Master K wrote:I have a project in the works I'm slowly coming up with.
Maybe it'll work out better this time instead of large maps of bees and squirrels.
Small maps with bees and squirrels? Fun! Well, my advice to the students I tutor is to learn from the grades they receive. I guess I can say the same here, maybe? I must admit I didn't mind the bees and squirrels. They're an identifier that helps me remember your game.
TMC wrote:I think this 2/3rds margin is a pretty big penalty to games that receive fewer votes. E.g. a game with 13 votes averaging 6 beats one with 11 votes averaging 7.
Okay, maybe I should clarify this after all (using 2010 as an example):
-Top voted game receives 12 votes.
-Least voted game receives 5 votes.
-2/3 margin means that all games need at least 8 votes to make the minimum fairness average.
So, let's say we have:
The Vicious Albino (Game 1) = 12 votes...
9,4,7,6,7,7,5,6,8,2,5,9 (avg. 6.25)
Legendary Roses (Game 2) = 9 votes...
4,5,1,4,8,6,7,9,10 (avg. 6)
Deadly Mothball Hunter (Game 3) = 7 votes...
7,4,5,6,5,8,7 (avg. 6)
My Crappy Tech Demo with Bunnies (Game 4) = 3 votes...
4,8,7 (avg. 6.33)
In the old example, two out of three dedicated (or disturbed) players thought that Game 4 was worth high marks. One voted and didn't care for it. Everyone else didn't think it was worth the vote.
In the new example, if we add enough fives to reach the minimum (we need five fives)--4,8,7,5,5,5,5,5--then we get a fairer average (avg. 5.5).
Likewise, Game 3, which is shy one vote, will now have the tie-breaking middleweight vote (needs one to make 8) to now average 5.8.
Game 1 is the curve-setter at 12 votes (the highest value in the contest), and Game 2 remains within the margin at 9 votes, so neither one needs the additional fives to meet the minimum. Both can have fair averages since they both have received votes from the majority of voters.
So, the two-thirds vote is designed partly to keep low-voted games from stealing the contest while keeping it fair for those that actually receive decent attention. It also encourages authors to play and vote on all the games, since that is the best plan for making sure no game falls below the minimum.
Meatballsub wrote:I have a bit of a unique situation regarding this point.
Ruin originally had a 25% demo that was released back in 2011. It has since been taken down from every download site because I ended up changing the 25% portion so much that the original demo was like a completely different game. When I say that things were changed, I don't just mean graphics, but dialogue, the story itself, characters, their personalities, etc. While some features and locations remain intact in that 25% of the game, I'd say 90% of it has changed since that demo release.
Having said that, would Ruin be considered a re-release or an original game?
I would be inclined to call this a rerelease since it's a revisit to The Omega, but I can see your dilemma since you're not actually revisiting The Omega. I think if you're literally changing everything (including the demo of Ruin), then you're more or less releasing a new game. But if you've released the game previously as Ruin, then it's not so original.
Your situation is interesting and warrants an examination of the rules. Because you have 90% new/different content (I'm assuming that means only 10% of the original game remains?), then keeping track of where the new stuff begins, or can be found, could be a royal pain, and trying to tell people what's new might not be worth the effort, especially if the experience is like new. On that point alone I would be in favor of modifying the rules to allow you entry as an original release. In the past, a game could not be made public before the contest window to be considered original. Traditionally, I'd want to hold on to this rule. But no game previously entered into the Heart of the OHR has had your situation.
So, per tradition, we'll put this up for discussion and a vote. My suggestion is this: If a game has changed at least 60% of its original content (including the title) before counting the additional 30 minutes of new content, then we could classify it as an original.
Note: I'd want to mandate a change in the game's title for this rule to take effect (In this case, I'd count this rule toward your change from The Omega, not from the demo version of Ruin). I'm less inclined to count remade games with the same title to take on "original" status if they've already been released, which you say applies to Ruin. Even if the tone changes and the game starts in a different place, I'd be reluctant to call it original. However, if so little of the original game remains that I would no longer recognize it, then I'd be okay with
maybe calling it an original, especially since you've changed 90% of it.
So, let's let the community decide:
1. Do we allow games with at least 60%
replaced content (shall I make this percentage higher?) and a name change to count as an original since the effort to identify the changes and new material would be beyond reason?
2. Because so little of the original demo remains, should we allow Ruin to enter as an original? Keep in mind that in 2014, there is no difference between originals and rereleases except that originals don't require additional documentation for the player's benefit and are still eligible to reenter in the next Heart of the OHR as a rerelease if the author chooses to come back with it.
So, let's discuss this. The fate of Ruin and its standing with Heart of the OHR will be deferred to the community's collective opinion.