Background Blitz - Mystic's House - WINNERS ANNOUNCED!

[Cassiebsg]

Concept: Grok
Artistic Execution: Daniel Thomas
Playability: Anke

[Daniel Thomas]

Concept: Anke I think this was selling the idea best and telling a story the best in a consistent way.
Artistic Execution: Grundislav Best executed. I liked where Sox's was going, but it's hard to say when it's not finished
Playability: Anke This category is always tricky, because you can more or less make anything playable as you are not restricted to classic adventure game view. I liked Anke in the end because of the amount of interactions I can imagine. It was close call again for Sox, but to me it seemed too much of everything and not so much connected to a theme. (my opinion)

[Misj']

I was too busy to contribute to the theme, but I will contribute to the voting.

Concept: One concept was so totally different from any of the other entries (although I'm not sure it's a house of merely a bathtub). And though I feel that the mystic-aspect was a bit too downplayed (especially with so much potential in a science fiction setting) this is definitely the most original interpretation of the theme - JWalt
Artistic Execution: Decay is one of the more difficult things to do right, but this piece captures that perfectly. I also enjoy the fact that it feels like the mystic was stranded in the swamp (years ago) and decided to make the best of it (with a mailbox and stuff) - Daniel Thomas
Playability: I always find this one difficult. I found that I look at different things than others (I don't care about the amount of stuff to click, lots of objects might be added in the room that are not part of the actual background). For me this is about clear paths, usable perspective, good line of action, etc. I actually think GreenBeams piece is my favorite in this Blitz, but since he didn't enter, I'm going to give this one to my runner-up. It's not the most daring composition, but it's easy to use without a lot of scaling, special animations, etc. There's also enough room to add additional characters and objects to interact with (that are not technically part of the background). - Grundislav


ps. welcome back Daniel. I did miss your work.

[Mandle]

I found that I look at different things than others (I don't care about the amount of stuff to click, lots of objects might be added in the room that are not part of the actual background). For me this is about clear paths, usable perspective, good line of action, etc.

Yeah, I agree... I think this was the original purpose of the "Playability" category which has gotten a tad muddled into voting for the environment that looks the most fun to play around in. I have been guilty of voting for backgrounds that I just wanted to play in a game myself.

Maybe this should be explained in some set rules that can be copied over from one BB to the next like what is done with MAGs and Colouring Ball?

I also realise that these contests are not that serious a deal and that half the reason they exist is for fun. But the other half of the reason is to improve/maintain skills of the participants (and the viewers to some extent by learning from watching), so it might be nice if this category represented what it was supposed to. At the moment it is kind of being used a bit as (and again I am guilty of this myself) a "runner-up" category where you really wanted to vote for someone in a different category but somebody else was just a tad more deserving for you.

Defining this category in a little more detail would make the "serious" side of the contest more satisfying a learning experience for participants and voters alike I feel.

Of course all of this is just my own opinions...

[Stupot]

We used to call it "functionality". Maybe playability and functionality are two different things. "Playability" does invoke the idea of clicking things and doing stuff, whereas the old "functionality" describes good exit indication and perspective.

Anyway, here are my votes.
Concept: Aikex22
Artistic expression: Daniel Thomas
Playability: Anke

[Misj']

Maybe this should be explained in some set rules that can be copied over from one BB to the next like what is done with MAGs and Colouring Ball?

We used to call it "functionality". Maybe playability and functionality are two different things. "Playability" does invoke the idea of clicking things and doing stuff, whereas the old "functionality" describes good exit indication and perspective.

Of course - in the past - the host would choose the categories (and often copy them from the previous host). I once added a category 'personality' just because the task was to create something that reflected the character's personality so it was a logical category to add.

I think one of the things is that the 'standard' voting categories were condensed (from six to three). But we also - often - had a clear description of what each category represented. Just a few examples:

Idea - The underlying idea to the background. Doesn't necessarily have to coincide perfectly with the theme of the week, just strike you as interesting/amusing/inspiring; a place you'd really enjoy visiting within a game.
Atmosphere - How well the image manages to evoke a certain feeling or mood.
Design - How well the elements in the image are designed, such as landscapes, buildings, decorations, clouds, doorknobs, etc.
Composition - How well the elements in the image work together/are positioned in relation to each other.
Functionality - How well it would work when adding sprites, including appropriate walking distances, a good angle for character sprites, clever walkway solutions, easily understood exits, etc.
Technique - How well the ideas are executed in form of rendering.

Atmosphere: Is an interesting world created? - Did the scene evoke a feeling?
Composition: How well are the elements combined to create a pleasing whole? do they lead the viewer to the points of interest?
Functionality: How well would it work as a game background?
Technique: How well is it rendered? (within the chosen style, in no way meaning the more elaborate the better).

Idea: Was it an original/creative interpretation of the theme?
Atmosphere: Was an interesting world created? - Did the scene evoke a feeling?
Design: How well the individual elements are designed, from clouds to doorknobs.
Composition: How well the elements are combined to create a pleasing whole, and lead the viewer to the points of interest.
Functionality: How well it would work as a background, with clearly defined entries and walkable areas, as well as a good viewing angle (this also includes introductionary shots of an area as long as a player character can be present in the scene).
Technique: How well it's rendered (within the chosen style!), in no way meaning the more elaborate the better.

Concept (a scene that stimulates the imagination, or something interesting, or clever -- something that makes people say: "Oh, I see!")
Playability (could it be used in a real game?)
Artistic execution (you know, there's always this one contestant who makes everyone jealous of his skills )

The latter three are the ones we're currently using. Concept is clearly a combination of idea and atmosphere. Playability combines functionality and composition (a bit), while artisitic execution combines design, technique, and composition. And I agree that six categories are a bit much (also people tended not to understand the difference between design (which is about shapes) and technique (which is about rendering). Do remember that these are from about five years ago, and hosts were just trying to find the right categories; tweaking them a little bit each tome.

At the moment it is kind of being used a bit as (and again I am guilty of this myself) a "runner-up" category where you really wanted to vote for someone in a different category but somebody else was just a tad more deserving for you.

I agree, and it sometimes feels like it's just used as an 'I like this piece best overall' category (and there is nothing wrong with such a category by the way...it should just not be this one).

Anyway, just reminiscing about the past...and a bit the future.

[loominous]

I liked the old six categories, though they could certainly be improved upon, because they forced you to look at the image from a technical standpoint, instead of going with a gut "oh, I like X, this image features X, vote!". The better you can analyze a picture's components from a technical standpoint, the easier it is to improve, which is partly why we're here (well, some of us, at least). So instead of the voting being merely an tally of tastes, it's part of the activity.

I do however think that a kind of 'je ne sais quoi' category could be warranted, since certain pieces might fall short when looked at from a technical standpoint, but feature some indefinable quality that just makes you like them, which deserves to be recognized.

Since we're probably not gonna revert to the six categories, since I suspect I was the only one liking them, perhaps just adding the above category to the three could be an acceptable update.

[Misj']

Since we're probably not gonna revert to the six categories, since I suspect I was the only one liking them, perhaps just adding the above category to the three could be an acceptable update.

I actually liked them (but I also like technique over taste for these Blitzes), and would go back to them should I ever win. I know you played a big role in defining these six. But for the record, the first three examples quoted above are from posts by Daniel, Ben, and me; so you were not the only one adopting them at the time.

I would probably make 'atmosphere' the 'das gewisse etwas'-category (certain something in German, similar to the I don't know in French) because I always felt that was a bit vague/subjective. And I really miss the composition and design categories.

[Mandle]

WOW! This has opened a gateway into the past looking into the years that this contest has existed for that I was not here for...

I will have to take a better and longer look at the history of this contest before commenting further...

[aikex222]

First of all nice work everybody.

Now the votes,
Concept: Sox
Artistic Execution: Daniel Thomas
Playability: Anke

[Snarky]

I believe I was the one who reduced the categories to three (or at least to the three currently used). There were two main reasons for that:

1. There were IMO just too many categories, making it harder to vote than it ought to be. Also, the distinction between certain categories was not entirely clear, and skill in them seemed highly correlated in practice (though I think this was somewhat obscured in the results because people often used the "excess" categories to spread their votes around, for encouragement and to give some points to runners-up).
2. I felt that the categories weighed "quality as a piece of art" too heavily vs. "quality as a background for an adventure game". There were three-four categories focusing on various artistic aspects, and only one (possibly two, depending on the voter) that specifically focused on the extent to which it was well-designed for an adventure game.

I did include explanations the first few times we used these categories, but I guess they seemed redundant/too long and complicated, or people just couldn't be bothered.

Personally I don't see "playability" as a "runner-up" or "overall favorite" category at all. To my mind it should cover both "technical requirements" such as clear exits/walkable areas and a suitable perspective for character sprites, and "player appeal" (or "why is this screen in the game?"), which might often be some compelling promise of interaction â€" and in this respect I think the entries should include all relevant elements; to say that "oh, we could just add something really interesting as an object" kind of defeats the purpose. Basically the idea is to ask: if this was a sketch/pitch for a screen in a high-quality indie adventure game with a limited budget, would it be cut because it doesn't add anything (even if it looks nice), redone because it doesn't work very well in-game, or used basically as-is?

If we do increase the number of categories (and personally I still think the drawbacks outnumber the benefits of deeper analysis), I would therefore argue that it should be balanced between the art side and the game side. So, e.g. split both "artistic execution" and "playability" in two, for five categories total. Anyway, in principle I think each host should be free to define the categories. If Misj' wants to use the old six, that's fine. If I host again, I won't.

[Ykni]

Tough choice, but here are my votes
Concept: JudasFM
Artistic execution: Daniel Thomas
Playability: Cassiebsg

[GreenBeams]

I really like how this is opening up into a debate about how we go about this competition.

The thing that sticks out the most for me though is the 1st, 2nd and 3rd awards based on categories. It seems redundant to break things into individual categories only to award the person with the most votes overall. If we're having an overhaul or a revision of this, maybe we could replace 1st, 2nd and 3rd with the seperate Artistic Execution, Concept and Playability Awards. Either that or scratch the catgories and simply vote for the image you most like.

I also think that a certain amount of critique should be allowed. True, this would mean that the resultant entry could end up being a conglomerate of every critic's suggestions but ins't that how great art is made? It could turn the competition into a kind of ongoing workshop where a little monthly prize is given to keep things on point and to decide who sets the next theme.

While we're going into this here  (he says, warming to his topic) i think we should address the conflicting views of extensions and deadlines. Personally, the stuff i do for these competiitons usually runs me right to the end of the time limit so a deadline suits me (helps my time management). However, i do get that in the case of Sox's entry this month, he's been working his pods off to get it done and i don't think that should suffer. Standardised rules that we all know and agree to may really help this competition as well as being able to produce fantatsic pieces of work and future game artists. I know i get a thrill when i see certain people enter as i love their work. the chance of them handing out any crits or explanations too would be amazing.

Anyway, this is fast turning into to a rant so i'll leave it there. Maybe this can be turned into its own thread and we could get some rules straightened out before the next one? Thanks, Mandle for bringing this up as i'm sure we've all been thinking similar thoughts for a while.

[Misj']

If Misj' wants to use the old six, that's fine. If I host again, I won't.

And I think you shouldn't (double negatives are hard...so you should not use the old six, that's what I'm trying to say). - I'm not in favor of one standardized set of voting-categories. I do think it's good to think about which categories suit the Blitz in general and certain blitzes specifically.

I also agree that voting should have some link to game-design (though I think that the (quality of) art is relevant to designing a game).

Personally I don't see "playability" as a "runner-up" or "overall favorite" category at all. To my mind it should cover both "technical requirements" such as clear exits/walkable areas and a suitable perspective for character sprites, and "player appeal" (or "why is this screen in the game?"), which might often be some compelling promise of interaction â€" and in this respect I think the entries should include all relevant elements; to say that "oh, we could just add something really interesting as an object" kind of defeats the purpose. Basically the idea is to ask: if this was a sketch/pitch for a screen in a high-quality indie adventure game with a limited budget, would it be cut because it doesn't add anything (even if it looks nice), redone because it doesn't work very well in-game, or used basically as-is?

This is where I have to disagree with you. Partly because I almost never get any votes for playability. This used to surprise me, because I often have a specific path (walkable area) thought out, a (partial) puzzle in there, ideas for one or more characters that the protagonist would interact with, and some places for animation (but without a design-document I understand why others would not see this). Sometimes (like with the genie-in-the-lamp background) I add some of them to make it clear to the viewer how the background would work. But They will never become part of the background. And the reason is that is is exactly that: a background.

I don't like the idea that i'm making a sketch/pitch for a screen. I'm making the actual backdrop. The thing that you load into AGS as a game background. If you are going to have objects the player is going to pick up then they can - by definition - not be part of it. The same goes for characters and animations.

For me I can't have it both ways. Either you want me to focus on the art, and include everything in the background as a big piece of concept-art (that should get no votes for playability because it's not usable as a background). Or you want me to focus on game design - as I do - and have everything that's not nailed down absent from the piece. I simply don't have time to do both within the time-limit of a Blitz (even though I often try to include a main character that I designed specifically for the Blitz-background).

In the end it kinda boils down to the purpose of the Background Blitz...and the categories will reflect that.




ps. for me the main goal of the Blitzes is to get better (that's why I don't care about extensions, the more the merrier). I love getting critique (even though I can be defensive about each and every line). Sure it's nice to win, and getting votes is a nice validation, but in the end I'd rather have someone - who understands what I was trying to do - to shred it to pieces (please don't I'm fragile ).

pps. And on a side-note, I loved the infamous many-months Blitz Loominous once hosted (even though I don't think the Blitz was the right place...if only because the term Blitz really doesn't apply), and I would love to do that again.

[loominous]

I agree that the balance leaned too heavily toward the artistic side of things in those old six categories, and I have to say I find it less of a chore voting in the newer ones categories, whereas in the old days I would often procrastinate since analyzing the pieces in six categories and often commenting on them was simply more demanding. So having hosts trying new categories (if they like) and going with what seems to work best seems like a sensible approach, which I guess is what we've been doing.

One thing to consider though would be that a heap of categories would in a way make the voting easier, since it would be more of a "ticking off boxes" approach, instead of having to make tough choices due to conflated categories and having to explain your reasoning, which is often the case.

Anyway, I'm all for experimenting.

pps. And on a side-note, I loved the infamous many-months Blitz Loominous once hosted (even though I don't think the Blitz was the right place...if only because the term Blitz really doesn't apply), and I would love to do that again.

I co-hosted it with Daniel Thomas, though I did do most of the work when it came to filling up the thread with endless quarreling towards the end.

Wouldn't mind doing another one, perhaps a less ambitious version.

[Quintaros]

Wouldn't mind doing another one, perhaps a less ambitious version.

Ooh, I've been hoping that would be resurrected.  Just don't do it in June or I won't be able to participate.

[loominous]

Is summer a good time for these activities in general? I can never tell.

On a side note, what are the voting capabilities of the forum software, perhaps one could test having a sort of poll version of the voting, if one were to do a heap of categories, where you'd just tick some check boxes.

[Snarky]

This is where I have to disagree with you. Partly because I almost never get any votes for playability. This used to surprise me, because I often have a specific path (walkable area) thought out, a (partial) puzzle in there, ideas for one or more characters that the protagonist would interact with, and some places for animation (but without a design-document I understand why others would not see this). Sometimes (like with the genie-in-the-lamp background) I add some of them to make it clear to the viewer how the background would work. But They will never become part of the background. And the reason is that is is exactly that: a background.

I don't like the idea that i'm making a sketch/pitch for a screen. I'm making the actual backdrop. The thing that you load into AGS as a game background. If you are going to have objects the player is going to pick up then they can - by definition - not be part of it. The same goes for characters and animations.

For me I can't have it both ways. Either you want me to focus on the art, and include everything in the background as a big piece of concept-art (that should get no votes for playability because it's not usable as a background). Or you want me to focus on game design - as I do - and have everything that's not nailed down absent from the piece. I simply don't have time to do both within the time-limit of a Blitz (even though I often try to include a main character that I designed specifically for the Blitz-background).

I can't say why you haven't been getting playability votes, but I'm having trouble understanding your position on the principle. In order to focus on game design, surely you have to think of the purpose of the screen and work out how all the important elements are going to fit, whether or not they are technically part of the "background" you're going to import into AGS. After all, "walkable areas" are not technically part of the background image either, but they have to be planned. If important things in the room are missing from the image, maybe you can imagine them, but if you're trying to convey to others what the player's experience of that room would be (which I think is necessary for any vote on "playability" to be meaningful), surely it's more appropriate to include such details. Maybe only sketch them on a separate copy of the image if you don't want to spend time rendering them, but if, e.g., the whole screen focuses attention on an alcove where there would be a gold figurine for the player to pick up, it seems perverse to leave it empty just because of an AGS technicality. Would you also draw all doors as empty doorways just because in the game the door would have to open and close?

And I can't imagine that these days anyone would fail to understand that it's trivial in Photoshop (or any other painting app) to export that layer separately when it comes time to put it into AGS, so it would be absurd to penalize anyone for including bits that would really be animated or appear as objects â€" at least as long as it seems realistic in principle to create the necessary animation. (OTOH, there have been entries in the past where more effort had apparently been put into adding characters than into the background itself, and that's clearly not the point of the blitz either.)

ps. for me the main goal of the Blitzes is to get better (that's why I don't care about extensions, the more the merrier). I love getting critique (even though I can be defensive about each and every line). Sure it's nice to win, and getting votes is a nice validation, but in the end I'd rather have someone - who understands what I was trying to do - to shred it to pieces (please don't I'm fragile ).

We agree about that, at least. I'm all for (reasonable) extensions, and critique is a great motivator.

pps. And on a side-note, I loved the infamous many-months Blitz Loominous once hosted (even though I don't think the Blitz was the right place...if only because the term Blitz really doesn't apply), and I would love to do that again.

Yeah. There was also the monster design one, that was kinda similar. Would be very interesting to see another of these activities (outside of the BG Blitz).

[Misj']

... but I'm having trouble understanding your position on the principle. In order to focus on game design, surely you have to think of the purpose of the screen and work out how all the important elements are going to fit, whether or not they are technically part of the "background" you're going to import into AGS.

In principle I look at it the same way as a backdrop for animation (there are differences between animation-backdrops and adventure game-backgrounds, but the analogy does stand). Yes, you might have to add certain things to convey the way it's used (although nobody appreciated years ago when I tried to promote walking areas in one of the Blitzes I hosted...so I never did that again), but that doesn't go for everything.

Again, my genie-in-the-lamp background illustrates this: the water in the fountain was needed to explain the basic concept of the background so I added it (it was such an integral part that I could not leave it out). But there were many things I did not add - that I knew would be in the fictional game - due to lack of time among other reasons. So yes, I would actually urge people to draw empty doorways (and possibly include a door on a separate piece), because that is the way you should set up your background for a game (which to me is a plus when voting playability or at least functionality).

In short, I'm not for penalizing people that include things, I'm against punishing people that technically make a more functional background - in light of game design - just because they actually created a background. I would therefore celebrate it when people would sketch out some of the additional elements that are not part of the background, but I'm afraid people would punish them because these elements are not finished (even though they are not part of the background and it's technically the right way to go about designing the game).

Bear in mind, this is just my opinion. And my enjoyment of these Blitzes will not be affected by others feeling differently about this. It's just the way I like to approach my backgrounds. I completely understand your position on this (well, except for the sketch/pitch remark, because this really isn't a concept art competition; but I'm probably blowing that out of proportion, and I think you mean it should be a 'screenshot on the back of the box'-competition (possibly without the gui)). It's not the way I approach it, but I understand why others do.


ps. "Artistic execution (you know, there's always this one contestant who makes everyone jealous of his skills )" - is the one that irks my most of the current categories. The reason is, I don't like pixel-art and I'm just not jealous of pixel-art. So I feel this description focuses too much on my personal taste and too little of quality within the chosen style (as the technique description used to do). It's just the wording of the description, not the category itself.

[loominous]

Which would be the appropriate sub forum to discuss another workshop? Preferably in an exclusive thread.