Quote: Original post by superpig
I'm not comfortable limiting people to 2D games - some people already do have asset libraries lying around, or are willing to team up with artists to get the job done. What I will say, though, is that part of the skill certainly should be picking a project that is appropriate to the time and resources that you have available. I'm thinking about codifying this more explicitly for the next contest.

Yeah, I agree. There is definitely something to be said about staying within your skill given the time limits, something I failed miserably at. :)

Textures are easy to find, I agree. Models are not (at least not finding models of something specific, like a pony). And even if you're a decent modeler, you're talking at least months of work to build all the models you'd need for a full game. Which just raises the bar too high.

So by strongly encourage 2D entrants, I mean something along the lines of providing a whole lot of 2D graphics at the start of the contest that match the elements. You could go for 3D if you want, but why would you when there isn't enough time and you have a whole set of 2D graphics in front of you?

The pre-available graphics ideally would be provided at different resolutions, to allow for different uses in games. And it would be nice to include a whole slew of ancillary graphics, like terrains, stars, planets, various items, etc. There are some freely available bitmap sets, but their resolution is a bit low. The only quality free 2D graphics I'm aware of are the ones for Wesnoth.

So in a perfect world, I'd like to see more tools given up front so the focus is on the game instead of the technology and skillset to make the game.

I think providing the assets is something for a different competition. There used to be a contest at the GMC where lacklustre resources were provided and you had to make a game from it. That was a good challenge- but different to the 4 elements challenge.

Anyway, in short, I disagree with providing resources as part of the 4 elements challenge, or "encouraging" the use of particular resources. I also disagree with 2d or 3d only.

I also don't think that 4 elements should be "encouraging" 2d over 3d, and I am even more opposed about it providing the textures to use. Unless there is a lot of them (I mean *a lot*), you'll end up with very similar looking games. I think that the elements should be ones that lend themselves to easy modeling/drawing, or at least don't lend themselves towards something difficult to make (ponies).

Also, as far as I'm aware, it is about making a game, not just designing and programming it. To me, that includes resources like music, sounds and graphics. Yes, you can use freely available resources, and if you arn't a programmer, you can use freely available tools to make your game without programming.

When I say provide assets, I do not mean to imply that you would have to use those graphics. It just seems to me that what's preventing more people from entering the contest is that the barrier for entry is too high. You have to be an artist, a good programmer, and have a lot of time to burn. Which limits the contestant pool to a few dozen people maybe.

I'm assuming that we don't want an elitist contest. There should be enough given up front for someone who knows how to program to produce a game with a little bit of effort. Most programmers are not artists, so for them to produce a game they have to either find an artist (and then rely on the artist to actually finish), look online for free assets (which is dubious at best), or make assets themselves and have them not only be of poor quality, but take time away from programming the game in general. Or worse, a combination of all three, and have the graphics be wildly hit or miss on quality.

If you want to make your own assets, and go for a 3D game, then I guess you should go for it. But you're not going to finish, not unless you really know what you're doing. For us mere mortals, the only way we can finish a game is if we don't have to draw the graphics ourselves.

Which all leads me back to one of my original points: it would be nice if there was a parallel project just for artists to produce game assets for the programming competition.

Quote:
you'll end up with very similar looking games

And that's a problem...? Have you looked through the entries? How many would you say have "good" graphics? Maybe unifying people's crappy graphics in to less crappy graphics that everyone uses would be an improvement.

Even if they all look similar, they'll still play wildly different, come from different genres, etc. If anything, it would heighten emphasis on game design.

[Edited by - Numsgil on May 12, 2008 5:10:56 PM]

You're provided with an extensive list of free resources in the contest forum, as well as the web, and any other resources you can find, make, or purchase.

I'll say the same thing about art that I do about the elements. As long as it comes together and is consistently stylized then you should be able to make a decent game. There are several great games that use hand drawn, pen, pencil, crayon, and other media to create simple, style.

http://www.addictinggames.com/
http://www.addictinggames.com/theworldshardestgame.html
http://www.addictinggames.com/shift2.html
http://walaber.com/index.php?action=showitem&id=17
http://www.kloonigames.com/crayon/


I can't find the pen and paper space invaders.

Great stuff!

Quote: Original post by BeastX
You're provided with an extensive list of free resources in the contest forum, as well as the web, and any other resources you can find, make, or purchase.

Why would you purchase assets for a little game competition like this? I looked through the asset links when the competition first started. I saw nothing particularly relevant (ie: ponies or crystals) or usable (there were some links to tilesets that were something like 8x8, which is, well, unusable :))

Quote: Original post by Numsgil

Quote: Original post by BeastX
You're provided with an extensive list of free resources in the contest forum, as well as the web, and any other resources you can find, make, or purchase.

Why would you purchase assets for a little game competition like this? I looked through the asset links when the competition first started. I saw nothing particularly relevant (ie: ponies or crystals) or usable (there were some links to tilesets that were something like 8x8, which is, well, unusable :))

It's never just a contest! It's a blip on the radar, hosted by a globally viewed site, and resume filler. While a GDNet+ membership is free money, its dollar value doesn't compare to free hardware and software worth hundreds or thousands of dollars, as was the case with 4e4. 4e4 had prizes and visibility that represented a decent return on investment for winners.

Quote: I'm assuming that we don't want an elitist contest. There should be enough given up front for someone who knows how to program to produce a game with a little bit of effort. Most programmers are not artists, so for them to produce a game they have to either find an artist (and then rely on the artist to actually finish), look online for free assets (which is dubious at best), or make assets themselves and have them not only be of poor quality, but take time away from programming the game in general. Or worse, a combination of all three, and have the graphics be wildly hit or miss on quality.

I'm a game designer myself. Should the contest provide readily available programming and art assets for me? I shouldn't think so.

Same for artists, should they be given an engine and a sample code database?

The goal of the contest is to create a game. Not program a game. Programming is only one part of game development. And of course there will be only a few people who can both program, create models, textures, animations and sounds at an exceptionall level. But nowhere does it say that you have to make it all on your own. Few games are made by one person alone, certainly not with such a time restraint. It's a joint venture.

Of course everybody should be free to use any free assest he can find, but games shouldn't depend on it. That's not what creating a game is about. And free assets will rarely make a good looking game because they lack concistency in style and quality. If one only wants to program, he should think of a game that doesn't rely on graphics.

I think the contest is essentially fine, both in time constraint and size. I worked on Assault on Planet Equidon and we created that in 3 weeks of fulltime work with a 7 man team. Without doing the math I think that more than equals out for the months of work a one man team could have put in.
But I think the elements were a bit silly this year, they were much more restrictive than last year's, I think.

Could we get an update on that status of the judging? Is there an ETA?