|
| | |
RGCD C64 16KB Cartridge Game Development Competition 2011 |
Event Type :
Standalone Compo
Dates :
18 May - 30 November 2011
Place :
United Kingdom
Website :
http://www.rgcd.co.uk
Organizers :
Heavy Stylus
Organizer Groups :
RGCD
Competition Results :
C64 Game
Attendants : (14)
Achim, ALeX, Endurion, H Macaroni, Heavy Stylus, Linus, Mix256, Paulko64, Peiselulli, redcrab, Richard, Ron, The Magic Roundabout, Wolk
External links :
User Comment
Submitted by enthusi on 21 December 2011
Yes the no-ripp-offs and even more so the no-copy whinings are very particular to game compos, hehe ;-)
Coding and creating a c64-game is a shitload of work - the term 'conversion' cant even be compared to the one used in gfx.
I am very happy about the high quality entries and the compo itself. Only time will tell which games are liked by the most in the end - this might vary alot from the compo-results after all :)
|
User Comment
Submitted by Achim on 20 December 2011
The compo is over. All participants knew the categories. Further discussions won't change anything and as far as I can see most participants can live with the result.
It shows that game coders are simply not used to compos and rankings. Demo coders, graphicians and musicians might laugh about a discussion like this. They've got their compos almost every year. Conclusion: More game compos! |
User Comment
Submitted by Heavy Stylus on 20 December 2011
There were NO zeros awarded. In each category the games were scored 11-1 points by listing them in order. Next year I'll probably break down CONCEPT into ORIGINALITY and DESIGN.
From the vote sheets:
"The games are ranked in the following categories; CONCEPT, PRESENTATION, GAMEPLAY and LASTING APPEAL. Your favourite game in each category is awarded the most points, and the worst the least.
CONCEPT is a measure of originality and how sound the design concept is. Making the game work on all variations of the C= hardware (GS and 128, PAL and NTSC) should be taken into account here as well, as should technical impressiveness, suitability of controls, etc.
PRESENTATION is simply the quality of graphics, audio and execution of design. (Are instructions offered? Does the front-end give you any help or info?)
GAMEPLAY is of course a measure of how enjoyable the game is to play.
LASTING APPEAL refers to replay value and addictiveness. Are you likely to want to play it again? Does the game feature procedural or random content resulting in the game being different every time, etc.
*PLEASE* play each game thoroughly - even if you don't like it. Some games here offer instant gaming gratification, where others are a bit more in-depth and take time to learn. Don't just load a game up and think 'pah, I hate this'.
Have a few goes - show a friend or family member and see what they think." |
User Comment
Submitted by Wile Coyote on 20 December 2011
The criteria that each game will be evaluated on are:
Concept (originality and design),
Presentation (quality of graphics, audio and execution of design),
Gameplay (a measure of how enjoyable the game is to play),
Lasting Appeal (replay value, addictiveness).
I guess the conversions were awarded '0' when it came to Concept, as they were not original, and the design copied. |
User Comment
Submitted by TheRyk on 19 December 2011
"Everyone's a winner, baby, that's he truth" as the "Tiger" put it.
Peiselulli might be a little disappointed (imho Jar's Revenge is at least among top 3, however, votes are votes) but I cant' believe he was serious.
If I HAD managed to take part with one of my half-baked games, taking part and getting a free cart would have been award enough. Maybe next year :) |
User Comment
Submitted by Heavy Stylus on 19 December 2011
Well said my man. Well, Jars was voted highly by a few judges, but then others openly admitted that they didn't know the original and they thought it was quite basic in design compared to other games. Personally I thought it would make the top three, but it was shunted off the top by the Spacelords and Panic Analogue.
With competitions that are judged by a (9 person) panel, there is always going to be differences of opinion, but I think that everyone was fair and there was no open discussion to chat about favourites or anything. All I can say is that I hope Peiselulli's words were not completely serious and he comes to realise that his work IS both highly regarded and appreciated. |
User Comment
Submitted by Wile Coyote on 19 December 2011
Taking part is more important than winning.
With 11 entries, there was always going to be 10 non winners ;P
I thought C64anabalt might win, as its an excellent conversion. I am happy that it did not win, as it is a conversion ;D
Likewise, I thought Jars Revenge with its open border design might take 1st place. While I don't like to play the game, it is a great conversion :) |
User Comment
Submitted by Heavy Stylus on 18 December 2011
| Shit. I wouldn't have run this compo if I had known that it would end up with Peiselulli leaving the game-dev scene :( |
User Comment
Submitted by Peiselulli on 18 December 2011
OK, I understand. No game from peiselulli anymore in the future .... bye bye
|
User Comment
Submitted by Heavy Stylus on 18 December 2011
| The final judges scores are not too different from the CSDB user ones :) FYI, Fairy Well beat C64anabalt by less than 0.5 points! |
User Comment
Submitted by Linus on 15 December 2011
User Comment
Submitted by enthusi on 15 December 2011
Hehe, whining will never stop. In particular by all those not attending.
I was very surprised (and pleased!) that ALL entries are very nice and worthy C64 games.
Each of them beats thousands of commercial c64 games and most of them reflect some real love to coding and/or game-design.
Originality is awesome but awesome games in themselves are awesome too ;-) |
User Comment
Submitted by Heavy Stylus on 15 December 2011
Well, all but one set of votes are in, and to be honest I do see the point raised here. Next year I will probably break down the 'concept' score into two categories, with more points being offered for originality in one of those categories.
However, I still feel that this competition has had a good mix of original concepts, 1:1 ports and games that are tributes or homages to others - most of which were completely new to the C64 scene. The entries were all great and it has been very hard to judge as a result. |
User Comment
Submitted by Achim on 13 December 2011
No need for hair-splitting.
BTW: In a manner The Mollusk is a conversion as well. When I checked out games with an underwater theme I came across a crappy game called Hook Dodger (http://gamebase64.com/game.php?id=3578&d=39). My first thought: I can do better than this... ;) |
User Comment
Submitted by Wile Coyote on 13 December 2011
@Paulko64
Jars Revenge is a conversion
C64anabalt is a conversion
@Achim
No game is 100% original but I think we know the difference between a conversion and a non conversion,
no matter how inaccurate the conversion might turn out. |
User Comment
Submitted by Paulko64 on 13 December 2011
Under what category would you put these then?
Space Lords -> based on, or conversion of warlords?
get' em -> based on, or conversion of forget me not?
Rong -> based on, or conversion of pong?
I.e. I think a subdivision in conversions and originals makes no sense! |
User Comment
Submitted by Achim on 11 December 2011
| In terms of concepts no game is absolutely original. But developping a game based on a well known concept (shmup, platformer etc.) and converting a game 1:1 from one format to another is something different. |
User Comment
Submitted by TheRyk on 10 December 2011
| If you split a competition like this into too many subcategories, it might become confusing or have too few entries in each subcategory. Though some productions might *seem* to be "more original" than others, there are very few game concepts which are really new, since everyone is inspired by so many other games. That's why I think, conversion etnries should belong to the main competition. |
User Comment
Submitted by Achim on 10 December 2011
@wile coyote: That's exactly what I thought.
But as a matter of fact the compo became a conversion compo. |
User Comment
Submitted by Wile Coyote on 9 December 2011
(as great as they are) Should conversions have been allowed to enter the compo ?
Two compo's might have been better:
Conversion compo
Original game compo |
User Comment
Submitted by Heavy Stylus on 3 December 2011
| @macron - as the requirement was for the .BIN files to work on real hardware (which they do) faulty .CRT headers are not a major concern - or at least not in terms of the competition. |
User Comment
Submitted by Mactron on 3 December 2011
Some entries with faulty header.
|
User Comment
Submitted by Richard on 3 December 2011
| Well done to everybody who has entered this competition. Brilliant compo entries. I applaud everybody who has put so much effort and hard work into making their game masterpieces. Best of luck to all entrants :) My personal favorite's hard to choose from. They're all good fun to play. |
|
|
|
 | Search CSDb |
|
| Navigate | |
|
| Detailed Info | |
|
| Sort Releases | |
|
| Forum | |
|
| Support CSDb | |
|
 |  |
|
