Register
Yay graffiti goose!
EDIT: Here's my votes.
- Paladin Traducer
Return
LabRat
Hollowkeep
Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:51 pm 
Oh hey! I'm in the contest now!
Yay graffiti goose!
EDIT: Here's my votes.
Yay graffiti goose!
EDIT: Here's my votes.
Return
LabRat
Hollowkeep
Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:08 pm
Whoops! I'll set time aside to play these games and vote today. But it seems unreasonable to wait yet another week before tallying votes because of my vote.
Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:01 pm
These aren't my votes, I'm just posting mini-reviews.
Hollowkeep
This is a really fantastic start to a game! Love the graphics and humour and point-and-click system.
I wish that the end of the demo had more clearly been marked, though. I only realised that I had missed something when I read what BVG said about the door.
It's neat that there are lots of different actions, but it's also a tad annoying that the game basically encourages trying everything even tough most actions do nothing. In particular it felt weird to have two "look" commands, including the implicit look action when clicking on an object without an action. So I did a lot of clicking, which was admittedly fun because of the amusing responses. I suppose that as the game is more fleshed out I won't be trying every action on every item. Also, it would be nice if the mouse cursor changed to indicate which parts of the scenery are interactive, so you don't waste a lot of time clicking on rugs.
Also, the texts that appears when you die advance a bit too quickly for me to read.
Lab Rat
After quite a long time, I managed to solve the first 8 levels (not all in the same run) and gave up on the other 2.
This is a well put-together and novel game, and that it was made in just a few days is impressive. I think this is the hardest puzzle game I've ever played. Actually, while I did have fun, I think it's far too difficult and too frustrating.
At first this seems like a clever idea, but after playing for a while, it seems like a flawed puzzle game to me, because it's beyond my ability to solve the puzzles using logic. Instead I largely relied on trial-and-error positioning of pieces even when I tried my best to reason through the puzzles. In a number of cases I could deduce that pieces had to be placed in certain positions or some tiles had to be open, but this still tended to leave a huge number of possibilities to sift through by brute force. For example, I went back afterwards and resolved the first few levels, but they still took me a while to solve (as long as the first time) because I had to do a lot of guessing and apparently had learnt rather little. The reasons for this include that there isn't really a trick that needs to be discovered which gives you an "ah-ha" moment (a serious problem in itself: I would say I was surprised and relieved rather than pleased whenever I actually solved anything), and that frequently there doesn't seem to be such a thing as an almost-correct solution, especially for the more complicated levels: if you can collect all the items except for one, typically your solution is apparently still completely wrong and needs to be thrown out. That's because the solutions are typically very heavily interconnected: moving one piece will often break everything else in a way that's very hard to foresee, especially in later levels. That's unlike other puzzle games, where the difficulty also comes from interconnections, but they aren't so severe, and they happen in easily understood ways: once you pull this lever, that areas becomes inaccessible, so you need to collect that crate first, etc. I know that there are 2 solutions for the first level, but I feel like many of the levels don't have more than one.
But almost-correct solutions do still exist, sometimes at least, so you can get close and then fiddle around with placement to try to get it to work. Unfortunately, in later levels where you have 4-5 pieces, the inability to pick up the earlier pieces you placed except in the same order as you placed them becomes a hugely annoying hinderance. Being able to rotate and drag around pieces already on the board directly is also badly needed.
It might be that I'm not picking up the concepts I need to to solve puzzles the right way, and just need more practice. Certainly, there are little things I did notice over time, like zigzag passageways working well, but it didn't seem that the first levels well actually meant to teach you anything, they were just a bit easier than the others. Turning left on hitting a wall is simple to describe, but complicated to reason about, so it took me a while to learn to make predictions without carefully following the path.
It would be nice if your progress was saved (yes, it doesn't actually mean anything), because twice I clicked on the wrong level, and when I pressed ESC to exit the level the game reset, forgetting which ones I had solved. Only later did I find out you can press back to go back (which is cnfusing because it's a separate function to the main one), but that caused a lot of weird stuff to happen, like some slices weren't freed.
Of course, this game has a smattering of bugs, most of them seemingly related to finishing or leaving one level and then entering the next, such as a double fade-in when starting a level, and the black screens when going back from the Help and Edit screens. Several times, I spent such a long time trying to solve levels it that I got the script error: create NPC: trying to create NPC ID 11 failed: too many NPCs exist. (in loadpieces). There's a limit of 300 NPC instances on the map.
I'm pleased to say that found a solution to level 8 using just 2 out of the 4 blocks:
Did you actually provide extra unnecessary blocks for any of the levels, beyond the pieces you used in the solutions you had? And how did you design these levels? Maybe you need to be more careful to design puzzles so that they can be solved with intuition and logic, so that the player can work out what all the 'pieces' of the solution are (not just one or two of them), e.g. the mouse needs to go through this passage upwards, and bounce south off a block there... A different set of levels could probably overcome my complaints above. I suspect that making the levels more complicated, so that the mouse is actually more constrained, could also help. For example if there were tiles that could only be passed in one direction. Another big thing would be to make collecting all the cheese unnecessary, as you originally described. That has the benefit of there being far more possible solutions for every level.
I hope that wasn't too negative.
BTW, looking through your scripts: it's not necessary to put "break" at the end of a case block as it is in C. (The default is to break; you can also use "continue" to jump to the next case block)
Return (Haven't played yet)
I suggest you package your game using the Distribute Game menu rather than manually. You can always add additional files (the .hss and the gfx/ folder) to the zip afterwards. Notice that your Windows download is far larger than the Mac one: it's because you're including the complete OHR installer, which includes Vikings of Midgard, rather than just game.exe!
Hollowkeep
This is a really fantastic start to a game! Love the graphics and humour and point-and-click system.
I wish that the end of the demo had more clearly been marked, though. I only realised that I had missed something when I read what BVG said about the door.
It's neat that there are lots of different actions, but it's also a tad annoying that the game basically encourages trying everything even tough most actions do nothing. In particular it felt weird to have two "look" commands, including the implicit look action when clicking on an object without an action. So I did a lot of clicking, which was admittedly fun because of the amusing responses. I suppose that as the game is more fleshed out I won't be trying every action on every item. Also, it would be nice if the mouse cursor changed to indicate which parts of the scenery are interactive, so you don't waste a lot of time clicking on rugs.
Also, the texts that appears when you die advance a bit too quickly for me to read.
Lab Rat
After quite a long time, I managed to solve the first 8 levels (not all in the same run) and gave up on the other 2.
This is a well put-together and novel game, and that it was made in just a few days is impressive. I think this is the hardest puzzle game I've ever played. Actually, while I did have fun, I think it's far too difficult and too frustrating.
At first this seems like a clever idea, but after playing for a while, it seems like a flawed puzzle game to me, because it's beyond my ability to solve the puzzles using logic. Instead I largely relied on trial-and-error positioning of pieces even when I tried my best to reason through the puzzles. In a number of cases I could deduce that pieces had to be placed in certain positions or some tiles had to be open, but this still tended to leave a huge number of possibilities to sift through by brute force. For example, I went back afterwards and resolved the first few levels, but they still took me a while to solve (as long as the first time) because I had to do a lot of guessing and apparently had learnt rather little. The reasons for this include that there isn't really a trick that needs to be discovered which gives you an "ah-ha" moment (a serious problem in itself: I would say I was surprised and relieved rather than pleased whenever I actually solved anything), and that frequently there doesn't seem to be such a thing as an almost-correct solution, especially for the more complicated levels: if you can collect all the items except for one, typically your solution is apparently still completely wrong and needs to be thrown out. That's because the solutions are typically very heavily interconnected: moving one piece will often break everything else in a way that's very hard to foresee, especially in later levels. That's unlike other puzzle games, where the difficulty also comes from interconnections, but they aren't so severe, and they happen in easily understood ways: once you pull this lever, that areas becomes inaccessible, so you need to collect that crate first, etc. I know that there are 2 solutions for the first level, but I feel like many of the levels don't have more than one.
But almost-correct solutions do still exist, sometimes at least, so you can get close and then fiddle around with placement to try to get it to work. Unfortunately, in later levels where you have 4-5 pieces, the inability to pick up the earlier pieces you placed except in the same order as you placed them becomes a hugely annoying hinderance. Being able to rotate and drag around pieces already on the board directly is also badly needed.
It might be that I'm not picking up the concepts I need to to solve puzzles the right way, and just need more practice. Certainly, there are little things I did notice over time, like zigzag passageways working well, but it didn't seem that the first levels well actually meant to teach you anything, they were just a bit easier than the others. Turning left on hitting a wall is simple to describe, but complicated to reason about, so it took me a while to learn to make predictions without carefully following the path.
It would be nice if your progress was saved (yes, it doesn't actually mean anything), because twice I clicked on the wrong level, and when I pressed ESC to exit the level the game reset, forgetting which ones I had solved. Only later did I find out you can press back to go back (which is cnfusing because it's a separate function to the main one), but that caused a lot of weird stuff to happen, like some slices weren't freed.
Of course, this game has a smattering of bugs, most of them seemingly related to finishing or leaving one level and then entering the next, such as a double fade-in when starting a level, and the black screens when going back from the Help and Edit screens. Several times, I spent such a long time trying to solve levels it that I got the script error: create NPC: trying to create NPC ID 11 failed: too many NPCs exist. (in loadpieces). There's a limit of 300 NPC instances on the map.
I'm pleased to say that found a solution to level 8 using just 2 out of the 4 blocks:
Did you actually provide extra unnecessary blocks for any of the levels, beyond the pieces you used in the solutions you had? And how did you design these levels? Maybe you need to be more careful to design puzzles so that they can be solved with intuition and logic, so that the player can work out what all the 'pieces' of the solution are (not just one or two of them), e.g. the mouse needs to go through this passage upwards, and bounce south off a block there... A different set of levels could probably overcome my complaints above. I suspect that making the levels more complicated, so that the mouse is actually more constrained, could also help. For example if there were tiles that could only be passed in one direction. Another big thing would be to make collecting all the cheese unnecessary, as you originally described. That has the benefit of there being far more possible solutions for every level.
I hope that wasn't too negative.
BTW, looking through your scripts: it's not necessary to put "break" at the end of a case block as it is in C. (The default is to break; you can also use "continue" to jump to the next case block)
Return (Haven't played yet)
I suggest you package your game using the Distribute Game menu rather than manually. You can always add additional files (the .hss and the gfx/ folder) to the zip afterwards. Notice that your Windows download is far larger than the Mac one: it's because you're including the complete OHR installer, which includes Vikings of Midgard, rather than just game.exe!
Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:42 pm
TMC wrote:
Return (Haven't played yet)
I suggest you package your game using the Distribute Game menu rather than manually. You can always add additional files (the .hss and the gfx/ folder) to the zip afterwards. Notice that your Windows download is far larger than the Mac one: it's because you're including the complete OHR installer, which includes Vikings of Midgard, rather than just game.exe!
I suggest you package your game using the Distribute Game menu rather than manually. You can always add additional files (the .hss and the gfx/ folder) to the zip afterwards. Notice that your Windows download is far larger than the Mac one: it's because you're including the complete OHR installer, which includes Vikings of Midgard, rather than just game.exe!
The distribute game option has never worked for me, at least with windows. It can't get the .exe properly, and says I need Windows or Wine. I have Wine, but it decided one day to stop doing things and so I gave up on it.
Another thing, I wonder why it creates the Mac bundle as a .tar.gz file instead of a .zip like the other one.
My pronouns are they/them
Ps. I love my wife
Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:57 pm
TMC wrote:
These aren't my votes, I'm just posting mini-reviews.
Hollowkeep
This is a really fantastic start to a game! Love the graphics and humour and point-and-click system.
I wish that the end of the demo had more clearly been marked, though. I only realised that I had missed something when I read what BVG said about the door.
It's neat that there are lots of different actions, but it's also a tad annoying that the game basically encourages trying everything even tough most actions do nothing. In particular it felt weird to have two "look" commands, including the implicit look action when clicking on an object without an action. So I did a lot of clicking, which was admittedly fun because of the amusing responses. I suppose that as the game is more fleshed out I won't be trying every action on every item. Also, it would be nice if the mouse cursor changed to indicate which parts of the scenery are interactive, so you don't waste a lot of time clicking on rugs.
Also, the texts that appears when you die advance a bit too quickly for me to read.
Hollowkeep
This is a really fantastic start to a game! Love the graphics and humour and point-and-click system.
I wish that the end of the demo had more clearly been marked, though. I only realised that I had missed something when I read what BVG said about the door.
It's neat that there are lots of different actions, but it's also a tad annoying that the game basically encourages trying everything even tough most actions do nothing. In particular it felt weird to have two "look" commands, including the implicit look action when clicking on an object without an action. So I did a lot of clicking, which was admittedly fun because of the amusing responses. I suppose that as the game is more fleshed out I won't be trying every action on every item. Also, it would be nice if the mouse cursor changed to indicate which parts of the scenery are interactive, so you don't waste a lot of time clicking on rugs.
Also, the texts that appears when you die advance a bit too quickly for me to read.
Thanks for the feedback. The inconsistent FPS issue I posted about in another thread is the culprit in the really fast death message text, I think it had reverted to <30 FPS when I was testing the ticks. Shouldn't be an issue now that I set the game to 30 FPS. And yeah, I feel really bad about just how sloppy and thrown together things are in the June 21st 11:59pm release, I would've liked to have at least half a week to design enough content to fill 6-10 rooms so it felt like there was something to do. As it stands now, it's just kind of a tech demo - albeit one I'm pretty proud of, considering I was a total plotscripting idiot just a month ago.
I'm working on the game every day, and hope to have a full release on Halloween. Because, spoopy.
Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:19 am
Oh, great to hear you're still consistently working on it, it really deserves to be finished.
Windows installers are created using Innosetup, which itself is a windows-only program. So to create installers on Linux/Mac requires using Wine. But if you don't want to bother with Wine and distribute an installer for your game you should use the "Distibute .ZIP" option instead. I've just noticed that the Distribute Menu doesn't mention that the .zip is for Windows: it contains a copy of game.exe. I guess you didn't realise that.
Well, I don't know why I chose .tar.gz instead of .zip for the Mac packages. Because .tar.gz is the default on Unix, I guess. Do you think .zip would be better? The intention had been to create a .dmg file, but I couldn't find a non-Apple utility to create those. It would still be possible to have it create .dmg files if you're on a Mac.
kylekrack wrote:
The distribute game option has never worked for me, at least with windows. It can't get the .exe properly, and says I need Windows or Wine. I have Wine, but it decided one day to stop doing things and so I gave up on it.
Another thing, I wonder why it creates the Mac bundle as a .tar.gz file instead of a .zip like the other one.
Another thing, I wonder why it creates the Mac bundle as a .tar.gz file instead of a .zip like the other one.
Windows installers are created using Innosetup, which itself is a windows-only program. So to create installers on Linux/Mac requires using Wine. But if you don't want to bother with Wine and distribute an installer for your game you should use the "Distibute .ZIP" option instead. I've just noticed that the Distribute Menu doesn't mention that the .zip is for Windows: it contains a copy of game.exe. I guess you didn't realise that.
Well, I don't know why I chose .tar.gz instead of .zip for the Mac packages. Because .tar.gz is the default on Unix, I guess. Do you think .zip would be better? The intention had been to create a .dmg file, but I couldn't find a non-Apple utility to create those. It would still be possible to have it create .dmg files if you're on a Mac.
Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:18 pm
We chose .tar.gz because they can store symlinks and they can preserve the executable bit on files. Zip cannot do those things.
However, I think those features may not matter as I originally thought they did. Zip might still be an option.
However, I think those features may not matter as I originally thought they did. Zip might still be an option.
Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:40 pm
Ah, that's right.
I completed Paladin Traducer. Did eaagvark really take just two hours to do that? It took me much longer, though I'm not sure how long, because I walked away a few times. And I really started getting impatient on the last level, when I realised the exponential increasing goalpost was probably just to prevent people from completing it, playing suboptimally. I'll post the review tomorrow morning, need to go to bed...
I completed Paladin Traducer. Did eaagvark really take just two hours to do that? It took me much longer, though I'm not sure how long, because I walked away a few times. And I really started getting impatient on the last level, when I realised the exponential increasing goalpost was probably just to prevent people from completing it, playing suboptimally. I'll post the review tomorrow morning, need to go to bed...
Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:51 pm
I was playing Paladin Traducer a little this weekend, and I was thinking maybe I should change it so that the penalty for making a move without scoring a hit is Damage bonus - 5 rather than damage bonus divided by 2. I feel like that would probably make the late-game a lot less frustrating, without making things too much easier for those who just play randomly.
Watching a score multiplier of 79.3 drop to 39.65 in one turn, and then to 19.82 in the next round is pretty agonizing :P
Watching a score multiplier of 79.3 drop to 39.65 in one turn, and then to 19.82 in the next round is pretty agonizing :P
Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:14 pm
I don't know how quote works. But
First of all, nothing you said was inturpreted by me as negative. You've only presented me with opportunities and knowledge i can use to be a better developer.
Thank you, i'll be lucky if in the future you provide me with more honest feedback for other projects i do.
I'll admit I didn't plan the game at all. I just had the idea and started writting code.
Failure to pick up pieces from the grid was an oversight on my part. I didn't realize it until I had no time to fix it.
I do understand the need for levels to follow a progression to teach certain techniques as the player moves thru the game. But by the time I fixed the game to a somewhat playable point, I had only six hours to make the levels. That is a planning failure on my part. Ideally I think this game should contain well over a hundred levels, the current level ten being closer to the middle than the beginning. Believe it or not, there were other elements I didn't implement that make the game even harder.
Your'e solution to level eight makes me both proud and embarrassed. No extra pieces were provided to solve levels. However, I think there are three other levels that are solvable with one less piece. I can't remember but I think I posted them somewhere.
Level design was flawed. I put the pieces in random places, then built walls in random places, then solved the level myself. If I couldn't find a solution in fifteen minutes I would move one of the pieces. No thought went into the placement layout of levels. Again, I blame that on time. I would have found another approach given more time.
I do this as a hobby, not a profession. So there is a lot of funky stuff in my code, I'm sure. I'm sick of typing 'break' so thanks for that tip.
I'm very good at pattern recognition and manipulating objects in space. Smart in that respect and stupid in others
So I think thru these levels logically. I'm sorry I made that difficult for others. I think backwards. First I look at the door, pieces and key, then the position of the rat. All the time looking for infinite loops I have to break out of and trouble pieces. I've tried to write down my thought process for you but I just don't have the words to do so. However, while I was trying just now, I found a solution to level 10 that uses pieces 1, 2 and 4. So that's another level solved with -2 pieces.
Thx for your input. I hope when I finish this game in the future it proves to be a more enjoyable experience for everyone. Being relieved to finish a level definitely was not my goal.
Quote:
Tmc said a bunch of things
First of all, nothing you said was inturpreted by me as negative. You've only presented me with opportunities and knowledge i can use to be a better developer.
Thank you, i'll be lucky if in the future you provide me with more honest feedback for other projects i do.
I'll admit I didn't plan the game at all. I just had the idea and started writting code.
Failure to pick up pieces from the grid was an oversight on my part. I didn't realize it until I had no time to fix it.
I do understand the need for levels to follow a progression to teach certain techniques as the player moves thru the game. But by the time I fixed the game to a somewhat playable point, I had only six hours to make the levels. That is a planning failure on my part. Ideally I think this game should contain well over a hundred levels, the current level ten being closer to the middle than the beginning. Believe it or not, there were other elements I didn't implement that make the game even harder.
Your'e solution to level eight makes me both proud and embarrassed. No extra pieces were provided to solve levels. However, I think there are three other levels that are solvable with one less piece. I can't remember but I think I posted them somewhere.
Level design was flawed. I put the pieces in random places, then built walls in random places, then solved the level myself. If I couldn't find a solution in fifteen minutes I would move one of the pieces. No thought went into the placement layout of levels. Again, I blame that on time. I would have found another approach given more time.
I do this as a hobby, not a profession. So there is a lot of funky stuff in my code, I'm sure. I'm sick of typing 'break' so thanks for that tip.
I'm very good at pattern recognition and manipulating objects in space. Smart in that respect and stupid in others
So I think thru these levels logically. I'm sorry I made that difficult for others. I think backwards. First I look at the door, pieces and key, then the position of the rat. All the time looking for infinite loops I have to break out of and trouble pieces. I've tried to write down my thought process for you but I just don't have the words to do so. However, while I was trying just now, I found a solution to level 10 that uses pieces 1, 2 and 4. So that's another level solved with -2 pieces.
Thx for your input. I hope when I finish this game in the future it proves to be a more enjoyable experience for everyone. Being relieved to finish a level definitely was not my goal.
Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:42 pm
(The 'quote' button in the thread is the easiest way to go)
Ah, so you did dog-food when designing the levels. That wouldn't be the worst way to create them. You should also try to make levels distinctive and interesting. E.g. puzzle games typically either have a gimmick per level, or only use certain puzzle components or give the player unusual constraints so that the levels are varied.
I think I'm usually decent at spatial puzzles like this, being a very spatial thinker, but found these very difficult anyway. I think it's just that there didn't seem to be much structure to the levels, due to large open spaces where there are lots of possible places to put pieces, and worse, lots of different paths from which the rat can approach, often multiple times during the solution. I would guess that if you had to place individual tiles rather than tetrominos it would become much easier, because there would be fewer unintended consequences of placing a piece?
One thing I think I forgot to mention is that a number of times I accidentally clicked Back too many times and got kicked out of the level, another reason to change the way to leave the level.
The do() after a case() is also optional, BTW.
Ah, so you did dog-food when designing the levels. That wouldn't be the worst way to create them. You should also try to make levels distinctive and interesting. E.g. puzzle games typically either have a gimmick per level, or only use certain puzzle components or give the player unusual constraints so that the levels are varied.
I think I'm usually decent at spatial puzzles like this, being a very spatial thinker, but found these very difficult anyway. I think it's just that there didn't seem to be much structure to the levels, due to large open spaces where there are lots of possible places to put pieces, and worse, lots of different paths from which the rat can approach, often multiple times during the solution. I would guess that if you had to place individual tiles rather than tetrominos it would become much easier, because there would be fewer unintended consequences of placing a piece?
One thing I think I forgot to mention is that a number of times I accidentally clicked Back too many times and got kicked out of the level, another reason to change the way to leave the level.
The do() after a case() is also optional, BTW.
Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:45 pm
Oh no, looks like I held this up afterall, terribly sorry about that.
I very nearly submitted a five-way tie for first place as my vote. I can't remember a contest in OHR history that resulted in such a consistently high quality of submissions! I honestly think not one of these games is clearly out-right better than any other.
However, I figure that it's a bit unfair to rank Hollowkeep equal to far more complete and playable games. And all the other games had far more effort put into graphics and polish than Lab Rat, which was made in just a few days. Making some arbitrary choices, I end up with the following list, which would be different if I were to vote again tomorrow.
1. Paladin Traducer
2. Graffiti Goose
3. Return
4=. Lab Rat
4=. Hollowkeep
I wrote up comments for the other three games, will post them tomorrow after some editing.
I very nearly submitted a five-way tie for first place as my vote. I can't remember a contest in OHR history that resulted in such a consistently high quality of submissions! I honestly think not one of these games is clearly out-right better than any other.
However, I figure that it's a bit unfair to rank Hollowkeep equal to far more complete and playable games. And all the other games had far more effort put into graphics and polish than Lab Rat, which was made in just a few days. Making some arbitrary choices, I end up with the following list, which would be different if I were to vote again tomorrow.
1. Paladin Traducer
2. Graffiti Goose
3. Return
4=. Lab Rat
4=. Hollowkeep
I wrote up comments for the other three games, will post them tomorrow after some editing.
Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:39 pm
Vote Tally Process (simplified Schulze method)
Round 1
Paladin Traducer gets 5 votes
Return gets 2 votes
Paladin traducer passes simple majority and wins first place.
Paladin traducer is removed from all subsequent counts
Round 2
Graffiti Goose gets 3 votes
Return gets 3 votes
Hollowkeep gets 1 vote
No simple majority, temporarily ignoring the lowest score (Hollowkeep)
Graffiti Goose gets 3 votes
Return gets 4 votes
Return passes simple majority and wins second place.
Removing return from all subsequent counts
Round 3
Graffiti Goose gets 4 votes
LabRat gets 1 vote
Hollowkeep gets 2 votes
Graffiti Goose passes simple majority and wins third place
Graffiti Goose is removed from all subsequent counts
Round 4
Lab Rat gets 3.5 votes
Hollowkeep gets 3.5 votes
Lab Rat and Hollowkeep are tied for fourth place
Final Results
1st = Paladin Traducer
2nd = Return
3rd = Graffiti Goose
4rth = tie between Lab Rat and Hollowkeep
kylekrack, please let me know where you want me to send your $10 prize :)
I'll say again that I am really happy about this contest. I am looking forward to helping with the Android ports of Return, Hollowkeep, and LabRat :)
Round 1
Paladin Traducer gets 5 votes
Return gets 2 votes
Paladin traducer passes simple majority and wins first place.
Paladin traducer is removed from all subsequent counts
Round 2
Graffiti Goose gets 3 votes
Return gets 3 votes
Hollowkeep gets 1 vote
No simple majority, temporarily ignoring the lowest score (Hollowkeep)
Graffiti Goose gets 3 votes
Return gets 4 votes
Return passes simple majority and wins second place.
Removing return from all subsequent counts
Round 3
Graffiti Goose gets 4 votes
LabRat gets 1 vote
Hollowkeep gets 2 votes
Graffiti Goose passes simple majority and wins third place
Graffiti Goose is removed from all subsequent counts
Round 4
Lab Rat gets 3.5 votes
Hollowkeep gets 3.5 votes
Lab Rat and Hollowkeep are tied for fourth place
Final Results
1st = Paladin Traducer
2nd = Return
3rd = Graffiti Goose
4rth = tie between Lab Rat and Hollowkeep
kylekrack, please let me know where you want me to send your $10 prize :)
I'll say again that I am really happy about this contest. I am looking forward to helping with the Android ports of Return, Hollowkeep, and LabRat :)
Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:49 pm
Congrats, James and Kyle!