, which I think is overly harsh because no doubt it takes skill to create the graphics and music and add the gameplay magic. On the flipside, someone coding their own collision detection, animation, copper list algorithms in Blitz is doing much more work than ticking the "collisions" box in a game generator GUI, and it would be unfair to gloss over that.

I guess I am just trying the make the compo as inclusive as possible:

The current ruleset gives disincentives for:

Game creators (must declare)
Ports (must declare)
Closed source code (against the "spirit" of the compo ?)
Open source assets (Strangely these are discouraged, yet open source code is encouraged)

Edit:

I guess my point is that this is a "games" compo, not a coding compo. If someone can make a better game in backbone than anyone else can make in pure ASM, they should win. To make it a "fair" coding compo anything above pure ASM would have to be penalised as it's not fair to the ASM coders that are doing it the hardest way.

After all, the people playing the games don't care what we use to make the games, they just care that they are good games.

[darkwave]

The RGCD 16k competition allows judges to submit games but are disallowed from judging their own entries. Judge's scores are then averaged for each entry. I wouldn't have a problem with this allowance as it would seem some of those wanting to submit games are also some of the most active in this discussion and would make good judges.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

[OmegaMax]

Originally Posted by darkwave

The RGCD 16k competition allows judges to submit games but are disallowed from judging their own entries.

That would still allow them to vote lower for others entries,judges should not be allowed to enter.I doubt there will be a lack of members wanting to judge anyways.

[E-Penguin]

Originally Posted by alpine9000

The current ruleset gives disincentives for:

Game creators (must declare)
Ports (must declare)
Closed source code (against the "spirit" of the compo ?)
Open source assets (Strangely these are discouraged, yet open source code is encouraged)

I disagree that the merest mention of open source is a disincentive.

As to the rest - I see where you're coming from about being a games not programming comp, but it is a competition and should have a common starting position - a blank document in a text editor. Everything used which gives a competitor a significant head start (graphics, music, game engine, design) over his rivals should be noted in the interest of fairness.

Anyone else have an opinion? I feel alpine9000 and I might be going in circles.

darkwave - it's hard to rule out unconscious bias. If we have a lack of judges we can have another think.

[alpine9000]

Originally Posted by E-Penguin

As to the rest - I see where you're coming from about being a games not programming comp, but it is a competition and should have a common starting position - a blank document in a text editor. Everything used which gives a competitor a significant head start (graphics, music, game engine, design) over his rivals should be noted in the interest of fairness.

When ever we create new tools, languages, libraries, frameworks etc the idea is to make it easier to create great programs.

Blitz it a example of how a new technology made Amiga programming more efficent and accessible than what came before it. This in turn has allowed heaps of great programs to be created that otherwise might not have been.

Game creators are really just another step technology wise. They are programming, just at a much higher level than more traditional languages.

As for head starts, I would be more worried about people with lots of games under their belts than people using game creators. Some people on this forum have not stopped coding for the Amiga since it was released 30 years ago. They would have huge libraries of code, techniques and experience they can draw on.

[darkwave]

I don't agree with marking against closed source entries. It's completely up to the developer to choose whether they open source their code or not. Surely this would be a disincentive to enter, which is exactly what we don't want. No competition should dictate what rights a developer has over their work.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

[OmegaMax]

Sharing source code should be the decision of the developer and not a rule,source code is encouraged but not a requirement.But I also understand the need to share source code as it has the potential for others to learn from and that's a definite plus for the amiga community.

[mcgeezer]

I think we should ditch this whole open source/closed source requirement, it has no implications on the scoring for a game.

If the developers want to release their code then fine, if they don't then fine.

Geezer

[E-Penguin]

There is no proposed open source requirement, nor marking against closed source entries, nor has there been.

[Leffmann]

This thread is 15 pages long now, and it's beginning to turn sour.

I think it could be a good idea to look at how Cammy used to arrange her annual Amiga game making competition a couple of years back.

[Ian]

Leffmann, totally agree

OK, how about this. I have no interest in programming, or entering the competition, I am a gamer and care about the games only.

If Shatterhand agrees as it's his baby I will draft some rules, and then we can get cracking before we all kill each other about things that don't actually matter.

[alpine9000]

Don’t read too much into the discussions E-Penguin and I were having, they were really around quite minor points in the grand scheme of things. I definitely didn’t mean it to come across as anything but each of us pitching ideas (no sourness intended that’s for sure).

[E-Penguin]

Originally Posted by Ian

If Shatterhand agrees as it's his baby I will draft some rules

Feel free to offer updates to the ones I've gleaned from this thread. Better than starting again. alpine9000 and I are perhaps quibbling on minor points but the bulk of it seems to be consensus. No sourness intended from this side either.

1. Single hardware category. Submission should mention target hardware (OCS 1Mb,AGA,Anything) and judges may take into consideration appropriate use of resources when scoring. Each submitter can submit up to two entries.

2. Prizes to be distributed 1st = 50%, 2nd = 30%, 3rd = 20% of prize fund, based on averaged judge score

3. Games must not have been published in any form before the competition

4. Games may be subsequently released commercially in whatever form the submitter chooses, but the submission for the competition should be distrubuted as part of the competition. Judgement will be made on the publically available submission (That is, what the judges play is the same as what anyone else following the competition can play).

5. Judges willl provide a single score, and consider the following criteria, with the following weighting:
Game play 40%
Graphics 20%
Sound/Music 20%
Originality 20%

6. Use of public domain resources (graphics, sound, plot, etc) is permitted but should be declared. Non-declared work is considered to be the submitter's own.

7. Judges will be selected by the organisers from the Amiga gaming community. Judges may not submit an entry for the competition.

8. Ports of existing games from other platforms are permitted, but as per Rule 6, re-used elements must be declared.

9. The competition will last 6 months from the official start date, and final submissions must be made by 23:59 UTC on the last day.

10. Submissions must be in the form of a disk image (or images) playable on both emulated and real hardware, according to the stated target hardware configuration. Instructions, etc, to be provided as necessary, as determined by the submitter.

11. Each submission will have one responsible lead, but he may receive support from up to other 2 people, and those should be credited properly.

12. Use of game creation toolkits (e.g. Backbone, RedPill) is permitted but should be declared and will be considered a re-used resource as per Rule 6

Note; open source is not a requirement but is encouraged to help build the Amiga game development community.

[Lazycow]

@E-Penguin: I like your draft, it seems to cover almost everything!

It wouldn't hurt if the rules declare that the rights of the game remain by the developer, except for game-compo related things:
- The judges must have access to the games after the deadline! (obviously)
- Should the games be available for download for everyone or not? That should be defined. (I would say YES)

EDIT: Forget it, Rule 4 already covers this!

[E-Penguin]

Thanks, I hope it captures the overall consensus.

I think it's essential that games be available for everyone to play, in the same state that the judges have access to. Otherwise the competition is open to abuse by sending judges "special editions" to play, which is effectively bribery. Nothing to stop someone submitting a playable demo (saves disabled, fewer levels, etc) if they want to release a fuller game later on.

Also, it's hardly a gaming competition if we can't all play along, right?

You are also right about clarifying ownership rights. How about adding:

The competition makes no claim to ownership, licencing or distribution rights, which belong to their respective owners. Submitting an entry to the competition expressly grants the competition organisers the right to distribute the entry for purposes of the competition only, as per Rule 4.

[Retro1234]

And the 2018 winner is Alco-Copter.

[Dunny]

Do I smell another resident evil project but in competition form here?

[Retro1234]

Originally Posted by Dunny

Do I smell another resident evil project but in competition form here?

How dare you I will that one day with pre rendered sprites