I must admit I'm still not convinced.
Granted; you can split up work in a group, but new kinds of challenges arise. You suddenly have to coordinate your work with someone else. You need to maintain communication which can easily become an issue. I'm leading a small group on a Danish forum where we're creating a small platformer, and it is a challenge to maintain a good communication level. I can't imagine it will become better, if you have to cooperate with someone across the world.
For a one month challenge, I really don't think you can create a much better game than you can do alone. (Obviously this is subject to individual qualities)
You can extend the challenge, but then again, you loose the purpose of the mini challenge. To have a short contest so people don't loose interest or get caught by real life.
Personally I would rather see the challenge go the other way if it needs to change. Shorter periods to develop a game. Well I write game, but really we're only making prototypes/demos. It's nice if the result looks great and more polished, but I would rather have, the challenge focused on innovation and/or fun games.
I don't mind people work in groups for the challenge, but I don't see why the challenge, which marks the most active period on this forum, should force specific work methods on possible contestants. If people want to experience the pros and cons of working in a group, and I believe that's a good thing to try at least once, they should do it of free will, and not as a result of some challenge's requirements.
Bookmarks