RMMV All IGMC2017 votes and results in a spreadsheet

Mine didn't even pass the screening and got disqualified. I knew it didn't have any chance at winning, but I was pretty proud that I made what I thought was a good entry. I guess there's always next year.

 

ProGM, thank you very much for this spreadsheet!

It does boggle my brain that there are many high scoring games here that didn't make it into the top 20.

I was personally really, really happy with the scores I was given and the feedback I got from the judges, the score of 62/80 blew me away! I just can't get my head around the final list compared to the marks given.

I can absolutely understand people's sadness. I poured every day of that month drawing and drawing, trying to make everything as customized as I could and working hard at the story. To not see it in the top 20 was sad. However, all the feedback I was given along the way, including from the judges has been really uplifting to me and I know I can make a great game, especially as this was my first try and the time limit was extremely difficult.

I personally would not have chosen the top 3 the same way they did but I guess enjoyment of games is subjective, what one person may find fun, another might really dislike. I also agree with the sentiments in the rest of this thread, big risks didn't seem to be worth it in the end which is a shame.

Please don't be too hard on yourself guys, you can all make a great game. All the best for the future

 

Uhm, guys, keep in mind that this was more a tournament than a contest. Games have been divided in smaller groups to be judged easier.
In this way, a lot of luck is involved in your final score: depending on what list you've ended challenging, games with the same global score can achieved a very different positions in this way, which leads to confusion. ^^'
The top 20 shows games that were in the top of the local scores, therefore not very indicative to see the actual global result.

The score list is usefull to see the global score of your game and get a more clear idea of how bad or well your game went.
Take the score, guess how your game would have been judged looking at other examples near your score but with more comments, if there are, and you can build up your imaginary total score. ^_^

It's not a science, but you get more orientation and data to evalue your work.

 

@Ennacrima

Phase 0:
There are 4 judges and 252 entries.

Phase 1: 252 entries
These 252 entries are then randomized and divided into 4 groups of 63 games.
Each judge then plays 63 games.
After that the judge leaves one review and score for the game he/she plays, provided the game is not "broken" during the first 5 minute gameplay.
Each judge will then choose the best 21 games out of 63 games they play and pass them to the next phase.
What about the rest of the game that do not pass to the next phase? Well.......you know.....
If the judge really like your game and let your game pass to the next phase, you will get 1 judge review by this point.
If the judge let your game pass, but he/she doesn't really like it, you will be lucky to get 1 judge review by this point.
If your game doesn't pass, but he/she thinks that it's a pity that your game doesn't make it to next round (due to luck, simple bugs, etc), then you will be lucky to get 1 judge review.

Phase 2: 84 entries
Each judge comes out with their top 21 games from their pool of 63 games. (Total 80 entries)
Each judge then randomly pass his/her top 21 games to another judge.
Each judge will then play 21 games that he/she has not judged before, after that the judge leaves one review and score for the game he/she plays.
Each judge will then choose the best 11 games out of 21 games they play and pass them to the next phase.
If your game reaches this phase, you should see 1-2 judges reviews.

Phase 3: 44 entries
Each judge comes out with their top 11 games from their pool of 21 games. (Total 40 entries)
Each judge then randomly pass his/her top 11 games to another judge that he/she hasn't passed to in phase 2. (eg. if judge A passed his 20 games to judge B in phase 2, he must choose someone beside judge B to pass his 10 games this phase)
Each judge will then play 11 games that he/she has not judged before, after that the judge leaves one review and score for the game he/she plays.
Each judge will then choose the best 6 games out of 11 games they play and pass them to the next phase.
If your game reaches this phase, you should see 2-3 judges reviews.

Phase 4: 24 entries
Each judge comes out with the 10 games they just play. (Total 24 entries)
Each judge then randomly pass his/her top 6 games to another judge that he/she hasn't passed to in phase 2 and 3. (eg. if judge A passed his 20 games to judge B in phase 2, and then he chose to pass his 10 games to judge D in phase 3, then he must choose judge C in this phase...)
Each judge will then play 6 games that he/she has not judged before, after that the judge leaves one review and score for the game he/she plays.
If your game reaches this phase, you should see 3-4 judges reviews (Most likely 4, I mean, come on, this is the 4th elimination phase....your game should have been that good to be in this area)

Phase 5: Deciding top 20, 10 and 3.
The ones with 3+ judges reviews and scores are being replayed extensively to see if there is going to be penalty to their total points or not (further bug, better theme, commercial viability, etc I dont know), but it's pretty much set by this point who makes it, who don't make it top 20.
The top 24 entries are then sorted by their averaged total scores (after applying futher penalties).
There you go.

That's what I think what happens over there
So for those of you who get only 1 judge review, it could mean 2 things:
1. The judge do not let you pass the first phase.
2. The judge let you pass the first phase and let the second phase judge to leave you one review.

And again, remember, this might not be truly what happened there...so.....

 

It's not.

^.^

It's a nice guess though!

 

Thank you for the spreadsheet I would have loved to get to the second phase but I know that there's so many things I need to improve, this is my first ever published game after all, I will make it better and the next project be all the things I learned.

 

Lol, how close am I though?
I remember IGMC2015 used this format, so I assume they would be kind of same this time around.

 

We can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the statement.

 

"Missing vote" is accurate. There are no votes on the page, but the game wasn't disqualified or broken or anything like that. I believe the judges were unable to add their reviews to our game pages after a certain time limit passed. I received one judge review (50/80) as a private message, but I have no idea about the rest (either I only got the 1 review or the others simply ran out of time and didn't post theirs).

 

If you want, I can add that vote you received by PM to the spreadsheet ^^

What's your game name?

 

Given that you highlighted Final winter, you should also highlight Recondite, which has the same score as mine and also tied for third. Not sure why your scraper didn't catch that.

Also if people haven't seen it, the Official top ten went up here, and it 1-1 matches the scores entered by the judges.

https://itch.io/jam/igmc2017/results/judges-choice

 

I am still a bit confused, maybe I am misunderstanding something.

According to this chart:

Colossal conquest had an average of 60.5
Unsung heroes avg: 61.5
Game Night avg: 64
Dream Devourer avg: 60.5
Gnosis Disperitu avg: 60.5


All of these weren't in the Judge's top 20. Was it a mix of scores and personal feeling perhaps?

There is a game in the top 20 that scores an average of 52.25 which is much lower than these.

I may just be missing something. I appreciate all the numbers in a chart tho it's so pretty

 

I thought your game was great and a very creative use of the engine.

 

Oops sorry! I missed it ^^'

The highlight was made manually. Fixed it!

... And also added the judge choice

 

@Nicola Average score doesn't matter, only total score does.

Assume, for instance, this hypothetical scenareo:
- Judge #1 and #2 both play game A and both give it a 55, then play game B and give it a 60.
- Game A doesn't make it to the next round so it ends with only two scores, with an average of 55 and a total score of 110.
- Game B does advance: Judges #3 and 4 both play Game B. They hate it for some reason, and give it a score of 30.
- This gives it more total points (180), but its average score has dropped to 45.

Thus, Game B ends up placed higher than Game A even though Game A has a higher "average" score.

 

@Talonos Thanks so much for this, it's helped my brain that had been turned into 100k tangled wires of confusion.

 

@Frogboy
I'm sure you've probably made up your mind, but it's seriously disingenuous to say 'something really easy' is what will fare well in the contest. You can have the most interesting concept in the world or the most advanced game mechanics you can muster within the engine, but if the game is frustrating or flat-out unfun, that simply doesn't matter. A game's uniqueness is something for a public audience if you're looking to publish your game, but in terms of being judged objectively for how well it handles its presented elements, it doesn't mean anything.

Now, I haven't played the game myself but from what I can read of the review the judge presented valid criticisms - I suppose you could disagree with them but part of the game making progress is understanding that not everyone will experience your game the same way you do. And in-depth storytelling isn't a must or anything, Dungeon Down did very well for having virtually no story and focusing only on battles, and Cope Island in one of the previous IGMC events even managed to rank 3rd for similar reasons.

The reason why I take issue with your wording is because you're suggesting that the high scoring games were made 'really easily' but I don't think it's far-fetched to imagine that they worked just as hard as you, if not harder. Just because you chose to divide your efforts into making something mechanically difficult does not mean you deserve to win more than anybody else, because effort != results. If you think you can make a compelling experience with unique mechanics in the time frame more power to you, but don't make passive-aggressive remarks about the judging process or the other participants because you think your game did poorly simply for being an action game when it was given a proper and reasonable review for its shortcomings.

 

You could check my reply above for possible answer to your question, just remember I don't know how close I am to the their truth since they are being secretive about this and neither deny nor confirm the accuracy of my statement, so I might also be perfectly wrong.

But hey, the average score of all IGMC2017 entries is 30ish (43ish if you don't include the ones with no score/missing score). I see your game gets around 55ish, it is at least far above average votes!

 

@metronome Thank you, yes I am exceptionally happy with my scores and my average! I got 62 then 49 and both of the written comments from the judges meant lots to me. For me personally it's been a fantastic experience.

I have read your post, and yes, who knows! Haha. It is clear as far as I can tell that it is not done on averages so I feel this could be an area to improve on . Depends how everyone feels about it.

 

@ProGM

Ok, I don't think you guys are doing averages correctly here. If the score is blank, it should be a 0.

Remember that anything scored by me was about 10 points lower than the others, so you have to adjust by that to get more accurate results the way that you guys are trying to average. However, you don't know which is mine, so you won't be able to do that. (I'm also not telling you guys the exact value to adjust by)