$5 says judging and final feedback will be finished on #threeforged long, long before #gamechef.

$5 says judging and final feedback will be finished on #threeforged long, long before #gamechef.

Anyone else think this was Game Chef’s last year?

Liked it? Take a second to support The Indie Game Reading Club on Patreon!

0 thoughts on “$5 says judging and final feedback will be finished on #threeforged long, long before #gamechef.”

  1. I hope not, but it’s possible. It seems to be getting bigger every year, which could collapse it. But I’m hoping it does keep going.

    The buzz around Game Chef every year would be missed.

  2. I’ve seen much more Three Forged noise on my feed than Game Chef this year. Last year Game Chef was everywhere and that was before the great Epigeddon. I think you’re the only one I’ve seen make mention of it, Paul Beakley.

  3. I’ve only watched both contests, and obviously this is the first Threeforged, but my incredibly uninformed and amateur opinion is that 3F felt more professional than GC, with all the good and bad that entails. It was faster and seemed more focused on “games” as a thing I understand. GC, with its restrictions and more opaque structure seems like it’s more likely to push the boundaries of what’s possible to design, but that also makes it feel (to me) much less accessible.

  4. That’s funny, Adam D, I actually saw it as a bit rough.  Granted, first year and all, but while there was buzz, not all was positive.  Many people seemed to find it frustrating at times.

    That doesn’t mean there won’t be changes to improve it next year – but we’re assuming there will be a next year.  I haven’t heard anything one way or another about that.

  5. I had to exit my echo chamber and follow the hashtag to see any naysaying. Which so far has been the most interesting part of the thing to me. (Haven’t read any submissions nor did I participate.)

  6. I think I meant “professional” in the sense I felt like more of the final products were “games” in the stodgy, traditional sense. Things that might find publishers and get out there into the world. As opposed to Game Chef entries which often strike me as aspirational; things that games could be, or things that are part game, part something else. More academic or poetic.

    And again, that cuts both ways. It makes Game Chef the Palm d’Or to Threeforged’s Oscars, to make a really halfass comparison.

  7. Larry Spiel – I find all game design to be frustrating. Productively so. And very very fun. And fun out of the frustration.

    #Threeforged was a bit rough this time, but all it would take would be a few tweaks to make it run as smoothly as it can. Of course, there are some things that will never not be frustrating about the contest from the way it’s designed, which is why only people who are down for those frustrations should participate.

    Paul Beakley – Interesting! I didn’t see much negativity (apart from things like, “My game got dropped,” or “I can’t stand this game I got”). What were the complaints?

  8. (Disclaimer: I’m  one of the coordinators for GC, and participated in TF)

    English-language Game Chef had a record number of submissions this year, including a huge number of new participants. I don’t know the stats for the other language communities. (TF is, AFAICT, English-only.)

    Most of the GC discussion happened within the very active GC G+ group, whereas TF discussion was organized through the hashtag. Those were deliberate choices by the organizers in order to serve different purposes — GC aimed to foster a supportive community, TF aimed to publicize the activity of game design.

    Adam D ‘s point about the different styles of games is also a deliberate choice by the organizers of the two contests. TF left topics wide open and explicitly encouraged people to submit ideas they’d already been thinking about but needed a nudge to work on. GC requires people to use the ingredients and to base their game on a boundary-pushing theme in order to get people outside their comfort zone and trying something experimental.

    Much of the slowness of this year’s GC was due to the handover process from Avery to the new global and English coordinators. Next year — and as a coordinator I would happily take your bet about there being a next year — I’m sure things will be smoother on that front. TF was tighter because there was basically one person running everything.

    I think both contests are great. I’ve had my creativity sparked by both, and seen some really innovative games come out of both. I look forward to seeing both contests shine next year.

  9. There’s not a rule that says they have to be (and I’ve seen things like AW hacks submitted to GC), but the structure of the contest certainly points people in that direction. Themes for the last few years (2014: “there is no book,” 2015: “a different audience”) have explicitly challenged conventions in gaming, though again people are free to interpret the theme however they like. There’s also an inclination (as a sort of cultural understanding, not an explicit rule) that GC judging puts a lot of emphasis on things that are off the beaten path.

  10. Nobody who posted an AW hack was taken even the tiniest bit seriously in GC, I think. 

    I would agree that, as a cultural understanding and by design, that GC is intentionally more experimental.

    So when the HECK do the finalists get the last round of feedback, Stentor Danielson? If I’m being honest that’s all I really care about at this point. Yes yes, I’m selfish and terrible.

Leave a Reply