2007 PGD Annual: Stage 1 Scores Posted!

[WILL]

Hey everybody!

It seems that we managed to get the 1st stage scores completed pretty quickly. Good job judges! And some nice work seen from the participating teams. ;)

You can view the Stage 1 Score Results and read the Judge's Comments here: http://www.pascalgamedevelopment.com/competitions.php?p=results&c=3

Best of luck with Stage 2 and the initial development of your game's engine!

[Eric]

That was fast indeed! Nice work!

On the comments, Alexey noted that genres weren't to clear in my doc, well that's because they weren't clear or fully determined to me either :lol:
For instance, if all goes according to plan, I could have "Simulation" twice: once via vehicle simulation, another by economic simulation... though the "vehicle simulation" could end up as being closer to the "action" genre, while the "economic simulation" could be considered to be part of the "strategy" genre (RTS)... I'll let the judges figure out what fits into which category when the dust settles down :P

[pstudio]

Yeah 60 points :D
I've practically allready won :lol:
Now I can just sit back and relax :P

[Clootie]

Some genereal notes related to all teams:

As I've posted in some comments (and I've seen what Sascha noted this too) - many teams stated that they will implement simulation genre via driving vehicles. But beware: simulation imply that you should have pretty detailed physical simulaiton of your vehicle, not just ability to somehow control it's movement. Same goes for teams that choosen strategy as one of their genres - make sure what it's a stratery, not just tactics.

All in all, I've liked what most of the teams have worked enought on thier design doc. And I hope that even if document itself still have some while spots in it, your own understanding of game conceps and mechanics will allow you to build great games! 8)

[Huehnerschaender]

Thanks to all judges for working so fast :)

One of my "not so good" recalls on the previous competition was, that we had to wait months for results. I don't want to blame the judges themselves here, they had much work to do and of course everyone here has it's reallife (which has priority of course!). It was just some kind of annoying, submitting your work without getting the feedback in weeks...

Great job so far...

Greetings,
Dirk

[vgo]

As I've posted in some comments (and I've seen what Sascha noted this too) - many teams stated that they will implement simulation genre via driving vehicles. But beware: simulation imply that you should have pretty detailed physical simulaiton of your vehicle, not just ability to somehow control it's movement.

I have space scenes in my game and I'm not so sure about accuracy of the simulation. The controls and gameplay will be more like Freelancer than Warhead, ie. no Newtonian flight model because that would be too difficult for majority of players.

However, there's gonna be a lot more into it than just flying, like balancing between power requirements of the ship's equipment, trying to stay undetected by the enemy and so on. It's not gonna be Space Invaders in 3D. ;)

[technomage]

Thanks to the Judges for being so quick. I know how much time this takes to read through all the documents and play the games. :D

hey WILL/Savage how about doing some mugs for the Judges this year as a thank you and a little momento :?:

[pstudio]

Same goes for teams that choosen strategy as one of their genres - make sure what it's a stratery, not just tactics.
Which things do you believe make the difference between a strategy game and a tactical game? And does it matter? Isn't it in the same genre colour?

[Clootie]

Same goes for teams that choosen strategy as one of their genres - make sure what it's a stratery, not just tactics.
Which things do you believe make the difference between a strategy game and a tactical game? And does it matter? Isn't it in the same genre colour?
Hmm. Actually I was not talking about tactical games. More about what each game requires some "tactics/strategy" from player to win, but this doesn't automatically make them a strategy. Take a Worms as an example: this game is defined as an artillery style, but it also requires some strategy at moving players, etc. - not just firing to each other. Still, this doesn't make Worms a strategy game.

Hope, I've explained this more clearly now. As I understand competition requires multiple game genres from game entries, not just addition of some elements of one genre into other - genres should be clearly distinctable.

PS. While writing this and previous posts I was not aiming to comment on specific teams. These posts rather show mine genereal effect after reading design documentation from all teams. :D

[Traveler]

An interesting question Pstudio.

According to wiki, tactical is actually a subgenre of strategy. Strategy on it self therefor a bit difficult to place. Next to tactical, other sub-genres include: god games, city building, rts, simulation and even racing.

From Wiki:
Strategy games focus on careful planning and skillful resource management in order to achieve victory, and are therefore classified as "thinking games". These games may be turn-based or realtime, but there are some that mix the two types of play (such as X-Com). This genre has had a consistent following since the mid-1980s. Though a large portion of strategy games tend to be wargames, many are not based or focused on war. Common alternative foci are simulation and management of economic transactions, of building things, of managing large-scale affairs, etc.

Real-time Strategy
Usually applied only to certain computer strategy games, the moniker "real-time strategy" indicates that the action in the game is continuous, and players will have to make their decisions and actions within the backdrop of a constantly changing game state, and computer real-time strategy gameplay is characterised by obtaining resources, building bases, researching technologies and producing units.

Real-time Tactical
A different genre which focus on a set number of units, and do away with the resource gathering and unit production aspects of RTS games is real-time tactical, or RTT, games. Noteworthy examples are the fantasy Warhammer: Dark Omen game, one of the first purely RTT titles, the futuristic Ground Control, which distilled the combat operational aspects of Command & Conquer and Total Annihilation into a purely tactical form, the Close Combat series, where the player controls units in the Second World War, and the Total War series, reasonably realistically recreating empire building and epic battles in various historical eras. These games place greater emphasis on purely tactical aspects, contrasted to the production-economical focus of RTS games, and consequently have much more advanced facilities for operational-tactical unit control and planning and implementation of more advanced battlefield tactics, which is intentionally stylised, simplified and na?Øve in RTS titles.

As for the color, the strategy genre (including tactical) is green.

To the judges a :thumbup: for the quick judging.

I noticed one question as to what shump meant: that's short for shoot 'em up. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_%27em_up)

[cronodragon]

I stil can't find the comments... where are they? :?

[AthenaOfDelphi]

Follow this (http://www.pascalgamedevelopment.com/competitions.php?p=results&c=3) link and click the scores. That will take you to a page where you can see the score breakdown and comments for each team from us (the three judges).

[kotai]

Hi.

I'm new in competition. Stage 1 lost :oops: ... I'm register yesterday

Kotai
http://www.miniracingonline.com