AGS team contest?

[radiowaves]

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.

[Indie Boy]

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.

[Sam.]

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.

[Eigen]

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 is slightly off-topic, nothing to do with this competition, but it shows that even professional deveopment teams can have serious problems.

[Vel]

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.

[Radiant]

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.

[scotch]

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.

[FSi++]

I have quite an interest for OROW... As usual.

[Vel]

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.

[scotch]

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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!

[LimpingFish]

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! :'(

[radiowaves]

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.

[ManicMatt]

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.

[Andail]

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.

[Radiant]

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.

[InCreator]

...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...  : :

I'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...

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.

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.

[Ozzie]

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. 

[Ishmael]

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.

[Stee]

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.