JUDGES!

[woogley]

it wont take too much time, im doing it automated this year (last year people kinda just typed an email)

[Malohkan]

I volunteer to be a judge.  I don't have an entry and I've already played most of the games so I know how to play them and I know what features (or at least most of them) are incorporated in the games.

[Morre]

Seems there are enough judges. I support the multiple categories suggestion. I'd let the judges rate every game on a, say, 1-15 or 1-20 scale (the bigger the scale, the smaller the chance that game gets equal scores. On the other hand, the bigger the scale, the more work and harder decisions for the judges. 1-15 should do the trick, I think. Or, 1-10, but with the criteria that each judge can only give one game a "10".) This scale should come with each category, and then you could simply generate a list based on the averages. Then, the judges could leave their comments where they like with the scores (and let us hope they do!).

That system would be fair, simple, and give a good idea of the results

Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!

[woogley]

im using the same basic system as last year

graphics... max 10 points
gameplay ... max 10 points
design ... max 10 points
overall quality ... max 10 points
sound bonus ... 5points
demerit... maximum 10 point removal

or something like that

[Morre]

That will only allow for one category, and the majority seems to support average or multiple categories of some sort, as far as I can tell. I beg you to reconsider, please.

[jbanes]

im using the same basic system as last year

Don't use last year's system. Last years ended up being overly complicated and meant different things to different judges. I don't think anyone (least of all the judges) were happy with the results. The first place came out okay, but everything beyond that was skewed toward inconsequentials. Just let them give it a scrore between 1-10 or 1-100. That way a judge can ensure that the games he approves of the most will float to the top while the games he thinks the least of will sink to the bottom.

[Anon666]

1-100 is the best bet IMO.
You then get course grain banding :- 100-90 Outstanding, 80-90 Excellent, 80-70 Good, etc etc.
While still allowing for fine grain scoring, when wanting to compare competitors within the same 'band'.

If you want to share the love abit, you can always add several 'Special' Awards, Most Playable, Best Technology, Best Graphics etc etc
These could be awarded via round based nominations.
(i.e. each judge has a vote, game with least votes is dropped from the round, judges get to revote, carrying forward just the nominated games from the previous round. Repeat until only one game remains.)

[jbanes]

1-100 is the best bet IMO.
You then get course grain banding :- 100-90 Outstanding, 80-90 Excellent, 80-70 Good, etc etc.
While still allowing for fine grain scoring, when wanting to compare competitors within the same 'band'.

I see someone is paying attention. Welcome to PC Gamer meets the 4K contest. 

If you want to share the love abit, you can always add several 'Special' Awards, Most Playable, Best Technology, Best Graphics etc etc
These could be awarded via round based nominations.

I've been considering the same thing. However, I think the judges should come up with an award they want to give, then come to a consensus among themselves on awarding it. Voting for the award may result in unintended effects. These sorts of awards are really just cosolation prizes of sorts that reviewers/judges tend to award when they want to recognize special achievements in a particular area. So a consensus is really better than a vote, since the ratings would already have chosen which game was "best".

[Markus_Persson]

I agree that a simple 0-100 score without categories is the best way of judging the games.
Otherwise the competition goes from "I'm going to make the most fun game I can in 4k" to "Oh no, I need to cram in some sound to get a higher score".

[OverKill]

I'll do it.
I am not participating in the contest.

PM me if I am chosen.