What happened to team challenge, anyway?
I know that in 2004, entries barely made to the deadline and most teams broke apart, but isn't that's the challenge?
Trying to stay and work together and finish the thing?
How about trying again?
I would potentially be interested, depending on what the rules and restrictions are.
(perhaps you can link to the 2004 contest?)
I found those links...
ATC 2004 (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=14961.0)
ATC 2004 - official thread (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=15133.0)
ATC 2005 - signup (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=18462.0)
I think that strict rules and short deadlines were what made ATC so hard, and why so few entries made it to the final day.
Community has been growing every year, so why not try it again?
If you look at middle link, you see that there were some pretty high-quality games in work... For for such short time, they were never completed.
I think that if ATC could be ressurrected (if there's enough people to participate), the rules should point out minimum AND maximum number of rooms for a game, so teams would go filling these with actual game, instead of starting a never-ending string and missing deadline after.
I don't offer to host ATC myself, but I would simply love to participate in one.
It would have about the same percentage of games finished, about 10-15%... I'd say give it a go though.
Quote from: InCreator on Sun 19/08/2007 23:18:10
I think that strict rules and short deadlines were what made ATC so hard, and why so few entries made it to the final day.
Whoa. I just red up on that large rulebook, and if we're using that, count me out. This is way too much of a hassle with formalities and bureaucracy.
Some of the rules do seem a little overly strict, but I'm sure certain points would be flexible.
Either way, and providing a window opens in my hectic schedule of doing nothing, I'd give it a go.
I'd be in this time 'round. Give it a go, with some changes based on what potentially went wrong last times, and we might a slightly greater percentage of the games done, too.
I've been secretly hoping this might get resurrected. Consider me very interested (despite our team's spectacular failure last round ;D). Is this the wrong topic to mention the OROW too? It always had lots of entries and good quality too, would be a shame not to see it again. Another one seemed about to go ahead but finding a good time and host didn't happen.
The problem is that summer is ending, and so is the ideal window for the team contest.
It would make most sense to wait until December, when most people have free time.
Hmpf, I can't believe these kind of things fall apart! I've been on some 72h GDCs and those were fun!
I kow I am new here, but I got my skills and I would definately be interested! Maybe even make the teams country based, so estonians could win!
December sounds good, and there is plenty of time to organize the damn thing, forums etc...
Judging by the last one I wouldn't be interested, it was just a big mess. OROW and MAGS work much better since you don't need to rely on anyone to do a job.
When I look at those rules then I think that they should have helped to get things done in time.
For example, showing off a screenshot and giving a plot synopsys is something to work towards to.
Instead of giving a progress report in the last week it might be a better idea to have already a completable build done by that time, so the last week is there for fixing things (a progress report might be an optional thing, though). This would add to the pressure for one and the games would be in a mostly bug-free state.
Both winner games of the past competition were just released after additional features were added and bugs resolved.
Overambition was a big problem of the competition in 2004. Too many rooms and a plot that was too extensive. In one team the story wasn't even written to the end. It also seems that leadership and organisational planning were lacking, both things which shouldn't be underestimated.
This competition is all about working in a team and meeting deadlines.
I guess this sounds tiresome, but it also is the idea, in my opinion.
I think the period of time should be not longer than one week. So the members wouldn't lose motivation. It shouldn't be who gets the most rooms or longest storyline, it shopuld be the originality captured in given theme and adaption of gameplay!
Quote from: radiowaves on Mon 20/08/2007 01:03:21
I think the period of time should be not longer than one week. So the members wouldn't lose motivation. It shouldn't be who gets the most rooms or longest storyline, it shopuld be the originality captured in given theme and adaption of gameplay!
It might just take that one week to properly organise your team for this sort of stuff. So the deadline should in my opininon be further away.
I think a team name and logo shouldn't be necessary or even encouraged.
The first two days would be just about figuring those out.
Something like "Dave Gilbert Team" would have been enough, I think.
Most ATC teams will probably fail. Experience has taught us that. But, the experience can teach you a LOT about development, working as a team, etc. It certainly did for me. If it weren't for the 2004 ATC (and "Two of a Kind"), I never would have known what it was to lead a team, and never would have considered entering game development fulltime.
QuoteWhoa. I just red up on that large rulebook, and if we're using that, count me out. This is way too much of a hassle with formalities and bureaucracy.
Why the sarcasm? I simply think that rules should aid success of ATC, not make it harder. Like setting a room count or something else game-specific. ATC '04 suffered from people not being really sure what to do, thus wasting precious time.
Like ozzie said:
QuoteThis competition is all about working in a team and meeting deadlines
I totally second that. Only strongest teams managed to stay together to hand over a final product.
Also, I'm sure many new(n00b?) members would love an opportunity to work together with our veterans.
QuoteIt might just take that one week to properly organise your team for this sort of stuff. So the deadline should in my opininon be further away.
Yes, things take time. With international teams, time zones, etc, a week couldn't produce even sufficent communication between team members.
QuoteIt shouldn't be who gets the most rooms or longest storyline, it shopuld be the originality captured in given theme and adaption of gameplay!
I'd prefer actual content. A game. Puzzles. So there wouldn't be case where team hands graphics over to the coder just a day before deadline and coder barely manages to import backgrounds in time, so result becomes a simple slideshow and not really an adventure game. ::)
QuoteI think a team name and logo shouldn't be necessary or even encouraged.
The first two days would be just about figuring those out.
Funny as it sounds, it's true. But this could be left into final, testing & debugging week Ozzie told about.
QuoteI kow I am new here, but I got my skills and I would definately be interested! Maybe even make the teams country based, so estonians could win!
Members of the team were picked randomly, so there wasn't "ultimate team" made of masters only. But if you're interested in making something together (off-challenge), send me a PM. With you, me, Clip and Kristjan together, it sounds actually pretty cool.
QuoteIt would make most sense to wait until December, when most people have free time.
Though it sounds a bit pessimistic, I'd rather start ATC now and set deadline for December or something... This case, if someone bails out, other team members have atleast enough time to mop things up...
Also, instead of waiting "something to happen", we should have competitions like this going on all the time. So even at worst, new games would be still popping out occassionally.
The teams weren't really random, so that's not accurate. Certain people decided they were team leaders and recruited people they wanted to work with. I think a random assignment method would have an even lower probability of success. I also don't think it suffered from people 'not knowing what to do'. After talking with a lot of people from the different teams (and having been on one myself), I think it suffered more from people who thought or claimed they would have time for the project and then either decided they didn't want to do it or found they didn't have the time to do it, thus teams ended up with large design documents and only 1 or 2 people actually doing the work. I think ATC projects are a recipe for failure for this very reason, because some people are extremely eager to be on a team with a group of established people and then suddenly realize 'hey, this is going to require a lot of effort and work' and then flake out. Also, someone mentioned making the ATC a week. Why? OROW is a week competition already and you can have a team for that. You can also have a team for a MAGS game if you like and it's a month long competition, so I really don't see the need or the place for the ATC with both of these competitions going.
Just wait for a MAGS competition with some basic rules that appeal, get together a group and go for it! The benefits are not having to worry about a bunch of silly rules like forming a team name, not having such a ridiculous sense of competition weighing you down and you can focus on the only point of game design worth focusing on: doing it because you enjoy it.
Quote
QuoteIt would make most sense to wait until December, when most people have free time.
Though it sounds a bit pessimistic, I'd rather start ATC now and set deadline for December or something... This case, if someone bails out, other team members have atleast enough time to mop things up...
Also, instead of waiting "something to happen", we should have competitions like this going on all the time. So even at worst, new games would be still popping out occassionally.
It certainly would make the competition more sucessful if it would happen when most people have time, logically.
Maybe it also would be a good idea to wait for the 2.8 release of AGS.
The support for a version control system may make team work much more easier and less a mess.
Someone would need to host those, though.
There's been hits and misses with the previous comp., sure. Lots of teams and entries didn't make it.
But that's not different from any competition. And we musn't forget that it did yield two games, two great games - Two of a Kind and The Great Stroke-Off.
I wouldn't have time to participate, unfortunately, but I'd love playing the offspring of a new comp. I thought that there were specific periods for the OROW and this comp, really...
Ah, so you are talking about competitions for softies, with 12 hour sleep and all? Half of the fun of competitions are just being up all night to get the results that are at least a little playable. But when you already have the engine (you don't have to make it from scratch), things are even easier.
I can remember being part of the last one. Our team fell apart and it was a mess but I think it was due us having a very hopefully look on things and I was and still am such a noob, so that didn't help.
What if we made it make the best short game ever competition!!! That means less rooms, maybe less time, less story and more likely that people will finish a game. It would force the team to look at every detail of their game and make it perfect.
Team Hasselhoff are still working together, and are still after a deadline extension for the 2005 competition.
Our problem was that we designed a game that was very large in scope, and we suffered losses in artists. When we finally got a strong team together it was far too late, so we are now taking our time and making a fantastic game.
I'd love to see a new competition and I'm really glad we managed to get The Great Stroke-Off done on time and that it turned out such a nice game. If there was a new competition and we could get our team up and running again it would be great. Not too fond with the idea of shorter competition .. that's what MAGS is for.
This (http://www.drizzle.com/~scottb/publish/gk3_postmortem_draft.htm) is slightly off-topic, nothing to do with this competition, but it shows that even professional deveopment teams can have serious problems.
MAGS is just too restrictive, there is always a narrow theme, as well as silly rules often involving inventory items. On the other hand, in ATC there were no such restrictions, and your team could actually make any game they wanted... there was also no room restriction either, which caused the conception of too large-scope projects.
If there is to be another ATC, I don't think the teams should be randomised - this, indeed, caused some well-known and hard-working members to be in a team with n00bs who did less than was wanted. If not, I suggest a drastic reformation of MAGS - encouraging team efforts and getting rid of ridiculous restrictions such as 'use a green tomato as an inventory item', as well as narrow themes.
Well, that is a good point. I have been wanting to participate in MAGS for several months now, but it is rare that I find a theme among there that I can draw inspiration from. That is a matter of taste, of course, but it may account for the sometimes-low participation in it.
I'm fond of short, intense competitions. You can't keep up a sustained team effort for a month, except in very rare cases, but a week is possible, that's why we started OROW. I'd estimate the completion rate is at least 3x that of month+ long comps. If you have a wonderful big game idea, it's not best for a competition, imo. Competitions are the place for short projects you've wanted to try but haven't found the motivation or time for. They give you an excuse to take a short break from whatever else you were doing, and impose an external deadline so you won't drag things out and end up damaging your real projects.
If people want to officially organise into teams for the next OROW I'm fine with that, it's allowed anyway. If there's any interest I may as well run it soon.
I have quite an interest for OROW... As usual.
Well, the problem with OROW games are that they are, naturally, short. Even the best of them can't really occupy you for more than 20-30 minutes. What is more, a single room is hardly enough to present a decent story, what is most important in adventure games.
MAGS and ATC games, however, can keep you playing for several hours. And I quite disagree that it's impossible to keep the team motivated for at least a month - and the many good MAGS games show that.
Well fair enough, I think the number of failed ATC teams speak for themselves though.
I removed the one room restriction from OROW long ago, but yes, it's a different form to the mid-long adventure game.
Yeah, not sure why you thought OROW was still a one-room restricted competition, since it was only that way the first time. And yeah, you're free to disagree about the motivation thing but past evidence is rather against you. Scotch's point about the short development time is pretty valid, imo. I certainly had more fun on the first couple OROWs than I did in the ATC, and a lot of it had to do with knowing my personal limitations and what I could handle in a week. I think that people who want to try these larger competitions should start with OROW first and see if they can hack a design in a week first, especially people who haven't actually made a game yet. That way you're not just coming out of nowhere and saying you can commit to a team game without any evidence of how you do under time constraints.
My advice is try OROW even if you have to go it alone and see how you deal with game design on a steep time budget. Once you do that then you can consider trying a bigger competition (and you have something to refer people to so they can see your talents).
Hell, you don't even need a competition declared to make a month game! If you want to make a game in a month then get together a group and by all means do it. A competition is just you being lazy and waiting for someone else to come up with rules and motivation, anyway. Motivate yourself and make the 'best gane ever' in a month!
It's the kudos that motivates people in these competitions. They want the warm-fuzzy feeling that comes with people voting for your game.
At least I do.
I NEED IT! :'(
Kudos isn't always the case. If its long lasting compo, then it wouldn't be enough for everyoone because people with weaker abilities may be hopeless and feel left out. But if it is short term compo, extreme, then the prize is to just finish with something, extra points for original entry. And I have seen guys who could program, draw and make tunes all in 72 hours and actually finish with something decent, now that is guts.
Quote from: radiowaves on Mon 20/08/2007 23:19:43
And I have seen guys who could program, draw and make tunes all in 72 hours and actually finish with something decent, now that is guts.
Well, personally I wouldn't call
Crazy Frog Racer decent, but whatever floats your boat.
(http://img.tesco.com/pi/entertainment/MM/LF/668894_GS_L_F.jpg)
ATC and OROW are two vastly different activities, and I don't see how they can be compared.
ATC was designed to help members practice on team work and co-operation, to work organised. Even with no released games, you couldn't say that ATC failed; the activity itself was to work together. And everybody knows that working in a team is the hardest part of...well, anything.
I don't see why certain people advocate so strongly against it, especially seeing that it did result in some very interesting projects, some even released. I am absolutely possitive that the experience has been very fruitful for plenty of AGSers in the community.
OROW is simply designed to produce as many games as possible.
Saying that OROW is better than ATC is like saying "nah, I don't think we should have Sprite Jam. I think we should let everybody paint any sort of picture they want, and then we list all the pictures in a thread."
I think OROW works great; it's an inspiration boost and it obviously helps people produce a lot of games. It's just not the same kind of activity.
Quote from: Andail on Tue 21/08/2007 11:43:58
I don't see why certain people advocate so strongly against it, especially seeing that it did result in some very interesting projects,
I'm not advocating against it, I'm saying that after having read the length and strictness of the rule set, I am not particularly inclined to join it.
Besides, I have a team, and it's t3h awesome.
...I don't understand "naah, let's no do it" mentality neither. What's to lose?
Simply because it sounds like perfect business plan: let's make something out of nothing.
If it fails, everybody can still get some experience, if not, they'll get experience too and ALSO we'll have some new games, and some members have better game-portfolio, plus morale boost, etc, etc.
What's the alternative? Spend same time on discussing coolest video in YouTube at gen-gen?
Community is swarming with short, low-quality games. ATC would be a change to make (also) short game, but with skills combined.
Worst case scenario: Teams break up, no games produced, one useless thread. How much useless threads could these people generate if they're wasn't busy participating? After all, there WILL be some resources to finish what they started, even if ATC meets deadline, no team breaks up in first day. And sometimes only few missing backgrounds or story bits is all that keeps good game still unfinished... ::) ::)
QuoteI'm saying that after having read the length and strictness of the rule set,
Democracy, hey. Aren't we discussing those? If you have good ideas about new rules, shoot.
ATC is really hard only for a Team Leader. I can't imagine if someone asks 5 music tracks or backgrounds or character designs from me, why I couldn't make them and hand over. If I really don't have time, it's better not to participate at all, right? Team leader is the one who should pass them to other members and encourage coder to put them together- But organizing is the whole key anyway. First the story is set, then graphics people read it, background artist makes first BG and passes it to character animator so characters will be drawn according to background size/style... musicians can rely on purely story and when these resources are coming in, coder starts putting them all together. Doesn't sound that complex after all? Team leader should keep an eye on everything and make sure that deadlines are met and quality stays same. But...
QuoteIf there is to be another ATC, I don't think the teams should be randomised - this, indeed, caused some well-known and hard-working members to be in a team with n00bs who did less than was wanted.
This is true too. If things are going well, team wants to win the competition. And if one of the resource providers can't produce similar quality to others' work, like noobish characters in marvellous backgrounds etc, whole team morale suffers. IMO, before the ATC, people should compare each others style and make sure it would fit together in a game. This goes especially for graphics artists, but other members must be sure they like general art style too. I'm talking about graphics mainly because it's the most time-consuming thing to do and decides alot in a genre named "graphical adventure game".
Adventure game combines so much different aspects that require skills that rarely someone's able to make both quality music, graphics, coding and gameplay. Especially for something longer than a short MAGS/OROW game.
This is where ATC is different.
I'm still interested in the team competition, definately.
It's a unique chance to learn to design a game in a team environment and under pressure like in a professional way.
Not that I plan any commercial releases. ;)
Of course, the game is also important.
Someone said that the time for this contest was too long.
I think it's understandable that only a few would be able to ensure enough free time.
But personally I think that anything under 4 weeks would defeat the purpose.
The team has to get to accustomed each other, they have to get the feel of teamwork.
Ah, I don' know. :-\
Andail and InCreator make very good points. Indeed, the goal wouldn't be to get a heap of games out, the point would be to learn - about ourselves, teamwork, working under pressure, each other - whatever you face during the cource of the competiton.
I think it should be made clear from the start that people who know they can't last through it without losing interest aren't encouraged to enter, to avoid half the teams falling apart because 90% of each's members lost interest and went twiddling their thumbs in the corner. Instead, start the competition with just those half the amount of potential teams, but atleast have them work 'till the end. Not to close anyone out, just to encourage the motivated to enter, instead of the bored or the ones looking for something to do for a few hours.
Personally I think the ATC should be sprad over the course of the summer. Many students finish school/college in july, many university students finish at the end of may/ beginning of june. Most people who work tend to take their holidays in the summer, so I wouldve thought it would be best to span the ATC over a 3 month period June-End of August. That way many people dont have distractions or other commitments.
I think theyre could also be mini deadlines to to keep people from straying from the work. Like for instance a progress report in 2-3weeks, a fully working level by end of the month etc.
If people have trouble, such as not enough characters drawn etc, we could have an ATC placeholder pack, with temporary images, or allow people to throw in lineart/sketchd drawings as temporary backgrounds (maybe this bit is too far).
Let me know what you guys think to this, id be interested if people think this is a good iea/bad idea alterations to it. Of course a 2007 ATC cannot take place this summer as we have already pretty much had it.
I don't see how it's completely unlike OROW, if you do both with a team, Andail... The main difference is the time frame. Are you saying you don't learn anything about teamwork and game develpment in a week? I think you learn at least as much in a week of OROW than in a week of ATC... with the exception of long term project management and team politics I suppose.
I brought up OROW because it is similar in a few respects, not at all the same, but it could appeal to some people that want to try ATC, if no ATC happens. As far as I can see the ATCs were not a great use of time for most former participants. Do I have the wrong impression? There were so many people moaning the other times...
Because it seems likely that people will try it again, I'll suggest some stuff I think would help, based on my experiences and all the people seen bitching about their teams on IRC:
Preferably do not have a required dedicated game designer role. If this role exists, ensure that the designer is told they're designing a game for the team, not for themselves. Working on something you aren't interested in isn't fun. If possible, get the team to agree to agree on a basic concept before the competition begins.
Less fixed team sizes and roles in general would help. When you're forced into grouping 5 people it's unlikely all of them are very enthusiastic, and yet you still end up giving them work and relying on them, because they have a job title.
Stee's suggestion about more mini deadlines is probably good. Keeping a lot of the development in public, seeing others work, should hopefully be a motivator. Perhaps encourage teams to keep a development blog?
Any people from the previous competitions have more suggestions? I think with some new rules it could work... maybe.
Quote from: scotch on Wed 22/08/2007 00:19:46There were so many people moaning the other times...
I believe those with complaints come forward with their thoughts much more often than those with something good to say...
QuoteWorking on something you aren't interested in isn't fun. If possible, get the team to agree to agree on a basic concept before the competition begins.
Word!
QuoteAs far as I can see the ATCs were not a great use of time for most former participants. Do I have the wrong impression?
Do you? Do I?
Really, what's the big deal? We start a thread, make some heavy noise and who really want, sign up. If nobody signs up, hell, delete thread and forget. All we need is a bit of time from someone who's volunteering to host the whole thing.
The noise should be loud enough because all the competitions are in miserable state right now. Miserable as no participating, and in some cases, even the host has abandoned his compo (tune contest? Photoshop friday? huh?)... Noise like in '04 was, with an outside-linktext over the forums (do I remember right?).
Or really, maybe wait a bit for better time. It's not like it costs anything or someone who don't have will or time, should still sign up. I understand people who doesn't want to be part of it, but really don't understand how one can be SO against it. Why?
What are you winning by not doing anything?
Well, as I said before, why do you need a competition to motivate you to do something you want to do? You don't need an ATC to form a group and make a game, nor do you need to wait for someone to step forward and offer to host it. If enough people want to do the ATC it will happen I'm sure, but the concept definitely needs some work if the result is going to yield more than one completed game. Things to avoid are:
1. People who pretend to be really interested in the idea and suddenly decide they aren't, leaving you hanging.
2. People who aren't really qualified for the role they occupy on the team but don't want to give it up.
3. A design that is much too ambitious for the talents of the group and the time constraints.
4. Missing important deadlines in the design. Once you start on this path it just keeps happening and you end up with an unfinished game and a lot of disappointment.
Things that should be changed are:
1. The rules should be less about flash and more about substance. Team names/logos it's crap, really. The point is to make a complete game as a team so focus on the game.
2. Just as team members are made public, so should be the names of those who flake out on you. There are circumstances where a team member leaving or not doing their job is understandable (family emergency, health problems) but the vast majority of what goes on is underestimating the challenge and overestimating interest. Let other members see who is and is not reliable so they can avoid some of the trouble you ran into.
3. Have an optional checkpoint at each week of development where progress is shown. This lets you see where the teams compare in graphics, sound, scripting and story development and gives you some idea of where you need to improve if you're way behind. Some groups may want to surprise everyone so I think optional here is fine.
It's fine to work with people you've always wanted to work with, but bear in mind that they have their own way of doing things (or not doing things) and you may discover that it doesn't mesh well with yours. It's better if your team is a group of people you know well enough or have worked with in the past, that way there are no surprises. Since this is a free competition with no physical reward, motivation is 100% internal and some people don't maintain high motivation levels past the initial 'wouldn't it be neat' stage. My advice is if you are looking for a team look to the ones that have games out there, something large enough to show they can complete what they start. If you haven't completed a game yet then you should ask yourself what you think you can bring to a team, since they will have nothing to measure your qualities by. For those of you who have nothing to prove your talents with you might make a short game that focuses and illustrates your talents as a 'selling point' of sorts. Anyone can look at your game afterward and say 'yeah, he/she might be good in this role' instead of just guessing whether or not you can do what you say.
Finally, don't go into any group competition half-assed. If you're going to do it make the time to do it right and do your part. Letting down other people by your laziness leaves a lasting negative impression.
Quote from: SimB on Mon 20/08/2007 00:23:15
I've been secretly hoping this might get resurrected. Consider me very interested (despite our team's spectacular failure last round ;D). Is this the wrong topic to mention the OROW too? It always had lots of entries and good quality too, would be a shame not to see it again. Another one seemed about to go ahead but finding a good time and host didn't happen.
I vaguely remember that.. I was about to make a game with a team and everything, but no one stepped up and hosted OROW. :P
But yeah, a new AGS team challenge would be great; however, I suggest we revamp the rules.